The Psychology of Totalitarianism: Robin Monotti & Dr Mike Yeadon

In this talk I address the critiques that Mattias Desmet’s book “The Psychology of Totalitarianism” has received and explain why while those who made those critiques have valid concerns, they may have also misunderstood the fundamental aim of Desmet’s book.

Dr Mike Yeadon responded to my video above, and I decided to republish his response below, as I believe his observations on the limits of the scientific method when applied to biological organisms are very relevant.

Robin,

I listened to your assessment and interpretation of some important themes that sit behind “The Psychology of Totalitarianism” with growing excitement and agreement.

Just this morning I was thinking that I’ve nothing further to add to what I’ve already said about the technical aspects of the deception and mistreatment of people. 

Yet the problem of the relentless advance of the perpetrators control agenda is not stopped, deflected or even much slowed. “Waking people up” has never been what I’ve been about. It didn’t take long to realise that those people who I describe as “adherent to the narrative” simply cannot be wrenched to a new understanding, no matter how eloquent or even correct one might be.

Voluntarism (if that’s a word) is absolutely key. My service has been to two constituencies, both receptive to developing an understanding or refining & integrating an understanding, based on the premise that we’re not only not being told the truth, but that we’re being lied to for some malign purpose.

In that, I do think I’ve been useful.

It may interest you to know that, without even being aware of the distinction between the scientific method and other, more personal & subjective, but no less valid, ways of examining the world, I’ve never believed that science alone is capable of yielding The Truth.

Far from it. I’ve retained enough humility to recognize & accept that there are distinct limitations to the scientific method. These limitations are so severe that the method, at best, offers an estimate of just one view of The Truth.

It’s not only that there are uncertainties about quantities and relationships of variables utilised in the scientific method, which there are. 

These are very real and do matter, because even if a person, for any reason, decides to lean upon it to approximate some Truth, a humble scholar knows the outcome is usually an estimate, with variation, the degree of which is not always known. So if the answer is X, it’s always +/- Y. The true value of X can never be nailed down. Even the range of permissible values for X are defined only by reference to probability theory. This is the simplest kind of truths, yet look how squishy and insubstantial it quickly becomes.

The key to appreciating the limitations of the post-Enlightenment scientific method is accepting the necessity of adopting various assumptions from the get-go.

Ones that’s realised, that there is framing necessarily going on & therefore “the answer” will imperfectly describe reality, beyond the technical matter of uncertainty, can a scientist truly recognize that their art is only by unusual exception capable of yielding a good approximation of The Truth. 

Convoluted language and tiredness isn’t helping me here! Suffice to say I’m not the instrumentalist that it suits me often enough to allow others to label me as. 

The scientific method has greater or lesser utility depending on the nature of the situation being examined. I am guessing that predicting planetary movements, for example, lies at one end of the range of near certainty. There aren’t many assumptions required to be adopted before you can start.

My field, biology, and it’s very many subdivisions, is well over to the other end of the scales. 

Why is this? It’s for several reasons but foremost I think are these two factors:

1. There is so much integration of everything, to some extent, that it’s pretty much impossible to study at all unless you first accept that it must be studied in isolation. Now it’s removed from its context. An assumption which is impossible to check is that the behaviour of the isolated pieces would be essentially the same when reintegrated into the whole, which I’ve always viewed as an UNlikelihood!

2. Clever & studious we might be as a species but we don’t know & we NEVER can know what we don’t know. Our mental and practical model of the integrated thing we’re attempting to understand is limited by our inevitably incomplete stock-taking of the ingredients, imperfect knowledge of the forces acting upon the isolated elements and much more.

In other words most things biological are, unless contrived to artificial simplicity, so complicated that only a fool or an arrogant person could believe that application of the scientific method to it can yield The Truth.

It may seem odd that a scientist would be at pains to explain how biology, necessarily of organisms, is incapable of delivering The Truth. I don’t think it’s odd. I’ve always known this about biology. It’s the reason why I was drawn to it in the first place & not physics or chemistry. The scope for playful consideration of ideas, concepts and theories makes it very special to me.

Consider the branch known as “medicinal chemistry”. I doubt a new kind of fundamental reaction had been described in years. Everything has a characteristic signature in each of a dozen analytical techniques.

Despite that, it’s still not possible to cut out the empirical cycle of design, first synthesis and testing of each structure. Patent applications usually require a court to adjudicate disputes over inventiveness and even novelty. 

If a limited subset of the wider discipline called Chemistry is this resistant to predictions, it’s easier to appreciate how wonderfully messy and inexact is biology.

I believe it has long suited certain kinds of people, from which the perpetrators were largely drawn, to give the impression that the scientific method, done properly, yields neat, correct Truths, so that you may not stand against it. If you do, you must be some kind of primitive person, unable to “follow the science” !

I don’t think I’ve ever asked you about spiritual aspects of matters of faith. I have come to the very unscientific conclusion that we are engaged in a genuine, all-out battle for the soul of humanity, a biblical style Good v Evil struggle, which we cannot afford to lose.

Best wishes 

Mike

Dr Mike Yeadon, PhD

Read more:

The Psychology of Totalitarianism by Mattias Desmet

_______________________________

The Time for Silence is Over

A unified pushback against the globalist agenda

It’s finally here, the Global Walkout begins September 4th at 8pm London time and continue every weeks. Next step may 7th.

One step at a time, hand in hand, we are walking out from the globalist society they are trying to enslave us into

ANYONE can participate
ANYWHERE in the world

JOIN or read about it here – https://globalwalkout.com

https://www.reignitefreedom.com/

The third step is to unsubscribe from all mainstream media outlets. Delete the apps from your phone, laptop, and tablet and unfollow all of their social media and YouTube channels. Try to avoid mainstream media for at least one week, even if the headline is intriguing.

In the same time why not removing all the big tech tracking/spying/social credit system around you: (Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Tik Tok, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Whatsapp, Zoom, Linkedln, Snapchat, Tumblr, Pinterest, Reddit, Myspace, etc.)

The fourth step of the global walkout is to move as many accounts as you can to a union or local bank.

If you like our work please consider to donate :

_______________________________

If you are looking for solutions (lawyer, form, gathering, action, antidote, treatments, maybe this could help you:
HERE

If you want to fight back better:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/child-health-topics/health-freedom/defender-days-sticker-gallery/

Find the others: www.freedomcells.org

www.thegreaterreset.org

Spike Protein Protocol 

Glutathione (most important for body detoxification) or better
NAC = N-Acetyl-Cysteine 600-750mg (causes the body to produce glutathione itself)
Zinc
Astaxantin 5mg (also improves vision)
Quercetin
vitamin D3
Milk thistle (also liver and stomach protection)
Melatonin 1mg to 10mg (against 5G)
Alternatively CDS/CDL and zeolite

Dr. Zelenko’s Protocol contains Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), Zinc, Vitamin D3, and Quercetin.

https://rightsfreedoms.wordpress.com/2021/09/13/summary-of-the-spike-protein-protocol-protection-against-spike-protein-and-vaccine-shedding-contagion-from-vaccinated-persons/

How to find the truth :

Search engine: https://presearch.org/, https://search.brave.com/, Searx (choose the server that you want) or https://metager.org/
Videos: www.odysee.com
www.bitchute.com
www.brandnewtube.com

Facebook style: www.gab.com or https://www.minds.com/

INTELLIGENCE ISN’T KNOWING EVERYTHING, IT’S THE ABILITY TO CHALLENGE EVERYTHING YOU KNOW

Source

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: Premium WordPress Themes | Thanks to Themes Gallery, Bromoney and Wordpress Themes