Power Grab attempted by WHO?

By Mattias Desmet, End of May 2024 through June 1st, 2024:

Video: Mattias Desmet: This goes far beyond #massformation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppFN6WtLsys Mattias Desmet is BACK! His original interview outlined the theory of mass formation to explain why the masses appeared to be living under some kind of spell and reached well over one - 1 - million downloads. Mattias returns to talk about how we can advance and defend the truth in an age of propaganda. Mattias Desmet is a professor of psychology at Ghent University and author of The Psychology of Totalitarianism.

06-09-2024 Message via email:

Last week, discussions were held at a World Health Organization -WHO- summit in Geneva regarding the so-called Pandemic Treaty. Parallel to this summit, the Inspired Global Leadership Summit was organized, a conference critical of the Pandemic Treaty. I was invited to speak at this summit, and I accepted the invitation. Let me explain why.

At the WHO summit, among other things, 300 amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) were proposed. These amendments would allow the WHO to unilaterally declare an international medical emergency if an unspecified council of experts and virologists deems it advisable. The stated goal: to respond more efficiently to pandemics by developing a so-called 'One Health Policy.'

• What does the One Health Policy entail? If you browse the WHO website, you will find something like the following: humans are part of a broader ecological system; everything is interconnected—humans, animals, plants, and the climate system; therefore, a holistic approach is needed. No one would object against this vision. Even New Agers and the remaining hippies wouldn't.

And how exactly does one plan to realize the One Health Policy?

• This is where it gets a bit more delicate. The WHO wants globally coordinated prevention and management of so-called international Medical Emergencies. Once such an emergency is declared, the WHO takes radical control: they want to autonomously enter contracts with pharmaceutical companies, impose travel restrictions on citizens, and mandate standardized medical interventions. They also aim to establish a broader global bio-surveillance system, including permanent vaccination passports. For this, the WHO has taken over the technology of the EU Digital Covid Certificate from the EU as of July 1, 2023. You know, the certificate based on the subsequently proven false assumption that the Covid vaccine would stop the virus's spread.

The medical emergency thus grants almost absolute power to the WHO.

• This raises the question: who can declare the international medical emergency under the proposed legislation? It won't surprise you: the Director-General of the WHO. And for this, there doesn’t even need to be a viral outbreak. Climate changes that could potentially trigger such an outbreak are sufficient to declare an emergency.

Allow us to have some reservations.

• Firstly, it has become sufficiently clear that the experts and virologists of the WHO are quite quick to notice a medical emergency. Increasingly so in recent decades. For example, in 2023, the WHO deemed monkeypox a medical emergency when approximately 16,000 cases were detected in a world population of over 8 billion people.
• The experts and virologists in charge noted that 'we had no control whatsoever' over monkeypox, and the mass media helped spread their message. The result: in a short time, long queues formed at vaccination centers, and Big Pharma swung into action. Belgium alone invested 110 million euros in vaccines against monkeypox. No idea how many were administered, but either they were remarkably effective, or it was a false pandemic alarm. I suspect the latter option is the most plausible.
• If you browse the WHO texts, you’ll find a discourse convinced of the beneficial nature of a technocratic approach to global health, where the 'right,' 'scientific,' 'rational' medical interventions are top-down imposed on the population through the strictest possible surveillance.
• The WHO (and related globalist institutions) undoubtedly see themselves as the ultimate representatives of the Enlightenment tradition, the pinnacle of rationality. I dare to doubt whether that is true. And I'm putting it mildly.
• To return to the monkeypox example: from a rational point of view, does anyone actually doubt that those 110 million euros in Belgium could have been better spent on combating, say, child poverty and education?

And does the WHO really represents the kind of open mindedness the seminal Enlightenment philosophers had in mind?

• Read the texts generally considered the basis of the Enlightenment tradition. What does Kant say, for example, in his essay 'What is Enlightenment'? He says, unequivocally, that the goal of the Enlightenment tradition is to free the citizen from his immaturity. It’s all too easy to let a teacher determine what is right and wrong, a priest what is good and evil, and yes, a doctor what is healthy and unhealthy. Think for yourself. Dare to think. Sapere Aude.
• This is what I think: in their pursuit of a rational approach to health, institutions like the WHO have inadvertently ended up in the opposite. They no longer represent science, rationality, and the Enlightenment, let alone a society with self-determination and the right to free speech. In its absolutist, totalitarian ambitions, rationality has turned into absurd irrationality, and the pursuit of Enlightenment heralds a new era of darkness.
• The Pandemic Treaty is being negotiated by all members of the WHO General Assembly, which includes all 193 UN member countries.
• The results are binding for all 193 countries. This means that none of the states can escape it, under penalty of (severe) economic sanctions imposed by the UN. If a simple majority ultimately votes for the amendments, the legislation will come into effect within 12 months, so by May 2025.
• The vote is essentially a moment where democratically elected politicians will vote for or against the abolition of democracy. If a simple majority is reached, we will be one huge step closer to replacing democracy with technocracy—a world where citizens are passively subjected to 'experts.'
• Last year, I raised my voice about this in the European Parliament in Strasbourg and Brussels and in the US senate at Capitol Hill. And I did so again last week in Geneva. People across all political orientations must unite who fundamentally question this technocratic trend. They must unite, not into a mass, but into a group. The difference between a mass and a group?
• A mass connects because everyone fanatically shares the same opinion; a group connects because people grant each other the right to speak as human beings, regardless of opinions.
• In a mass, differing opinions are a reason for hatred and aggression; in a group, differing opinions are a reason for love. Precisely where the Other is different, he becomes interesting. As I have said elsewhere: If we only love the Other because he is identical to ourselves, we do not love the Other but our own mirror image, and what we feel is not love but narcissism.

And the act that leads to connection is an act as old as humanity itself: the act of sincere speaking. Ultimately, it is this act, which humans were capable of around the campfires of prehistoric times, that will surpass the power of the greatest technological surveillance apparatus. It is the art of speaking, the phenomenon of truth, that must be rediscovered in times of technocracy. It is the citizen who masters the art of sincere speaking that Kant had in mind in his essay on Enlightenment—not the citizen who mindlessly follows and undergoes the expert discourse of the WHO.

• The World Health Assembly is the decision-making body of WHO. It is attended by delegations from all WHO Member States and focuses on a specific health agenda prepared by the Executive Board. The main functions of the World Health Assembly are to determine the policies of the Organization, appoint the Director-General, supervise financial policies, and review and approve the proposed programme budget. The Health Assembly is held annually in Geneva, Switzerland.
• Watch the World Health Assembly Sessions, click next: https://www.who.int/about/accountability/governance/world-health-assembly/seventy-seventh
• Strategic Roundtables were held, Watch the sessions on 28 May – 1 June 2024 at 13:00–14:15 CEST.: https://www.who.int/news-room/events/detail/2024/05/28/default-calendar/strategic-roundtables-seventy-seventh-world-health-assembly

Sessions Held:?

Tuesday 28 May 2024, 13:00–14:15 CEST, Room XX, UN Palais

All for Health, Health for All: the WHO Investment Case, 2025-2028

Moderator

John-Arne Rottingen

Panelists

Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General

Budi Gunadi Sadikin, Minister of Health, Indonesia

Ong Ye Kung, Minister for Health, Singapore

Juan Pablo Uribe, Global Director for Health Nutrition and Population at the World Bank

Nandita Das, Actor, filmmaker, and social advocate

Stephen Donnelly, Minister of Health, Ireland

Jutta Urpilainen, European Commissioner for International Partnerships (video)

Mark Butler, Minister of Health and Aged Care, Australia

Chris Elias, President of the Global Development Division, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Lord Nick Markham, Minister for the Lords, Department of Health and Social Care, United Kingdom

Suzanne Ahialegbedzi Steensen, Head, Multilateral Organization Performance Assessment Network (MOPAN) Secretariat

This interactive discussion about the need for a sustainably financed World Health Organization will also mark the launch of an Investment Case, which will underpin WHO’s first ever Investment Round. Titled “All for Health, Health for All: the WHO Investment Case, 2025-2028,” the report will be rich with data and examples of WHO’s impact globally and in countries. Speakers will set out WHO’s unique role in global health, consider the opportunities and challenges for global health in the next four years, and share their support for a successful Investment Round as Member States and others rally around a sustainably financed WHO.

Learn more about the session

?

Tuesday 28 May 2024, 18:00–21:00 CEST, Chateau de Penthes (separate registration for this event)

Celebrating 50 years of immunization progress: honouring achievements, embracing innovation, and envisioning the future

Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly special event

Five decades ago, millions of children died of diseases such as measles, polio and diphtheria with few having access to life-saving vaccines. In May 1974, WHO launched the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI), bringing countries together to provide children everywhere with vaccines. Since then, governments, scientists, civil society, health workers and communities have worked together to deliver on this dream, saving an estimated 154 million children – 6 lives every minute – over the past 50 years.

This special high-level event will celebrate the remarkable progress and countless lives saved through what is now referred to as the Essential Programme on Immunization due to the expanded scope of essential vaccines across the life course, and call for renewed political and financial commitment to prioritize, invest in and strengthen essential immunization programmes worldwide.?Join Dr Tedros, leaders, legends and rising stars of immunization for an evening exploring what has been, and what will be, humanly possible.

The session takes place at Chateau de Penthes on Tuesday, 28 May 2024, between 18:00–21:00 CEST.

18:00–18:45Reception19:00–21:00Main program

This is a special high-level event for Ministers, Heads of Agency, and senior officials. Due to high demand and limited space availability, we can only accommodate a maximum of two people per delegation.

Vaccines are one of humanity’s greatest achievements, saving millions of lives every year. This special event will celebrate the remarkable achievements and countless lives saved through 50 years of the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) and call for renewed political commitment to sustain, invest in and strengthen essential immunization programmes worldwide. Join Dr Tedros, leaders, legends and rising stars of immunization for an evening exploring what has been, and what will be, humanly possible.

This is a special high-level event for Ministers, Heads of Agency, and senior officials. Due to high demand and limited space availability, we can only accommodate a maximum of two people per delegation.

Learn more about the special event

?

Wednesday 29 May 2024, 13:00–14:15 CEST, Room XVIII, UN Palais

Economics and financing of health and well-being for all: A bold new vision for achieving universal health coverage

Moderator

Ilona Kickbusch

Panelists

Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General

Professor Mariana Mazzucato, Chair, WHO Council on the Economics of Health for All

Dr Githinji Gitahi, Group Chief Executive Officer, Amref Health Africa

Mr Thomas ?stros, Vice-President, European Investment Bank

H.E. Dr Akmaral Alnazarova, Minister of Healthcare, Kazakhstan

Mr Martin Chungong, Inter-Parliamentary Union Secretary General

This roundtable will delve into pivotal new opportunities for WHO Member States and parliaments to reposition Health For All as a shared responsibility across sectors and a powerful driver of sustainable and equitable development. Urgent investments in health—with a strong focus on reorienting health systems towards primary health care to achieve universal health coverage—represents a key global priority. It is crucial to increasing the resilience of communities to future health crises, and will ensure the delivery of quality healthcare for all in an increasingly turbulent world.

Learn more about the session

?

Thursday 30 May 2024, 13:00–14:15 CEST, Room XVIII, UN Palais

Artificial intelligence for health: opportunities, risks, and governance

Moderator

Dr Magdalena Skipper

Panelists

Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General

Professor Effy Vayena, Professor of Bioethics and Policy, Swiss Institute of Technology (ETH)

Dr Atul Gawande, Assistant Administrator for Global Health, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)

H.E. Omar Sultan Al Olama, Minister of State for AI & Digital Economy and Remote Work Applications, United Arab Emirates

Mr Marco Marsella, EU4Health and Health systems modernisation DG SANTE – Health and food safety, European Commission

Dr Karen DeSalvo, Google Chief Health Officer

Professor, Dr, med. Mathias Goyen, Chief Medical Officer Oncology GE, HealthCare

This roundtable will look at how to harness the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) for health, while ensuring a focus on equity and inclusion, and appropriate protections for human rights and privacy. Aligning with WHO’s work to support the digital transformation of health systems, the session aims to foster global collaboration and identify leadership priorities for WHO and partners. Speakers from academia, ministries of health and information and communications technology, the regulatory and private sectors will address key issues, challenges and resources to help inform future WHO digital health and AI strategies.

Learn more about the session

?

Friday 31 May 2024, 13:00–14:15 CEST, Room XVIII, UN Palais

Charting a new path forward for global action against antimicrobial resistance

Moderator

Professor Baron Peter Piot

Panelists

Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General

H.E. Mia Amor Mottley, Prime Minister of Barbados, Chair of Global Leaders Group on AMR

Ms Vanessa Carter, Chair, WHO Taskforce of AMR Survivors

Professor Ramanan Laxminarayan, President, One Health Trust

Professor Dame Sally Davies, Special Envoy on AMR for the United Kingdom, Global Leaders Group on AMR member

Dr Abdullah Algwizani, CEO, Public Health Authority of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Dr Youngmee Jee, Commissioner, Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA)

Dr Audrey Wong, Chair, Quadripartite Working Group on Youth Engagement for AMR

H.E. Dr Jean Kaseya, Director-General, Africa CDC

Global leaders will convene together in September 2024 for the second United Nations General Assembly High-Level Meeting (HLM) on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR). This roundtable at WHA 77 will provide the opportunity for Member States to discuss the growing crisis of resistance to antimicrobial medicines and to consider human health and multi-sectoral actions to save millions of lives, safeguard economies, and ensure food safety and food security against AMR.

Learn more about the session

?

Saturday 1 June 2024, 13:00–14:15 CEST, Room XVIII, UN Palais

Climate change and health: a global vision for joint action

Moderator

Dr Richard Horton,?Editor-in-chief of The Lancet

Panelists

Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General

Al Gore, Former Vice President of the United States (video)

Dr Teymur Musayev, Minister of Healthcare of Azerbaijan Republic

Dr Atonio Lalabalavu, Minister of Health and Medical Services, Fiji

Mr Adnan Z. Amin, Chief Executive Officer, COP 28

Dr Filomena Gon?alves, Minister of Health, Cape Verde

Professor Celeste Saulo, Secretary General, World Meteorological Organization

This roundtable aims to build momentum from COP28 towards COP29 to shape the global health architecture for addressing climate change. This roundtable has particular significance, given that a climate and health resolution is expected to be adopted at the World Health Assembly and that climate change is the focus of one of the six strategic objectives of WHO’s Fourteenth General Programme of Work. Discussions will also facilitate coordination and collaboration and outline relevant initiatives.

WHO headquarters in Geneva

Avenue Appia 20 1211 Geneva Switzerland

Telephone: +41 22 791 21 11

United Kingdom Parliament

House of Commons Library

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9550/

What is the WHO Pandemic Treaty? Research Briefing 05-29-2024 by Dr. Patrick Burchard, Bukky Balogun

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9550/CBP-9550.pdf

The WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty

In March 2021, a group of world leaders, including then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson,?announced an initiative for a new treaty?on pandemic preparedness and response. This initiative was taken to the World Health Organization (WHO) and?has been negotiated, drafted, and debated by a newly-established Intergovernmental Negotiation Body.

A petition?on the UK Parliament website called for the Government “to commit to not signing any international treaty on pandemic prevention and preparedness established by the WHO, unless this is approved through a public referendum”. The petition closed in November 2022 with 156,086 signatures, and was?debated in Parliament on 17 April 2023.

A further e-petition, related to proposed amendments to the International Health Reguations 2005 (IHR), called on Parliament to “hold a parliamentary vote on whether to reject amendments to the IHR 2005”. The Parliamentary Petition was debated on 18 December 2023. The Government responded to this petition on 5 May 2023, with an updated response on 4 July 2023, explaining that the UK supports strengthening the IHR and the amendment process

This briefing will give an overview of the key background, progress, and developments of the treaty as of 29 May 2024. It will also give an overview of the parallel amendments being made to the International Health Regulations.

As of 29 May 2024, negotiations on the Pandemic Treaty had?failed to reach a conclusion before the 2024 World Health Assembly. The WHO indicated that states had agreed to continue discussing the next steps for negotiations, with the aim of agreeing the timing, format and process to conclude the pandemic agreement.?

The 77th World Health Assembly runs from 27 May until 1 June 2024.

What is being proposed?

In the March 2021 joint article,?the group of leaders said:

The main goal of this treaty would be to foster an all of government and all of society approach, strengthening national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics. This includes greatly enhancing international co-operation to improve, for example, alert systems, data-sharing, research and local, regional and global production and distribution of medical and public health counter-measures such as vaccines, medicines, diagnostics and personal protective equipment.

The article acknowledges existing provision for a coordinated international response under the?International Health Regulations, which would “underpin such a treaty”.

In October 2021, the Working Group on Strengthening WHO Preparedness for and Response to Health Emergencies (WGPR)?published a ‘zero draft’ report?outlining an assessment of the benefits of a new WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response, for consideration by the World Health Assembly.?This Report, among other things, suggested that such an initiative “could include promoting high-level political commitment and whole-of-government whole-of-society approaches, addressing equity, enhancing the One Health approach, and strengthening health systems and their resilience.”

On 29 November – 1 December 2021, the WHO’s World Health Assembly (WHA)?met in a special session?to discuss the proposal and the way forward. This was only the second ever special session of its kind in the history of the Assembly.

In this session, the WHA agreed to establish an Intergovernmental Negotiating Body to draft and negotiate “a WHO convention, agreement, or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”

Does the UK support the treaty?

Then Prime Minister Boris Johnson was a signatory to?the article proposing the treaty initially.?

On 27 May 2022, the Government responded to the Parliamentary petition, stating that it supported a new legally-binding instrument “as part of a cooperative and comprehensive approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”

During an Urgent Question in the House of Commons on 14 May 2024, the UK Government indicated that it would not sign the treaty in its current form but did not explicitly state the reasons for this.

The UK’s final position on the exact substance of the treaty remains to be seen as negotiations continue.

What does the treaty say?

The Zero Draft of the treaty, known as the Zero Draft of WHO CA+, was published on 1 February 2023, and discussed at the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body’s fourth meeting between 27 February 2023 and 3 March 2023.

The latest public version?(PDF) of the negotiating text was published on 22 April 2024. Click: https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb9/A_inb9_3Rev1-en.pdf

Because the Zero Draft was the starting point for negotiations, the substantive provisions and content of the treaty continue to change. Currently, the parties are negotiating on issues such as:

• The definition, means, and procedure for declaring a pandemic, and what this actually means in practice for states.
• How the treaty would work alongside the International Health Regulations.
• Key international principles that will guide the treaty, such as human rights, sovereignty, equity, solidarity, transparency, accountability and more.
• How to achieve equity in the global supply chain for pandemic-related products, and access to relevant technologies.
• Strengthening the resilience and responsiveness of health systems.
• How states and the WHO should be coordinating and cooperating in pandemic preparedness and response.
• How to finance pandemic preparedness and response initiatives.
• Setting up a new Governing Body for the treaty – a COP or Conference of the Parties.
• Other general legal issues relating to the treaty, such as amendments, withdrawal, and dispute settlement.

Reports suggest that the main contentious issues in negotiations are over the sharing of pandemic-related health products via donations and affordable / not-for-profit pricing for developing states, and the corresponding sharing of pathogen data, known as the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System. ?This is contained in Article 12 of the April 2024 version of the negotiating text of the treaty.

Will the WHO be given powers to impose restrictive measures?

Neither the proposed treaty, nor the amendments to the International Health Regulations propose to cede powers of this kind or sovereignty to the WHO.

During an Urgent Question in the House of Commons on 14 May 2024, the Minister for Health and Secondary Care indicated that “under no circumstances will we allow the WHO to have the power to mandate lockdowns. That would be unthinkable and has never been proposed.”

In May 2024, a WHO spokesperson told The Guardian that:

Claims that the draft agreement will cede sovereignty to WHO and will give the WHO secretariat power to impose lockdowns or vaccine mandates on countries are false and have never been requested nor proposed. This agreement will not, and cannot, grant sovereignty to WHO.

This briefing further explains where these concerns may have originated from, and how negotiations have addressed potential confusion over some proposals.

How does this relate to the International Health Regulations?

Alongside the development of the pandemic preparedness treaty, the WHO is also undertaking a review of the International Health Regulations 2005 (IHR).

As part of this process, more than 300 amendments have been proposed by States Parties.

These amendments were subject to a review by the Review Committee regarding amendments to the International Health Regulations. The terms of reference (PDF) for this Review Committee detail the exact scope of the work and analysis that the Committee was expected to undertake on the proposed amendments.

The WHO has also produced a Reference Document (PDF) containing a list of the proposed amendments alongside the Review Committee’s technical recommendations to these.

Key dates and future progress

According to the WHO,?the following are key recent developments and updates in the progress of the treaty.

• The INB hosted its fifth meeting in April 2023.
• The INB delivered a progress report to the 76th World Health Assembly in May 2023.
• A INB Drafting Group met in June 2023.
• The INB hosted its sixth meeting in July 2023.
• Further meetings or drafting group sessions were held in September, November, and December 2023, leading to the publication of the proposed negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement.
• At its seventh full meeting in December 2023, the INB recommended the continuation of informal discussions with Member States. Member States were asked to propose further textual amendments by 15 January 2024 for consideration at the eighth INB meeting (19 February–1 March 2024).
• UK Minister Andrew Stephenson indicated in Parliament on 14 May 2024that a further round of negotiations were to take place on 16 and 17 May and 20 to 25 May, leading up to the World Health Assembly taking place on 27 May to 1 June.
• The ninth meeting was due to take place from 18–28 March 2024, and met again over several resumed sessions on 29 April-10 May 2024 and 20-24 May 2024.
• The INB was due to submit its outcome for consideration by the 77thWorld Health Assembly in May 2024. As of 29 May 2024, negotiations on the Pandemic Treaty had?failed to reach a conclusion before the 2024 World Health Assembly.
• At the time of writing, the WHO indicated that states had agreed to continue discussing the next steps for negotiations, with the aim of agreeing the timing, format and process to conclude the pandemic agreement.

MATTIAS DESMET IS professor of psychology at the University of Ghent (Belgium). He is well known in academic circles for his research on fraud within academia: Desmet analyzes the psychology of the researcher who gives in to the need to provide interesting results. During the Covid-19 crisis, Desmet played a critical role in pointing out fundamental mistakes in the way in which Western governments responded: according to Desmet, the policies of lockdown have been more detrimental and harmful than the virus itself. Governments are hiding this fact in the statistics that count victims of the Covid-19 policies as victims of the virus, thus creating an ever-growing monster. In his new book, The Psychology of Totalitarianism, he gives an account of how the mentality responsible for this mistake is shaped historically and psychologically.

At the origin of this psychology of totalitarianism is not some diabolical plan to control society, Desmet argues, but the way in which the world has become disenchanted: the success of science has led to a paradoxical “faith in science.” This faith in science is paradoxical because it distracts from the fact that science is essentially a methodology, not a consistent worldview. Taking science as a worldview, the world appears as a meaningless substance. As a result, the subject is cut loose from its traditional connections to the world and to society, which causes immense existential stress and anxiety. The ensuing atomized subject, Desmet quite plausibly argues, is highly vulnerable to totalitarian narratives.

Given Desmet’s focus on scientific integrity, it is surprising, and sometimes more than a little grating, how carelessly he presents his essay. The story of how science and modernity altered the worldview in Western society as it is presented here lacks the depth and sophistication of a work that analyzes the same development like Charles Taylor’s A Secular Age. The first four chapters are lifted probably from a course Desmet teaches at Ghent; they are only connected to the book’s thesis by way of two-sentence paragraphs at their very end, wherein the author glosses Hannah Arendt. Also, Desmet’s argument on the Covid-19 crisis is entirely one-sided. While he attacks the virologist who claimed that the young man who died after attending a party that violated the lockdown “didn’t deserve pity,” it is not evident that Desmet has much sympathy to those who died or whose lives are otherwise disrupted by the virus—the threat of Covid itself is never addressed seriously in the book. Finally, this critique of society ultimately relies on a mystical and religious attitude toward reality, which is certainly deserving of study, but it is mostly taken for granted here.

That said, and perhaps to a degree because of these privileges that Desmet assumes, The Psychology of Totalitarianismmakes us question to what extent we are implicated in and duped by the culture of totalitarianism. Indeed, Desmet talks about how, if the ideologue does not believe his own narrative, he nevertheless believes that his cause warrants that exaggerated and distorted message. In that sense, Desmet’s book cannot rise above the playing field he aspires to analyze objectively.