The truth will set you free
My thoughts on why some people didn't get sucked into the mass formation
I was inspired to write this when I read Gerry O’Neill’s latest substack. He wrote about his thoughts in response to an interview of Mattias Desmet by John Waters. I have not seen that particular interview, but I know Desmet’s work well, as he is the one that popularised the phrase ‘Mass Formation’ which was then turned into ‘Mass Formation Psychosis’ by Robert Malone. (Click here if you would like to see Discussion on Mass Formation with Dr. Robert Malone, Prof. Mattias Desmet & Dr. Peter McCullough which I saw five months ago, I recommend it.)
If you have time, do give his substack a read. (After you finish reading mine of course!)
Gerry recognised that:
Mattias Desmet identified two phenomena that remain largely unexplained in mass formation. The first is that highly intelligent people are surprisingly susceptible to falling beneath its spell. Another way of phrasing that, might be to say, that above average intellects have an above average chance of succumbing to its questionable charms.
The second “ I don’t know “ moment of this interview was centred around a repeating anomaly identified in every different historical wave of mass formation psychosis. Namely, that mass formation theories, as they have evolved, have never satisfactorily explained why there’s always been a small group of people highly unsusceptible to its adaption into their being. Discovering commonalities or generalities amongst that group has not been easy. Or maybe the more accurate way of looking at it, might be to say, that sufficient study hasn’t been vigorously enough explored in this arena
I feel that I have an answer to this. I actually wrote to Dr Desmet with my reasoning after watching the YouTube video but he did not respond. Heck, it was worth a shot! I’ll write about it here instead as I feel it is important to speak about it, and I look forward to your thoughts in the comments, because I’m open to listening, and to discussion. More importantly, I’m open to changing my mind, and, admitting when I get something wrong, which is a rare quality in the world right now, from what I can see.
Rare qualities. See - that’s what these people have, these few courageous people who are not afraid to face the truth, and give it the value and importance that it deserves. For the truth is bigger than you or me, and that must be acknowledged. Most people don’t want to acknowledge this, and they do not want to put themselves in the firing line. But I believe that being lazy and staying in your comfort zone has a price.
Acknowledging the truth is not comfortable.
I always thought admitting that you didn’t know a thing was honest, authentic and real. I was pulled up for it in a teaching job once, they wanted me to make up an arbitrary answer for my clients, rather than tell them that I didn’t know a thing. I couldn’t do it, it went against every fibre in my body. So, I didn’t do it; instead, I simply neglected to tell my manager that I continued to say ‘I don’t know’. What I did do, however, was also say, ‘but I’ll do some research, find out the answer and let you know.’ All of my clients received this with gratitude. They preferred not to be lied to, just as I preferred not to lie. It was more respectful, both to me and to my clients, and it brought us into the realms of having a truthful adult relationship. But to do this, I had to break the rules. So I took the risk because I chose to do what was right. I believe this is a characteristic of the courageous few.
Living an authentic and truthful life is a choice. If you value truth, then living truthfully sets the tone for everything else in your life. You can’t half-do it. It has to be all-in, or it doesn’t count. Well, it does for me. The thing is - authenticity, integrity and congruence, which are integral to living a truthful life, are values that are not revered by society. These are things we are not taught in school - I never hear the word congruence until I studied how to become a psychotherapist. The phrase ‘as above, so below’ means being congruent. And a lack of congruence is the main impediment to manifesting with the Law of Attraction. Of course the mainstream, woo-woo, New Age, instant gratification manifestation classes happen to leave this part out. Because, well, it would change their whole movement, wouldn’t it? I’ll write more about this another day, perhaps.
Living a virtuous life is different to virtue-signalling to show the world what an amazingly good person you are. If you are a genuinely good person, you know that you are, and you don’t need to do that. Isn’t it interesting how the un-virtuous must constantly signal their compliance to the rules?
We live in a world that doesn’t want us to be courageous, authentic, truthful, and have integrity. They want us to be lazy, and to tell lies. Look around you - it’s all about the few pints at the weekend, the two-week holiday once a year, the free donuts. Many movies and television shows are based on the premise that telling lies and being lazy is acceptable. But it really isn’t. Not by my standards.
The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.
Those of us brave enough to place truth above ego, truth above pride, truth above money; those of us who are open to listening, to gathering new information, and to changing our minds, those of us who are willing to break the rules and take the risk in order to keep our conscience clean and clear, that’s what sets us apart. We are a rare few indeed.
The love of truth is a transcendent love.
I had to leave this here. The love of truth is akin to a love of God. Because God is truth. The love of God is akin to the love of beauty, because beauty is truth. And the love of truth, maps to the love of love. Because God is love. It’s where we need to be going.
Keats said it:
Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know
Prince said it:
Love is God, God is love
Girls and boys love God above
( His song, Anna Stesia takes on a completely new meaning when you realise that Anna Stesia actually means anesthesia - you can look up the complete lyrics here)
What do you think? Have I left something out? I look forward to the discussion below.
Good day Abby,
DuAnne Redus and Lulu share very insightful wisdom. There is another aspect to the outlier at least in me and fortunately my wife. We don't trust our senses. Just as DuAnne and Lulu have share being strangers in society and also finding out that what society teaches is upside down. Our senses cannot be trusted.
Example: I worked in the woods, brush and grasslands most of my life. Rattlesnakes are common. My dad had no use for them. I asked myself why would a rattle snake bite me?
Well if I step on it, it would bite. I don't think anyone likes being stepped on. Also it is reflexive. If something pricks us or hurts in some way, we try reflexively to free ourselves. So that seemed a good excuse for the snake to bite me.
But I just couldn't believe that the rattlesnake had an instinctual wish to bite humans. They can't eat us etc. So I never killed them. I have never been bitten. I have been more than close enough to be bitten but they stayed coiled.
So I am by nature skeptical and I try my best to understand the other side. I am not always successful at understanding. But that is my short coming.
Why would a virus harm anyone? We drive or ride in cars everyday and at anytime we are riding/driving a car we can be severely injured or killed. No one worries about that. We have air, water, food and soil pollution, no one worries about that. Why this virus?
When I look at all the death and destruction that we actually can do collectively something about and don't, why do we freak out about this virus? Cancer and heart disease, all the autoimmune disease and on and on. Why are we freaked out about this virus?
For me it doesn't make sense. Dr. Lynn Margulis an amazing microbiologist (deceased) said if the micro biome and virome didn't want us here we wouldn't be here. They can easily dismantle us. And virus are not alive. Now days folks on the attack talk about them as intelligent enemies.
So the questions remain and the whole SarsCov2 or MonkeyPox drama reeks. Therefore we remain outliers.
Good day Abby and all,
I am a bit older and my education may have included this idea. With that in mind...
congruence - is a term in geometry
Like you said about as above so below. Two triangles are congruent (symbol for congruence ≅ ) if their angles and sides are exactly the same.
If you are a genuinely good person, you know that you are, and you don’t need to do that.
While I understand what you mean, the above statement is - very subjective. In the book called the Greek Buddha which is about Pyrrho's thought there is this statement:
...saying about every single pragmata
that it no more is than, it is not
or it both is and is not,
or it neither is nor is not. 
This is what it means to me. An area of land common to both neighbors is sprayed by an herbicide by neighbor A. Neighbor B is not happy about this as some small amount of his soil is affected by the herbicide.
Their shared culture the general consensuses is that herbicides are OK which is the view of A. But there are those who have be come aware of the side effect of herbicides and there drawbacks this is the view of B. Who is right?
How we apply the above three conditions. A sees it as good and B as bad.
For A then the pesticide is Good. However the follow "it" = pesticide:
it no more is than, it is not
For A it is but in Bs mind it is not
or it both is and is not,
At the same time in A and B - it both is and is not
or it neither is nor is not.
Ultimately the pesticide all by itself "is nor is not" good or bad. It is the view of a mind that determines that.
The last may seem untenable. But in the universe things come into being and then disperse via causes and conditions (i have a small understanding of buddhism). They are neither good nor bad.
Then Timon quotes Pyrrho’s own revelation of the three negative characteristics of all pragmata ‘matters, affairs, questions, topics’. The ethical meaning of the word pragmata is absolutely clear because other testimonies show that it meant for Pyrrho exclusively ethical ‘matters, affairs, topics’. Accordingly, the word will be so translated below, or given in Greek as pragmata (singular pragma), following these prefatory remarks, Timon says, “Pyrrho himself declares that”
As for pragmata ‘matters, questions, topics’, they are all adiaphora ‘undifferentiated by a logical differentia’ and astathmēta ‘unstable, unbalanced, not measurable’ and anepikrita ‘unjudged, unfixed, undecidable’. Therefore, neither our sense- perceptions nor our ‘views, theories, beliefs’ (doxai) tell us the truth or lie [about pragmata]; so we certainly should not rely on them [to do it]. Rather, we should be adoxastous ‘without views’, aklineis ‘uninclined [toward this side or that]’, and akradantous ‘unwavering [in our refusal to choose]’, saying about every single one that it;
no more is than it is not
it both is and is not
it neither is nor is not.
seeing oneself as good is a judgement or pramata. There is ethics. As we know ethic in some societies (ours) is very slippery. In Tibetan or Mahayana Buddhism ethics have been determined by the value they provide in stabilizing the mind and emotions thus enabling one to engage and realize the path to enlightenment.
I was out of my depths after congruence. Still the above may help in considering the status of our value judgments.