Much has been written to hypothesise why there has been a majority of the global populace, that have been hoodwinked by the propaganda assault of late, or those that have chosen to be willfully ignorant of self-evident truths. Rather than overly citing specific examples of the fallacies and outright fabrications of realities crafted and spun by governments, this post shall explore the theories and the philosophical questions surrounding why so many have rushed towards pseudoscience and authoritarianism.
For context on examples of the masses’ unshakeable belief systems towards approved narratives and consensus, please delve into a previous post that provides a light-hearted look at anecdotal instances, to describe the mindset of what I ‘endearingly’ termed to be The NPC Community.
Matthias Desmet’s elaboration on Mass Formation provides careful consideration to explain the psychology behind galvanising the masses into believing absurdities. When their free floating anxiety, isolation, and disrupted familiar social bonds interfere with their ability to think critically, therefore priming them to latch onto and embrace a mass formation.
Desmet’s theories are compelling and have helped to illuminate the applied behavioural psychological techniques (at the behest of governments and public health bodies), into the public domain. This has led to a growing awareness of the information war being foisted on the general public. It is most certainly in the best interests of humanity to be better informed, and to be encouraged to think critically.
Desmet’s Mass Formation theory provided the inspiration for my first ever article, A Brief Exploration of COVID-induced Mass Psychosis.
A recent article by Dr. Frank Palmer, gave pause for thought whilst evoking Desmet’s group psychology theory as being limited in it’s deductive reasoning. Palmer writes:
His Mass Psychosis theory not only reduces compliance to a pathology (are all the compliers really insane?) which in turn implies that people are not morally responsible for their attitudes and behaviour, but also fails to draw important distinctions between those who believed the fearmongering lies and those who merely conformed for a variety of reasons, as with those who pretended to believe for the sake of their careers, the workshy who were happy to be furloughed and ‘working’ from the comfort of home, and those who just bury their heads under the bedclothes and don’t want to think at all (‘too upsetting’).
Freedom is surely the most valuable resource on our planet, although far too many people have willingly traded this for a false sense of safety and security.
Theories on psychology and group think are interesting in making the how and the why more relatable to what we have all witnessed and experienced firsthand. The unanswered question, mused upon by Dr. Palmer, is why so many people have chosen to evade social responsibility as a result of their actions (or non-action in not standing up to tyranny).
Writing in the year 2000, Mahoney, Howard, and Madrigal researched the concept of BIRGing and CORFing amongst sports spectators.
BIRGing refers to when a sports fan is basking in the success of their team’s glory.
CORFing refers to when a sports fan chooses to dissociate themselves from the team following failure.
This theory categorised fans into two sub-groups: high identifiers and low identifiers. High identifiers have fewer tendencies to ‘CORF’ and were described as being more loyal and emotional. These fans have a greater inclination for self-serving bias. They would provide lots of vocal support and explain failure through uncontrollable external factors, such as cheating and poor refereeing. High identifiers have greater expectations than low identifiers (more ‘wishful thinking’).
The research showed that for some fans, their sense of community is prioritised above all else. Meaning, they will continue to support their team without question, even when the costs (losing) often outweigh the rewards (winning). This suggests that they are highly socially committed to their role as fans. These instances can be linked to Madrigal’s research where a loyal supporter would never dissociate (CORF) themselves from the team due to failure.
If this same sports psychology theory used to explain football fandom, can be applied to the critical mass of people having a proclivity towards going along with the narratives, then what are the implications for such deductive reasoning?
At the start of the mass rollout of experimental gene therapy injections, we saw a significant majority of people, appearing to bask in the ‘success’ of being a part of the largest scale human experiment of all time, to “stop the spread.” They BIRGed hard.
We can recollect the proliferation of individuals posting to their social media accounts en masse, proudly stating how they’d “just got my COVID-19
vaccine injection”, complete with needle emojis and literal stickers on their clothes acting as badges of honour. From small to medium businesses, to multinational companies, they too enthusiastically showcased photographic and video montages of their workforces taking part. This was particularly excessive in Thailand, for which I extensively documented in COVID Cult Country - Save Our Children.
The ‘high identifiers’, whom are loyal to the team (being the narrative, the experts, the greater good) continue to support the ‘team’ without question. They provide lots of vocal support and explain failure through uncontrollable external factors, such as government corruption and incompetence. Ergo, they do not see premeditation or malicious intent. To quip a ‘Britishism’, they see any perceived failure as a ‘cock-up’.
This extends to the fallout from the injection (ADR, ADE, VAIDS, SIDS, SADS). It also extends to what is now seen by many as a controlled demolition of the global economy, as being a mere ‘bungling’ by politicians and policy-makers.
However, the ‘low identifiers’, whom are / were less loyal to the narrative, were quicker to dissociate themselves from the obvious failure of both the pharma companies to deliver on their fantastical promises for the injections, as well as all the non pharmaceutical interventions (masks, social distancing, lockdowns), which were flawed from the beginning.
These low identifiers began to exhibit CORFing behaviour. They hurriedly deleted their 2021 social media posts expressing disdain for the unjected, along with their badge of honour posts. They agitatedly changed the conversation when challenged about the beliefs they held / hold, or they projected their anger onto their
benevolent malevolent governmental institutions, holding them to account for misleading the public; although oftentimes still evading social responsibility for themselves as individuals.
Do you think this sports psychology research has relevant applications to explain how and why some people are die-hard (literally) narrative believers, and others choose to switch allegiances in order to dissociate themselves from failure and shame?
As fascinating as group psychology is, I have come to believe that the simplest explanation for why some of us stood up to tyranny, is a spiritual knowingness of good vs evil, and right vs wrong. It cannot be fully quantified, scientifically measured, or explained in a psychological framework. For some, their internal moral compass supersedes all external factors thrown at them.
We few will always exist and we few will always stand up for what's right...because it's the right thing to do, so how could we act any differently?
Nicholas Creed is a Bangkok-based journalistic infidel impervious to propaganda. If you liked this content and wish to support the work, buy him a coffee or consider a crypto donation: