Covid and mass formation psychosis – Best of 2022
There follows the first piece in a new series – “Best of 2022” – in which we share our favourite releases from the last 12 months (who’d have thunk it!). “Covid and mass formation psychosis” was an essay on the behaviour of crowds in the modern era by Alexander Adams – now Poetry Editor at The Bournbrook Press – released in three parts, starting on January 4th 2022.
Is it any wonder that Covidians feel part of a force that can (and has) swept away any doubt and opposition?
A recent episode of the Joe Rogan Experience podcast trended on the internet before being suppressed by social-media censors. It was an interview with Robert W Malone MD, which received tens of millions of listens within a few days. Malone (an American immunologist and virologist) spoke about the violation of ethics and legal precedent by US Federal authorities under the guise of anti-Covid measures. Malone explained that this was enabled by mass formation psychosis.
“Basically, [there was a] European intellectual inquiry into what the heck happened in Germany in the ‘20s and ‘30s – very intelligent, highly educated population and they went barking mad. The answer is mass formation psychosis.
“When you have a society that has been decoupled from each other and has free-floating anxiety, and a sense that things don’t make sense, we can’t understand it, and then their attention gets focussed by a leader or a series of events on one small point (just like hypnosis), they literally become hypnotised and can be led anywhere.
“And one of the aspects of that phenomenon, is that people that they identify as their leaders, the ones that typically that come in and say ‘You have this pain and I can solve it for you. I, and I alone, can fix this problem for you' – they will follow that person through hell. It doesn’t matter whether they lie to them or whatever.
“The data are irrelevant and furthermore anyone who questions that narrative is to be immediately attacked. They are the other.
“This is central to mass formation psychosis and this is what has happened. [sic]” (This part of the interview can be heard here, at 1:20:27.)
Mass formation psychosis was described by Sigmund Freud in 1921 in his study Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego.
He was responding to The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind (1895), in which French sociologist Gustave le Bon observed that:
“Organised crowds have always played an important part in the life of peoples, but this part has never been of such moment as at present. The substitution of the unconscious action of crowds for the conscious activity of individuals is one of the principal characteristics of the present age.” (The book is available to read here.)
Le Bon was writing in an age of mass media, when the common man in every part of the country read regional newspapers and had access to national and international news. He was susceptible to being swayed by politicians, public figures and leading thinkers, who disseminated ideas through books, pamphlets and periodicals.
Before the era of mass media – what le Bon calls “the era of crowds” – mass movements (beyond responses to the exigencies of war, famine, fire, invasion and natural disasters) were rare, local and arose from religious or tribal conflict.
Le Bon notes that three factors determine the nature of crowds: a sense of invincibility, contagion of ideas and actions, and suggestibility.
These qualities are largely out of the control of an individual who has been bonded in a crowd.
“He is no longer conscious of his acts. In his case, as in the case of the hypnotised subject, at the same time that certain faculties are destroyed, others may be brought to a high degree of exaltation. Under the influence of a suggestion, he will undertake the accomplishment of certain acts with irresistible impetuosity.”
This can only be attained through preparation that paves the way to mass action. This is done through the spread and normalisation of values, often quite contrary to the individual’s starting beliefs and even best interests.
“It is not only by his acts that the individual in a crowd differs essentially from himself. Even before he has entirely lost his independence, his ideas and feelings have undergone a transformation, and the transformation is so profound as to change the miser into a spendthrift, the sceptic into a believer, the honest man into a criminal, and the coward into a hero.”
Le Bon goes on to note how even many of the aristocrats of France were swept up in mass action during the revolution.
“The renunciation of all its privileges which the nobility voted in a moment of enthusiasm during the celebrated night of August 4, 1789, would certainly never have been consented to by any of its members taken singly.”
Now that crowds can be created, they can be used.
“Little adapted to reasoning, crowds, on the contrary, are quick to act. As the result of their present organisation their strength has become immense. The dogmas whose birth we are witnessing will soon have the force of the old dogmas; that is to say, the tyrannical and sovereign force of being above discussion. The divine right of the masses is about to replace the divine right of kings.”
It is not that the crowd commands but that it is commanded. The crowd is the hammer but the brain that directs the hammer is detached from the crowd.
These masses are directed by the elite – the politician, aristocrat, demagogue, cleric, general or captain of industry – who communicate wishes through the press, schools, universities, trade unions or churches. Sometimes the elite struggle to control momentum or finely direct action, for (as le Bon observes) “Crowds do not admit doubt or uncertainty, and always go to extremes”. They are also “irritable and impulsive”. (They are subject to their national characteristics. “Crowds are everywhere distinguished by feminine characteristics, but Latin crowds are the most feminine of all.”)
This sounds primitive but it is the basis of behavioural science, a branch of sociology that is founded on the principles of coercion and incentive operating upon large groups of people.
Sage, which has largely directed the British Government’s response to Covid, is composed of scientists including behavioural psychologists, health officials, managers, civil servants and other individuals who might be described as professional people controllers, in other words technocrats. One might describe armies as directed crowds, ones dedicated to the purpose of killing and prepared to suffer and die to effect the will of the crowd under the leadership of a single man.
Le Bon took an epochal view.
“Crowds are only powerful for destruction. Their rule is always tantamount to a barbarian phase. A civilisation involves fixed rules, discipline, a passing from the instinctive to the rational state, forethought for the future, an elevated degree of culture – all of them conditions that crowds, left to themselves, have invariably shown themselves incapable of realising. In consequence of the purely destructive nature of their power crowds act like those microbes which hasten the dissolution of enfeebled or dead bodies. When the structure of a civilisation is rotten, it is always the masses that bring about its downfall.”
Yet technocrats differ on this point, not seeing unthinking crowds as a sign of civilisational collapse but as a permanent feature of mass societies at all times. Although you will not have one that admits it publicly, technocrats see their role as directing the crowd’s destructive force for social good.
By using the crowd to exert public pressure, technocrats target opposition by making it more difficult to maintain and publicly express behaviour or values the elite hold as obstructive.
In the case of Covid, newspapers are forever reproducing data that suggests the public backs harsh measures on lockdown, mandated injections and elaborate bio-security measures – policies that the government has already lined up.
Indeed, the Government has already started to test, implement and budget for such measures before the opinion polls affirm public assent.
The cycle is this: elite technocrats sketch out the direction of travel through their NGOs and working groups; politicians (largely uninformed, unqualified, mired in daily business, engaged in internecine power struggles) are presented with guidance from technocrats through experts; civil servants refine, test, implement, cost and tender for measures; test programmes are implemented and contracts signed; legislation is drawn up; the press is primed through briefings and “leaks” to float think-pieces about such measures; selected favourable surveys are publicised; legislation is passed by an uncritical ignorant parliament (regardless of manifesto commitments); measures are imposed upon the population. Parliamentary democracy at its finest.
Confronted by demonstrations of public support for authoritarian measures (in a mass and social media that restricts dissent), the opposing minority are marginalised and demoralised.
This use of surveys is the origin of the “72 per cent” meme. Whenever a YouGov survey (of pre-vetted, self-selecting participants) reveals support for the Government measures, it comes out at 72 per cent - a figure that seems substantial while also being unverifiable as a measure of the true population-wide outlook.
Covidianism and the frightened crowd
In the first part we looked at how the psychology of crowds differs from that of individual persons. We saw that behavioural scientists are directed by politicians to control and direct crowds, in relation to Covid-instigated authoritarian power.
Both politicians and senior civil servants and scientists work below a supra-elite that is superior in power, reach and understanding to them.
Generally, the elected politician (a figure of uncertain position, little direct power and limited understanding) is interchangeable with any other politician, within his party or within in any other established party.
The nature of the elite class – and how power is apportioned between the supra-elite (NGOs, international organisations, billionaires, multi-national corporations, directors of social media firms) and the elite (top-level politicians, senior civil servants, owners of legacy media outlets) – is impossible to determine and is not relevant to this discussion.
In 1951, Eric Hoffer described how crowds are directed in mass movements. His book The True Believer (1951) is a classic study of how leaders use mass movements.
He opens his book thus:
“All mass movements generate in their adherents a readiness to die and a proclivity for united actions; all of them, irrespective of the doctrine they preach and the program they project, breed fanaticism, enthusiasm, fervent hope, hatred and intolerance, all of them are capable of releasing a powerful flow of activity in certain departments of life; all of the demand blind faith and singlehearted allegiance.” (Eric Hoffer, The True Believer, Harper Perennial, 2010 (1951), p. xi).
At first sight this seems to be describing the German Nazi movement, something that Hoffer does directly reference. However, Hoffer notes commonalities among modern mass movements, which generate fervour of a religious, political, ethnic and nationalistic type.
“There is a certain uniformity in all types of dedication, of faith, of pursuit of power, of unity and of self-sacrifice. There are vast differences in the contents of holy causes and doctrines, but a certain uniformity in the factors that make them effective.” (Op. cit., p. xii).
This is something worth considering when we assess Covidianism – the mass movement that supports (and enforces) overweening authoritarianism as a response to the purported threat of Covid; it is grounded on organised, government-led credentialism and scientism.
Hoffer writes: “When people are ripe for a mass movement, they are usually ripe for any effective movement, and not solely for one with a particular doctrine or program.” (Op. cit. p. 16). That seems to apply to the disaffected, over-educated masses, whose future looks insecure. They would just as soon turn to the violent anti-capitalism of Antifa, the looting and iconoclasm of Black Lives Matter or the self-regarding self-abnegation of eco-activist protest.
Covidianism is an adjunct to these movements of revolutionary vanity, but it is more popular and populist because it is the most socially acceptable movement, the one that seems solely benign.
(Hoffer: “[…] all mass movements are interchangeable. One mass movement readily transforms itself into another.” (Op. cit. p. 17). He later notes that mass movements are combinations of single-issue movements that swell and blend.)
Hoffer notes that what invigorates the individual is the sense he is part of a mass that is not just a numerical crowd but an irresistible force for change.
A Covidian sees the Government locking people in their homes, closing businesses, shutting airports and suspending the rules that apply to confidentiality and everyday life without concerted resistance. Is it any wonder that Covidians feel part of a force that can (and has) swept away any doubt and opposition?
The Covidians are bound together to “do their bit” by downloading apps which track their every movement, publicly discussing their medical status (even sporting badges), wearing masks as signs and volunteering to not just assist but spread a message of fear and wariness.
“The vanity of the selfless,” writes Hoffer, “even those who practice utmost humility, is boundless.” (Op. cit. p. 15).
The organised demonstration of gratitude to the NHS – the weekly public applause – was a demonstration of their loyalty and a means of identifying dissenters. When we consider these elements, we can see how comforting being part of this mass movement is and how intimidating it is to speak out.
Every movement also needs to identify and punish the out-group, carefully selected, readily identifiable and lacking strength.
The Covidian movement has not yet inspired murder but its leading public figures denounce opponents in hateful terms as spreaders of disease and wilful misinformation. They should lose jobs and housing, custody of children, even be forced into camps.
In the American public mind, dissenters are allied to shadowy forces of insurrection and race hatred. They are cranks, conspiracy theorists and heedless contrarians who can be dismissed without thought. They are opponents of common sense, the community, compassion and Science. They make people sick through deliberate selfishness.
Covidianism has many of the trappings of both a mass movement and a religion.
The sacrament is the mRNA treatment (sometimes administered in church halls and even cathedrals); the holy symbol and sign of allegiance is the mask (which also serves as a persistent reminder and sign of subjugation); the high clerics are public-health ministers and chosen scientists; it has its foundation mythos and its nominated opponents.
Doctrine changes come without explanation or data and are followed by the credulous masses, made pliant through fear propaganda.
Although I would not want to draw too much from The True Believer, it does contain insights into the psychology of mass movements, of which Covidianism is one. In the final part we shall look at ways of resisting this movement.
Deprogramming Covidian mass psychosis
In the previous parts of this argument we saw the way crowds differ from individuals and can be manipulated. We saw the way Covidianism conforms to some characteristics of a mass movement noted by Eric Hoffer, which he identified in 1951.
In this final part, we will look at some practical steps to help detach others from the mass psychosis propagated by authorities and mass media.
“Detach others”? Why not detach me, your reader?
If you have read the previous two parts and found anything much in them that rings true, you are already detached from mass psychosis. Even if you have doubts about the full dissident position – that is, actively resisting, disrupting, sabotaging, defying the common narrative, showing no fear, refusing to admit the moral stances of the elite, refusing to submit to the will of the masses, recognising the agents of manipulation when you encounter them – you will never honestly return to wholly believing the BBC, newspapers, government press briefings and NHS-funded advertisements of dying people in hospital beds. The task is therefore to detach others from mass psychosis.
The hold of mass psychosis on individuals in a crowd is not through logic or private incentives but through an emotional narrative. Therefore, it is through undermining that unifying narrative in the eyes of an individual that one loosens the bond between individual and group. It can be done through mockery or by persuading an individual to consume less (or no) mass-media messaging.
The less propaganda is consumed, the easier one builds distinct communities and follows personal goals.
The values of the crowd are often barbaric and contrary to those of individuals who join it; by encouraging the individual to return to acting as a moral agent, the individual will come to distinguish himself from the mass.
However hackneyed and largely unexamined an individual’s personal ethics, they are at least different from those of the masses. Differentiation is done by making the individual aware of conflict between his/her morality and what the mass believes.
It is possible to point out exceptions, especially relating to close relatives or friends or even inconsistencies in his/her own actions.
Here are some angles of persuasion that will help deprogramme the Covidian. Often, success rests on reminding people of their core values. Those mantras held up to March 2020 may have been unexamined and faulty but they were not worthless and their old shapes remain in the psyches of those currently under the sway of mass psychosis. Appeal to a person’s core values rather than presenting statistics, unless statistics are used to back up a moral argument.
Hypocrisy: This aspect is under the heading of hypocrisy although that is not strictly correct. I wrote in a previous article that there is no hypocrisy when the elites are not expected to have the same norms of the non-elite. However, in broad manner, you can speak to acquaintances about the hypocrisy of the elites breaking lockdown guidance, partying and removing masks when the non-elite were observing these rules. Speak about the common topics of politicians and scientists breaking rules they imposed on others. This was unfair but it also displayed that they did not fear catching Covid or at least they did not fear the impact Covid could have upon them and their families.
Injustice: Speak about the injustice of dying men and women deprived of contact with loved ones in their final hours. Speak of children separated from peers and friends, taken from school, driven to depression, self-harm and suicide by guidelines that protected no-one. Note the cruelty of forcing children and the disabled to wear masks against their will and understanding (and yes, they have been forced to do so by overzealous parents and carers). Point out the inhumanity of preventing a man from comforting his mother at a funeral. When you raise these matters of common compassion and decency, with examples, and point out that none of the authoritarian measures are proven to prevent transmission, you will force them to examine their values.
Cost/harm: The huge burden of the debt imposed upon future generations will distort lives for decades to come. Point out the massive waste of the cost of the Nightingale hospitals. Doesn’t that suggest a wild overreaction to a low-mortality virus? Doesn’t that suggest a lack of proportion? At the very least, the obvious suffering caused by health services becoming Covid-only systems and thereby failing to treat serious degenerative conditions is (at least now) an injustice to even those who previously thought Covid was a major threat.
Lies: The mass media has presented everything served up to it by officials, uncritically and compliantly. Suggest to the Covidian that government money has defanged journalists and prevented the public from hearing dissent and allowing it to make up its own mind. On statistics, mention that the difference between dying with Covid and dying of Covid is vital but often misleadingly presented. Even Covidians will admit the media has not been entirely clear about these figures. If you can also persuade the Covidian that governments have a vested interest in exaggerating figures in order to maintain their extraordinary powers, you can sow a seed of doubt.
Corruption: The charges of corruption are ones that everyone can understand. The links between officials/politicians and the mass media and big pharmaceutical companies are comprehensible as financial connections, social solidarity and upholding the elite’s common sense of entitlement. These self-serving and secret connections seem patently immoral.
Jabs: You might appeal to the former standard of people giving informed consent and withholding consent. Why should this standard be erased for a virus that is now (in its most widespread variant) hardly worse than a heavy cold for most people? Does this seem an unwise precedent to set? What happens if this situation is used again by the authorities to control our lives? Remind them of how those suggesting mandatory jabs and “vaccine passports” were dismissed by authorities and mass media before being proved correct. Also mention that these virtuous “vaxxed” face the prospect of slipping into the category of the shunned “unvaccinated” by simply missing their next booster appointment. Are they ready to jump through the hoop of the booster every six or four months for the rest of their lives?
Many of you – especially dissenters – will object that these points are banal and do not address the core issues of authority, morality, credentialism, the nexus of control or the identity and nature of the elite and supra-elite. Absolutely correct. The deprogramming arguments are facile, trite, clumsy and not hard to counter.
However, and this is the essential point, the mass is directed by simple emotional narratives which can be undercut by simple emotional counter-narratives.
In your persuasion, you never once have to mention ‘the Great Reset’, the World Economic Forum or any specific connections or anything that could be dismissed as “conspiracy theory”. If you can get an individual to see how Covidianism serves the authoritarian ends of these aligned elites, you can suggest why authorities might be keen to overreact.
Talk in terms of common sense, appeal to logic and moderation, stick to the morality of fairness, decency, privacy and so on. If you appeal to people on the basis of shared values, not through outright opposition but by sowing seeds of doubt, you can prick their consciences about the impact of lockdown to win ground.
Better still, set an example by being reasonable not confrontational, acting with kindness and politeness, and never wearing a mask or paying attention to social guidance.
Follow the line that (a) jabs should be a matter of conscience and personal health, (b) that you cannot be held responsible for the health of others, (c) no person should be coerced by family or employer to be jabbed and that (d) jabs are a private issue.
My personal view is that the best approach is not talking about jabs and infertility, microchips or such like, whatever you believe. Simply say the jab does not seem fully effective and that the virus is not worth the potential cost of jabs. Say that lockdowns do not work. Say that it is no business of the state to know where you are, who you are with or how you handle family matters. Deny the authority of the narrative; reassert the old values. State that you see no reason to be alarmed and that you will continue to act normally.
Ultimately, more than your words, it is your conduct – and especially your evident happiness and confidence – that is the greatest incentive to encourage the fearful to leave the paranoid craven mass psychosis of Covidianism.
