Als de fine fleur van onze maatschappij vindt dat iets goed is voor het volk, mogen mensen worden belogen, opgelicht, geofferd, verarmd, angst aangejaagd, gespleten, gepest, ziek gemaakt - alles mag. Maar dan wel alleen als de samenleving daar zelf anders over denkt. Als ze het met je eens zijn, kun je het beter zachtaardig proberen. Dat heet Machiavelliaans (of Machiavellistisch) leiderschap. Tegenwoordig is er geen 'leider' meer. Het is nu de opvatting van het machtsblok politiek/wetenschap/media. Er is zelfs een stichting die zulk leiderschap stimuleert.
Policy is pseudo-scientifically laundered1© @dimgrr on Twitter, the media vents this and thus creates support, the media public votes for the politicians behind the policy and the circle of totalitarian sham democracy is complete. As long as they steer in the right direction, it is fine, but if, after a long period on that car cruise, they take a wrong turn, the brakes no longer work.
Do we remember how Jaap van Dissel's transgressive behaviour2The limits of the Guidelines for Academic Integrity (of which KNAW is the guardian) are unashamedly trampled. And that of bodily integrity as well, for that matter. werd witgewassen met een ereprijs van het Koninklijk Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen? Hoe Koopmans en Gommers werden gelauwerd met een Macchiavelli-prijs omdat zij onwaarheden verkondigden 'in a positive way, for a sympathetic cause and with a socially relevant return'? En die andere prijzen: dat slippendrager Maarten Keulemans tot beste journalist werd uitgeroepen door Villamedia? Dat Marc van Ranst, die zich op Twitter manifesteert als een ongenuanceerde bully gesteund door een zwerm trollen, eredoctoraten kreeg van drie Nederlandse universiteiten omdat hij tegengeluid ongenadig afserveerde?
That socially relevant yield is strongly disputed and any in-depth review is blocked by those who may have caused the disaster. But the media and academia cheer lustily: the power bloc is united; There's a huge packet of butter on each head of this three-headed monster. You can see it in the prize festival that is used as a propaganda tool.
Prices serve as lids on the cover-ups.
Also a prize for Ron
Last month, controversial virologist Ron Fouchier even won academic awards. Fouchier receives € 35,000 from the Academy as a thank you for tinkering with life-threatening viruses that he also managed to get on people. According to the Academy, the best intentions: dieren- en volksgezondheid. Vaccins. Bijdrage van de media: Niki Korteweg, die onder de titel 'wetenschapsjournalist' stukjes voor NRC produceert en zich hierin al eerder onderscheidde 3NRC sharpens the mind three months later, NRC lowers itself to questionable journalism was brought in for a big interview. Featured quote:
Tsja, wat is "ernstig"? Er gebeuren genoeg Accidents with virus labs But most of the time we get away with it relatively well. But also about Ebola there are any reservations.
That best intentions zagen we ook terug bij de Stichting Machiavelli, die Koopmans en Gommers lauwerde. Die stichting beloont 'Het doel heiligt de middelen'-gedrag. Maar dan wel op een in hun ogen positieve manier dus voor een sympathiek doel en met een maatschappelijk relevante opbrengst - volgens de Stichting dan. Bekijk het bestuur van de stichting en je snapt wat zij 'sympathetic' en 'socially relevant' vinden.
Among the Directors:
- the Director of Communications, Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport
- the Director-General of the National Information Service
- the Secretary-General Ministry of Education, Culture and Science
- the Director of Communications, Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management;
- media: RTL, NOS, Volkskrant, Elsevier
- kamerleden (VVD, CDA, PvdA, GroenLinks, vreemd genoeg geen D'66)
A government satellite, in other words. A propaganda tool.
The main sponsor is, judging by the size of the logo mention on the website: Public Matters, a The Hague lobby consultancy, specialized in Advocacy on policy and strategic communication.
Something about Machiavelli:
- Machiavelli argued that rulers should strive to maintain or expand their position, even if immoral acts are necessary to achieve that goal.4Source: study.com
- Machiavelli believed that it was better for a ruler to be widely feared than universally loved; A beloved ruler retains authority through obligation, while a feared leader rules for fear of punishment.5Source: wikipedia
- In psychology, Machiavellianism is a personality trait that indicates cunning, the ability to manipulate, and the urge to use all the means necessary to gain power. Machiavellianism is one of the traits that, along with narcissism and psychopathy, make up the Dark Triad.6Source: wikipedia
Machiavellianism reigns supreme. Treasurer of the Machiavelli Foundation is a political reporter at RTL News. That is the bridge to the second, related topic.
The head of the RTL article with a claim that the WHO would have made.
Like a true Macchiavellist, his broadcaster is burying trust in the media with this kind of false reporting. They also don't shy away from manipulation with lies. You could even speak of fear-mongering. In combination with the vaccination urge/coercion/promise also communicated via RTL, a clear message emerges: if you do not vaccinate, you will die early. Whether it is all true according to the WHO, we will see, but the news headline has already done its job.
Mensen lezen '22 jaar te vroeg', zijn hevig ontsteld en begrijpen weinig van statistiek. Veel te vroeg doodgaan ís ook vreselijk en hoe vroeger, hoe erger. Maar die getallen geven een totaal ander profiel van de coronadode dan uit de statistieken naar voren komt: de gemiddelde coronadode is boven de tachtig jaar oud.
There are three options, even before you've read the WHO text:
- the WHO has increased life expectancy by about 20 years
De levensverwachting wordt dan boven de 100 jaar. Kan dat? Een gemene griep kon op de A-lijst, de definitie voor 'vaccins' is verruimd, het begrip 'immuniteit' heeft de WHO proberen om te katten richting kunstmatige afweer en de criteria voor 'pandemie' hebben ze opgerekt. Dus als dat allemaal kan, waarom dit niet? - The WHO has discovered that in 2021 the average corona death was 40 years old
Together with the already known eighties, the average age could then be around 60, which would explain the average 22 years of life lost. Anyone who follows the developments in mortality with even half an eye rejects this option. - De gemiddelde leeftijd van 60 duidt op andere doodsoorzaken, dus: misclassificaties van 'coronadoden'
Ook onwaarschijnlijk want ook dan zou de oversterfte afgelopen jaar voornamelijk uit vijftigminners moeten komen - en dat is niet het geval.
So what has the WHO done?
Fact check:
What do we read in the report? First, it is striking that 2022 has not been included, as in the Cochrane report and in other government introspections. 2022, with hardly any corona deaths but persistent excess mortality, is of course a more difficult story. But what does the summary say [bold text from me]:
"De COVID-19-pandemie heeft geleid tot 14,9 miljoen extra sterfgevallen en 336,8 miljoen verloren levensjaren wereldwijd in 2020 en 2021. Dit betekent dat elk sterfgeval dat is directly or indirectly attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic tegen eind 2021 gemiddeld tot een verlies van meer dan 22 levensjaren heeft geleid - gelijk aan meer dan 5 levensjaren verlies per seconde."
World health statistics 2023: monitoring health for the SDGs, sustainable development goals
So it's not about corona patients at all. It is about the total number of deaths. As we know, a large part, perhaps the largest part of the total excess mortality up to 2023 in the Western world is unexplained, and then the missing under-mortality must be added to that.
If the average number of years of life lost due to unexplained mortality increases, then more young people have died than you would expect in corona patients. In the event of the death of an 80-year-old, approximately 4 years of life are lost (if in good health), in someone aged 24, 60 years of life are lost. That's 15 times as much. The total average age of death decreases, increasing the average number of years of life lost. Because life expectancy was determined for that moment.
Guest author Martijn de Jong followed a similar line of thought on Facebook:
With these kinds of news stories, the question is: Is it pure stupidity or is it the deliberate spread of disinformation?
(text of the FB message follows below)
If we go to The source going to have a look, it turns out to say something else [than the headline of the article says, ed]. De WHO heeft berekend hoeveel levensjaren er verloren zijn gegaan in 2020 en 2021. Dat zijn er volgens hun: "336.8 million years of life lost globally". Daarbij wordt opgemerkt dat "This equates to an average of 22 years of life lost for every excess death". Dat zou dan neerkomen op een oversterfte van 15,9 miljoen doden in 2020 en 2021. Die wordt echter door de WHO niet gelinkt aan Coronadoden. Dat maakt RTL ervan. Dat je ze niet kunt linken aan Coronadoden volgt uit andere studies die daarnaar gedaan zijn en die lieten zien dat de gemiddelde Coronadode minder dan 2 jaar extra had kunnen leven. Dit volgt overigens ook uit gewoon je gezonde verstand gebruiken en de wetenschap dat de leeftijd van de *gemiddelde* Coronadode boven de gemiddelde levensverwachting lag.
But then the WHO article becomes interesting. If so many years of life have really been lost, but they have not been lost to Corona, what have they been lost to? There is really only one answer to that: The Corona measures. Whether it was the vaccination, worldwide starvation deaths due to food problems as a result of the measures, suicides, etc., none of that is in the WHO report. In any case, what it is not is what RTL makes of it here, with which we once again catch RTL spreading disinformation.
We're not there yet
Het gaat nog lang duren. De parlementaire enquête wordt pas over jaren in gang gezet, als de heren gemakkelijk 'geen actieve herinnering' kunnen veinzen ("Tjee ja, hoe zat dat, het is nu alweer vijf jaar geleden"). Intussen gaat het masseren van de publieke opinie gewoon door. Het disproportionele paniekbeleid moet nog steeds worden witgewassen.
Paniek die eind 2019 als de bliksem insloeg: "Oh god, we hebben dit zelf gedaan! We hadden nooit naar China moeten uitwijken! Ze gaan ons pakken, we zijn erbij, we raken onze baantjes kwijt, de budgetten, de sponsors...! Dit MOET onmiddellijk stoppen! Whatever it takes!!!"
With lockdowns, psyops, injections, violence, bribery, face masks, lies, polarization and pseudo-scientific money laundering, those involved tried to prevent the demise of the once peaceful Virology, where silent GoF research in academic care palaces enjoyed the highest regard and research budgets sloshed across the skirting boards. Governments turned a blind eye because they too had failed because of insufficient or corrupted supervision. And the media was only too happy to allow themselves to be used as defenders of the bastion.
Machiavelli can be satisfied. Everything is permissible to maintain the incumbent. And in the Netherlands there is even a foundation set up for it. It is only a matter of time before this foundation receives some kind of prize!
Encore: A Facebook discussion on RTL article between wappies and policy supporters
Thicken a bit and you have a Monty Python sketch.
For me, this is not about naming and shaming people, I have anonymized them. They are different facebookers, working in the healthcare industry and they stand by each other through thick and thin. This is symptomatic of what often goes wrong in both the wappie camp and in their ranks: because they stand for the same cause, they agree with each other in everything, even if an assertion does not go either way. They are not all critical minds. There is soon an OMT flavor to it. They look like Thinktankers.
The fact that there are academics who cannot oversee basic calculations and take the measure of others on that basis is worrying to me. Reading comprehension and critically is difficult, but basic arithmetic is something you can expect. Especially if the person is involved in a conversation about numbers or even tries to prove something with numbers. Who makes arguments that he himself does not understand?
Not to repeat logic and fallacies.
Dan volgt wanhopige uitleg van het woord 'gemiddelde'. Dat blijken we totaal verkeerd op te vatten, al blijft onduidelijk wat het dan wel is. Iets met een deling, dat wel.
Do you still understand?
And another thread, to be read as a follow-up:
This last link gives the same explanation I gave earlier but apparently the understood message depends on who says it.
En toen waren we weer terug bij af... Ze doen dan maar alsof 'gemiddeld' verschillende betekenissen heeft. Niveautje Eerste Kamer. Die lieten zich in hun onkunde ook bang maken.
Nou moet die WPG weer afgeschaft, dat gaat weer een tonnen belastinggeld kosten. Wat een circus... met tragische clowns.
Footnotes
- 1© @dimgrr on Twitter
- 2The limits of the Guidelines for Academic Integrity (of which KNAW is the guardian) are unashamedly trampled. And that of bodily integrity as well, for that matter.
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
What that guy is trying to do on Facebook is called gaslighting, bringing something wrong, repeating it with the belief that you're still going to doubt yourself. He probably doesn't even realize it.
Fed up with these kinds of people on Twitter too. Repeating ourselves, claiming something "because something is like that" and then believing that we're arguing or something and end up going all out on something small to divert that attention from the main topic.
There are all kinds of theories circulating: Is he paid for it? Is he a member of the think tank? Can't he do math? Can he actually read comprehension? Is he an AI chatbot?
Anyone who refers to my website or maurice.nl is finished in advance, so information other than that of his trusted sources does not exist. It's so transparent...!
Thanks, Anton, for sharing those fb posts. Since I avoid all a-social media as "the plague," I never see these kinds of discussions otherwise. It just confirms my feeling to stay away from all that kind of stupid stuff.
And thanks again for your clear article! Machiavelli or 'Machiavellian' regularly comes up in all kinds of articles, but now it turns out that I didn't know much about it. Now it is, thanks to your clear explanation!
Top! No thanks Lucie. I'm always amazed at the idolization of Machiavelli. But then again, I never understood the idolization of the VOC. What those monopolists have managed to do on the backs of others on their raids... Sometimes I don't understand it at all. In my opinion, they were pure mafia practices: "an army of our own to enforce trade with the local population if necessary."
By the way, there was something wrong with those screenshots that I just fixed, but if you didn't notice that there were duplicates I was probably just in time for you!
I did see those screenshots, but I'm not going to complain about that, Anton. It's mainly about the content, there may be something wrong with the form.
And as far as the VOC was concerned, that was 'normal practice' at the time, to use the words of Van Kooten and De Bie. Half of the Western world was robbing and murdering in the 'barbaric continents'. Think of the British, Portuguese, Spaniards, Belgians and so on. And if everyone else is doing it, then you have to make sure you're there! Golden Times... so many beautiful things have come out of it...
Let's speculate. Assuming that real is always more absurd than you can imagine in your wildest fantasies.
Fouchier isn't too worried about leaked viruses from regular labs. It's not going so fast, he seems to suggest.
In the interview with NRC, he does point out the danger of the non-transparent military labs.
He doesn't think a lab leak from Wuhan is likely.
Remarkably, the Americans continue to point out suspiciously that it is an 'accidental' leak from the Wuhan Institute for Virology.
What if it is not the Chinese who have 'leaked' but that the Americans themselves in China, have enriched a virus originally from Wuhan through gain of function, in the oldest state university in the US in Chapel Hill (hypothesis suggested by David Martin, see e.g. on odysee), and then released it (at e.g. military games?) in Wuhan to scare the Chinese. A city that in terms of pollution and therefore lung-burdening conditions is not inferior to e.g. Po Valley in Italy.
And they thought: with the mRNA vaccines (Accelerated authorized. After all, it is about fighting (self-made 🤫 'bioweapons'), we are supposedly going to fight this virus (read: the created fear) in our own ranks and in the process keep our population under control through this fear.
We try to put the blame (okay, so escaped not deliberately but not transparently, so culpable) on the shoulders.
Would be smart, right?
Machiavelli is cheering in his grave for the Americans (especially because of his good student, descendant Fauci, of course) but also the various Dutch award ceremonies and of course the rewarders of Fouchier. These are all fine examples of manipulating public opinion
With his fear-reducing reflections on viruses, Fouchier is a danger to the power-hungry veterinarians among virologists such as AbO and MK. I fear that the price is hush money in order not to curb the money that is now flowing freely on the basis of fear to institutes for pandemic preparedness of the veterinarians.
Question: Do you know when and how old KNAW president Robbert Dijkgraaf and Antoni Fauci's met? (Google and find it) The world is small😏.
I don't know if they met here 'for the first time', but do you mean this?
By the way, I don't believe in intent: the vaccines weren't ready yet.
Of course, it may well have been a bomb that exploded too early – but that's also speculation.
According to David Martin, the U.S. has 'released' the Sars-Cov2 virus to increase public acceptance of new (= mRNA) vaccines.
https://storage.blacklist.exposed/EU%20speech%20about%20corona%20by%20D%20Martin.mp4