Montesquieu invented the Trias Politica -separating legislature,the executive branchandthe judiciary– in 1748, a time when there was no other important, influential mass power: the media. By this I mean both mass communication, group communication (social) and personal (SMS, app), mainly digital additions to the then mainly oral place-based communication. Even an industry with a billion-dollar lobbying pot and the health trump card up its sleeve did not yet exist.
There are not only different power blocs at play than 300 years ago. The connections between these power blocs are also of a different order, partly due to the removed communication restrictions. In 300 years, a fundamentally different relationship and communication work has emerged that substantively nullifies the 'separation of powers'. Concepts and schools of thought flow from one container to another, so sectors that should operate separately have become communicating vessels.
Through all available media, connections, group beliefs and (silent) agreements arise within certain layers of the population. People with shared interests or interests seek each other out, as do administrators and those in power. Distances may have been logistical barriers to intensive or daily contact 300 years ago. Montesquieu thought you could separate clouds of ideas. That doesn't work anymore. People find each other, in spite of a formal 'separation'. A world with countless lines of communication does not cooperate with the separation of information.
Between systems, this separation exists on paper, but in practice, between people, it is different. People who work in strictly separate systems have each other in their address book or zoom/teams/skype/meet/telegram/whatsapp contacts and also meet physically at informal meetings and (frequent) conferences. These meetings are also easier to coordinate today than they were in 1748. Incidentally, it is remarkably often conferences where public money does go.
The melting pot effect is not limited to the trias politica. The media are used by the government to influence the other sectors, beyond the borders set by Montesquieu. Influencers, celebrities, ill-informed or corrupt scientists, the government is pushing what is needed to popularize a policy and thus create support. Media are therefore a power factor of the highest order. They influence voting behaviour, judges, police officers and are largely dependent on (sometimes even subsidized by) the government.
The same process is taking place between supervisors and those they are required to monitor. The more important, the more money goes around and the more pressure can be put on. Everything becomes liquid. Nothing or no one can withstand the weight, money and moral health trump card of the pharmaceutical industry. How this happens in practice is easy to follow in a Tweet by Robert Kennedy, which I have translated below. The system of checks and balances is simply completely broken. We no longer know what has really been checked and balanced and what has not. Because if the outcome of checks does not work out well, a different story is simply spun.
As a result, the reliability of the large institutions is approaching zero, together with transparency. And the same goes for the government. Even what comes out of it is no longer an outcome of the struggle between power and counterpower. The media should let us look inside politics. Instead of providing transparency, the media is mirroring something to us: the story of the authorities. We've seen John Campbell fall from his faith in dismay before. For Robert Malone, this observation also leads to great despair, as can be read in his article yesterday about the (American) government, which also stumbles from one scandal to the next. But first Robert Kennedy on the pharma lobby.
Kennedy on health institutes
The EMA and our Health Council indiscriminately stamp the decisions of American health institutions, relying on the checks and balances of the great free America with their constitutional rights and do-I-not-know-what. Even when it comes to vaccines.
In that context, read the following message from Robert Kennedy Jr. on Twitter:
"Yesterday, President Biden announced Dr. Monica Bertagnolli as his intended nominee for director of the NIH, the National Institute of Health. Guess what? From 2015-2021, Bertagnolli received more than 116 grants from Pfizer, totaling $290.8 million. This amount represented 89% of all its research grants. #TheRevolvingDoor #Kennedy24
Does this mean that Dr. Bertagnolli is personally corrupt? Not at all. But it does mean that it is likely to represent the views and priorities of the pharmaceutical industry. That's how agencies lose their independence.
Oh, and guess what else? The White House omitted that Pfizer connection from the nomination announcement.
@TheChiefNerd has reflected what the announcement should have said:
Biden plans to nominate Dr. Monica Bertagnolli as the new head of the NIH.
From 2015-2021, Bertagnolli received more than 116 grants from Pfizer, totaling $290.8 million. This amount represented 89% of all her research grants.'
In the link below you will find the official announcement. I'm not shocked that they make no mention of the Pfizer connection at all because, like most people, I've become accustomed to the government's routine manipulation of the public. But if I am President, I will set a different tone and standard. Honesty and transparency will be the new norm.
Link to the White House announcement
Link to Robert Kennedy's Tweet
Robert Malone on government reliability
Link to the original article, translation below
Russian disinformation?
Censorship and propaganda will not protect "democracy", but destroy it.
ROBERT W MALONE MD, MS
16 MAY 2023
In 2016, I believed the Steele report was largely real. I believed that the FBI had found compelling evidence that the Russians were collaborating with the Trump organization. So many seemingly precise but falsified details. Details, on details, on details. Then the Mueller investigation. More Russian disinformation. I believed it because both the corporate media and our government agencies told us it was true.
Yesterday we learned from the Durham Report, prepared by special counsel John Durham, that it was most likely Clinton and the DNC who worked with the Russians to produce the Steele report (in which Donald Trump was accused of collaborating with Russia, ed.) to produce. We learned that the FBI's usual norms and procedures were abandoned in the investigation of Hillary Clinton's server problems, the Clinton Foundation, the Steele Dossier, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). We also learned that the FBI ignored normal procedures in investigating Trump. In his case, they used biased informants, didn't check documents (like the Steele report), and were generally just after him. Which means Trump wasn't lying or paranoid when he said the Deep State was after him. They were and still are after him. He still doesn't lie about it. Right now, I'm trying to figure out who, what, and where. Honestly, I don't think anyone can ever figure it out. For example, the main stream media spent the night writing denial pieces about the report, to allay fears from the liberal side that the report was an indictment of Clinton or the DNC. But obviously, I believed the lies of the DNC, Clinton, and the FBI, and I was fooled.
I completely lost faith in the Democratic party years ago. Moreover, when I look back at their accomplishments over the past decade, I realize that what I believe is good governance is not how they govern. They have become everything I detest. Their views on war, education, urban policy, agriculture, big pharma, big tech, common decency, censorship, propaganda, medicine and regulation — I can't support any of them. Nothing that has happened in the last two years has made me change my mind about the democratic party. This is not the "Kennedy" democratic party, and there is no return to how it once was. Those days are over.
Personally, I understand better than most how corrupt our government has become. For more than two years, disinformation has been directed at me. Literally, I am accused of misinformation by "fact checkers" almost daily. And those fact checks linger as a permanent reminder of all my alleged sins. It doesn't matter if I'm right, they never apologize, they never back down. For example, did you know that I said spike is a poison? This is one of my "big lies". Yes, Spike is a poison, dismissed by fact checks and still prominent on Google. All the while, the government is planning false information about me. It's a surreal game that I can't get out of. When I respond, I'm labeled as reactive, making things up, making false accusations, etc. If I don't try to fight back (even if I do), their lies will be included as facts on Google's front pages. Apparently, those original nine patents on mRNA vaccines are still not evidence of an invention. According to the fact-checkers, those patents make me a "self-appointed" inventor.
Their chaos agents are trying to convince others on our side of the fence that I am "controlled opposition." My past is dissected as if I were in a position of power. That I could have somehow changed the failures of COVID policy. Now those same chaos agents are making up stories that I'm responsible for 9-11, the anthrax attacks, had ties to the Mossad, that I ran secret offensive bio-threat labs, etc. Never mind that the laboratory in question was set up to support a clinical breast care program. Serious? The attacks from both sides never seem to stop.
One person has posted literally thousands of tweets about me — mostly fake, containing all the fantastic achievements he believes I am responsible for. He has been working full-time on this project for two years. I think this person's attempts to portray me as controlled opposition are just meant to take people's eyes off HHS, DoD, and Fauci's role in all of this. But who cares so much about me in the deep state to do all this? Maybe I'm seeing it wrong? Maybe the government is throwing around so much money to plant stories that I'm a target.
As I wrote before, tracking the money can be very helpful. In my case, some of the deep state's gang stalking and cyber-stalking can be traced through paid support from foundations, through the "Foundation for the CDC" to the CDC itself. It is clear that the astroturf organizations that try to link me to anti-Semitism also have deep state roots. But the other chaos cops? Those who attack me from the movement? I honestly don't know – but how can I not suspect that these attacks also come from somewhere within the government.
So, now I'm sitting here reading the Durham report and trying to make sense of it all. Where has the U.S. government gone so wrong? What is really Russian disinformation vs US disinformation? When did the DNC and the FBI become so corrupt?
At 63, you might think I have no innocence to lose. But here I am, trying to untangle the strands of disinformation being fed to us by competing sources from within the government. But the truth is that when the amount of money the government gives to produce psy-ops becomes a driving profit factor for the mainstream media and big tech, who can we trust?
Elon Musk clearly believes he will need to work with governments if he wants to keep Twitter alive. His vision of a pristine social media platform is gone (if it ever really existed), because his goals of making "X" a one-stop financial platform outweigh his goals of keeping Twitter free of censorship. It took the threat of loss of profit to get him to hire a WEF official as Twitter's CEO. It seems that he has yielded to the US government, the EU and the WEF. Twitter will become just another arm of government, it's just a matter of time and incrementalism.
So, here's an interesting thought. Is the federal government divided into so many factions that the deep state is beginning to turn against itself? Has the use of false information, which is constantly being posted in the media, become so common that it takes the form of a "circular firing squad"? With different factions within the government constantly planting competing fake news stories? Do we see this happening in real time with the Durham report? The end result of all this is a complete degradation of public trust in both our government institutions and political parties.
Censorship and propaganda will not protect "democracy" (technically a representative republic), but destroy it.
I hope time proves me wrong. But just as my predictions about spike as poison and the toxicity of the COVID mRNA products have come true, I fear that this prediction will also become an uncomfortable fact.
Close the shutters, build conscious communities, seek shelter for you and your loved ones, and get ready for the storm.
The question is when the saying is applicable: "One calculates the goal and does not calculate the outcome".
In short, when should one continue in spite of all the adversity and opposition to that which the conviction commands.
As far as I'm concerned : if there is no other choice that allows one to continue to look at oneself in the mirror. But is a problem to weigh disposition considerations against result considerations. In the latter case, some opportunity may arise, while in the first case "Prinzipreiterei" may thwart the case.
Therefore, once again: " Courageously forward ......."
It is no different in the Netherlands. In view of our personal experience, I dare say that our governments are a source of unreliability, with only money and their own profit being the object of their actions.
"Close the shutters, build conscious communities, seek shelter for you and your loved ones, and get ready for the storm."
This is I'm afraid the only right way. The new pillars and much more micro-thinking and acting. Deep-state is also in full swing in Europe and the Netherlands, it is too big and too much for the ordinary well-meaning citizen. Only retreat into one's own micro-pillar and become a real 'calculating citizen' can save you. Hopefully, the storm Malone is talking about will also affect those who are causing all of this and bringing new light and insights.
It is disappointing that Robert F. Kennedy and Robbert Malone, despite their criticisms, still think that the US can 'pull its own hair out of the (self-created) swamp'. After all, Kennedy is running for president, and Malone thinks democracy is in danger, but apparently still works.
The very fact that the opposition in a country is trying to oust a president with the help of secret services indicates that the US is anything but a functioning democracy. This country is in a "cold civil war," you might say.
The instability of the US and the malfunctioning of democracy are not due to Montesquieu's state powers. After all, the state powers in the US are quite well separated, much better than in the Netherlands. Nor is it the bureaucracy or the media. They are used as tools by the political elite, and have a destabilizing effect, but do not seem to be a direct cause.
It's up to the politics and the political elite in the US itself. The (two) political parties have become corruption networks throughout history. Gaining power, money and jobs have become the end of politics no longer a means, but an end.
The problem is: how did this come about and when did it start? Has this been a process of corruption or infiltration by external groups or is the cause not a general problem of the bourgeois democratic state? And finally: what can be done about it?
In any case, it seems sensible to limit contacts with that country as much as possible in all kinds of areas and, above all, to move away from failing, destabilising organisations such as NATO.
Well, I think you're right. But what body can you put above democracy to monitor its functioning?
The only thing I can think of is "transparency". If it's missing, you know it's wrong. It must be a principle because all people turn out to be corruptible, especially when they get so high up in the tree.
A good point Anton. U.S. history shows that fundamental reformation/adjustment of the democratic state can only take place through revolutions, civil wars, and wars (e.g., 1st and 2nd WW). Here in Europe we have less experience with 'modern' democracy, but it also seems that only in the event of major conflicts can the system be adjusted.