Media torpederen het Staatsbelang. Superschoof, doe iets!

In a rather Annoying conversation lays TV multimillionaire Jeroen Pauw, great collector of taxes, the fire to the shins of Ronald Plasterk (in the NRC, Plasterk was accused of not having acted with integrity because of a patent application, see the Articles on Maurice.nl). Why was that conversation cringeworthy? This was not only because of the haughty Pauw, who flaunted his haughty agitation, but also because of table mop Suse van Kleef, who tried to stab one dagger after another into Plasterk's back with an amiable smile. The two of them sat comfortably on it.

For example, Plasterk says that he did inform Bas Haan, described by Jeroen Pauw as a 'renowned journalist of the NRC', about written approval of the AMC's director's state of affairs. It confirms that the university relinquishes any claim to Plasterk's invention and wishes him every success. Plasterk needed such explanations for potential investors and then a handshake is not enough, that has to be in black and white, Plasterk explains and he adds (18:30 in the video) "that was apparently not interesting to include in the article". Then the table lady intervenes: "Of course, he [Bas Haan] is in charge of the content of his own article."

Really, lady? Leaving out facts that don't suit you? Stop researching if it could weaken your biased position? And that's a 'renowned journalist of the NRC‘? Is that really your professional ethics, your way of doing 'quality journalism'? Gatverdamme, I have other words but I don't write them down. My stomach turns. Suse van Kleef grew up in a Journalist's family. What a people they are.

This is where the power of the Mainstream Media emerges.

Had Pauw checked a few things, as Maurice did, for example? Well, no. What about Suse? Of course not, he just bleats along with the journalists' herd. After all, they have read NRC, well then you know what it's like. They all stand up for each other. Loyal though.

And she continues, "Because if it's not true, then..." Yes, but if what NRC writes is not true, then, then...? So what? They don't ask about that, and they don't interest anyone who would like to be invited again.

I'm glad I never look at that junk again.

They then cite a professor of medical oncology who apparently had found it necessary to send a sarcastic text message to Plasterk and make it public. How he got his knowledge is unclear, but it was hateful enough to kick Plasterk again. Of course, we know how he got his knowledge: from the NRC, of course, the quality newspaper that only writes De Waarheid.

Pauw presents it as yet another indication that there really is more to it. But once again, it shows the perverse power of the media: it's just the same article, creatively processed by someone.

The article apparently called for criminal offences (spreading insult/libel/slander). If Gideon should be able to foresee that, why not a renowned NRC journalist?

But Jeroen Pauw has even more up his sleeve.

Remkes' stab in the dagger at WNL is shown. If it would be in order under criminal law (and you see no reason to take a closer look at the entire article), then it would still not be honest, because that's what Remkes says. But what does Remkes know about it? That is not explained any further. We know: NRC has read it. Remkes was happy to be pushed forward. An awake ex-PVDA member like Plasterk, the mastodons of the VVD are not happy with that. And maybe someone there already had Schoof in mind. Admittedly, he is also an ex-PvdA member, but with a profile that is more popular with people who really want to achieve something.

It goes without saying that someone had to do the dirty work, because Dilan would have made herself impossible with her coalition partners. Now she was not to blame.

And what does Pauw conclude: "You also have to see that your integrity is doubted at various levels. Also colleagues of yours..."

Yes Jeroen, they all read the same propaganda sheet, get that. Of course, they haven't seen Maurice de Hond's articles. He already described the whole story a week earlier but "that's not MSM and is on X so it's disinformation and besides, he's always wrong, just look at the Deventer murder case". People think they're controlled by 5G, but it's the national media that is on the same page. And you would almost forget it, but hotemets are people too, even if they have a lot of impact on large groups of people.

Everything you hear and read about Plasterk stems from the sentiment-mongering of NRC that assists their friends from the NPO in the fight against limiting the power of the media. That was enough for the VVD to send a hitman with Yeşilgöz and other excited talkers to express their indignation, which is then recycled in talk shows as additional evidence.

Other newspapers copied the report, copy/pasted without their own research, although the counter-information was there for the taking. It is also explainable. The government propaganda machine (press + TV/radio) is not a fan of this cabinet. The Corona period has shown how much power they have when they work together with the government. People are fooled into everything and the media gets away with it.

It may sound like I'm a fan of Plasterk, but that's not the case. During this conversation, too, you could wonder whether he is cut from the right cloth. For example, he is far too easy to interrupt. Now I understand that Pauw is richer than Plasterk, but despite that you can be a bit more confident (I mean actually bolder) in his position. But no: as soon as someone wants to say something, Plasterk timidly cuts off his sentence and listens attentively to the interruption. He's in a completely different category. I therefore think that this cabinet has more decisiveness with Schoof, who has the necessary lines behind the scenes and has also proven to go through the rows and the diamonds to serve 'his' cabinet, even where that could legally rub off. Someone who thinks out-of-the-box, who dares to stick his neck out. He does not sit and listen timidly, he has already made sure in advance that he knows what someone is going to say.

The choice of the Minister of Justice will therefore be crucial. He must have a click with Schoof so that, for example, an emergency law can be rushed through immediately, should a judge make a mistake that goes against government policy. I can see Schoof thinking about that sooner than Plasterk, who would back away in terror: Oops, are we approaching the edges of the law?

Has no one called you?

"Did Geert Wilders call you? Not even after that 'important broadcast'?" (Nice and important, those NPO broadcasts, they think so themselves and so do the viewers because it is said on TV.)

"Geert Wilders follows everything. Did he call you?"

"Did someone call you? Omtzigt, Wilders, van der Plas...?"

"They've all been watching. No one stood up for you?!"

Neither Jeroen nor Suse can imagine that you are not eager to become prime minister of this cool country that walks neatly on their reins. I recognize that, when I was 20 I also thought it was an honor to join a board somewhere or to become chairman. Later you find out that it's very different: someone has to do it anyway and sometimes you just have to do it. The journalists can't imagine it.

Jeroen Pauw asks for the fifth time: "But still: how do you explain that Geert Wilders didn't, that Yeşilgöz didn't, and that Caroline van der Plas didn't and that Omtzigt didn't stand up for you?"

It's not entirely clear what he's getting at with that fiddling with phone calls. It's a question he should ask those people himself. Does he expect Plasterk to be able to look inside their heads and rattle off each of them why he/she didn't call? Pauw probably wants to convey to the viewer that Plasterk has been abandoned by his coalition partners, and then it is true what was written in the NRC.

By the way, I know why they didn't call. They had read the NRC. If that's the only information you have, how are you supposed to stand up for someone? Call him to ask if it's true? What do you think he's saying? And do you believe that? That would be a bit strange. Or do you have to be an investigative journalist yourself?

The day after in Oranjezomer a reprise. "Yes, if it is true then this must have consequences..." And if it's not true, then no? They also don't get any further than Sophie & Jeroen. On Radio1 later, the same sound. Our media is in a sad state.

Declaration or no declaration

The talking heads Suse and Jeroen are surprised that Ronald Plasterk is not going to press charges, because that indicates that he does not think he has a case. Because the fact that they drill such a beautiful top job through the nose of a vain like him, he doesn't let that sit on him if it's all not true, does he? Yet. Plasterk wisely leaves politics behind, he has plenty of fun challenges with his new company, his patent and his (grand)children. Such a lawsuit consumes time, energy and money. And attracts media attention again. There are people who slither off their chairs with anticipation at the mere thought of it, but there are really different opinions about that.

Plasterk is therefore not in the mood for legal hassle. Such a personal libel case would also not do justice to the consequences of this outrage. The formation process has been hampered, at a time when the country desperately needs a government. Democracy has been sabotaged, which seems to me to be an attack on the interests of the State. Or has that term been definitively hijacked by the incumbent power thanks to Minister Kuipers during the corona period?

This has been an undeniable attack on our democracy, a disruption of our rule of law, based on lies. This was a journalistic prophylactic coup, bearing in mind the call of Frans Timmermans "People, our task is clear: we will do nothing to prevent Wilders from coming to power in this country". There are also terms such as 'radicalised', 'anti-institutional' and 'disinformation'. and state interest.

What has happened here strikes me as much more serious than a group of people in costume symbolically entering a government building.

I don't know exactly how it works legally, but a libel suit by Ronald Plasterk does not do justice to the consequences of this smear campaign, because we can speak of that. Here, the democratic process has been deliberately torpedoed on spurious grounds. If that is not a criminal offense, disrupting our political system with libel and slander, then I certainly don't understand the fuss around Gideon.

In the past, you would have said: the Public Prosecution Service should take care of this, but in the corrupt state in which this country now finds itself, I do not see it happening so quickly.

But then again, who can set that in motion, without the support of the major media and even thwarted by it? You can't expect anything from something like Villamedia, they are walking on the side of the party against which they would have to take a stand. I don't know who can or can't file a complaint. Private citizens can forget about it, they don't get a foothold at any government institution. See the cases of Pols/Engel, Maes etc. Who can represent the rule of law if the government doesn't?

• the coalition partners (including the VVD, Remkes was misled)
• the President of the House of Representatives, on behalf of the House of Representatives
• public interest (on behalf of the population, a foundation perhaps?)
• media whose reputations are tarnished by this misconduct, advocates of pluralism in the media (De Telegraaf? Together with Onhoren Nederland? The columnists of the Telegraaf? )
• a political party: FvD and BBB are the obvious ones
• The Ombudsman, perhaps? (The formation is controlled by MSM, which is improper government action. But the ombudsman also has conversations with the NOS)
• Kassa, Radar, Nieuwsuur, Factcheckers, Zembla, Pointer (just kidding)

The S of Schoof

I have repeatedly pointed out that the system is more important than the puppets. Schoof is seen as the personification of the suppressive, constitutionally violating and particularly harmful and billion-dollar corona policy. But Schoof wasn't the architect or screenwriter at all. He was asked to advise the director because it turned out to require the expertise of NCTV, after all, there was a crisis situation that required quick action.

You could say that Schoof has fulfilled his task with verve, a super civil servant, someone who is useful, a director who gets things done, regardless of the film he directs. Who takes responsibility and dares to stick his neck out.

Who knows, maybe Schoof will serve his cabinet with the dynamism he has shown before. That he will use his skills, his experience and, above all, his entire network to achieve what this cabinet wants to achieve. Eavesdropping on journalists could be an option, but you can also come up with a goat path for that together with the Minister of Justice. That would be really enjoyable because those journalists themselves have made sure that he is there instead of the always polite, courteous, decent, charming, flamboyant (because hat) Ronald Plasterk.

In the case of a functioning Democracy needs a pluralistic, diverse and therefore inclusive media landscape, so that we are informed in a multifaceted way, can weigh up dissent and the democratic process can do its work, and as a result of which we will also be spared the next pandemic scam. And so we come back to 'virus varia'.