I havent read Desmet's book but I heard what I think might have been his breakout interview on 'Unherd' last september or so. I found his theory to be very persuasive, especially when considering the individuals i know who landed in the various camps 10-60-10% and their likely personality traits. I purchased the Breggins' book as a pre-o…
I havent read Desmet's book but I heard what I think might have been his breakout interview on 'Unherd' last september or so. I found his theory to be very persuasive, especially when considering the individuals i know who landed in the various camps 10-60-10% and their likely personality traits. I purchased the Breggins' book as a pre-order before it was even available. I read the first quarter then pretty much skimmed the rest - boring, to me, yet well documented. I wanted to have it for the future because I think that type of information and that point of view will be suppressed.
Just yesterday I listened to "Jerm" interview Dr. Breggin. I thought he was small-minded about Desmet. He was unjustly critical and put a lot of weight on his interpretation that Desmet argues that "the citizen is responsible for the way the government treats them and they are weak." vs. his argument that "the elite are killing us" (clearly I paraphrase here). The problem I have is that it doesn't need to be an either/or argument because it is most likely a both/and.
I seems as if these "experts" - and let us face it, it is experts that got us into all of the messes of the last decades - are afraid their is a limited amount of attention and if we give some to one the other will lose.
I agree with much of what you write. And I tend to think and/both is closer to the truth. I've listened to Mathias several times, and agree, very persuasive. There has to be room for both views, and nuance and disagreement too. We can't all be expected to come to the same conclusion all the time.
I havent read Desmet's book but I heard what I think might have been his breakout interview on 'Unherd' last september or so. I found his theory to be very persuasive, especially when considering the individuals i know who landed in the various camps 10-60-10% and their likely personality traits. I purchased the Breggins' book as a pre-order before it was even available. I read the first quarter then pretty much skimmed the rest - boring, to me, yet well documented. I wanted to have it for the future because I think that type of information and that point of view will be suppressed.
Just yesterday I listened to "Jerm" interview Dr. Breggin. I thought he was small-minded about Desmet. He was unjustly critical and put a lot of weight on his interpretation that Desmet argues that "the citizen is responsible for the way the government treats them and they are weak." vs. his argument that "the elite are killing us" (clearly I paraphrase here). The problem I have is that it doesn't need to be an either/or argument because it is most likely a both/and.
I seems as if these "experts" - and let us face it, it is experts that got us into all of the messes of the last decades - are afraid their is a limited amount of attention and if we give some to one the other will lose.
They make me nuts.
I agree with much of what you write. And I tend to think and/both is closer to the truth. I've listened to Mathias several times, and agree, very persuasive. There has to be room for both views, and nuance and disagreement too. We can't all be expected to come to the same conclusion all the time.
McCullough just agreed with that sentiment on Alex Jones just now. FF to Minute 64.
https://theinfowar.tv/watch?id=63139bdc3b29c8472ebd1de5
Thanks.