Mass formation; self-destructive nature of totalitarianism; and the teleopolitical history of Poland
Two days ago, in my reading of The Keys of This Blood, by Malachi Martin, I reached “Polishness and Papacy,” “The Pacts of Polishness,” and “The Pacts of Extinction.” (Chapters 26-28, pp. 489-536).
Yesterday, I listened to a January 4, 2022 podcast interview of Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Mattias Desmet, on the topic of mass formation.
Today, I listened to a podcast interview of Dr. Desmet, on the same topic, conducted in September 2021.
I strongly encourage readers to listen to both podcasts.
My understanding of mass formation, as explained by Dr. Desmet, is as follows.
It is an emergent phenomenon that can occur when certain preconditions exist in a given population of humans. It has happened throughout history. 20th century examples include Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China and McCarthyite America.
Those societal preconditions include widespread free-floating anxiety and depression; lack of close social connections (loneliness or social atomization); and lack of meaning in people’s lives: both personal meaning and meaningful work. Those preconditions are related to and reinforce one another, because humans are social animals; we need connections with other humans and a sense of purpose.
People living in such conditions are in a great deal of psychological and spiritual pain, but the free-floating character of the pain means that there’s no clear object on which they can focus their attention or their efforts to relieve the agony. They are living in a “normal” which is all but intolerable.
A new narrative — such as the Covid narrative — is a symptomatic solution. It relieves the pain by establishing an object on which they can focus their attention, and in doing so, provides them with social connections (“We’re all in this together”) and a new sense of meaning. It also narrows their focus as a group, to exclude other aspects of reality (collateral damage), much like individual hypnosis narrows the focus of the hypnotized person to exclude perception of any stimuli outside the object centered by the hypnotist.
The social bonds and sense of meaning and purpose generated by participation in the new object (the societal fight against Covid) produce extreme solidarity. This is the formation of a mass, or “mass formation.”
Once political leaders (elected presidents and prime ministers, along with endorsed public health experts) have established and maintained the narrative, those who have joined it whole-heartedly — usually about 30% of a population — will strongly resist all efforts by those outside the formation (dissenters from the narrative) to point out that the object is artificial, false or dangerous, to break the spell, to wake them up from the hypnosis.
They will fight against dissenters and attempt to eradicate dissent because those in the mass formation experience less psychological pain in the “new normal” than they did in the socially-atomized, meaninglessness, loneliness and bullshit jobs of the “old normal.” For this excellent reason, they do not want to wake up, and will fight as if under existential threat to stay inside the mass formation.
The leaders have a strong interest in maintaining the cohesion of the mass formation, and demonizing the dissenters, because when the people within a mass formation do wake up and realize that many things they previously valued highly (such as civil liberties) have been taken from them during the episode, they tend to kill the leaders who led them into the mass formation and took those things from them.
It’s not a matter of “if” the mass formation will wake up. It’s only a matter of “when,” and how much of the rest of society is destroyed during the process, because totalitarian systems are intrinsically self-destructive.
According to Desmet, the dissenter group, those who resist participation in mass formations, comprise a very heterogenous group, and also make up about 30% of the population. The remaining 40% go along with the mass formation rituals — such as coerced masking, testing, isolation, and medical treatments — but don’t fully enter the hypnosis.
Desmet reports that many people who have tried to answer the question “Why are some people not affected by mass formation?” such as Gustave LeBon and Hannah Arendt, have failed to come up with a good answer.
Mass formation resisters come from many different educational, intellectual, social, political, ethnic, racial, economic, religious and other perspectives, and many different individual psychological profiles. Desmet speculates that one commonality among those who are resisting the current Covid mass formation may be an aversion to the transhumanist or Great Reset project promoted by the World Economic Forum and its main public advocate, Klaus Schwab.
The Great Reset transhumanist vision is to create a global, worldwide totalitarianism that would have no external enemies — no Allied armies to fight against the Nazi project, and no capitalist economic system to fight against the communism of the Soviet Union, for example.
Global transhumanism would have only internal enemies, who would be marginalized from society — by things like vaccine passports and social credit scores — but maintained in ghettoes in sufficient numbers to maintain the enemy class so essential to the cohesion of the totalitarian society itself.
Desmet, Malone and McCullough all recommend that those who are resisting continue to speak up in truth.
Continue to point out the falseness of assertions and the logical incoherence of arguments presented by compromised, non-credible authorities.
Continue to provide credible data and sound arguments that contradict the false narrative.
Continue to connect with each other.
As Desmet put it, such efforts may make the hypnosis less deep but will not be enough to break the mass formation.
Those efforts will, however, be enough to prevent the next step in the totalitarian program, which is the atrocities step: the concentration camps, gulags, torture and mass murder exemplified by Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Mao Zedung’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia and other totalitarian societies. The survivors of those regimes have warned the world in recent decades, and many are rallying the resistance now.
Desmet explained: when the dissenters go silent — whether from censorship (government-, corporate- or self-), imprisonment or execution — the system escalates its attacks to the next cohort of insufficiently-loyal, because it must have an enemy to sustain itself.
Dissenters must keep speaking to block that escalation.
When asked about what could break the mass formation, Desmet has made a few interesting points. He describes the attachment between the people in the mass formation and the object of their anxiety — in this case Covid fear — as a sort of psychological welding created by the high psychological ‘heat’ of the anxious, socially-atomized mind, which then cools and fuses the two together as they find pain relief in participation in the rituals and beliefs of the Covid narrative.
One possibility, he suggests, is to raise the psychological heat up again, by refocusing the anxiety on a new object, such as the threat of totalitarian atrocities. Such an approach could soften the weld, break the mass formation’s connection to Covid and reattach it to totalitarianism instead.
But Desmet is also clear that such an approach has severe risks of its own, because (if I understand correctly) it’s still only a symptomatic solution. It doesn’t address the underlying global absence of social connections and absence of meaning that created the truly painful conditions for the global mass formation to arise in the first place.
Desmet and many others in the resistance are acutely aware that something other than transhumanist totalitarianism must be offered that will relieve the existential human pain, because those in the mass formation have good reasons to refuse a return to the intolerable “old normal” they left behind when they joined the Covid narrative.
Other paths forward, those that are not the Great Reset, are referred to as the Great Awakening and the Anti-Globalist Alliance. Both terms, and their proponents, such as Q-Anon and Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, are vilified by the scribes of the Great Reset in the mass media and global governments.
They are vilified because, again, the leaders of the global totalitarian project need to maintain the cohesion of the mass formation, and need to stoke the hatred of those in the mass formation against those outside of it, to keep the Great Reset moving forward.
This brings us to the teleopolitics of Poland.
Until reading Malachi Martin’s account in The Keys of This Blood, I didn’t know or appreciate the profound significance, of the historical record that the Polish nation was consecrated to Christ, the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church through the Piast Pact of 990 AD, signed by King Mieszko I.
From that teleopolitical foundation, they went on to establish a Catholic Constitutional monarchy with the Act of Union, signed in 1413 by Grand Duke Wladyslaw Jagiello to formally unite the people and territories of Poland and Lithuania.
In 1573, Martin reports, the Sejm of the Unitary Republic adopted a second, Interrex pact, to deal with the vulnerability created during transitions between elected monarchs. The legislature conferred power on the Primate Bishop of Poland “to protect the sovereignty and the religion of the Poles” between elected kings.
Beginning in 1648, a series of invasions and attacks by Turkish and Swedish armies, including a 40-day siege of the Paulite Monastery on Jasna Gora (“Bright Mountain”), ended with a retreat of the Swedish army. The monastery had housed a famous icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the infant Jesus — the Black Madonna — since 1382.
In 1655, in thanksgiving for Poland’s deliverance, and to solicit her continued protection, King Jan Kazimierz “proclaimed Mary to be Queen of the Kingdom of Poland.”
“It is known to all,” the Jagiellonian agreement [of 990 AD] declared, “that a man will not attain salvation if he is not sustained by divine love, which does no wrong, radiates goodness, reconciles those in discord, unites those who quarrel, dissipates hatred, puts an end to anger, furnishes for all the food of peace…”
“Through that love, laws are established, kingdoms are maintained, cities are set in order, and the well-being of the State is brought to the highest level…May this love make us equal, whom religion and identity of laws and privileges have already joined.”
Suddenly, a new geopolitical principle was defined. Two independent states agreed upon union through love rather than conquest. And, with that new principle, came three cast-iron consequences: No use of armed forces to conquer others, recourse to armed force only in self-defense, and enlargement of the state only through voluntary union between peoples.
…The blessings on Jagiellonian Poland were as extraordinary and improbable as the Act of Union itself. It would take the other important powers of Europe three hundred years before they were capable of establishing the social organization, the legal bases and the political institutions sufficient to guarantee — at least in principle — the fundamental rights of human dignity and freedom that came to be constitutionally and civilly granted in the full flowering of the Republic of Poland.
The structural principle of the new republic — for so it was — was a political system of local legislatures (sejmik) and a national legislature (the Sejm) based on a pluralistic society and aimed at a perfect equilibrium between power and freedom. In 1494, the Sejm became bicameral, with a chamber of deputies and a senate. From that time on, organs of democracy clearly recognizable to us as our models fairly sprouted from the constitutional monarchy of Poland.
General elections were instituted — the first in the world as we know it in history. Watchdog senatorial committees were set up to attend to such worries as the rights and limitations of the Polish constitutional monarchy — only the Sejm, for example, could commit the country to war and ratify treaties — and to guard against corruption in government. A state treasury and a tax court of the treasury were established. Lower courts with elected judges led upward to a Supreme Court of Appeals, and dealt with intricate legislative, civil and religious systems based on the principle of habeus corpus, which had already been adopted by the Act of Krakow in 1433.
The list of Poland’s sociopolitical accomplishments during the course of the fifteenth century went far beyond the merely improbable. The development and concrete application of such principles as government with the consent of the governed, freedom of religion, the definition and protection of personal rights and freedoms, general elections, and constitutional checks and balances to curb any autocratic tendencies on the part of the state, all remain enviable today…
There were no religious wars and no anti-Semitic pogroms in the Unitary Republic [formed when Ruthenia joined the alliance in 1569]. Rather, there was a consciously adopted principle of religious freedom. Filled with a vast majority of Roman Catholics, the Republic practiced a form of religious pluralism and tolerance still lacking in Europe and the Americas. Nor was this principle of religious freedom based on some vague theory of the rights of man. It was rooted in the specific and basic law proposed at the Council of Constance (1414-18) by a Polish delegate, Pawel Wlodkowicz: “License to convert [by preaching and example] is not a license to kill or expropriate.”
Thus, as the religion-based hate generated by the Protestant Reformation reached its height in the 1600s, the First Polish Republic was an extraordinary spectacle — a multi-ethnic and multiconfessional commonwealth based on a cosmopolitan idea of human membership in the family of nations and peoples. Poland had developed a working model of participative democracy.
So determined were the Poles to live by such principles that in 1645 at Torun, King Wladyslaw IV held the Colloquium Caritativum — the Loving Dialogue — which was exactly what it was billed to be. At a most improbable time, when religious hatred fueled wars and drove political policies in Europe, Polish Roman Catholics, Orthodox Eastern Christians and at least two Protestant sects — Lutherans and Calvinists — agreed to live and let live, to disagree unbloodily, and to foment their mutual love.
This was the classical expression of the Polish ideal, of Polishness lived on the practical — the horizontal — plane of worldly existence. This republican form of national government, aligned with the fixed orientation of Catholic Poles to Christ’s salvation through Rome, summarized for a warring world what Poles conceived themselves to be as a nation.
Thus did the people of Poland form three pacts: the Piast Pact with the Holy See in 990, the Pact with the Roman Catholic Primate of Poland as the Interrex of 1573, and the Pact with Mary as the Queen of Poland of 1655.
As Martin explains in detail, these pacts enabled and sustained extraordinary achievements by the people and leaders of Poland.
But those achievements were followed by a concerted effort to erase them from world memory. Cancel culture was applied by Poland’s teleopolitical enemies, to bury an entire people and their history.
Perhaps Poland’s example of a pluralistic, constitutional republic consecrated to God provides a good answer to the question: “If not the global transhumanist totalitarianism now being wrought by the world’s billionaires, through the mass formation phenomenon of the Covid narrative, then what?”