What are the conditions in any society that will cause a people to willingly sacrifice their freedoms? Mattias Desmet has studied and lectured extensively on this phenomenon. He is a professor of clinical psychology at Ghent University has and holds a masters degree in statistics. After noticing some anomalies in the statistical analyses conducted during the pandemic, he became concerned by the consensus narrative. He joined me today to discuss his expertise in a phenomenon called ‘mass formation’, a type of collective hypnosis essential for the rise of totalitarian regimes. He provides the step by step formula for this collective psychosis to take hold and how this relates to our current situation. He cautions against the dangers of our current societal landscape and offers solutions both individually and collectively to prevent the willing sacrifice of our freedoms. 

AUBREY: Mattias, thanks for coming on the show. 

MATTIAS: Welcome. 

AUBREY: I'd love to start with a little explanation of your background and where you're coming from. And where you've gotten your education and some of your credentials to talk about what we're about to talk about. 

MATTIAS: That's great. I am a professor in clinical psychology, and I lecture at Ghent University in Belgium. I have a double degree, actually. I have a degree in psychology, but I also have a master in statistics. Meaning that I could take two different angles or two perspectives on this crisis, actually. 

AUBREY: Yeah. And that's kind of where things started for you because with your background in statistics, you started noticing that there were models that were being projected out into the world. And then the models were not making sense pretty quickly. Tell us how that got into your mind as far as taking a look at things and thinking, something's not quite right here. 

MATTIAS: Yes. Indeed. In the beginning of the crisis, around the end of February, 2020, first I took the perspective of a statistician. I started to study some numbers and some figures, and the mortality rates, and infection fatality rate, case fatality rate, stuff like that. And I immediately got the impression that most statistical models overestimated the dangerousness of the virus. And by the end of 2020, in my opinion, by the end of May, 2020, this was proven beyond doubt, I think. Because the models that were used, or on which the corona measures were based worldwide, predicted, those were the models of Imperial College in London. These models predicted that in a country such as Sweden, about 80,000 people would die by the end of May, 2020 if the country did not go into lockdown. And the country did not go into lockdown and only 6,000 people died. Which means about 13 times less than was predicted. The predictions of Imperial College were completely off, actually. And the strangest thing was, for me, that at that moment, the corona measures, or the people in charge, always claimed that they relied on mathematical modeling and on science, actually. But when it was proven beyond that the initial models were completely wrong, the measures continued, the corona measures continued as if nothing was wrong, as if the models were right. For me, it was a strong sign that there were things going on at a psychological level that were really powerful. Besides all the things, of course. Something that also struck me in the beginning of the crisis was that political leaders never seemed to have taken into account the collateral damage caused by the measures. In my opinion, if you take measures against the virus, the first thing that you would consider is whether the measures you take, for instance, the lockdowns, will not claim more victims than the virus could claim. Like at the beginning of the crisis, institutions such as the United Nations warned us immediately that there could be more people dying from hunger, from starvation in developing countries, than there could possibly die from the virus if no measures were taken at all. Which showed us immediately that actually the remedy could be far worse than the disease in this case. And also, that in one way or another, nobody seemed really able to take into account both the victims that could be claimed by the virus on the one hand, and the collateral damage caused by the corona measures. Never, during this crisis, we saw one mathematical model that calculated both the number of victims that could die from the virus and the collateral damage of the measures. Never. It's never happened. 

AUBREY: It's such a basic thing that you would do. If you're acting in good faith and you want to do the best thing for the world, the best thing for the country, you look at all different options, and you assess risk and reward for all different options and you make a logical decision. It's just the most obvious thing to do. This is not like, wow, what an amazing idea, Mattias. How did you come up with that? That's incredible. It's obvious that you would do that. 

MATTIAS: It's the most basic consideration someone can do in this situation. Yes. And that never happened. In one way or another, it showed how the attention of the entire world was so narrow, it was focused so much on one risk or one danger, the Coronavirus itself, that to me, it seemed as if I should, from then on, from the end of May 2020, I really switched perspectives. I really had the feeling that I should try to understand what was happening at the psychological level, what made the attention of people so narrowly focused on the Coronavirus. 

AUBREY: This was something that was very difficult for me. This is a very complex situation and it's hard to know what exactly the right thing to do is. But the fact that people weren't considering all of these other tangential and secondary effects of all of the measures being taken. And not only that, but the opportunity cost of the money that was being spent to support the lockdowns and the closing of businesses. The US alone has produced trillions of dollars of excess capital. And if you look at statistics of estimates from different worldwide organizations, what would it cost to create sustainable food supplies for the entire world and end world hunger? It's like $300 billion or somewhere around there. What would it cost to get clean sanitary water for everybody who's dying of parasites with a bloated belly? That's maybe $150 billion, or maybe it's double that. Doesn't matter. It's less than one stimulus check. And all of a sudden, we ended world hunger, we provided clean water for the world. And then we can start looking at other things. Let's improve education, let's improve all of these other qualities that ultimately, downstream, lead to the degradation of society; poor education, poor support, poor nutrition, lack of support for families, and domestic abuse, and all of these centers. There's so much that could have been done with the money. So, there's not only the direct cost, which is the suicidality that goes from lack of meaning and lack of purpose, and people taking the jobs, and an increase in alcohol sales, which went through the roof, and increase in domestic violence, and all of these other different things, and the people who were being starved. But then there's opportunity cost, and that wasn't in the model either. No one was deciding, maybe this is the right thing. And I'm still open to that. I'm still open to that. But you have to show me that this is the right thing compared to all of the other things that we could do. I was the CEO of a big company. It's basic. We got this opportunity. It's going to cost this. This is where it's going to go. You just figure it all out and you make the best choice. And maybe you're wrong, but at least you've considered it. 

MATTIAS: Of course, yes. And that was what didn't happen and what was really striking. I started to really think about what psychological dynamic processes could be responsible for this lack of openness of mind in a situation. And it took me several months. Actually, it took me until August, 2020, to really, in my opinion, hit the nail. And to suddenly see that what we were dealing with was a large-scale phenomenon of mass formation, of what is called mass formation. And looking backward at it, it seems really surprising to me that it took me so long because I had been lecturing for three or four years about this psychological process. Which showed, actually, that also, I, as a psychologist, was very much under the spell of this process. Or at least, that also for me, it was really difficult to see what was going on. And I believe that's the same for my colleagues in psychology. Most of them are really not aware of what is going on at this moment. 99%. 

AUBREY: I want to really get into mass formation and understand it. Is it possible that just like you, first of all, I want to make it so that it doesn't seem like we're saying this is some conspiracy. It seems like it's possible that even the politicians themselves, even the policy makers themselves, everybody was falling victim to this kind of mass psychosis that was happening in mass formation. This was just a psychological process that was universal, that doesn't necessitate some evil intent, or some powerful cabal that's trying to do something to harm people. It's just a psychological process that's difficult to resist unless you become aware of it. 

MATTIAS: Yes. It's a psychological process. This for 95%, an unconscious process, both at the level of the masses and at the level of the leaders of the masses. That's one very important thing that the leaders of the masses usually are also grasped in the process of mass formation. But maybe we should go into detail a little bit and tell how it emerges in a society, the process of mass formation. Is that okay? Mass formation is a specific kind of group formation. And it emerges in a society when very specific conditions are met. And the most central of these conditions, the most important of these conditions, is that there should be a lot of people who experience a lack of social bond, a lot of people who feel socially isolated. And then the second condition immediately follows—

AUBREY: Let me stop you there because I have some statistics. Lack of social bond. We're talking about ripe conditions for this psychological phenomenon called mass formation, which is a kind of group hypnosis. Number one, lack of social bonds. This is a condition that's important. Here's some statistics. According to the national survey published in the American Sociological Review, 25% of people reported that they didn't have a single close friend, not one. That's a crazy thing. 1 out of 4 people didn't have a single close friend. And then the 75 million adults aged 18 to 27, comprising the millennials and Generation Z, were lonelier than any other US demographic, which is wild to think. We think of older generations being lonely, but it was actually the younger generations reporting even more loneliness. Some psychologists say it's a social media paradox. People are interacting online with their avatars, which isn't their true self so, they're not creating the intimacy of vulnerability that comes from shared experience. As far as condition number one for mass formation, it's inarguable that we are suffering a crisis of lack of community and lack of social bonds. 

MATTIAS: We do. Yes. And from this first condition follows the second one, which means that a lot of people experience life as meaningless or senseless. For instance, think about the phenomenon of the bullshit jobs. I don't know if you're familiar with this phenomenon. Professor Graber in Great Britain wrote a book about it, which was titled "Bullshit Jobs." And he describes how research shows that when you ask people whether they think their job is meaningful, 50% of the people answer not at all. 50% feel that their job is not meaningful at all. That it doesn't mean anything to anyone. It's also a very nice example, I think, of—

AUBREY: It's a very strong condition. I also have another study that I was able to find. It's a Gallup poll from 2012. Polled people in 142 countries. 63% of respondents admitted to being so disengaged at work that they were sleepwalking through their workday, putting time, but not passion into their work. 63% of people. Condition number two. Condition number two. We've established that there's a lack of social bond, there's a lack of meaning and purpose in what people are doing. 

MATTIAS: And a third condition follows actually from the first two conditions. The third condition is that in order for most formation to emerge, there should be a lot of what psychologists call free floating anxiety and free floating psychological discontent. Meaning that... If you're anxious of a lion, you know what you're anxious for. The anxiety is connected to the mental representation or the mental image of a lion. But if people feel socially isolated, and if they feel that their life has no meaning, then they are confronted with a kind of anxiety that is free floating. That means that it is not connected to a mental representation, and with a lot of psychological discontent that is not connected with a mental representation. And also, at that level, we see very striking things namely that, for instance, in a country such as Belgium, each year, 300 million doses of antidepressants are used in a population of about 11 million. And then we are talking only about antidepressants. There are also anti-psychotics, sleeping pills, and all this stuff. 

AUBREY: Anti-anxiety medications. 

MATTIAS: And then the fourth condition is that there should be—

AUBREY: Let me just give one more study. The World Health Organization says that 1 in 5 people actually have anxiety disorders. They actually not only have anxiety, but they qualify as having anxiety disorders, which is over 300 million people. And that's something that's in the manual. Not just a little bit of anxiety, which a lot of us have. 1 in 5 people have anxiety disorders. This free-floating anxiety is also incredibly pervasive. 

MATTIAS: Yes, of course, it is. And then the fourth condition is that there shouldn't be a lot of free-floating frustration and aggression. And that actually follows from the other conditions as well. The people shouldn't feel frustrated and feeling aggressive, without also really knowing what the cause of their frustration and aggression is. And if these four conditions are fulfilled in society, then the population is in a mental state in which something very specific can happen. Meaning that if under these conditions, a narrative, a story is distributed through the mass media indicating an object of anxiety and at the same time, providing a strategy to deal with this object of anxiety, then the following happens or might happen. All the free-floating anxiety, free-floating anxiety which is extremely painful because it always threatens to turn into panic. All this free-floating anxiety is attached to, connected to the object of anxiety indicated in the narrative. And there is a huge willingness to participate in the strategy to deal with this object of anxiety. Because in this way, people feel that they can control their anxiety and their psychological discontent better. All this anxiety connects to this object of anxiety and there is a huge willingness to participate in this strategy. And that leads up to something very specific. People suddenly feel connected again in a heroic struggle with the object of anxiety. A new kind of solidarity, a new kind of social bond, and a new kind of meaning-making, sense-making emerges in society. And that's the reason why people follow the narrative, why people buy into the narrative, and why they are willing to participate in the strategy even if it is utterly absurd. Because the reason why they follow it has nothing to do with the fact that it is correct or accurate or scientific. Not at all. The reason why they buy into the narrative is because it leads to this new social bond, this new solidarity. People are social beings and being socially isolated is really painful. And through the process of mass formation, they switch from the very negative state of social isolation to the opposite state of maximal connectedness, of the maximum connectedness that exists in a crowd or a mass. And that in itself leads up to a kind of mental intoxication, which is the real reason why people stick to the narrative, why people are willing to go along with the narrative, even as we said, if it is utterly wrong. And even more important, even if they lose everything that is important to them personally. Because mass formation is a kind of hypnosis. And just like in hypnosis, the attention is focused on this very small part of reality that is indicated by the story. And just like in hypnosis, people are not aware of everything that happens mentally, outside of this small focus of attention. That's something very striking. Like in hypnosis, what you see is that a simple hypnotic procedure is sufficient to focus the attention of someone so much on one aspect of reality, that the person will never feel that someone cuts into his flesh. It's a procedure that is used in some hospitals when someone is allergic to a chemical anesthesia. Sometimes a simple hypnotic procedure is used, which focuses the attention on a positive thing. And then the surgeon can cut straight through the breastbone, the patient will not feel it. That's exactly what happens in mass formation. The attention is focused on the virus, for instance, in this case. And then people are not aware that they lose their psychological health or their physical health, or that they lose their wealth, material wellbeing, and so on. That's one of the most problematic aspects of the phenomenon of mass formation. 

AUBREY: It can be productive. Human beings don't develop things that are entirely unproductive. Those things typically get weeded out. You take a look at Sebastian Junger's work in his book "Tribe." And he talks about how in interviewing and surveying the people who survived the Blitzkrieg in London, where bombs were falling from, Nazi bombs were falling, and the air raid sirens were going off. They report that that was the happiest time of their life. They were happiest when the bombs were falling. Can you imagine the atrocity of bombs falling? People dying, exploding things happening. But they felt such a deep social bond and all of their focus of attention was on the Nazis, on the bombs. It brought everybody together, no one was lonely. Actually, the mental hospitals, they all emptied out to a certain degree. Everybody was like, we have a deep meaning, we have a clear purpose, we're all in this together. And they felt better than they ever have. And it allowed them to make it through a very challenging situation. In a situation like that, it's a very healthy process that can happen. 

MATTIAS: Yes, it is. For the same reason people do not commit suicide under very severe conditions. For instance, in the concentration camps in the gulag, people did not commit suicide. And it was because there was a clear external danger they were focused on, and which made their psychological system very coherent, very coherently focused on one point. Usually, people commit suicide because they feel internally divided, because they feel that they lack unity, they lack coherence. And when there is a strong external danger, people usually will feel very coherent. And they will, for instance, not commit suicide. It's something very striking. And the example you gave is actually a wonderful example, indeed, of people who are under attack and who feel that they experienced the happiest times of their lives. I've never heard that example but it's a wonderful example. 

AUBREY: Sebastian Junger's book "Tribe" is phenomenal. I recommend it. There's very toxic examples of that as well. You take a look at the witch hunts, for example that happened throughout Europe and in America. There's a quote from Francis Hill. And he was saying, during the witch hunts, in some Swiss villages, there were hardly any women left alive once the fever burned out. It got to such a fever... Basically, everybody had this free-floating anxiety, a lack of social bond, lack of purpose, all of the conditions presuming led up to this. And then all of a sudden, someone came with a narrative that, you know what the problem is? It's the witches. It's the witches. It's the women who are the witches and that's the problem. They became the scapegoat. They became the reason. Everybody became myopically focused, narrowed their field of attention on that external threat. And in that fever, they just burned women alive until in some places, there were no women left. 

MATTIAS: Something very important, I think, is that, for one reason or another, which can be explained. I'm writing a book in which I go into detail about this, but I don't think we can do it now because it would lead us too far. But for one reason or another, the process of mass formation became stronger throughout the 19th century. And, for instance, Gustave Le Bon, who is one of the major scholars on the phenomenon of mass formation, wonders that in 1895 already, that if the process would continue to become stronger, the process of mass formation, we would soon end up in a state in which the masses or the crowd would take over control in society. And that we would, according to Gustave Le Bon, experience the emergence of a new kind of state, a new kind of political apparatus. And that was exactly what happened in the beginning of the 20th century in the Soviet Union and the Nazi Germany. We saw these immense, these large-scale processes of mass formation there. And there the objects of anxiety were the aristocracy in the Soviet Union and the Jews in Nazi Germany. And we saw how the masses emerged and how the masses were grasped in this specific narrative. And then suddenly, a totalitarian regime took advantage of this mass formation and started one of the most cruel episodes in modern history with certain characteristics. Like a totalitarian state is radically different from a classical dictatorship. And that's very important. And the difference is the psychological process. Classical dictatorship is not based on mass formation, not at all. A classical dictatorship is based on a very primitive process of fear that the human being has for someone who is stronger, who is in power. 

AUBREY: Dictating warlord. Like a warlord in a tribal situation. I have the most guns, I have the people on my side. And if you don't comply, I'll shoot you. And that's what we see in a lot of movies, actually. A lot of the villains in the fantasy novels or whatever, they have the biggest army and that's how they keep everybody in control. But we don't see the process. And I think a lot of times we project that on someone like Stalin. He just did this. Or it was all him. No. He just took advantage of a deep psychological process that was supported. People were cheering him on all the way up to the point where he killed millions and millions of people. And then they were like, oh shit, what did we do? But that was a little bit late. 

MATTIAS: Of course. That's the difference between classical dictatorship and a totalitarian state. And it makes that actually the structure and the process totalitarian states go through is really different from the process of classical dictatorships. For instance, if in a classical dictatorship, the opposition stops to speak out, if the opposition, the dissident voices are silenced, then usually the dictator will become milder. He will become less aggressive because he realizes that he has to try to make the populations sympathetic against him, to make them feel that he will be a good leader and stuff. It's important for him that at the moment he becomes milder and less aggressive because he is in power, he doesn't need to be aggressive anymore. In a totalitarian state, exactly the opposite happens. When the opposition is silent, when the opposition stops to speak out, at that moment exactly, the totalitarian state commits its most cruel atrocities. Starts to commit its most cruel atrocities. And that was what happened in 1930. In the Soviet Union, when Stalin started his large-scale purifications, which led to about 80 million people dying in less than 10 years according to Solzhenitsyn. In Nazi Germany, the same happened around 1935. The opposition was silenced and then the real problem started in a totalitarian state. Totalitarianism is something really different from classical dictatorships. And it's the process of mass formation that is important there. The process of mass formation, which became increasingly strong throughout the 19th century and throughout the 20th century. Like the witch hunts you referred to, very important these witch hunts. Indeed, they were perfect examples of mass formation. But it didn't last too long and they were very—

AUBREY: People ran out of women. 

MATTIAS: Yes, yes. But that's something that often happens. The larger a population, the worse the processes of mass formation, and for the reason you mentioned. Because mass formation always needs new victims. Mass formation arises around an object of anxiety, and that object always has to be destroyed. If the population is too small, the mass formation will take less long than in a large population. And that was exactly the reason according to Hannah Arendt, Jewish German philosopher, why totalitarianism was only successful or emerged only in countries where there were a very large population such as the Soviet Union. 

AUBREY: I don't understand Soviet history that well, but I think initially, the scapegoat was the wealthy. It was the wealthy bourgeoisie. They were the ones that were destroying the country. But ultimately, somehow, Stalin then switched because he ran out of those. There's not that many wealthy people. Ran out of killing them and using them as a scapegoat. And then he switched it. He switched to something else that gave him the reasoning to kill all of the 80 million people that he killed. 

MATTIAS: Yes, indeed. He switched it to the kulaks, the farmers actually, and then to the goldsmiths, then to the Jews, one group after the other, until finally he also killed 50% of his Communist Party members, who usually didn't do anything wrong, or who were not disloyal to him. Not at all. But he killed them. And the strangest thing about this was that these party members actually, in a very strange way, which was also very nicely described by George Orwell in "Animal Farm," for instance, but also by Solzhenitsyn in "The Gulag Archipelago," and Hannah Arendt also describes it. These party members who were killed, who were condemned, they all admitted that they had been disloyal, that they had been traitors, and so on, which was very strange. Observers from abroad, international observers were baffled and they said, what is happening here? We can't believe our eyes. These people didn't do anything wrong. They did not go against the rules of Stalin. And now, they admit that they have done things wrong and that they deserve to die, which was extremely strange. But that's exactly what happens in the process of mass formation. Someone is grabbed so much in the narrative that he accepts the most absurd, the consequences of the narrative, even if it costs him or her, his own life. That's one of the strangest things. 

AUBREY: I've heard the word menticide? Would you call what happens, menticide, the killing of the mind? At a certain point, that totalitarian process, it kills the mind. It degrades logical thinking, it degrades all of the faculties of sense-making and meaning-making to the point where the mind is dead. And at that point, you're so gullible to suggestions. And it's something that you can see on a small scale, where if you have a really belligerent interrogator. And someone with a weaker mind, after enough time, they'll admit to a crime that they didn't do. And there's many examples of this in the justice system of a very aggressive and psychologically keen interrogator that's convinced somebody that they actually committed a murder that they didn't do. And then they'll find with DNA results, they didn't do it. And they're like, why did you admit to it? I don't know. 

MATTIAS: Indeed. That's exactly what happens. And in the process of mass formation, the individual disappears, and the collective becomes absolutely predominant and erases all individual characteristics. It doesn't make a difference whether the people involved, the individuals involved, are very intelligent or not intelligent. It doesn't make any difference. Always the same happens. Everybody becomes equally stupid in a mass, and it doesn't matter how smart or how intelligent they were before. They lose all capacity for critical thinking, they lose all individual characteristics because they are really absorbed in this process of mass formation. 

AUBREY: I've heard you talk about, there is a spectrum of people who go along with the narrative and are very susceptible to this mass formation phenomenon. There's a person in the middle that is kind of like, I'm not really sure. And then there's the people who are in opposition of this. And that's the initial condition for mass formation. Then it seems like once we get to totalitarianism, the degradation of people's minds starts to actually make those numbers even increase. But let's talk about the first part, which is how this spectrum kind of plays out. And whether you think that what's happening now is kind of what you're seeing in this spectrum. And of course, we have to establish that what we're seeing now has some of the characteristics of mass formation. But let's talk about the spectrum first and then let's talk about our current situation. 

MATTIAS: Yes, indeed. Usually, when a process of mass formation emerges in a society, in a population, only 30% of the people are really hypnotized. That's something very important, because it seems there are much more, but it's not the case. There are only 30% of the people who are really hypnotized. And then there is an additional 40% of the people who go along with this first group because they never go against the current. And they feel that they don't want to go against the current, that it is too difficult and too dangerous to go against the crowd. Then there is an additional 20% or 30%, or something who is not hypnotized and who wants to speak out, who wants to do something. But it can be surprising, like even in totalitarian states, states such as Germany or the Soviet Union, usually, not more than about 30% of the people are really totalitarian. And it's something that is observed time and time again. I don't know if you're familiar with the experiments of Solomon Asch. Solomon Asch was a psychologist who did some experiments shortly after the Second World War, in which he showed two small groups of about eight people. One line was about 30 centimeters long and then three other lines. And the first of these three lines was about 10 centimeters long, the second was 120 centimeters long, and then the third one was about 60 centimeters long. It was clear in one glance of an eye, it was clear that the third line was the line that had the same length as the first one. And that was what Solomon Asch asked these small groups of participants, eight participants. He asked, what do you think? Which lines have the same length? And the first seven, the first seven of the participants actually were collaborators of Solomon Asch, and they were all instructed to give the wrong answer. They were all instructed to say that line one, that two lines were equally long, who were absolutely not equally long. Upon hearing that, the first seven participants all gave the wrong answer, of which a blind man could see that this was wrong, the eight participants, in 75% of the cases, gave the same wrong answer. It was really amazing to see. 

AUBREY: When I studied that, it's a really powerful video as well. And maybe we'll be able to edit that into this so people can see it. The psychologists and Solomon gave two hypotheses. One was that in some cases, people actually convinced themselves that they were wrong. That their eyes were deceiving them, and they were just wrong. They actually believed, they believed what everybody else was saying was true. And then another group was just so shy about saying something different from everybody else because they were so worried that the other people would make them an outcast. They were just going along with even though they knew they were wrong, they were giving the wrong answer. There was two reasons why the participants were giving the wrong answer. 

MATTIAS: Yes. Indeed. And there were these three groups as well. The three groups. The first group who really believed or who were already hypnotized by the group and who are really convinced that the wrong answer was the right answer. And then the second group who knew that it was the wrong answer, but who didn't dare to speak out? And then the third group who saw that, one who gave the right answer, who dared to speak out. Indeed, you see these three groups time and time again, and you see them in each process of mass formation. A group that’s really hypnotized. And in a totalitarian state, who becomes really totalitarian. Then a second group who just only goes along with the first group. And then a third group who does not want to buy into the story and who wants to speak out. Meaning that in this situation, if the people who want to speak out, the dissident voices, if in one way or another, they could unify and form one group, probably, the second group of about 40% of the people might switch direction and join them. And that would mean that the mass formation is over. That's one of the solutions to the problem. If all the people who want to speak out and who want to go, again, who are not hypnotized and who want to do something against the crowd, or against the mainstream narrative, if they unify and become one group, it would be powerful enough to change the direction of the middle group. Which would mean that the majority of the people would go in a different direction than the people who are really hypnotized. 

AUBREY: Now, let's bring this to the modern context. We've explained the theory and the philosophy behind mass formation. What do you see in the current system that we're seeing? Who is becoming the scapegoat? Where is this pointed to? What do you feel like is dangerous about the current situation that we're in as it pertains to the pandemic? 

MATTIAS: The risk, of course, is that the people who don't want to buy into the narrative, that they become the scapegoat. Indeed, the antivaxxers, for instance, people who don't want to take the vaccine, might become public enemy number one and they might become the object of this fourth condition that we mentioned in the beginning, of all this free-floating frustration and aggression because that's also something typical for mass formation. All the free floating frustration and aggression that existed before the mass formation is projected and channeled onto the people who are not into the process of mass formation. That's one major risk. And then also, of course, if the masses would succeed in silencing these people, then the masses will start to commit atrocities also towards the members of the masses themselves. That's strange. Hannah Arendt says totalitarianism and mass formation always is a monster that divorce its own children. Something very strange. Always, in the end, it starts to kill among its own members. The most important thing actually, the most important thing we can do in this situation is to continue to speak out. I repeat this time and time again. Mass formation is one kind of hypnosis. It's an example of hypnosis. And hypnosis works through the voice. In one way or another, people are grasped in the resonance of a voice. That's what totalitarian leaders know. They start each day with 30 minutes of propaganda, for instance, just to keep people into the narrative and to make sure that they continue to resonate with the voice of the leader or with the narrative that led up to the mass formation. And the opposite is also true. Like if there are dissident voices, if there are dissonant voices that continue to speak out, then the hypnosis will become less deep. Gustavo Le Bon in the 19th century said, usually dissonant voices will not have the power to wake up the masses, but they will make the hypnosis less deep, and they will prevent the masses start to commit atrocities. That's what we all have to realize. We all have to realize, in my opinion, that it is not an option to stop speaking. We should continue to speak out. That's the most important thing we can do. 

AUBREY: We see some conditions. When you talk about atrocities, people might think this will never happen, this will never exist. But all of this begins with some form of dehumanization and some form of really making some other the enemy. And we've already heard in the mainstream narrative, people who don't want to take the vaccine, it's become the pandemic of the vaccine. They're killers, they're domestic terrorists. That's actually a word that mainstream media has been using. And it seems like the advantage of the state in this case, is that they control the mainstream narrative. There's a clip that I saw recently of dozens and dozens of newscasters from Fox News, and ABC, and CBS, and CNN. They were all reading the exact same script. There's a centralization of the narrative. 

MATTIAS: The production of the narrative is centralized. Yes. 

AUBREY: And then with that, then there's also the silencing of the contrary narrative, which is coming through social media. And people say, Instagram can censor whoever they want, it's a private company. But nonetheless, the pressure that's being applied seems to be, or they are just in the mass formation themselves and they're just deciding to do it. Who knows? I'm not trying to propose a conspiracy. I don't know what's happening. I think it's very likely that people are just caught in their own mass formation. But what we're seeing is we're seeing censorship of dissident voices and we're seeing the collaboration on the single narrative that's being pushed out through the mainstream. And that's the challenge that I think, in all of these cases and all of these societies, we face. Is that the more centralized the communication is, and the more they're able to silence dissident narratives, burn books, it used to be. But now censoring, and deplatforming, and banning different.It starts to allow them to be able to be in easier control of the masses. And I think that's what we have to look at. When doctors are being censored from giving their opinion, why? When in history has that ever happened? That's not science. That's not the scientific method. You come up with a theory and you have a bunch of people challenge it. You're an academic, you propose a theory, you expect all of your colleagues to be like, Mattias, I don't agree with you. This is why. And you say, thank you. I appreciate your critique. Now, let me explain why I'm right. But it's not really what we're seeing right now. This is also leading to an opinion that this is dangerous. These conditions are appearing like they're following a pattern. And it's a pattern that we've seen. And it's a pattern that leads to a disastrous, dystopian, catastrophic result in many other cases. I'm not saying that's where we're going necessarily, but there's indications that cause worry. 

MATTIAS: Yeah, sure. The large-scale mass formation that we have seen from the 20th century on, it can never exist without mass media. That's clear. You need mass media who distribute the same narrative time and time again to make this large scale and long-term mass formation happen. And usually, I think it's a mixture. And it's for 90%, an unconscious process, but there is also for 10%, I say, 10% now. Could be more, could be less. But intentional manipulation of the masses also happens. And usually the people who do it are convinced that they will bring paradise to society like Stalin was. He was convinced that his historical, materialistic, ideal society would be realized. And that in order to do that, it was justified to manipulate the population, to move them in the direction he wanted. And exactly the same was the case for Hitler, who felt that his race theory would turn society into a kind of a paradise. And that's exactly for that reason, it was justified to provoke some collateral damage. And I think it's the same now. Of course, there are some powerful institutions who have this ideal image of society and who want to use the crisis to move the society in the direction they think is optimal. And they use all their power that is at their means, I think, to make people go in a direction they want. That's true. But I think for 95%, what is happening is not a process of large-scale manipulation. But for 95%, we are in a process of large scale, unconscious mass formation, in which almost everybody is grasped. We shouldn't be naive. There has always been intentional manipulations. There are always institutions who want to benefit from all kinds of circumstances. Institutions have their own idea about how the future society should look like, and they always will use their power to move in that direction. That's definitely happening. But that doesn't take away, I think, that for 95%, it's a phenomenon of mass formation that happens. 

AUBREY: For certain people, their fatal flaw is not that they hate the world or hate society. It's not the Batman villain Bane that just wants to watch the world burn. They actually are more like the Bond villains, or Thanos, for example. For an ordered universe, we need to blink half of the people out of existence, and then the universe will be fine and then I'll retire. The motivation was pure, in a way. It's just the delusion and hubris to say, I can be god. And I have all the knowledge, and I can decide. It's very interesting because the actions themselves are evil, but the intentions are often not evil. When we project these demonic, reptilian things upon them, it's not that. They're just overconfident. And they just think they're doing something good, but they're actually not. 

MATTIAS: Yes. We are dealing with megalomaniac plans here. That's the right word, I think. Not so much with psychopaths. That's not true. People often say that we are dealing with psychopaths. I think we are dealing with megalomaniac plans. People who believe that they will solve all the problems in the world by imposing a new social system. I think the basic ideology of the system is transhumanist in nature. People who believe that problems can only be solved through technological control. I truly believe that this is what drives these people. This is their view of man in the world. And this is their idea on how the problems of humanity can be solved, which is delusionary, I think. It's not true at all. That's exactly this mechanistic ideal, this mechanistic thinking, this transhumanist thinking is the cause of the problems. Because if we wonder why we ended up, before the corona crisis, in this terrible mental state in which people felt socially disconnected, they experience lack of meaning-making, in which there was all this free-floating attention, all this frustration, then we can clearly see that all this free floating anxiety and this frustration started to increase once the world became industrialized and mechanized. This is very typical. While the mechanistic view on man and the world started to become predominant, at the same pace, the free-floating anxiety and also the social disconnectedness started to increase. And that's why Hannah Arendt says, that's why the phenomenon of mass formation became increasingly strong throughout the last centuries. Because more and more people ended up in an isolated state. More and more people deal with this free-floating anxiety. I believe the large institutions who are in charge now and who actually try to shape the future according to their own ideal image, I think that these people propose a solution, exactly this kind of discourse, exactly this kind of thing that caused the problem. Einstein said something very nice about that. You can never solve a problem by the same kind of thinking that caused it. That's exactly what people try to do now, I think. 

AUBREY: In the myth of control, Charles Eisenstein talks about this, in the myth of nature, it's always an increasing amount of control that's the solution. And it never ends. If the control didn't work, more control will work. If technology didn't work, more technology will work. It's just this endless process. They don't want to reevaluate their thinking, probably because their identity is attached to this solution that they believe is going to work by whatever mechanism. I want to switch gears here real quick and talk about it. One of the things that I see happening is, this is not just a singular narrative that's creating mass formation, because there's small pockets of mass formation that are existing as well. Because on the other side, in opposition to the mainstream pandemic narrative, there's a counter mass formation of people who are in this deep conspiracy, thinking that all liberals are evil. So, they're scapegoating liberals or they're scapegoating certain politicians, or Bill Gates, or whoever becomes the object of the external threat that their free floating anxiety, their anxiety is then attached to. It's a very interesting time where we have one side where it's the dominant narrative that's causing a mass formation. And then on the other side, we have a counter mass formation, which is much smaller. But that's also not the right way. That's also a scary thing as well because if that side wins, it's just going to be the same problem with a different scapegoat and a different victim of the atrocity. That doesn't work. What needs to emerge is a third way of just loving, compassionate, rational thinking. And that's really what I've been trying to dedicate my efforts towards. It's not about picking sides here, it's about sense-making in general and universal compassion. 

MATTIAS: I agree. I agree. On the other side, there is a very similar process in which people are confronted with a lot of anxiety. Because they feel threatened by the process of the mass formation, they also deal with a lot of free floating anxiety and they connect it to a different object. To the elites, to the Illuminati, or a small elite that would threaten them. They dehumanize this small group of people. They have a different enemy, while the masses have as an enemy, the people who refuse to conform with the masses. The other side also creates an enemy, an object of anxiety. And in a similar way, they want to destroy this enemy. They believe that if we destroy the elite, the problem will be solved, which of course is not true. 

AUBREY: It's dehumanization on both sides. One side, there's domestic terrorists. On the other side, there's reptilian elites and sheep. Talk about dehumanization. They're literally making them non-human. We're dealing with this on both sides. Fundamentally, neither way is going to work. It's a very interesting predicament because I was looking out at the world, I was like, I can't join that team because that team is following the same principles. They're on the same mechanism as the other team. And I certainly can't join that team. What's the third team? I came up with this sentiment. I call it united polarity, which is taking both sides with absolute reverence and reminding people that underneath all of the opinions and ideologies, there's a human. And it's a human that’s scared, it's a human that's lonely. It's a human that wants the best for themselves and other people at the fundamental level. Let's remind ourselves of that. Instead of dehumanizing, let's super-humanize them. Let's see ourselves in them. Let's see ourselves in every single other person and unite the polarities. Not by trying to change them, but saying, what is the common ground by which we all stand? And that's really, through this whole process, that's the only thing that's really made sense to me. And when I speak about it, it seems like people, maybe it's that group, that 40% in the middle, but that group in the middle is like, I like that. I can stand behind that. I'm hoping that in some small way, in whatever way I'm able to contribute, that can help become part of this force that mitigates some of the damage of the mass formation leading to totalitarianism. 

MATTIAS: Yes, I hope I am part of the same force. I really hope so. 

AUBREY: I believe you are. 

MATTIAS: Because I agree. There is a strong tendency to dehumanize on both sides. And that's exactly what we should avoid. We should try to identify with being someone who tries to speak as sincere as possible. And who gives everybody the right to speak out his own opinion. That's being human. What makes us human is that we have the right to speak in our own way and the way we prefer. If people could unify, if people could form a group because they all identify with this position, that would be the solution to the problem we are facing. 

AUBREY: One of other things that is concerning. When you look at some of the mechanisms of totalitarianism, there's some thinkers who talk about and have analyzed that there's waves of terror. And this is how it kind of works in the waves of terror. Something becomes really scary. There's a retraction where it's not so scary. And then something else really scary happens. And it's just kind of like battering down. Imagine a big log trying to batter down a door. This is something that I think we should be mindful of. If this process is happening, we should be aware that if there's a second wave, this is part of the playbook for actually weakening people's defenses and having them desire to reach for some powerful, despotic, tyrannical, totalitarian leader who can save the day because they just get more and more scared. 

MATTIAS: It's something quite strange, I think that the masses always long for a severe and cruel leader, Gustave Le Bon said, which is something very strange. Something in the process of mass formation. We come from a very individualistic age in which people try to find meaning in their own lives and in their own way, but actually, in a strange way, now we see how the opposite emerges. It is as if people want to lose themselves in the masses, in the crowd, and as if they are looking for a leader who tells them what to do. And that's one of the most specific aspects of mass formation, I think, that it makes people long for a harsh leader. Gustave Le Bon describes this already. And if the leaders of the masses understand this, they understand that they can be as absurd as they want, they can be as harsh as they want, that they can impose the most absurd limitations to individuals' lives. It will only make mass formation stronger, and it will only make the religious more popular. 

AUBREY: It's an imposing sacrifice which is a deep part of ritual. And I've heard you talk about this. How the sacrifice itself, it's like any initiation process. It's difficult, it's hard. We've had to do this together. We gave up Thanksgiving, and we gave up Christmas, we never left our house. And we put masks on our three-year-old children, and we sacrificed. And that ritual then actually increases this sense of social bond. 

MATTIAS: Of course, exactly. You nail it down now, I think. That's exactly what happens. The corona measures, the lockdowns, the social distancing, the mask wearing, and so on, actually have the function, unconsciously, of a ritual. A ritual meaning a kind of behavior that as the only function has to create a social bond. And the less practically meaningful such behavior is, the better it serves its function as a ritual. The more absurd it is, the better it serves a function as a ritual. And the more sacrifices it demands, the better it functions as a ritual. Because in this way, the individual that sacrifices something shows that the collective, that the group, the cohesion among the group members is more important than its individual, than what is important to the individual. That's exactly how rituals function. Rituals have to be pragmatically meaningless, useless, and they have to demand sacrifices of the individual. And that's exactly what the corona measures do. They are absurd without practical relevance, most of them. And also, they imply huge losses for the individuals, which makes them very useful, very suitable as rituals for the new cohesion, the new collective, the new solidarity. 

AUBREY: And people who hear that will vehemently deny that the rituals are meaningless. Of course, I have enough epistemic humility to say, maybe there's some purpose to these rituals. But you also have to acknowledge the psychological nature. You have to look at both. Even if there is meaning to these rituals of mask wearing, and even if there is meaning to the social isolation, you have to look at what it actually is happening psychologically as well. Just like we were mentioning before. You have to look at the damage of the virus and you have to look at the social damage. You have to look at what is the actual possibility of prevention based on all of these different procedures? And what is the psychological cost? And there should be just a whole group of top psychologists and sociologists who are saying, this is the damage that's being done to children having to wear masks when they're in school. And this is the risk of children actually contracting COVID. Let's take a look at this from a really holistic perspective. But that's certainly not happening. Whether you think these rituals are meaningless, or whether you think these rituals are essential, that's fine. But also, please look at the total picture regardless of what's happening on a psychological level. And I hope, no matter what everybody thinks, as they're listening to this podcast, to become aware of the psychological processes, to make the unconscious conscious is extremely important.

MATTIAS: Indeed. Maybe some of the measures had a certain practical effect; it's possible, and the psychological function. What I tell only shows, I think, that we should not expect that because the measures are absurd in certain respects, people will stop to follow them. Not at all. The more absurd they are, the more the 30% of people who are under hypnosis will be willing to cling to them and to follow them. 

AUBREY: It deepens their vigor for these. When we're talking about the ways to stand in resistance, I think, identifying, as I said, the united polarity movement that I've really started to put out there into the world, the idea of recognizing the shared humanity amongst all people and drawing people together for that cause, I think that's something that I, of course, want to mention. But there's Vaclav Havel, who was the president in Czechoslovakia. Went through periods of Russian communism. He talks about the importance of parallel structures. And these are like enclaves, havens where different ideologies and philosophies operate, and how important they are even if it goes all the way to totalitarian. What Charles Eisenstein would call islands of sanity, these parallel structures. These places where people can recognize each other's sovereignty and humanity. This is really important. And it's important for people to understand that, even if you're not out publicly speaking, which, as you said, it's important. A lot of the hypnosis comes verbally, so, definitely speak. But another big part of the resistance is just become part of the parallel structure, becoming part of something that is a living, breathing example of something different. 

MATTIAS: Yes, I entirely agree. Those parallel structures are extremely important. And it doesn't matter so much where you speak out, I think. If it is in a small group, if it is in front of a camera, on television, or in a podcast. Or if it is around the kitchen table, or in a small shop, or on the streets, I think that something like this, this process of mass formation can really be compared to a complex dynamical system. And in complex dynamical systems, even the smallest action in the smallest spot of the system, can make the system change. That's a very specific characteristic of complex dynamical systems. It doesn't matter where you are, it doesn't matter how large your audience is, but continue to speak out. Continue to speak out. 

AUBREY: In this specific case, there's two factors that I think are interesting, that are perhaps different than other periods of mass formation. One is that social isolation has been part of the policy, which is removing people from other people. The other one is, if you're around people, you're wearing a mask, which is limiting the amount of nonverbal communication that you can have and the actual connection you have with people. This is either a happy accident, too, and a logical way to stop the spread of disease. Which certainly, being around people less. I think COVID is a real virus and not being around someone who has a virus is certainly helpful. The mask debate certainly has evidence on both sides. But in either case, these two conditions seem like they're actually exacerbating and actually creating more conditions where this mass formation is possible because people are isolated. And because if they are around each other, they're literally masked. Do you see that as something that's actually accelerating the process of mass formation, these two different things? 

MATTIAS: You can consider mass formation as a kind of a psychological symptom of a society. And as all symptoms do, they always create more of the conditions that make them emerge. At the individual level, you see the same. Like if someone drinks too much alcohol, something in the system will change which makes him even long more after alcohol. And that's exactly the same with all symptoms. Symptoms always recreate and reinforce the things they need to exist. And I think with mass formation, it's the same. Mass formation, in one way or another, will make that after a while, people feel even more socially isolated. That was exactly what happened in Nazi Germany and then the Soviet Union as well. After a while, people didn't dare to come together anymore with more than two or three people because they were always scared of being accused that they were conspiring against the state. And then that way, they become even more socially isolated than they were in the beginning. And that in itself made them more susceptible, more vulnerable to mass formation. The phenomenon of mass automation indeed, in one way or another, makes that society end up in a vicious spiral. It always goes down and it always goes down faster. And in the end, it always leads up to its own destruction. That's something very important. Classical dictatorships can exist for thousands of years, such as in Egypt, with the pharaohs for instance. But totalitarian systems usually destroy themselves and quite quickly, usually. And I think that this kind of totalitarianism you're in now, like Hannah Arendt warned us already in 1953, she said, we've seen the decline and fall of Nazism, and we see the decline of the Soviet Union, of Stalinism now. But she wonders, that does not mean that trends towards totalitarianism will stop. Very soon, she said, a new totalitarian state will emerge, and it will be a worldwide system, she said. And it will be a system that is no longer led by mob leaders, such as Stalin and Hitler, but by dull technocrats and bureaucrats. And I think that's what we are about to see now. Just like the totalitarian systems of the first half of the 20th century, this system will destroy itself, and it probably will destroy itself much quicker than the systems of the 20th century. It will be more intrinsically self-destructive because totalitarianism and mass formation are always, always self-destructive. You can explain this very well from a psychological point of view, but it's quite complicated. But they're always self-destructive. And once you realize that you know that the only thing you have to do is, in one way or another, you have to try to survive outside of the system in a parallel structure, and just wait until the system destroys itself. 

AUBREY: That seems like a pretty clear prerogative. And to help mitigate, it seems like it will mitigate the amount of damage. And hopefully, prevent the level of atrocities where people are going around. Because we saw that actually happen after 9/11, where people were attacking mosques. And we've seen this where, we feel threatened, and then people lash out, and there's this vigilante thing. Do our best to mitigate the level of atrocity. And of course, I don't think it'll ever reach that level, it's a different type. It's more of a psychological totalitarianism, unlike the way that it was in Germany or Russia. But who knows? But it feels like it's going to be more of a psychological war that's being waged. But still nonetheless, on the periphery, there can be atrocities that occur. So, mitigating those as much as possible by standing for the recognition of humanity. And then also accelerating the awakening of people to all of the deep unconscious psychological processes that exist. The seduction of the solution of mass formation, how you can externalize a problem that's internal, how seductive that is. And then also the seduction of the ego to say, I am helping the world more than you so, I'm better than you and how good that feels to be the one that really is sacrificing the most and helping people more because that makes you better than someone else. I'm a better person than Joe Rogan. And Joe Rogan's super powerful and super wealthy, but I'm better than him because I care more. And then how seductive that is psychologically. Just to be aware of all of these processes. It's okay. We're all fallible, we're all vulnerable. We're all subjected to unconscious processes. Any of us could walk on stage with a top hypnotist, a world class hypnotist, we could walk on stage and in 10 minutes, we could be clucking like a chicken in front of an audience. It could happen to any of us. And then would our friends, later, like two years later, be like, you fucking chicken. You're such a chicken. No. You would have been a chicken too. Our mind is vulnerable. And so, to have that compassion for everybody, I think it's so important. 

MATTIAS: But do you know that usually, people who are under hypnosis stick to the same ethical rules and ethical level as they do when they are not hypnotized? That's interesting, I think. So, being hypnotized is not an excuse to transgress ethical boundaries. That's something important. But it doesn't matter. I agree with you, of course. I think that is maybe the deeper meaning of this crisis, that it conferences, or that it might lead to an analysis of who we are as a human being. For someone else, that might confront us with who we are, and it can make us think about how we can... What is the right thing to do in this situation? I don't know. I feel that in one way or another, this crisis pushes me and brings me closer to myself. And then by continuing to speak out, I learn to control my own anger, for instance, if people react aggressively towards me and so on. I feel that in one way or another, this process leads to an intense questioning of who I am and makes it, I go through an evolution as a human being. And I hope that the same is the case for many other people. 

AUBREY: No doubt. That brought something up because I have seen that, where a hypnotist, a top hypnotist will put someone under a deep hypnosis, give them a knife and say, stab me. And they will do anything else. They'll do anything else humiliating, completely humiliating. They would take their pants off, or they would pretend to have sex, or act like a chicken, whenever. They'll do all that stuff. But they won't hurt somebody else under hypnosis. Mass formation isn't exactly hypnosis. It's something a little bit different because it can lead to atrocities. It's almost more "Manchurian Candidate," this kind of different psychological process. It's similar to hypnosis, but also different because it seems like historically, at least, it's led to people committing atrocities that they normally wouldn't commit under normal conditions. Unless there's just a percentage of people that are naturally homicidal anyways. 

MATTIAS: I think there are. I think there are. I think that mass formation is a kind of hypnosis, but there are differences with classical hypnosis. For instance, in the process of mass formation, the hypnotist is hypnotized himself, that's the most important difference. In a classical hypnosis, the hypnotist is awake. His field of attention is not narrower than normal. But the person who is hypnotized suffers from a narrow field of attention, but the hypnotist doesn't. And in a process of mass formation, usually, the opposite is true. The field of attention of the person who hypnotizes is usually even narrower than that of the masses themselves. That's why the experts in this situation make mistakes that ordinary people wouldn't make. And that was very clear to me from the beginning. If you look at the statistics and the numbers that are presented through the mass media, they often were so blatantly wrong, that even a child can see it. And still, it is as if many of the experts do not realize it. And that's because in one way or another, they very often are hypnotized, or their field of attention is even narrower. We could talk for days about the leaders of the masses. It's fairly complicated. Because in one way or another, they are hypnotized. In another way, they often manipulate, and cheat, and lie to the people. They do really believe in their ideology and in the ideals they are striving for. That's something they are usually hypnotized by. But usually, they do not believe in the narrative that they are presenting to the people. They feel that it is justified to lie to the people and to manipulate them. You have to make a distinction there. They are hypnotized in this sense that they really believe in a megalomaniac way, that their ideology will create a kind of a paradise for humanity. But that doesn't mean that they believe everything they are telling us. Because usually, they know that they are manipulating a population. It's double, I think. 

AUBREY: Have you been threatened to lose your job as a professor for speaking out in this way? Has there been any consequences for you professionally? Because we certainly hear in different places? 

MATTIAS: Not at this moment? Not at this moment. I've been under huge pressure. Some people at my university told me that I should watch out for what I was saying. And I felt that they implied that if I continued in the same way, I could get in trouble. But at the same time, up until now, I've never felt really threatened because in Belgium, professor is a very well protected profession. But I think in the near future, it might become problematic, actually. I think that things are getting worse, of course. For instance, if you refuse the vaccine, I don't know if it will still be possible to teach the students for instance. 

AUBREY: We're seeing that with a lot of our healthcare workers. It's a very interesting time I want to end with a positive message that actually came from Carl Jung. Obviously, it wasn't pertaining to this time, but it's almost very prescient for where we are now. He says, it is not for nothing that our age cries out for the redeemer personality, for the one who can emancipate himself from the grip of the collective psychosis, save at least his own soul, who lights a beacon of hope for others, proclaiming that here, as at least one man who has succeeded in extricating himself from the fatal identity within the group psyche. 

MATTIAS: Wonderful. 

AUBREY: It's just a beautiful message. Even if you don't say anything, even if you don't go out there, emancipate yourself. This is crucial. Be the living example of someone who is free, and someone who can generate their own thoughts, and have agency. Be aware of your own biases, be aware of your own desire for confirmation, be aware of your own desire to be better than others, it's all okay. We're all human. But liberate yourself with that awareness. And that's a great way to stand in this world, where people are really subject to phenomena like mass formation. 

MATTIAS: It's a very nice quote. Yes, I agree. 

AUBREY: Thank you so much for joining. If people are interested in learning more from you, and I know you got a book coming out if you want to talk about that. 

MATTIAS: Yes. It will be published in Dutch first, but then it will be translated very quickly. The title is "The Psychology of Totalitarianism." I really go into the phenomenon of totalitarianism and mass formation and its historical roots and try to explain how it emerged in our society. And then also, I will also try to show what the real solutions to the problem are. I think it will be available in Dutch somewhere in February next year. And then I hope a few months later, also in English in American. 

AUBREY: If the world hasn't dramatically changed by then, maybe we'll do another podcast after I can get my hands on the English version of that. Absolutely. Thank you so much. Appreciate you coming on. 

MATTIAS: Thank you for listening, Aubrey.