Critically Thinking about Mass Formation Psychosis

What the Dr. Malone vs Breggins et al lawsuit is apparently all about

There is a lot to unpack here, so be patient and understanding as I try to convey this rather complex matter with a condensed, reasonable, and understandable explanation.

In late October, Dr. Robert Malone sued the Breggins, et al for $25+ million. I know both parties to varying degrees. Both have been involved with the COVID-19 issue, and apparently are on the same side: skeptical of unscientific COVID policies.

So what’s the problem? This is my simplified 2¢…

PART ONE: As a leading figure in this effort, Dr. Malone (like many others) was puzzled about how unscientific nonsense (e.g., masks for school children) could: 1) have come about, and 2) be supported and complied with by so many citizens.

There are many possible rationales of these, ranging from this all being part of the “great reset,” to citizens being technically ignorant. Briefly, Dr. Malone concluded that a reasonable explanation is Mass Psychosis. To a lay person, this phrase may be simplified as: group think, crowd madness, mass hypnotism, crowd contagion, etc., etc. (Interestingly, there are literally many hypotheses about group behavior.) Here is a short video of one of many talks by Dr. Malone about his opinions in this regard.

IMO, put another way, I would say that the Mass Psychosis idea is a Bottom-Up perspective. In other words, this hypothesis says that we citizens have the power, so if policies or our leaders are bad, it is because we have enabled and allowed them to be.

{Note 1: Mass Psychosis involves the opposite of Critical Thinking, the topic of this Substack.}

{Note 2: there are some fascinating connections with NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming).}

A recent example of Mass Psychosis may be the US 2022 elections. Despite historic problems (inflation, etc.) of almost biblical proportions, the public by-and-large voted to return the responsible parties to positions of power. In what way is that rational?

Another example is industrial wind energy. It’s easy to blame top level people (from the President on down) for this unscientific nonsense. However, in much of the US, a wind project can not be built without local approval. In other words, if citizens strenuously object in a strategically sophisticated way, they have a high likelihood of succeeding. (Here is a sample of such a success story.) If they choose not to fight it properly, and instead give up and blame their Governor, state agencies, local legislators, etc, the results will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

PART TWO: The Breggins (and others) apparently have a different perspective about what is societally happening regarding COVID, etc. and how it came about.

My translation is that they believe that citizens are innocent victims of power-hungry bad-actor leaders. Put another way, their view is a Top-Down hypothesis. There is certainly a boatload of evidence of abuses by self-serving parties in power. Citizens can make reasonable arguments for both perspectives, so let the discourse begin!

However, IMO things went off the rails when the Breggins, et al not only publicly criticized Dr. Malone for his differing views, but (in the process) cast aspirations on him and his motives. (Read pages 8 thru 10 in the Complaint for claimed examples.)

A hard-to understand aspect is Breggins' seemingly inaccurate claim that although they disagreed with Malone’s position on Mass Psychosis, "they did not even mention Malone’s name" (e.g., see here 9:30±). Evidently they haven't read their own piece (8-23-22) on their own website, which mentions Malone’s name THIRTY-ONE times! Another of their articles (9-3-22) brings up Dr. Malone TWENTY-FOUR times!! A third article by them (10-6-22) mentions Dr. Malone NINETY-FOUR times!!! All of these were public, well before the lawsuit (10-30-22).

What’s also puzzling is that the current originator of the Mass Psychosis idea is Dr. Mattias Desmet — yet in some of their public commentaries the Breggins repeatedly say “Desmet/Malone” (e.g., here). Just because a person agrees with some, most or all of what someone else has publicly proposed, doesn’t make them an author.

For example, I fully agree with what is said in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. Does that mean in future references anyone would say “Lincoln/Droz”? The Breggin’s beef is with Dr. Desmet, and they should leave Dr. Malone (and me and anyone else who happens to agree with some, most or all of Dr. Desmet’s ideas) out of it.

The Breggins have every right to publicly make a case for their opinions regarding who is to blame of our unscientific COVID policies. When they cross paths with someone else who has a different perspective — especially someone who is in general agreement with them otherwise — the best strategy would be to initiate a private discussion about the different views. Who knows, they may be educated about matters they were unfamiliar with, and may even change their opinion!

PART THREE: As an equal opportunity commentator (based on what I know, which is admittedly limited), I do not think that Dr. Malone suing the Breggins, et al is wise from several perspectives — and I shared these with him. For example, although the lawsuit says that the Breggins et al are undermining Dr. Malone’s reputation, I think his lawsuit may do the same thing — as the general perception will likely be that a big fish is bullying some minnows.

From what I know, Dr. Malone is right, plus he appears to have some legitimate legal complaints against the Breggins. My suggestion is that (prior to instituting any lawsuit) that he make a public challenge (on his popular substack) inviting the Breggins, et al to debate the Mass Psychosis issue and its applicability to our poor COVID policies. Since he would be taking the initiative, he can set up reasonable rules and consequences.

One of the latter would be that (if by a vote of the readers) is that the Breggins lost the debate, then they would have to: a) publicly apologize for any and all comments they have made about Dr. Malone and the Mass Psychosis issue, and b) retract and disavow any and all published articles (e.g. on their website) where they publicly took issue with Dr. Malone regarding the Mass Psychosis issue.

The Breggins would have two possible responses: 1) to refuse to debate the issue, or 2) to debate and almost certainly lose. In either case it would be a likely public embarrassment to them, and an endorsement of Dr. Malone’s position. Further, Dr. Malone would come across as a competent person, trying to reasonably resolve a difference of opinion.

I’m still hopeful that the parties here can come to a mutually acceptable resolution. We have plenty of real opponents, and should be focusing ALL of our available time and energy on winning fights with actual enemies.

PS — After I posted this I was sent this interesting new commentary. It’s relevant as it discusses our current state of affairs, including Mass Psychosis…

---

Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

WiseEnergy.org: discusses the science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not, on issues from: COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2022 Archives. Send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name, and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time - but why would you?)

Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Please click the “Share” button (above) to pass it on to others who may be interested. If you are not already subscribed, please click on the “Subscribe” button (below) to receive new posts (typically about once a week), for FREE…