If the finer points of our society think that something is good for the people, people can be lied to, scammed, sacrificed, impoverished, frightened, split, bullied, sickened – anything goes. But only if society itself thinks otherwise. If they agree with you, you'd better try gentle. That's called Machiavellian (or Machiavellian) leadership. Nowadays there is no 'leader' anymore. It is now the view of the political/science/media power bloc. There is even a foundation that encourages such leadership.
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. was laundered with an honorary prize from the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences? How Koopmans and Gommers were awarded a Macchiavelli Prize for telling falsehoods 'in a positive way, for a sympathetic cause and with a socially relevant return'? And those other prizes: that slip-wearer Maarten Keulemans was named best journalist by Villamedia? That Marc van Ranst, who manifests himself on Twitter as an indiscriminate bully supported by a swarm of trolls, received honorary doctorates from three Dutch universities because he mercilessly rejected dissent?
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: animal and public health. Vaccines. Contribution from the media: Niki Korteweg, who produces pieces for NRC under the title 'science journalist' and has distinguished herself in this field before 3NRC sharpens the mind three months later, NRC lowers itself to questionable journalism was brought in for a big interview. Featured quote:
Well, what is "serious"? There's plenty going on 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 We also saw the Machiavelli Foundation, which praised Koopmans and Gommers. That foundation rewards "The end justifies the means" behavior. But in what they see as a positive way, for a sympathetic cause and with a socially relevant return – according to the Foundation. Look at the board of the foundation and you will understand what they 'sympathetic' and 'socially relevant' find.
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
- MPs (VVD, CDA, PvdA, GroenLinks, strangely enough no 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.
People read '22 years too early', are appalled and understand little about statistics. Dying far too early is also terrible and the sooner, the worse. But those numbers give a completely different profile of the corona death than the statistics show: the average corona death is over eighty years old.
There are three options, even before you've read the WHO text:
- the WHO has increased life expectancy by about 20 years
Life expectancy then exceeds 100 years. Is that possible? A nasty flu could be on the A-list, the definition for 'vaccines' has been broadened, the concept of 'immunity' has the WHO tried to steer towards artificial defenses and the criteria for 'pandemic' they have stretched. So if all that is possible, why not this? - 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. - The average age of 60 indicates other causes of death, so: misclassifications of 'corona deaths'
Also unlikely because even then the excess mortality last year would have to come mainly from people in their fifties – and that is not the case.
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]:
"The COVID-19 pandemic has led to 14.9 million additional deaths and 336.8 million years of life lost worldwide in 2020 and 2021. This means that every death that is directly or indirectly attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic by the end of 2021, on average, has resulted in a loss of more than 22 years of life – equivalent to more than 5 years of loss per second."
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]. The WHO has calculated how many years of life were lost in 2020 and 2021. According to them: "336.8 million years of life lost globally". It is noted that "This equates to an average of 22 years of life lost for every excess death". That would equate to an excess mortality of 15.9 million deaths in 2020 and 2021. However, the WHO does not link this to Corona deaths. That's what RTL makes of it. That you cannot link them to Corona deaths follows from other studies that have been done on this and that showed that the average Corona death could have lived less than 2 years extra. This also follows from simply using your common sense and knowing that the age of the *average* Corona death was above the average life expectancy.
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
It's going to take a long time. The parliamentary inquiry will only be launched years from now, when the gentlemen can easily feign 'no active memory' ("Gee yes, how about that, it's been five years now"). Meanwhile, the massaging of public opinion continues. The disproportionate panic policy still needs to be laundered.
Panic that struck like lightning at the end of 2019: "Oh god, we did this ourselves! We should never have moved to China! They're going to get us, we're going to be there, we're going to lose our jobs, the budgets, the sponsors...! This MUST stop immediately! 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.
Then comes desperate explanation of the word "average." We seem to take that completely wrong, although it remains unclear what it is. Something with a division, though.
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.
And then we were back to square one... They pretend that "average" has different meanings. Level Senate. They also allowed themselves to be frightened in their ignorance.
Well, that WPG has to be abolished again, that will cost a ton of taxpayers' money. What a circus... with tragic clowns.
References
- 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! Geen dank Lucie. Ik verbaas me altijd over die idolisering van Machiavelli. Maar ja, ik snapte ook nooit die idolisering van de VOC. Wat die monopolisten op hun rooftochten over de ruggen van anderen hebben klaargespeeld… ik snap er soms helemaal niks van. Het waren m.i. pure maffia-praktijken: “een eigen leger om zo nodig handel met de lokale bevolking af te dwingen.”
Er was trouwens iets mis met die screenshots wat ik nét heb gerepareerd, maar als je niet is opgevallen dat er dingen dubbel stonden was ik waarschijnlijk net op tijd voor je!
Zag ik wel, van die screenshots, maar daar ga ik niet over zeuren, Anton. ’t Gaat toch vooral om de inhoud, mag er best iets aan de vorm mankeren.
En wat de VOC betreft, dat was voor die tijd ‘normale usance’, om met Van Kooten en De Bie te spreken. De halve westerse wereld was in de ‘barbaarse werelddelen’ aan het roven en moorden. Denk aan de Britten, Portugezen, Spanjaarden, Belgen enzovoort. En als iedereen het doet, dan moet je zorgen dat je erbij bent! Gouden Tijden … zoveel moois uit voortgekomen…
Even speculeren. Ervan uitgaande dat werkelijk altijd absurder is dan je in je stoutste fantasieën kan bedenken.
Fouchier is niet zo benauwd over gelekte virussen uit reguliere labs. Loopt allemaal zo’n vaart niet lijkt hij te suggereren.
Hij wijst tussen neus en lippen in het interview met NRC wel op gevaar van de niet transparante militaire labs.
Een lablek uit Wuhan acht hij niet waarschijnlijk.
Opmerkelijk is dat de Amerikanen er verdacht nadrukkelijk op blijven wijzen dat het een ‘per ongeluk’ lek uit het Wuhan Institute for Virology betreft.
Wat nu als het niet de Chinezen zijn die ‘gelekt’ hebben maar dat de Amerikanen zelf in China, een oorspronkelijk uit Wuhan afkomstig virus via gain of function verrijkt hebben, in de oudste staatsuniversiteit van VS in Chapel Hill (hypothese geopperd door David Martin zie o.a op odysee), en dit vervolgens losgelaten hebben(bij b.v. military games?) in Wuhan om de Chinezen de stuipen op het lijf jagen. Een stad die qua vervuiling en daardoor longbelastende omstandigheden niet onder doet voor b.v. Povlakte in Italië.
En ze gedacht hebben: met de mRNA vaccins (Versneld toegestaan. Gaat immers om bestrijding (zelfgemaakte 🤫) ‘biowapens’) gaan wij zogenaamd in eigen gelederen dit virus (lees: de gecreëerde angst) bestrijden en en passant onze bevolking via deze angst onder controle houden.
We proberen de Chinezen de schuld (oke, ontsnapt dus niet moedwillig maar niet transparant dus wel verwijtbaar) in de schoenen te schuiven.
Zou wel slim zijn, toch.
Machiavelli ligt te juichen in zijn graf om de Amerikanen (m.n natuurlijk vanwege zijn goede leerling, afstammeling Fauci) maar ook de diverse Nederlandse prijsuitreikers en natuurlijk de beloners van Fouchier. Stuk voor stuk mooie staaltjes van manipuleren van publieke opinie
Fouchier is met zijn angstreducerende bespiegelingen over virussen een gevaar voor de machtswellustige veeartsen onder de virologen als AbO en MK. Ik vrees dat de prijs zwijggeld is om het geld dat nu vrij op grond van angst stroomt naar instituten voor pandemische paraatheid van de veeartsen niet in te dammen.
Vraagje: Weet je wanneer en hoe oud KNAW voorzitter Robbert Dijkgraaf en Antoni Fauci’s elkaar ontmoet hebben? (Google en vind het) De wereld is klein😏.
Of ze elkaar hier ‘voor het eerst’ ontmoet hebben weet ik niet, maar bedoel je this?
Overigens geloof ik niet in opzet: de vaccins waren nog niet klaar.
Het kan natuurlijk best een te vroeg ontploft bommetje zijn geweest – maar dat is ook weer speculeren.
Volgens David Martin hebben de VS het Sars-Cov2 virus ‘vrijgegeven’ om de publieke acceptatie van nieuwe (= mRNA) vaccins te vergroten.
https://storage.blacklist.exposed/EU%20speech%20about%20corona%20by%20D%20Martin.mp4