Mass Hysteria And Psychology

"Mass psychogenic illness
In sociology and psychology, mass hysteria (also known as mass psychogenic illness, collective hysteria, group hysteria, or collective obsessional behavior) is a phenomenon that transmits collective illusions of threats, whether real or imaginary, through a population and society as a result of rumors and fear.

In medicine, the term is used to describe the spontaneous manifestation—or production of chemicals in the body—of the same or similar hysterical physical symptoms by more than one person.

A common type of mass hysteria occurs when a group of people believes that it is suffering from a similar disease or ailment, sometimes referred to as mass psychogenic illness or epidemic hysteria."

Note, this collective hysteria needn't be imaginary in its totality just as witchcraft was never totally fictional since the Druids had been active even prior to Roman invasion. Yet in the 17th century hysteria over witchcraft finally broke into a destructive circle of accusation, suspicion and paranoia. Perhaps the equivalent of being a witch today is to be a carrier. And likely behind the cycle of mass apprehension is some social ingredient of mass anxiety.

I'm inclined to believe it is indeed "imaginary in its totality".
https://www.stopworldcontrol.com/planned/
https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-cri ... on/5725795
https://21stcenturywire.com/2020/10/13/ ... te-agenda/
Enjoy!

Candid wrote:I'm inclined to believe it is indeed "imaginary in its totality".
https://www.stopworldcontrol.com/planned/
https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-cri ... on/5725795
https://21stcenturywire.com/2020/10/13/ ... te-agenda/
Enjoy!

The climate crisis did occur to me as a possibility but let's logically evaluate the facts we know. I'll stick to psychology after a brief intro.
First of all, we need to ask is the Covid virus real?
My own estimation is the virus is real and I base that on people I met who had the virus. How it compares to standard flu I do not know as I'm not a biologist.
Second question: Is the danger posed by the virus exaggerated?
That is certainly the case, I think. From the psychology perspective it seems all "unchartered" crisis situations provoke hysterical, neurotic behaviour. There's the story of the King and his invisible suit. The more people went along with the idea the King wasn't naked at all, the less inclined others were to dare suggest such was indeed the case. That then led to the most educated officials all competing to demonstrate how they fully "grasped" how marvellous the King's suit was.
So, now it just became a totally predictable pattern of what Hans Anderson referred to. We are told wearing surgical masks and not socialising doesn't have any influence on long term immunity. This coming from supposed experts. Anyone who saw H.G..Well"s War Of The Worlds may recall in the end we were told what killed the aliens was a simple strain of bacteria. It was explained that at the cost of billions of deaths or infections over millions of years, humans had gradually evolved to cope with bacteria. So, statistically the bulk of the population successfully fights off disease. Now, however, the new crop of scientists see no illogic at all in the "run and hide" approach. They are now all convinced they can beat the virus by not interacting with Mother Nature. So, honestly, last time I went to the local park I was struck by the increased quantity of Canadian geese and ducks, as well as pigeons. Meantime, people walked around in their masks while stall owners wore gloves and sprayed coins with disinfectant.
It would seem some deeper seated fear has brought about what I would call a mass contagion of OCD. It clearly is OCD because I have observed clear signs that it is just that. For example, mass transmitted stereotypical behaviour.The population of a town, for example, decides to buy and stock toilet rolls. Then a city. Then a whole country - all stocking toilet rolls as if this can somehow protect them from doomsday. Finally, entire continents all imitating a stereotypical response. Remember how back in the 1960s women started to scream and faint at pop stars. It started with Frankie Avalon when he sung Oh Venus in 1959. By the time of The Beatles, mass group hysteria became dangerous to the band so they couldn't go out or risk being mobbed by screaming fans.
The problem is the more people are influenced by any mass hysteria, the worse it gets. How to diffuse the current wave of manic OCD and paranoia is the problem we face.

H G. Wells

"For so it had come about, as indeed I and many men might have foreseen had not terror and disaster blinded our minds. These germs of disease have taken toll of humanity since the beginning of things--taken toll of our prehuman ancestors since life began here. But by virtue of this natural selection of our kind we have developed resisting power; to no germs do we succumb without a struggle, and to many--those that cause putrefaction in dead matter, for instance--our living frames are altogether immune. But there are no bacteria in Mars, and directly these invaders arrived, directly they drank and fed, our microscopic allies began to work their overthrow. Already when I watched them they were irrevocably doomed, dying and rotting even as they went to and fro. It was inevitable. By the toll of a billion deaths man has bought his birthright of the earth, and it is his against all comers; it would still be his were the Martians ten times as mighty as they are. For neither do men live nor die in vain."

Regardless of the percentages that each nation expresses, the objective data in the world are like this: every 42 infected 1 dies. Any other flu virus does not have all of these victims. Furthermore, any other flu virus does not clog the hospitals of powerful nations like Italy which has excellent quality facilities!

Psicology wrote:Regardless of the percentages that each nation expresses, the objective data in the world are like this: every 42 infected 1 dies. Any other flu virus does not have all of these victims. Furthermore, any other flu virus does not clog the hospitals of powerful nations like Italy which has excellent quality facilities!

At the present time I consider the virus to be real and support attempts to protect the more vulnerable. However, there is bound to be some evolution of viruses against changes to resistance levels. Really my present concern is over the gradual unfolding of authoritarianism and the witch hunting phenomenon - with the paranoia and suspicion that goes with it. I see various high risk scenarios that could result from the current approach. Such as a decrease in overall immunity through a new ideology of forced social avoidance. It seems this policy is to be long term. So far, it has had little impact in stopping cases inEurope. It is also destabilising some countries (increasingly so in Germany). Suffice it to say I'm very skeptical there will be a happy ending - that the virus will just vanish into thin air.

By chance I'm doing a lot of research on psychosomatic phenomena. Many many Russian terms to list and learn such as коэнестезиопатия = physical symptoms caused by the mind. This is indeed true. I have experience of chronic joint pain brought about by mental state.
Looking at mass outbreaks of reported physical illness we have many examples:

" In Western settings, plausible fears of poisoning or exposure to toxic chemicals have been known to trigger classic stress-reactions such as fainting, nausea, weakness and hyperventilation. In a school in Blackburn in 1965, for instance, as many as 141 pupils were affected by psychogenic dizziness, nausea, spasms and shortness of breath after several girls had publicly fainted (Bartholomew & Wessely, 2002). "

I have now spoken to a good many people in shops and in passing. I asked their thoughts concerning Covid. An overwhelming majority in no way demonstrated any kind of staunch determination to safeguard their health. It was far more a demonstration of anxiety and deep-seated unease. Overall, reactions that struck me as phobic. I would state that without a doubt all of the people I speak with are demonstrating acute anxiety.

"Thus in 2006 around 600 students in an emotionally austere all-girls school in Mexico City developed paralysis and nausea lasting days or weeks. Analogous forms of MPI have been described in European and North American schools. In a school in North Carolina in 2002 a dozen pupils experienced seizures or other paroxysmal episodes over the course of four months (Roach and Langley, 2004). In many such cases, the victims receive extensive medical treatment before a failure to identify a pathogenic cause leads to a diagnosis of Mass Psychogenic Illness."

To answer whether it's real, you'd have to look at https://www.globalresearch.ca/june-stud ... ve/5727694

Also, pretty much anything by Dr Joseph Mercola https://articles.mercola.com/sites/arti ... 1603914707

Candid wrote:To answer whether it's real, you'd have to look at https://www.globalresearch.ca/june-stud ... ve/5727694

Also, pretty much anything by Dr Joseph Mercola https://articles.mercola.com/sites/arti ... 1603914707

I had a read and also passed on to a friend. Here is something to consider:
I have noticed both physical and cognitive deterioration amongst the population and this I attribute to vast changes in lifestyle. I feel sure real changes over the last 30 years are impacting seriously on health.
The average person when faced with the easiest option will almost always choose that soft option. The reason why we're not as physically healthy as people from the 1940s has an obvious explanation. We use our muscles far less. Lifts, cars, buses and even remote control make us much less active. Ultimately, walking up 5 blocks of stairs will be healthier than just using a lift. Despite that, by default, 95 per cent of people will take the lift.
Psychologically, the internet for most users will be the easy option. I find without a doubt that struggling to solve maths or other problems by yourself is far better than just using Google. In fact I concluded the internet is the worst way to study and get into deep thought. I do find the internet invaluable for finding essays (archive essays), or linguistics but for real thinking time I need quiet and increased concentration.
"Recent studies conducted in Denmark, Norway and the United Kingdom are seeing a noticeable slowing — and even a reversal — of IQ. In effect, IQs have lowered in this incredible era of technology."
This doesn't surprise me. As populations rely more and more on the internet, logic suggests they have to think far less themselves and there will also be less challenge or stimulation of the brain.
Conclusion? To survive in the food chain nature dictates all species maintain aggression, resourcefulness, survival instinct and actual connection with the environment. The snag is millions of years of evolution still impact on our bodies and psychological state.
I think the more populations try to withdraw from each other and the environment, the greater will be the deterioration in IQ, immunity to disease and overall ability to survive. It is almost what H.G. Wells predicted in his Time Machine novel.

One major aspect of this was already addressed by Prince Harry (who I always thought talks a lot of sense). However I will add some depth to what Harry said:
Whether intentional or otherwise, people are being programned to shun and fear personal contact with others. This I can see for myself without even a basic psychololgy qualification being necessary. People will quickly withdraw from you either due to their fear of infection, or fear you yourself may be afraid of them. In my case, I move away due to others being afraid and not wanting to cause anxiety to them.
So, what they haven't considered is how to "descale" aversion behaviour. Unfortunately to accomplish that is in itself a complex or maybe impossible task. People have suddenly learned to avoid and an overall conception that personal contact is "bad", "risky" and "subversive". That then adds to Prince Harry's warning of a mental health time bomb.
Taking it a step further, it's not irrational to look ahead in time and consider the impact on population. Theoretically this impact cannot be predicted on a basic calculator and could go beyond any perceived conception. If people get "locked into" avoidance on the level I now observe, population might not just decine but rather crash. As I say, de-escalation of acquired behaviour on this scale- in terms of basic psychology - would be hard to undo.
How do I know? Well, basically through my own challenges with mental health over the years and also experience of cults such as The Moonies or Children of God, or indeed Heaven's Gate. Back in the 1970s, some parents went so far as to hire "deprogrammers" in order to try and undo suspected cult influence.
I'm not making a case all of this has been planned but just going by implications all of this has in psychological terms and that could turn out to be dire.

"The Duke of Cambridge has warned that the UK faces a "mental health catastrophe" if the nation's entertainment industry collapses because of COVID-19 restrictions. He warned of the dangers of people not being able to go out and socialise with friends if prolonged lockdowns continue."

I believe mass hysteria is a form of groupthink. The group members feed off each other's emotional reactions, causing the panic to escalate.

davidbanner99@ wrote:To survive in the food chain nature dictates all species maintain aggression, resourcefulness, survival instinct and actual connection with the environment.

This, and connection with other people, is what has been taken from us. There is no justification for lockdowns and even less for whole-population testing known to give chiefly false positives. Most people are still well, physically if not mentally.

the more populations try to withdraw from each other and the environment, the greater will be the deterioration in IQ, immunity to disease and overall ability to survive. It is almost what H.G. Wells predicted in his Time Machine novel.

I agree, except that I consider it much more like George Orwell's 1984. Our elected leaders are supposed to serve US, not the other way round. The lockdowns are unconstitutional and the deliberate fear-mongering is unforgiveable.

Think back to last year. Were you privy to the daily death toll in your country? It wasn't something any of us thought about. It's no higher than would be expected judging by previous years' tolls. Plus, to state the obvious, no one's getting colds and flu any more. All kinds of sniffles are presented as 'The Virus'.

Since when did our elected leaders tell us what we may or may not do at Christmas? How did they take so much freedom from us, then hand it back for a few days and have the temerity to call it a gift? If 'The Virus' is so deadly, why is it okay for three households to get together at all?

The Virus's kill rate is actually very low. Conversely, the rushed RNA 'vaccines' are already causing death and disability. The mask-wearing compliant will blame all those of us who are much more afraid of our governments than of a manufactured supercold.

I love this gal. https://twitter.com/ezralevant/status/1 ... 6399451138

And we know what comes next. The meaningless 'case numbers' shoot up and we get locked down harder and for longer, at least until spring. Some of us are convinced it will go on for much longer, until the population is what the World Economic Forum considers a manageable number. By that stage all individuals apart from the obscenely wealthy will be so manageable (managed by fear) that they will feel and behave like robots.

When you can spare the time, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHRkkeecg7c
This man is very determined and his delivery may remind you of someone else who terrified so many people into brutal complicity between the first two wars.

Personally I believe entire populations will be in some form of lockdown indefinitely, or until they demonstrate what the masterminds have decided to do with us. This is the third Big War, also known as 4IR or the fourth industrial revolution. Perhaps you have time to study this http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Leadin ... lution.pdf

I have read enough to know it's not good. Our Richard may pop in here and say reduced population is exactly what I've wanted. I have consistently urged women not to reproduce, for the sake of the planet. So, coincidentally, did Boris Johnson's dad Stanley. Some of his books from the Seventies are well worth a look. He didn't apologise for the children he had but he said that if people continued to make babies at such an alarming rate, Something would have to be done about knocking people off at an even higher rate.

I agreed with him. I'm all over the www saying I haven't been able to make the right noises to pregnant women or 'new mothers'. They simply have not done something that's in any way clever.

But not like this. While I was banging on about the diminution of natural resources, what's going on now never occurred to me.

I have no answers. I won't live to see the denouement. I'm almost at retirement age and I'm childfree by choice, as are my two sisters. But I do feel desperately sorry for the generations growing up now.