The Psychology of Totalitarianism
Mattias Desmet
Chelsea Green Publishing
White River Junction, Vermont, USA 2022, 231 pages
https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/the-psychology-of-totalitarianism/
(also available on Amazon)

Introduction

The Psychology of Totalitarianism is a new book by Mattias Desmet, a professor of clinical psychology at Ghent University in Belgium, outlining his theory of “mass formation” especially with respect to the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. His theory of “mass formation” was popularized by Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor or one of the inventors of the mRNA vaccine technology, during Malone’s Joe Rogan interview on the COVID pandemic and the COVID vaccines, using the name “mass formation psychosis” which Desmet does not use. Desmet has appeared on several podcasts touting his ideas since then, with several recent appearances to promote the book.

Briefly, I found the case for Desmet’s theory of mass formation with respect to the COVID response unconvincing, although I believe some of the factors such as widespread loneliness and social isolation that he discusses are contributing factors. Some sections of the book are quite interesting and insightful but for other reasons.

Rather, the “groupthink” and grossly irrational behavior during the COVID pandemic can be attributed to a “collective fight or flight response” not specific to totalitarianism, long predating the modern era, and common during wars and war-like episodes such as the aftermath of the September 11 attacks in the United States, World War I and World War II. This collective fight or flight response has been aggravated by pandemic profiteers such as Pfizer and Bill Gates much the same way that “Merchants of Death” selling weapons have aggravated the fight or flight response both before and during wars.

Mass formation is a theory to explain extreme instances of “mass hysteria” or “groupthink” including such episodes as the bloody purges in Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany. The term and various mass formation theories predates Desmet who has his own variant of the theory which is elaborated in detail in the book. He cites such scholars as Gustave Le Bon and Hannah Arendt.

The book is well written, translated into easily readable English by Els Vanbrabant. A few sections are a bit dry and academic, but overall the English version is clear and interesting with no hint that it is translated other than the frequent references to Belgium and Belgians. It includes an index and references, although a number of critical statements lack footnotes.

The book is clearly marketed toward skeptics of the official COVID narrative or those with significant doubts — hopefully a large and growing group given the evident massive failures of the COVID vaccines since the summer of 2021. Others may be unable to see the case for widespread mass hysteria, groupthink, or other irrationality in the COVID response. The book cover and first pages feature numerous laudatory quotes from Robert Malone MD, Peter McCullough MD, and other prominent critics of the official narrative, policies, and generally the COVID vaccines. These one sided endorsements are likely to limit the reach of the book.

Desmet’s mass formation theory in the book is really two theories that he links together in a whole. The second theory is the mass formation theory that Desmet and Malone have discussed on several occasions. Namely, a general environment of loneliness, social isolation, lack of meaning, and “free floating anxiety” leads to a situation where a large fraction of the population (about thirty percent) fanatically embraces a simplistic, often rapidly changing narrative that provides a powerful sense of both meaning and solidarity with other people, substituting the greater good of the collective for normal social and moral relations. This mass formation is a form of collective hypnosis involving a narrow focus on a single simple goal such as “zero COVID” at any cost, including self-destructive measures and monstrous acts that would normally be rejected as immoral.

A Critique of Scientific “Rationalism”

In the book, Desmet attributes this environment of loneliness, social isolation, lack of meaning, and the associated free floating anxiety to the flaws and limitations of the modern Enlightenment rational materialistic mechanical worldview beloved of many scientists, engineers, and other intellectuals including himself until age thirty-five. Note that the social isolation and associated problems could have another cause than the rational scientific worldview but give rise to the mass formation. Desmet is specific in blaming the “rational” worldview however for the preexisting conditions that make possible the mass formation.

Desmet’s critique of the “rationalist” worldview, perhaps better called “scientism,” is extensive with many good points and insightful discussions of flaws in mainstream science and statistics, making up most of the book, nearly all of the first and third parts. The mass formation theory that many readers may have encountered on podcasts before the book’s recent publication makes up part two which is only about three chapters, sixty pages.

For me Desmet’s extensive criticism of the scientific rationalist materialistic worldview as he calls it was the most interesting part of the book, even though I disagree with his overall thesis. I found his discussion of the practical problems with statistics and graphical data presentation, focusing on the dismal and misleading use of statistics during the COVID pandemic, particularly interesting and insightful.

That said, Desmet’s discussion of quantum mechanics in modern physics is incorrect. The mainstream Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics does not give consciousness any special role in the measurement or observation in quantum mechanics. Some physicists have theorized consciousness in some way is the “measurement” or “observation” that collapses the quantum wave function in the mainstream Copenhagen theory. This is a fringe view.

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is almost certainly “incomplete” and logically flawed as Einstein argued in his 1935 paper with Podolsky and Rosen. The problem is the lack of a clear consistent definition of “measurement” or “observation” in the mainstream theory. Incompleteness does not however mean that consciousness plays a central role in quantum mechanics as Desmet claims in several places. Most non-Copenhagen theories to resolve the incompleteness — for example the many worlds theory of QM — do not use consciousness to resolve the logical flaws in the Copenhagen Quantum Mechanics illustrated by Schrodinger’s Cat and other paradoxes.

David Bohm’s pilot wave theory — derived from the earlier pilot wave ideas of his mentor Einstein as well as deBroglie and Schrodinger — actually removes the need to invoke either a wave function collapse or consciousness by interpreting the quantum system as a pilot wave and a discrete particle somewhat like radar controlled drone guided by a radar signal bouncing and diffracting through a mountain range. The drone always has a specific location and velocity whereas the radar beam is spread out over the landscape, interfering with itself and causing confusing wavelike behavior in the trajectory of the drone.

Although Bohm linked his ideas to mysticism with the pilot wave or “quantum potential” analogized to the World Spirit (Anima Mundi) of western mysticism or the chi of eastern mysticism, the pilot wave theory is entirely mechanistic.

Desmet’s discussion of the supposed scientific revolution during the 17th century, illustrated with the usual stories about Galileo, is what most scientists and intellectuals in the modern world are taught. Yet it is grossly contradicted by the actual historical record which shows a seamless evolution from religion and mysticism, most clearly with the work of Johannes Kepler and Tycho Brahe, both mystics, alchemists, astrologers, and deeply religious men who envisioned God as mathematician dictating mathematical laws obeyed by subsidiary spirits or angels embodied in the Sun and planets.

This notion of a predictable, mathematical universe created by a God or gods is very old, dating back to Pythagoras in ancient Greek and very likely Pythagoras’s teachers in Egypt and Babylonia (modern Iraq). A benevolent God would hardly be the capricious, inscrutable nut case pictured by Carl Sagan and other atheist science popularizers in recent decades, instead providing rational laws of nature for His human creations.

The common textbook notion of a scientific revolution in the 17th century rejecting medieval religion and superstition, epitomized by Galileo and his clash with the Catholic Church, appears to be a projection of atheistic, materialistic views that became dominant in organized, professionalized science during the 19th century and early 20th century.

The Collective Fight or Flight Response

The fight or flight response is a powerful reaction to an immediate perceived threat such as a tiger or other large predator, a car accident, a human antagonist such as a mugger, or other physical dangers. It involves a narrowing of focus to the immediate threat, short term thinking, a strong physical response mediated by adrenaline and other hormones.

An extreme fight or flight response can include loss of pain sensations, the ability to fight and kill with severe, normally disabling or fatal injuries, and other dramatic changes. Many higher cognitive functions are lowered or turned off to handle the immediate threat. Some short term thinking skills and reflexes may be enhanced instead. The immune system is reduced or turned off to focus all energies on the immediate threat.

Human beings and other herd animals also have a collective fight or flight response most evident during wars or public emergencies. Obedience to authority increases. Conformity increases. People and groups that are perceived as different are frequently attacked, isolated (e.g. confinement of American Indians to reservations, internment of Japanese Americans in WW2), driven out (e.g. enslavement and expulsion of most Wampanoag from the Massachusetts colony after King Philips War in 1675) or killed (e.g. massacre of settlers by the Dakota Sioux in Minnesota in 1862). The collective focus narrows to the immediate survival threat. Group members will display flags or other signs to indicate membership in the group (e.g. wearing masks during the COVID pandemic, displaying vaccine cards and certificates) and make differentiating the group from the attackers easier.

These are instinctive, primal responses probably adapted to repelling an attack by a rival tribe or clan in ancient times. As in the individual fight or flight response, higher cognitive function is curtailed or turned off. If your village is being attacked by the tribe across the river, it is not the time for nuanced thought. Language such as “you are either with us or against us” surfaces. The tribe coalesces into a single military unit and fights as one.

The collective fight or flight response does not require preexisting loneliness, social isolation, discontent, a lack of meaning or any negative conditions at all. It simply requires a perceived physical threat to the group.

This is the “mass formation” behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pandemics, even if due to the deliberate release of a biological weapon, are not attacks by a rival tribe in 10,000 BC. The collective fight or flight response can be disastrous in a non-military public emergency, real or imagined.

War profiteers learned a long time ago to provoke and exploit the collective fight or flight response to create and prolong wars, boosting profits often with disastrous consequences for most people. Pandemic profiteers such as Pfizer and Bill Gates can do the same.

Conclusion

The Psychology of Totalitarianism is well worth reading, both because of Desmet’s insights on scientific rationalism and because it will undoubtedly influence the debate and conflict over the COVID pandemic, vaccines, and policies. However, those skeptical of the rapidly changing COVID narrative or major parts of the narrative should not embrace Desmet’s mass formation hypothesis. While it is likely widespread loneliness and lack of meaning has contributed to the overreaction, the main cause is probably the primal collective fight or flight response stoked by a continuing barrage of fear porn from the advertising funded mass media.

Psychoanalyzing people to their face is rarely persuasive. Most people find this condescending and offensive. Desmet eschews the phrase “mass formation psychosis” with good reason and COVID skeptics should particularly avoid telling other people that they are psychotic.

(C) 2022 by John F. McGowan, Ph.D.

About Me

John F. McGowan, Ph.D. solves problems using mathematics and mathematical software, including developing gesture recognition for touch devices, video compression and speech recognition technologies. He has extensive experience developing software in C, C++, MATLAB, Python, Visual Basic and many other programming languages. He has been a Visiting Scholar at HP Labs developing computer vision algorithms and software for mobile devices. He has worked as a contractor at NASA Ames Research Center involved in the research and development of image and video processing algorithms and technology. He has published articles on the origin and evolution of life, the exploration of Mars (anticipating the discovery of methane on Mars), and cheap access to space. He has a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a B.S. in physics from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech).