The Highwire with Del Bigtree - INSIDE THE MIND OF THE MASSES

Episode Date: September 16, 2022

Clinical Psychologist and Professor, Mattias Desmet, joins Del in studio to discuss his new book, The Psychology of Totalitarianism, and how we can help break out of the current global ‘mass formation’.#MattiasDesmet #MassFormationPsychosis #ThePsychologyofTotalitarianismBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

this draconian world and whether we're living in it or awake to it or what's going on i think the big question is are we really through it right have we made it through this pandemic is it over what's going to happen this winter i think we're all wondering what's going on there monkey pox seems have disappeared there's a polio story floating out there it's like these lines like you know these globalists just keep throwing lines in the water to see where they can hook enough of us where we just you go, and suddenly we're locked back into mass formation and following each other in some sort of arbitrary line we're being told to follow and following through with crazy rituals like wearing masks that we know don't do anything and masking our children as they're sending them

off to school. Well, of course, when I talk about mask formation, we're only talking about one person and that's Matthias Desmond, the psychologist out of Belgium. Well, he made his way into America, miraculously. He's been making his tour around the news stations. We're psyched that he's here. This is what he's looked like on part of that trip. We are honored to have join us a Belgian academic called Matthias Dismat. Very honored to have a special guest through Dr. Malone, Tias Desmond. The book's a bestseller of the psychology of a totalitarianism for Professor Desmond. You have erupted into the public eye for your work on what is called mass formation. So 10 years ago, I think this would have been considered a kind of esoteric academic theory,

you know, relevant to your specific study, but not really relevant to the society that we live in, and all of a sudden, you've so perfectly described what the rest of us have been watching. During the corona crisis, people start to believe, brought into a narrative that in many respects was blatantly wrong and utterly absurd. Mass formation has existed as long as mankind exists. The modern masses often live in a rather isolated state. what makes them extremely susceptible and extremely vulnerable for all kinds of propaganda. I received many messages of people who told me that once they heard my theory

and they started to understand why they brought into the narrative for a certain time. So important to write my book, if you understand the mechanism of mass formation, you will understand what you have to do, no matter what happens, continue to speak out, even if they kick us off the internet, then we will have to speak out in a different way. But we will continue to speak out no matter what happens. All right, well his book is called The Psychology of Tantalitarianism by Matthias Desmond.

It is my honor and pleasure to be joined here in studio by Matthias. Thank you so much for being here. Oh, thank you for inviting you. Obviously, we had a very in-depth discussion a few months ago. Your book was on its way out to discuss this idea of mass formation, which, sort of swept the world. We talked about it then, and I don't really want to sort of get caught up in rehashing all of that. But first of all, thank you for being here and making the trip and sort of continuing to speak out with your thoughts.

Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here, and I'm really grateful that you invited me again. Let's just start right here. You know, coming into America, is there a difference when you think of this nation compared to Belgium where you've been living throughout this pandemic? Do you mean in terms of life? Life, yes. Of the psychology of humanity. Is the psychology different? Yes. To be honest, I think that Belgian people are more conformist than American people. For instance, the percentage of people who took the jab was extremely high in Belgium. Maybe that had to do with the fact that there are extremely high levels of psychological problems in Belgium.

I think that Belgium is the country with the highest percentage of depressed people. Really? Yeah, yes. And that could have to do with the fact that, or that could be one factor that plays a role, in the fact that maybe more people fell prey to what I call massamation, because the more people feel socially, the more people feel psychologically, the more they usually are vulnerable to the mass of the human,

who could play a role, but actually I don't know. Right. I'm not sure. This book is beautiful. What I found interesting about it is it's not just about sort of this COVID crisis we've been through. I found myself reflecting on my own personal interactions with my family, my children. It really is an exploration in, I think, what moves us, what drives us. It's absolutely fantastic, engaging.

There are four pillars, essentially, that have to have happened in society to make us vulnerable to mass formation. Can you just sort of take us through that very quickly? Yes, yes. Maybe first in a nutshell what mass formation is. It's a specific kind of group formation which has a specific effect at the level of individual mental functioning. And for instance, it makes people radically incapable of taking a critical distance of what the group believes in, no matter how absurd the beliefs of the group become. People will still continue to buy into the narrative.

And a second typical characteristic is that people who are in the grip of mass formation typically become radically willing to sacrifice everything that was important to them before the mass formation. important to them before the mass formation started. And a typical characteristic of mass formation is that it makes people radically intolerant for dissident voices to the extent that in the end the masses typically start to commit atrocities towards the people that do not go along with them. That's in a nutshell the phenomenology of a mass formation. You talk about in the book all the times throughout history this has happened.

Stalin, Hitler, you know, all these different examples, even down to micro examples. The witch hunts and the Crusades were typical examples in ancient times, but it also happens on a very small scale as well. It can happen on a very small scale, but a few, with 10 or 20 people even. Indeed, mass formation is as old as mankind exists, but the modern masses are not the same as the ancient masses. There are important differences. So indeed, this mass formation, this typical example of group formation emerges when population is in a very specific state. And the first and the most crucial condition is that there have to be a very specific formation, to be many people who feel disconnected from their natural and social environment.

And once people are disconnected, they will typically start to struggle with lack of meaning making in life. And once they are disconnected and experience lack of meaning making, something specific will happen at the effective level, they will start to be confronted with so-called free-floating anxiety, frustration and aggression. That means anxiety, frustration, aggression, that is not connected to a mental representation, or in simple words of which people will feel anxious, frustrated and aggressive without knowing what they feel anxious, frustrated and aggressive for.

And this is a very aversive mental state because people feel out of control. They have the feeling that they cannot control their anxiety. And they have the feeling that they cannot take their anxiety out to an object, to their frustration and aggression out to an object, because they don't know what they feel frustrated and aggressive for. meaning that all this frustration and aggression piles up in their psychological system and confronts them with a very aversive tension. And in this state, something typically typical might happen,

if in this state a narrative is distributed through the mass media, indicating an object of anxiety and at the same time, presenting, providing a strategy to deal with that object of anxiety, for instance, the lockdowns for the coronavirus, the witch hunts for the witches, the crusades for the, the Saracens who occupied the grave of Christ, if under these conditions such a narrative is distributed, something very specific might happen, all this free-flooding anxiety might connect to the object of anxiety, and people might be willing to participate in the strategy to deal with the object of anxiety,

no matter how absurd this strategy is, simply because in this way people experience a symptomatic control over their anxiety. over their anxiety. They now know what they're anxious for and also very important. They also now have an object at which they can direct their frustration and aggression. And that's the first step. It leads to a specific psychological advantage in the first place at the affective level and in the second place. It also seems to tackle the root cause of the problems, namely this first condition which is the social isolation. The loneliness. Yeah, because all these people participate in the strategy to deal with the object of anxiety together, they have the feeling that they fight this heroic collective battle with the object of anxiety,

and they feel connected again. But without going into detail, the big problem is that the connection is never a connection between individuals. It's always the masses, or a mass is a group that is formed, because every individual separately connects to a collective, to a collective, you. So basically, I'm lonely. I start having a sense of meaninglessness in my life. I'm doing a job. I hate life, you know, my family doesn't care about me. I'm working too hard. I'm now have anxiety, a feeling of tension all the time, but I don't know what actually I'm angry, you know, which is creating anger. I don't know where to focus energy. I don't know where it's

coming from. And then someone comes along and says, we all have a singular problem we need to deal with. Here's the solution. You all have to lock down, get back today to go through these rituals and anyone that doesn't go along with that is the problem and focus on them. And so suddenly I'm in a group. We all have a common mission and those not on this mission, we will attack that smaller group and now I have a purpose in life, essentially. All problem solved. All problem solved. Seemingly. Right, seemingly. Except that as we discussed the last time, I'm not really getting social connectedness. I'm not in, you know, giant parties. In fact, this time we're isolated, but I'm online and

I'm being told that I am a part of a greater hole that is creating. an important function that's going to save the world. And as mass formation has the function of channeling all this frustration and digression at something, it will constantly need new objects of anxiety, new objects that have to be destroyed and... Sure. And so we'll get to that because I think what's interesting is this book's written, you know, as you said, I think you start the idea of it in 2017, right?

And ultimately finish it in the middle of the pandemic and release it and in in some ways I guess, you know, it must have been, I don't know, ironic or prophetic that you had thought I should write about this mass formation idea and then found yourself in the middle of probably the largest mass formation event in the history of mankind. First worldwide mass formation in history. Would you say were you an expert on mass formation prior to the pandemic in writing this book? I lectured about it.

Okay. The focus of my academic work has always been individual psychology. But, well, during my PhD, I focused on methodological problems in scientific research. For instance, in 2005, when I made my PhD, it became clear that up to 85% of the academic research papers is flawed. Right. Completely wrong. And I started to study that, and I started to study the mathematical basis of the problems. And I explained them in a very tangible and clear way in a little book.

I showed why most research. research methods impossibly can lead to valid results in such a simple and tangible way, that I thought everyone would open his eyes. But they didn't. They became angry with it. So you're talking about this phenomenon. We've discussed on our show a lot, which the editor of almost every major medical journal in the world has come out in one way or another saying we can't repeat the scientific experiments

that were said to come to conclusions. You know, some say 50% of those that are. that we attempted to repeat using different scientists with the same methodology didn't come up with the same results. As high as 85% of, especially when you get into the pharmaceutical products and doing their own studies, it becomes very fallible and its ability to be repeated. And so we start recognizing that you can't trust,

and these are major statements by major editors of these journals saying you actually can't trust the peer-reviewed science that we've been publishing because it is too easy for it to somehow be manipulated. They haven't, they don't state what the cause necessarily is, but this has sort of become a focus of yours. Yes, yes, because I noticed that no matter how clearly you explain what the problems with the research methods are, for most researchers, it just doesn't make a difference. They continue to believe in what they believed in before.

And that was the moment when I started to become interested in mass psychology, because I had a feeling that this phenomenon of this radical blind for the absurdity of what someone believes in can not really be explained on the basis of individual psychological mechanism. It's rather on the basis of group psychology and mass psychology that you can explain it. I had a very specific, I think, revelation to this myself. Let me share it with you. Early on, I made this documentary Vaxed, which was about the MMR vaccine and its study at the CDC looking at does it cause autism.

That was early 2000 to 2004. This study was done because Dr. Andrew Wakefield in England had made this accusation that the MMR appeared to be somehow causally related to the rise in autism epidemic. At a certain point, Donald Trump is elected president early 2017, and I got a call from Robert Kennedy Jr. that he'd been invited to a meeting at the National Institute of Health. So we got together and laid out what we thought were all the problems with the vaccine program. that, and we are going to have the opportunity to speak to Francis Collins, head of the NIH, Tony Fauci, I can't remember all their names, but heads of autism development, all of the,

sort of the science body, about 10 people, to express our concerns, and a representative from Donald Trump's cabinet was there to oversee and sort of moderate this discussion. And essentially, we laid out two major tenants, number one being the biggest issue was we can't find a single double-blind placebo study performed on any of the childhood vaccines that are in our childhood vaccine program, we can't find a single one of those studies to establish safety prior to licensure of the vaccines. Simple question, are we not doing proper randomized control studies using a placebo for vaccinations, or are you just hiding that information from the public? And it started out with at first, some guy at the end of the table says, of course, we're doing

double blind placebo studies. You know, that's how science is done. It's just in earlier phase trials than we published for the public. And so RFK Jr. said, great, that's why we're here. This is the National Institute of Health. All the archives for that information are here. I'd love to go back to the people that are questioning this and show them the evidence that you now said it exists. We'll wait as long as it takes.

And then it was just silence. I mean, one of the most incredible pregnant pauses I've ever seen. And then Tony Fauci said, we don't do double blind placebo studies because it would be on that And so the whole conversation shift and then Francis Collins says, that's right. Jumped on his bandwagon says that's right. And then so they ended up admitting that they don't do any double-blind placebo studies because as they see it, and to your point, they have such a strong group belief that vaccines are great that even a brand new vaccine being entered into the population to have a placebo group

that isn't getting this great life-saving measure that's never been tested to deny them access to that product. minds would be ethically reprehensible. And then so we took it one step further. We said, okay, well then how about a retrospective study? I get it prospectively, meaning before the product is released, you don't want anyone to be denied the product. But after it's been released, there are certainly plenty of anti-vaxers or whatever you want

to call it in your databases that can be studied. We can look at these studies and just simply compare the vaccine to the unvaccinated, who has higher rates of cancer, who has higher rates of all. autism, who has higher rates of diabetes, and all these issues that are plaguing our country. If you want to shut me up and Robert Kennedy Jr., or anyone that's on this topic, simply do the most obvious study known to man, compare the vaccine to the unvaccinated, and show us, look, the vaccinated live longer, they're healthier, less cancer, all these other issues. You know what they said to us?

We can't figure out a way to do that study. I was looking across the table at the greatest body of scientists gathered at the most important research institute in the world and you can't figure out how to compare one group to another. And as we asked more questions, I went back to my wife and I knew nothing about mass formation, but I said, for the most part, these people aren't evil. There is something, and I described it as there's almost like an innate self-protective mechanism that keeps them from opening the most obvious doors to a third grader where they would see the problem in their science. They don't even see that door.

It doesn't exist. There's something in them that keeps from asking the appropriate question that would unearth their belief in their thought system that they are saving the world with these products. I would hold withdrawal except one person. I said to my wife when I got back, except this one guy sitting across from me who I didn't really know at the time, Anthony Fauci, I said, I believe this guy is evil.

I think he knows damn well what's going on here. But that was my experience. Yeah, indeed. Yeah. Yeah, it's a kind of group ideological blindness, I think. Yeah, blindness. Yeah. A group that is in the grip of an ideology,

that shares an ideology, and that became completely blind because of that ideology. Now, this is what's fascinating, I think, about your book, because you talk about, you know, where we sort of have this separation. We start out with our lack of... of science or a mind, most humanity seems to start in a religious space, a belief in something bigger themselves. Different cultures create different gods of these things, but there's a spiritual

relationship, and that God is usually vengeful, keeps us in control. If we step out of line, then we will be smited or whatever, you know, it is. I'm using my own words, not yours. But essentially, there's this theological construct that controls humanity. And then along comes what you describe, I believe is the mechanistic society or the science, right? No, there's a logic now. We can be free of this mythological fear that's got us all bound up, but now we can be logical. Tell me about that.

Like, how did that start and did it free us? Well, indeed. First, scientific discourse was a kind of a discourse through which a minority went against a dominant discourse. The dominant being that sort of spiritual... Institutionalized... ...organic religion, I think. Yep.

And in the first place that yielded nice results, I think. I mean, science represented a kind of open-mindedness, a kind of a positioning through which people start to listen to nature, to the phenomena, to reality around them in a new way without being blinded by dogmas and all kinds of prejudice. But after a while, because of its successes, science became a dominant discourse itself. And that was the moment when it got perverted.

Okay. That's always the case, I think. So once, when it was the minority, it was healthy, once it becomes the majority discourse. Of course. Once it... Why? Why is that? Yeah, once a discourse starts to get the grip on the majority of the people,

it is that discourse that is used to manipulate society. to manipulate, to make profit of it, to be successful at the level of careers. That's logical actually. As soon as a certain discourse is shared by or is believed in by the majority of the people, everyone who wants to manipulate or who wants to have a grip on the majority of the people will exactly use that discourse. Think about all the commercials that say scientific research showed that this product. 80% of doctors say you should use this.

The consensus of says blah blah blah. Or in the academic world, just the more academic papers you publish, the higher the chance that you will be successful at the level of your academic career. That are all examples that show that the more successful discourse is in a society, the higher the chance that it gets perverted and that it loses its qualities of truth speech. And that is what happened with science. changed from truth speech in the beginning, it changed into a certain ideology, it got perverted, lost its qualities of truth speech, and in the end it was a purely ideological matter.

Science is no longer today, is no longer a kind of open-mindedness, no. Science starts from dogmatic beliefs, the entire universe, or scientific ideology starts from dogmatic beliefs, The entire universe is a material phenomenon. It's a set of elementary particles and all these particles interact with each other according to the laws of mechanics. And this entire universe machine can be perfectly rationally understood. And that's why we need experts to this society, the people who have this rational understanding of the machinery of the universe and of society to lead us.

We do not need to radically elected politics. Well, you become our gods, right? You now are the all-knowing. and I no longer challenge your quote. Just as I didn't challenge the religion. My priest held it. Now you hold the truth of the world and the cosmos. I bow down to that.

And it really is just, we've just shifted from one controlling God to another. The other. First science declared the throne of God empty, but very soon, man sneaked to the throne himself. And put himself in the throne. Literally, literally. That's super interesting. Let me just take it to this moment then, where is it at the moment that it becomes the majority thinking process. Is it that it, it's weird to say it is it, but let's say science in this,

this free thinking ability to ask questions to delineate and by asking appropriate questions to triangulate the actual truth that now sets us free because we're in control of it seems perfectly healthy. Is it at the moment that it becomes the majority because you says now it controls people? Is it the realization of the power that it now holds that ends up being the sort of incriminating factor or is it the love of having that majority that it fears losing that and losing you know what I mean is it is it recognizing oh my God the masses are now with us we have power here to a certain extent definitely to a certain extent it can lead to power and at the same time it can it can it can give you power it can give you money that are two factors

that always play a role but in the end I think it's about something else really okay I think that the real factor at play is always the fact that people fear uncertainty. Everyone, or the human being, struggles with a profound uncertainty in life. We always think that human beings differ from animals because they know more, because they have more knowledge, but actually rather the opposite is true. A human being distinguishes itself from an animal, because they know more, because they have more knowledge, but actually, rather the opposite is true. from an animal because it constantly is confronted with a lack of knowledge. A human being is constantly confronted with questions it cannot answer.

What is the meaning of my life? What will happen after I died? Does the other love me or not? What do I mean for someone else? Our human existence circles constantly around something that its mind cannot grasp. Animals don't suffer from that. And it's simply because the animal animal's mental functioning is based on sign systems.

Sign systems in which each sign refers to one thing. And there is no doubt to what it refers. This cry means hunger, this crime means danger, this posture means aggression and so on. In a human being, the human mind is based on language. And in language, the so-called language signs do not refer to one thing. refer to other signs. This word refers to another word. If you want to know what one word means, you need other words. But these other words need to be defined again by other words. And you always lack a word that can make sure what all the rest of the words mean. And that's why

the human mind is constantly uncertain. And that's for most people that is extremely painful. It's extremely painful. Well, it's perpetual insecurity. Yes, absolutely. And it's extremely painful at the impact. important with respect to the important issues of life, for instance, at the level of love, at a level of dying, at the level of what our existence means, and so on. And that's why you can take two positions towards this fundamental uncertainty. Or you can, it can make you anxious because you don't know what to do in life, you don't

know what to decide, you are afraid of risk, of the risk of life, of the uncertainties of life, Or this uncertainty can be, you can recognize it in this uncertainty, the very basis and the very precondition for your existence as a human being. In that case, you make the following reasoning, you just say it is exactly because nobody is certain. And because nobody can be certain about the questions to the answer to the great questions of life, that I have the right. and the duty to answer the questions myself. Right. Only one who can choose and determine how I have to live my life is me. The only thing I have to do is I have to make sure that I stay loyal to certain ethical principles.

But for the rest, I have to make the decisions in my life. I have to live my own life. So that are the two possibilities. Individual, you know, the individual and recognizing that you create into the space where knowledge is not giving you any answers. In fact, I think we've all experienced this. If you're good in any profession, remember, like being in filmmaking,

the more talent, the more talent had, the more work I got, the more I did, the more I saw was capable in film, and the more as intimidated by what then was possible. The more you have knowledge, the more your knowledge is of how much you don't know. Yeah, right? Yeah, indeed.

Indeed, that's so great as concluded exactly that. the more I know, the more I realize that I don't know. Right. That's wisdom. That's wisdom. It is. If it's not debilitating, yet we want to have control. And I've always said, I don't know if it's accurate, but my belief has been that hyper-intelligent, people that are incredibly intelligent, I've always thought, have a greater propensity to go crazy.

Because they, and because it comes down to chaos and life. Certainly, I can find a mathematical function and truth that, I've always thought, I have a greater propensity to go crazy because they, because it comes down to chaos in life. Certainly I can find a mathematical function and truth that irons out the chaos that's all around me. Your average person that just gives me, they just accepts, you know, life sucks, move on, you know what I mean? It happens. And but super intelligent people are always working at trying to give in order to things. And I think ultimately you will fail. I think you'll fail.

And they see through the conventions, the social conventions, and that's why they have only two options, I think. Either they reinvent the convention or they just perish because they never find a way to live their lives. So, but I think that's the, the point is that this uncertainty, many people isolate from business, many people, buy into a common narrative, an ideology that is shared by many people just to not be confronted with this uncertainty, I think. And that's why they are so, in such a, so, because they are so stubbornly sticking to a certain narrative that is shared by the group, while in many cases that narrative is utterly absurd. And that's the totalitarianism. That's the essence of totalitarianism, I think.

In totalitarianism, what you see is that people start to become completely incapable of accepting that there is a certain uncertainty in life. They want one answer, the one and only answer. And the totalitarian leaders provide that answer. They totally and completely provide your answer for you. Insert our belief system. And for you're the same. You started out with a sense of meaninglessness. The more your knowledge left you, you know, all alone and finding that there was even more you didn't know.

I want to just stop this right now. Go ahead and insert for me my meaning, what my purpose is here. and let it be with the total group because the more people involved in it, the more true it must be. Yeah, indeed. Yeah. Indeed. So when we, you know, when we look at sort of this ideology, what I thought was interesting, is this idea that science ultimately runs into this problem.

We get into quantum science. And I think everybody has a sense now that the basic concept of quantum science is the scientist is changing the results simply. by the focus by the scientist on the problem at hand. That their singular involvement, you give many beautiful examples, you know, that we're affecting our environment. Even clock, you know, arms all end up starting swinging in some sort of unison. That the clocks change each other, and that's not even a thinking process. Somehow the scientist, by observing that observation is potentially affecting the results of what they're looking at. you know, why in a moment where that is so clearly the case is it being swept under the rug by science and stuff?

Like it wants to hide that dirty secret, which anyone that looked at it seems to know. As you said, if you truly take your science to the end, you're left in a very uncomfortable place. Yes, I think that science is popular as long as it provides people the illusion that it will bring certainty and that it will bring rational control. But real science doesn't bring certainty. Real science doesn't tell you that your rational understanding will be capable of explaining the mysteries of life and that it will allow you to control reality and to reshape the world in such a way that there will be no suffering and even no dying anymore. No. But real science learns us, all seminal scientists, learned us,

that our rational understanding is extremely limited. That's what they all teach us, that rational understanding can grasp a little bit, can allow you to understand certain aspects of the world, but that very soon, if you follow your rationality in a loyal way that you very soon will arrive at a point at the limit of rationality. And that's what real science learners, and that's where most people are not interested anymore in science. Most people don't want to know that because what they want is the illusion that there is someone who knows everything and that we once will know everything, that this big uncertainty of life, which is such a challenge for every human being, doesn't exist.

That's what science, the scientific ideology, that the illusions the scientific ideology feeds, like that, that one day there will be no uncertainty anymore, that everything can be explained in mathematical terms, and that we are allowed to go to sleep now. So it failed its ultimately, you know, virgin goal, the idea that to set ourselves free from the dogma of the world's science will set us free. That investigation, the science took us so deep that we realized, oh my God, I'm now affecting everything I'm looking at, therefore I can't get to a solid foundational principle that's true because depending on your personality and the observer, you're going to affect

what you're seeing, and it's almost that they just said, okay, let's not tell the world that. They're looking to us now to have the dog, and that's when it becomes a dogma. Now it becomes just trust us. We do have the answers to the world, as Tony Fauci said. Attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science. There's no question to be had here, literally making himself a mythical fixture in this new dogmatic structure. Yeah, exactly. And that's how science lapses into the opposite. of what it originally was into a belief system that shouldn't be questioned anymore.

Right. While science in the beginning was just open-mindedness and the guarantee that everything could be questioned, that was the origin of science and now it became a radical dogma. It's really interesting. I have some proof of that. I had a great debate years ago when I was sort of first discussing this. I was on a radio show with a... guy who had a science background. And he was railing at the idea that Donald Trump had offered at that time

Robert Kennedy Jr. the opportunity to run a vaccine safety commission. That Robert Kennedy Jr. would sort of head a science group to start investigating the science behind vaccination. This guy, everyone, he laid out a lot of facts. He knew his science. And I said, let me understand you're incredibly infuriated right now that Robert Kennedy Jr. would run this science body. Is that because you have some belief that because he appears to have a bias based on what he said that that bias will influence the science being done? And he said, exactly my point. I said, then you now know exactly why I have an issue with the science being done at the CDC and the FDA that constantly lay out a mantra to me that vaccines are always safe, always effective, and aren't doing any proper safety studies,

because they know they'll see what they already believe. You know, the bias there is my problem with the science. The entire foundational principle of science is supposed to be the scientific method, which is bring your biggest questions, your best questions, we invite all of them, we should be challenging the statements we've made, the theories that we're standing on,

the products that we've designed from the greatest minds, anyone that can bring the best challenge, that's what science is supposed to cherish, and we've totally let go of that. Yes, I think so, yes. Indeed, that's true. And one way or another, we all, or our society lost the capacity to really tolerate real science which always starts from uncertainty and which always returns to uncertainty.

Science will never lead to certainty. That's what Heisenberg concluded with his uncertainty principle. He said it's not so much that we are not certain yet, it's that we will never be able to be certain. That's the point. So that's that and as soon as you start to accept that and you start to be humble enough to admit that your rational understanding will never be able to really grasp the essence of life, you also start to understand that our rational knowledge can never be the true basis of our existence as a human being and that a society, for instance, can never be based

on rational understanding. Rational understanding is only the first phase in the human being. a process of coming to knowledge. It's all the first steps. And Reni Tom, for instance, articulated that in a very beautiful way, he said, that part of reality that can be understood in a rational way is very limited, and the rest of reality we can only understand by empathically resonating with it. Empathically. Empatically, intuitively, intuitively, which is a word I use a lot.

Empatically, it's something that reminds me very much of the principles of the samurai tradition, for instance, where they said that the first phase of a learning process, for instance, when you learn sword fighting or the martial arts, that the first phase is always a rational phase. In the first phase of the learning process, of the training process, you learn certain techniques which try to show you in a rational way how you can perform your art. And that's the same for a craft or for sciences. No matter what, the first stage is always a technical rational stage, a stage in the learning process that you can understand in a rational way. But But as you practice these techniques and this rational approach to the art or to the craft for a long time,

you will slowly start to develop a certain feel for what you do. You will, a different knowledge will start to develop, something that you cannot express anymore in rational terms, but something that is based on a certain feeling with what you're doing. And it's that feeling that is this more empathic knowledge, like a more direct contact with the object that you try to know, a resonating contact, that is the real knowledge. And if you, I experienced that very much in my own life, it took me until I was 35 years old before I suddenly started to realize that what we call reality

and what we call the facts is not rational. It took me until I was 35 years old when I dive deep into the mathematical basis of systems theory. And a theory which shows in an astonishing, paradoxical way that all complex dynamical systems in nature, which are most phenomena in nature, actually behave irrationally. And I suddenly started to understand that what we call the facts in the reality are not rational,

and that my rational understanding would never really be able to grasp or capture the essence of life around me. And it is at that moment, at that moment I think, at a moment that you can be humble enough to understand that your human mind will always be out of control and that it will always fall short to grasp the essence of life around you. It is at that moment I think that you can open up literally, that your mind can open up, that your mind literally that the logical building blocks which you connected to each other and which isolated you from the world. that they can slide a little bit away from each other, and that the eternal vibrance in music of life, of nature, of other human beings around you, can go through the holes, touch the strings of your being,

and let you resonate with life around you. I think that, at that moment, that's the moment, when we start to get in touch with, when we start to develop a feel for the mystery of life around us, and that's the moment. also where we start to become aware of the eternal principles of life and at all these principles these ethical principles these ethical principles of humanity these principles can be the basis of human living together and not rational understanding if

we believe that rational understanding should be the ultimate basis of human living together we will inevitably lapse into absurd irrationality because it is is not the essence rationality. Rationality is, doesn't represent the essence of life. And if we make it the essence, we will inevitably end up an absurd irrationality. And more, we will destroy life because the essence of life escapes rationality and inevitably if we reduce life to rationality, we kill it, we destroy it. I had a very, one of the things in private, and I know my wife's watching right now, but there was a life-changing moment for the two of us, but I'll speak to it from my perspective.

We had a troublesome pregnancy where we ended up losing the baby just prior to delivery. That experience for me brought up the, you know, the initial questions, do you abort? Are you going to control this situation? I took on that thought and said, I'm not here to decide quality of life. I'm not, I don't want to be a God figure deciding whether or not this is going to be a life of quality. That's not my decision. And I realize, and I've tried to explain to people, and I think I'm understanding it more and talking to you that it was finally as a guy that's a producer. I see the problems ahead in production.

I'm going to be moving lots and lots of money in a production on CBS or something. I've got to know the pitfalls ahead. I'm a fixer. I know how to fix everything. I'm always working the situation out. I'm rationalizing, I'm incredibly rational, and suddenly in that moment I could not fix it. I couldn't fix it in any way. And there was something in finally accepting that there is something spectacularly painful and beautiful about life that I will never be able to control it,

that I don't have control over these things and I'm going to release. And to me, it was where I grew up, my father was a minister, but I would say in that moment, was where I felt the connection to something bigger than me, something that must have some understanding of what's taking place here, but I do not. And somehow in the release to that that I cannot change, I felt an incredible peace and an incredible power that I think has led me through all this experience that finds me here.

I've never been the same person since. And I feel like it's in that understanding that this isn't rational, there's no way to rationalize what's happened to me. and I'm a victim, right? In that moment, until I released to it, I was a victim. Why is this being done to me? Why us? Why our child?

Not somebody else. But when I realized that there are moments in life that cannot be explained, and that is the phenomenon of it. Without the dark places we don't, will we really appreciate the light? And to really embrace this, if you want to call it chaos, is the beauty of life. Is it not? I think so. That's what resonating is, I think. It's giving up control. It's surrendering. It's opening your mind and allowing something else to make it resonate. It's a kind of surrender, I think. With our rational mind, we constantly try to control the world around us. We try to understand it, to manipulate it, to control it.

And as soon as you can give up this idea, as soon as you can see that it is an illusion and that it will lonely alienate you from life, at that moment, I think you can really open and let something else move you, let something else guide you, let something outside of you, something that transcends your own rational capacities, touch you. Yes. I have said in talks, and not to get too spiritual on this, but through this journey with this vaccine discussion and the pandemic, I've said many times on stage, I referenced the story from Genesis, Adam and Eve. And Adam and Eve are given perfection, a life you have dominion over the earth, everything. You need clear water, animals, flowers, you name it. God says there's only one thing you cannot do. Do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And I've said that didn't. make sense when I was a kid. Don't I want to have knowledge of good and evil? Don't I want to have those things? And then I've said, as I watched this, I realize what's taken place here, and I think you very well explained, you already have just now. It was that mechanistic world. Do not believe that you will figure out the mechanisms of life, that you will understand

what makes things move, what is good, what is bad. In that journey, you will ultimately find yourself all alone and you will be cast out there you will surely die you are not in that space of acceptance you are going to go crazy and that's really where we're at now we have to me you know there's this argument that and to bring it back around this is a battle between good and darkness you know light and darkness it really is in a way because it's those that have now you know been left wanting with the mechanistic structure the science is going to bring the reason by which all things fall into line, but they won't give up the power they now have, and now they are the ones in control.

There's an insanity now that seems to be in our government systems and certainly our health systems, which are merged and our technology systems, which is more of this mechanistic desire to make the world a utopian place that seems to, as it tracks us more and more, is doing exactly what science keeps doing, where it was setting out to set us free, It's imprisoning us. We're becoming slaves to this and the slave drivers of this insanity seem to be in every position of power in the world right now. Yeah. I agree. That's also what Hannah Arendt said. Totalitarianism, this idea that the human being can control everything, is the ultimate evil.

Exactly I think because of what I see. said a few minutes ago, namely that it tries to reduce life to rationality and in that movement, in that action, it cannot else than destroy life and then destroy the core of humanity. If a state system, for instance, believes that it should make all the choices for its citizens, then it inevitably destroys this little bit of space where every human, every human, human being can make its own choices and wherever every human being can realize itself as a singular human being. So that's what makes totalitarianism the ultimate dehumanization. You know, and you point out the different figures that we've discussed on this show,

Klaus Schwab, you all know, Yval Noah Harari, who, you know, whether or not I can't tell all the time whether he's just writing about it or if he is completely expressing his own internal fear of what he cannot control, but what he describes as a future. Humans are now hackable animals. You know, the whole idea that humans have, you know, they have this soul or spirit and they have free will and nobody knows what's happening inside me. So whatever I choose, whether in the election or whether in the supermarket, this is my free will, that's over. And I think of Bill Gates and these people involved in this.

that they see the only way we survive is that we must control humanity to make the appropriate decisions for themselves. That is the only way we live, right? To survive is to live, and those of us that are opposed to this idea are saying, that's no way to live, that's not living. If you're tracking under my skin,

as you've all know, Harari talks about, if you're tracking every part of my biometrics and then trying to decide how I'm thinking or how I'm going to vote and controlling how I'm going to vote and controlling the discussions we have and censoring anybody that wants to get me a different perspective or censoring me when I'm sharing something that I may have just seen my own way, then we've died. We're dead. I mean, these people that literally, I think, say they're fighting for our lives and humanity are killing us. They're killing what life is. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. Yes, indeed. That's the case. The strange, and one of the strangest things for me is always that they do so in the name of science. While science itself, all seminal scientists, has exactly concluded that life cannot be controlled in a rational way.

Right. All right. So that leads me to probably, what I would say is the more controversial part of this book. In chapter 8, you get in because what I've just talked about, I've talked about, Yuval no Harari, Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, you know, Tony Fowdy. We're discussing these figures that are imprinting upon the world that I am the science. We are the answer. You will, you know, and many, many people, the majority, at least over the last couple of years, signed on to, as you've said, this mass formation.

We found some sort of wholeness in a crazy ritual of locking ourselves down, of vaccinating ourselves with an untested product over and over. And no matter how much it failed, it seemed that just more was the answer. But there seem to be these figures that keep coming up in this conversation, which leads me to chapter 8. In chapter 8, you discuss the conspiracy, this idea that the conspiracy is where we're all sort of leaning, but it's wrong. Let me just pull this out of chapter 8, conspiracy and ideology. You write, fanatical conspiracy thinking testifies to the almost irresistible tendency of human beings to find someone who can be held responsible in the face of adversity and can, thereby be made the object of aggression.

This can probably be seen as one manifestation of a more general psychological rule. The more anger people feel, the more intentional malice they perceive. Now, I think that paragraph in a way really captures this chapter, but just to see if I've got this right, you were arguing that this mass formation, really any mass formation is understood it, but let's stick in this COVID pandemic thing that we've just gone through, that we want, just like those captured by the mass formation,

want an answer that is simple and makes sense and therefore fulfills this need to have a truth to life, that on the other side, those of us that have questioned that authority and have stood up against it, we are seeking a similarly satisfying yet hollow world understanding or driving force, which is there's a, conspiracy that's causing this. There is a small group of people they're inflicting this ideology upon us that we're all going through. And so to be

clear, you believe this mass formation, though driven by many entities and ideas and agendas that are out there, is more chaotic in its functions that bring us there, that it's not some driven, you know, small group of people that wrote this out and planned it and created it. There is an elite. There is an elite. An elite that relies very much on indoctrination and propaganda that has all kind of ideological plans. We must be blind if we don't want to see that.

These plans exist. They exist before the crisis and they were pushed forward by the elite. There were large scale unprecedented indoctrination and the and the propaganda campaigns and so on. I'm 100% convinced of that. Yeah. But I think there is one thing important. We make a mistake, a serious mistake, if we reduce the problem to this elite, if we think that evil, to use that word, is only situated in the elite, that the only problem in the world and that is the the elite and that the problem would be solved is that if this elite no longer exists,

then we make a serious mistake. For me it's about that. The elite is part of the problem. If we think, for instance, that the problem would be solved. If we eliminate this elite, if we could destroy this elite in a violent revolution, then that would be the most destructive strategic choice we can make, the most self-destructive. Self-destructive. Yes, of course.

By destroying this small enemy outside of us, we destroy ourselves. How so? They will destroy us. They will destroy us. Of course, because they will use our violence as a justification to destroy us. And we definitely will lose this game. But even if we would succeed, and that is even more important, I think. As long as people continue to think in the same way, as long as people continue to be in the grip of the

this rationalist, mechanist ideology, they will simply recreate the same elite. They will create the same elite. Of course, nothing will change. That's so typical for a totalitarianism. In a classical dictatorship, it makes sense to try to destroy the classical dictator, because if you succeed in doing so, the system will collapse. In a totalitarian state, it won't. The elite will simply be replaced, simply because the point of gravity of the system

is always situated in the masses that are in the grip of a certain ideal. That is something extremely important, I think. So I believe that the problem with conspiracy thinking, with what I call monadical conspiracy thinking, the problem is not so much that you are wrong in this sense that there are no conspiracies. There are conspiracies. Conspiracies have always existed. But the problem is rather that everything is reduced to a conspiracy and that the problem is reduced to a conspiracy.

And in this way, automatically from such an analogy. follows the strategic advice, this elite has to be destroyed. And that's naive and self-destructive. I rather would quote Solzhenitsyn and I actually quote him in that chapter, I think, who said, it would be easy to believe that the problem of totalitarianism, I quote Solzhenichin from his famous book, The Gulag Archipelago, for which he received the Nobel Prize, and which was based on his experiences in the concentration camps in Russia,

He said it would be easy to believe that the problem of totalitarianism is caused by one small evil group. But he said, we all know that the dividing line between good and evil does not run between people. It runs through every human being's heart. And that's the truth, I think. We have to be honest enough to admit, I think, that to a certain extent we are all part of the problem. We all participated in this mechanist, rationalist thinking. We all brought our money to the banks, for instance. If there wouldn't be almighty, powerful bankers,

if people were not willing to bring their money to the banks. We all are part of the system, do one more than the other, and the one is more responsible than the other. But to a certain extent, I think it's best to see that to a certain extent, we are all part of the problem and that at the same time that the real enemy is never another human being but that the real enemy is always to be situated at the level of a certain way, a certain view of the world, a certain world view in which which believes that our human mind is capable of controlling life and reality.

This kind of ideology that created at the same time, at the same time, this kind of thinking, this mechanistic ideology, we talked about that I think in our first conversation. It's this ideology that brought a condition in this problematic state where it became extremely vulnerable for mass formation. That's the first thing. On one hand, this ideology created a certain problematic psychological state in the population which made it vulnerable from mass formation. And at the same time, it is this ideology which created a certain elite, a specific elite,

an elite which believed that it was its holy duty to manipulate the population, through indoctrination, propaganda, brainwashing, all kinds of psyops, and so on. This new elite emerged throughout the last two... And they believe all for our good. all for our good, right? We need, we need something to believe in in order to be whole. Therefore, let us sort of seize that space and hand you something to believe in that makes you whole. Read the founding fathers of modern propaganda such as Trotter, Lipman, Bernice, if you read their works, then you will clearly see that they were reasoning along the following lines.

They said, since the beginning of modern democracy, political leaders, not leaders anymore because they have to be elected. So that means that they have to follow the masses. They have to try to know what the masses want and then they have to give them what they think they need to hear. Yes, and we have to tell them what they need to hear, we have to give them what they want or otherwise we won't be re-elected. So that's literally, literally described. For instance, in the work of Bernays, he said, and that he said means that we will fall prey to the to the destruction and the irrationality of the masses because the masses are intrinsically

irrational and destructive so. And the politicians cannot control them, meaning that if we don't find other means to control them, we will fall prey to them to the masses. And that's where he came up with his modern theory of propaganda. He said we have no other option than to develop an impressive propaganda machinery and to constantly manipulate, deceive the masses, control the masses. So that's what the original philosophy was why propaganda machinery must be developed. And that is, it's this combination of this population which as a consequence of mechanistic

thinking is brought in a psychological state where it is sensitive for indoctrination propaganda, where it is extremely vulnerable for indoctrination propaganda and for mass formation, and on the other hand this elite which believes that it is its right and The holy duty to constantly manipulate the bombings is this combination to which Hannah Arendt refers as the diabolic pact between the masses and the elite, which is the basis of totalitarianism. Han Arendt says the basis of totalitarianism, the essence of totalitarianism is always this diabolic pact between the masses and the elite. So in a way we're inseparable in some space.

We keep creating our new mass formation. If we get addicted to the idea, and my friend, I have friends who are serious conspiracy theories, they are totally, they're not happy, it doesn't bring happiness, they can't trust anything around them. And their science, which is the science of conspiracy, leaves them with the same gaping hole that they can't come to an answer that lets them sleep at night, that there's a purpose to life. And so we just keep repeating this because of a deep inner illness, essentially our original

sin, I would say, is our need to know when people come up to me and they'll say, Del, how does this end? I mean, you're deeply in this. You seem to have a strategy. How does this all end? How do you see this ending? And I used to try and answer that. And sometimes I would give just a short version of, well, I think we win. Or if I was feeling, you know, strongly metaphysical, I would say, look, I'm living my life in a space of faith. And really, I am being imbued with a lot of foresight for what we've gotten right, but I've really been taking the appropriate steps into faith, and I feel like I'm being guided. A lot of people don't want to hear that, you know, but in the end, what I've realized the real answer is, your need to know how this ends is our

problem. That is why we're here. Exactly. Right? Yes, yes, yes. We are in this predicament because you keep being sold some ending that makes you feel like, For a moment, there's a purpose to your life. And whoever hands it to you, you buy it until it comes up short. And we keep going back to the need to know where we're going instead of recognizing this isn't defined. There's a beauty. Live into your curiosity. Live into your insecurities. As you say in this book, create into that space.

Create your understanding of what your life is here. Yeah. I agree. And also I think it makes no sense to try to predict what will happen and to try to know when all this will be finished and so on and how it will end. No. We can never really, I think we have to try to understand it, but we should always be aware of the fact that we'll never be able to really understand and to predict what will happen and that in this way we just lose our energy. Energy that we should use to focus at the right level, namely the only thing that we really should focus on is the fact that no matter how inhumane the world around us becomes, that we ourselves will stick to our ethical principles. And if we do so, and we will have to reinvent them, these ethical principles.

We're universal, but we will have to reinvent them, re-articulate them, rediscovered them, make it really our own principles, and if we do that, then we will pick the fruits of our positioning. We will go through a fast evolution as a human being. And that's the real meaning for me, the real purpose of everything that happens now. In the end, there will be a small group who chooses to stay loyal to ethical principles, to the principle of humanity in a dehumanizing world. And this small group will be pushed on a path where it will go through a very fast evolution as a human being. That's for me the true meaning of what is now happening.

It's actually a process. a process in which a large organism gives birth to a small organism. Society puts a lot of pressure on the people who do not want to conform, who do not want to go along. The diamond, if you will, under the pressure. Yeah, indeed. And that's exactly, is exactly the reason. This pressure is a reason why this small group starts to move, why it is pushed through a tunnel where it would never go through without the pressure of the large group. And in this way, something really truly new will be born. And that's why in the short term I'm realistic. I think it will be very difficult in the short term.

I think this system, this technocratic system, this belief that the cynical belief, that everything should be controlled to the extreme, that there is no other solution for the problems we are facing than more and more technological control and surveillance. I believe that this will be pushed to the limit, but I also am quite confident that there will be a group who refuses to go along, with that system and that this group will be vocal enough that it will continue to speak out and that in this way it will make sure that there will always remain a small path open for a group to welcome to not only survive the situation but also to find in this situation its motivation to go through a mental and a spiritual evolution where it would never go through without Without the pressure, be exercised on this.

Okay, so let's just stay right there as we sort of wrap this up because we're talking, talking this book about sort of the breakdown of society, many social experiments, seven people in a room, you know, looking at a set of lines, you know, which lines match up. They've set the other six to say the one thing and so the seventh tends to go along with it even though they're looking, it defies their own reason, all of those things. But, you know, as we, and so you say, you know, we break down into basic there's the 30 or 40% that truly, you know, push the agenda, believe in the agenda. There's 40 to 60% in the middle that just go along with wherever the thing's going, though deep down,

they don't really feel like it's the right thing to do, but they're not going to fight it. And then there's this, you know, smaller group. Smaller group at the end, somewhere between 10 and 30% that is going to resist, resist where things are going and stay in the ethics and a place of reason that makes, you know, that that can be affirmed. And so is it that are we in a tug of war here? Are we playing a tug of war with this central group? Are we trying, are we really in a battle with that 30% on the other end

to become the 40% that outnumbers them so this group comes our way? Or is that just going to be another mass formation that we've become the formation that they follow? We shouldn't become a mass. I'm sure of that. If the group who doesn't go along with the mass formation becomes a mass itself, it will be destroyed. So my goal on the high wire in here should not be to try and get all the masses to move my direction? I don't think so. I think it should be just to articulate, to give distant voices the possibility to resonate in society, to celebrate this little group of individual thinkers that are creating into their society. creating into their space.

Yeah, and that's exactly what should define this group that doesn't go along with the masses. This group should be a group that shares one central virtue, namely that it encourages everyone to have its own opinion. And secondly, this group should be formed not because we all stick to the same common ideology or something, no, this group should be formed because, it develops strong social bonds between the individuals. People should love each other rather than this abstract group ideal or this or this collective. So that's what distinguishes a truly humane group from a mass. It is based on on the one hand, it encourages this central principle for every human being that you have the right to articulate your own opinion

and that this group is formed because it is based on strong bonds between individuals rather than on the bond between every individual separately and the collective. We're bond to an ideology. We share some ideology. I mean, I can't tell you, as I listen to it, there's things that I think I've intuitively sensed. I've said this on my show, but everywhere I travel, one of the things that people say to me is, Del, we've got to figure out a way to get all these.

these different groups that are against the vaccination or against the lockdowns. And to come together, we've got to unite all of us, come up with a central theme that we all share so that we become this united front. And I've been saying the whole time, no. No. I mean, I said, number one, it will never happen. All you will do is create infighting for someone struggling to be the one that's going to write that central theme. We're all going to follow. It'll become a dictatorship of some sort. It'll be a battle over who gets to make that statement. And I said, instead, do what you're guided to do, follow your intuition. If you have problem with mercury and vaccines, then that's your issue.

No, it's not mercury. It's aluminum. Then fine, you fight for aluminum. No, it's the aborted field cell lines. Then go with the aborted field cell lines. You know, it's only legislation that's going to get this done. Then go do the legislation. No, no, it's only legal.

Then you do it. I mean, every, you know, I keep saying everybody, go where you're guided to go. Express, you know, I think we're vessels in something much more magnificent, you know, And we're being guided to an individual space that we get to be the stars of that space, right? We get to be, you know, part of our divinity and whatever theology we create or ideology we create in that space, right? But we accept each other. We love each other for our uniqueness. And for being different.

That's exactly what I wanted to say. Like, what I really like very much in this group of people who do not go along with the mainstream narrative. is how different they are. I see people around me now, of which I think like I would have never talked to you. Never ever, I would have judged you, I would have cast judgment on you because of your, sometimes I'm ashamed to say it. Because of your appearance or because of what I think your political preferences are. Now I look at these people, I see how different they are and I realize, but you have one character of that for me is so important that I forget all the rest.

You refuse to go along with this dehumanizing ideology and you want to lose a lot just to represent a little bit of freedom and a little bit of humanity in life. And that's enough. If I see that, the more they differ from me, the more I love them. It's strange. And that, I think, that is what I think. think that is what makes our human being so beautiful that it is so heterogeneous that there are so many differences between human beings rather than feel threatened by our differences we should consider them I think our greatest treasure yeah well and it makes us it makes us scary to lead it's hard to lead a sea of individuals

It's so much easier to lead a group. I've said this. People would say, why are they doing this to us? It's like, you're doing it. Most of us are doing our own families. You're raising your kids seen but not heard. Just do it because I said so. We're trying to train the individuality and the questioning mind

and out of our children because it makes our lives easier if our whole family just crosses the street at the same time following dad. Right? It's much harder when you're going every other direction. You're going to get killed. You're going to be in the street. I'm going to, you know. And so we are great.

grasping for control from the microcosms of our families to our churches, to our schools in some way to develop something that we all follow. But I have to say, and, you know, when I really embrace, even I don't want to hear that my only goal is to be this profound and really enjoy that I'm the smaller group. I think when we watch the, when people, a lot of people watch the high wire, there's this dream. someday we're going to be the majority, right? I've said it. I've said as a mantra, we are the majority. You know, more people are now rejecting the vaccines than are accepting them, even those that receive the vaccines. We have sort of shifted into a collective consciousness that is rejecting this. And I think it would be very difficult. You know, we could go on for hours, you know, before we got into this. He said, I think there's going to be other viruses that are going

to just keep hitting these things. But certainly you must recognize that they have really hampered. I call it the boy that cried wolf problem that there's going to be a real issue with locking us down and doing this to us again, at least if you're going to keep using viruses as the way to do that. So, of course, yeah. But are we still, am I still misguided in thinking when I say that we're in my majority into thinking about this? Is it still a smaller group that I have to recognize and be passionate about? I think it's still a smaller group. I do believe it's still a smaller group, but that doesn't matter. It's not the size of the group that will allow us to, to, I think what, for me, what I hope

for the future is that a new society will emerge, which functions according to real, original ethical principles. That's what I hope. And I think it will be a small group who rediscover these principles and who reintroduces them. But first this small group will have to get in touch with these principles itself. Because most of us, now if I look at the people who do not go along with the mainstream narrative, I think most of them, myself included, still have to go a long way before we really are in touch with these principles again.

I think we all still continue to live very much according to the habits and the habits and and the ideology of the old world, of the mechanist ideology, to be honest. I think we have to go a long way and I think that if we walk that way, then the small group will really, it will really feel this principle so much that it will be capable of delivering a new model for a society in which human beings can live a life worthy of a human being. I think the fear is that this larger group right now, the technocratic takeover of the world, the tracking systems. What happens if they start atomizing vaccines in the air or delivering them through mosquitoes? I mean, I keep saying it's like in a way, revenge of the nerds, like these people

that, you know, I came, I grew up skiing and rock climbing. I risked my own life. I feel like these people are risking all of our lives to express whatever it is they want or their challenge of life as we know it. But do we have to, like, do we have to, like, leave that to kill itself? Is it going to just erupt and destroy itself? And we just need to be focused on remaining clear and getting as many people, I guess, metaphorically onto this arc as are available. If you are a part of this, we are building a new society. We are getting back to the ethics that truly are, you know, a part of nature and a part of our connection to it. And the rest of this, you know, is going to do what it's going to do and it will destroy itself?

That's not our job to destroy it. Definitely. You will see it. That's what will happen. It will, the large group, the masses, will exhaust themselves. They will destroy themselves. And we don't have to do that. At that level, we have to do nothing.

The only thing we have to make sure is that we ourselves stick to these principles. And the first of these principles is that we have to speak out. If we do that, we will constantly disturb the power of the masses, constantly break through the hypnosis a little bit, and it will never go so far that it chooses for the radical destruction of the people that go against it. And so what will happen is something very simple. The power of the masters slowly will decrease. The system will first become more repressive. It will excommunicate everyone who doesn't go along with it. That's how I feel it.

But at the same time, its power will decrease. the human energy will be destroyed in the group, the power will decrease and the small group at first sight will lose everything but its inner power will start to increase and at a certain moment the two lines will cross each other and the small group will become more powerful than the large group and it will be able to impose its principles, to provide the principles, to reorganize, to take the lead in society and restructure society and really, really humane society. The resurrection really through humanity.

Yeah, something new that is, yeah, indeed. Rises back up. Yeah. From the oppression. Powerful, powerful, fascinating. I know I hope people watching are going to have the conversations. I know I'm going to have at the dinner table, but Matthias just so, so happy that you were able to join us here. here and for those I know I'm going to just put this out there there's questions on how

you got here are you controlled opposition I hate to end this way but how did you get into this country did you get vaccinated no no no I told on my Facebook page that the gates to America were not so small that I had to leave my principles behind to go through it and I mean that I would never do that I would never do that all right well I'm not going to ask you There are other options. There's other options. And they are perfectly legal.

Okay. Yes. That's good to know. All right. Well, Matthias, thank you so much for your time and your thoughts. I enjoyed the conversation really. Me too. All right, folks, don't, don't miss out on this experience.

This is one, it is one of the most beautiful books I've read. As I've said, I think you can see by the conversation that is sparked in me from reading this book. You're going to talk about it. It's going to make you think about it. where we're at. These are the conversations that should be happening that need to be happening. So don't be afraid. Talk to everyone that you know. That's how we make a difference in the world.