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 mass communication, group communication (social) and personal (SMS, app), mainly digital additions to the then mainly oral, location-based communication. An industry with a billion-dollar lobby pot and a health trump card up its sleeve also did not yet exist.
There are not only different power blocs at play than there were 300 years ago. The connections between those power blocs are also of a different order, partly due to the removal of communication restrictions. In 300 years, a fundamentally different relationship and communication work has emerged that substantively nullifies the 'separation of powers'. Concepts and ways of thinking flow from one container to another, so sectors that should operate separately have become communicating vessels.
Connections, group beliefs and (silent) agreements are created within certain sections of the population through all available media. People with shared interests seek each other out, including 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, despite a formal 'separation'. A world with countless communication lines does not help 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 other sectors, beyond the boundaries set by Montesquieu. Influencers, celebrities, misinformed or corrupt scientists, the government provides what is needed to popularize a policy and thus create support. Media are therefore a huge power factor. They influence voting behavior, 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:
"Gisteren kondigde president Biden Dr. Monica Bertagnolli aan als zijn beoogde kandidaat voor directeur van de NIH, het National Institute of Health. Raad eens? Van 2015-2021 ontving Bertagnolli meer dan 116 subsidies van Pfizer, met een totaal van 290,8 miljoen dollar. Dit bedrag vormde 89% van al haar onderzoekssubsidies. #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 Dr. Monica Bertagnolli to be the new head of the NIH.
From 2015-2021, Bertagnolli received more than 116 grants from Pfizer, totaling $290.8 million. This amount constituted 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?
Censuur en propaganda zullen de "democratie" niet beschermen, maar vernietigen.
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.
Ik heb het vertrouwen in de Democratische partij jaren geleden volledig verloren. Bovendien, als ik terugkijk op hun prestaties van de afgelopen tien jaar, realiseer ik me dat wat ik geloof dat goed bestuur is, niet is hoe zij regeren. Ze zijn alles geworden wat ik verafschuw. Hun standpunten over oorlog, onderwijs, stedelijk beleid, landbouw, big pharma, big tech, algemeen fatsoen, censuur, propaganda, medicijnen en regelzucht - ik kan er niets van steunen. Niets van wat er de afgelopen twee jaar is gebeurd, heeft me van gedachten doen veranderen over de democratische partij. Dit is niet de "Kennedy" democratische partij, en er is geen terugkeer naar hoe het ooit was. Die dagen zijn voorbij.
Zelf begrijp ik beter dan de meesten hoe corrupt onze regering is geworden. Meer dan twee jaar lang is er desinformatie op mij gericht. Letterlijk word ik bijna dagelijks beschuldigd van verkeerde informatie door "fact checkers". En die fact checks blijven hangen als een permanente herinnering aan al mijn vermeende zonden. Het maakt niet uit of ik gelijk heb gekregen, ze verontschuldigen zich nooit, ze trekken zich nooit terug. Bijvoorbeeld, wist je dat ik heb gezegd dat spike een gif is? Dit is één van mijn "grote leugens". Ja, Spike is een vergif, afgeserveerd door factchecks en nog steeds prominent aanwezig op Google. Al die tijd plant de overheid valse informatie over mij. Het is een surrealistisch spel waar ik niet uit kan komen. Als ik reageer, word ik bestempeld als reactief, dingen verzinnend, valse beschuldigingen makend, enz. Als ik niet probeer terug te vechten (zelfs als ik dat wel doe), worden hun leugens als feiten opgenomen op de voorpagina's van Google. Blijkbaar zijn die oorspronkelijke negen patenten op mRNA-vaccins nog steeds geen bewijs van een uitvinding. Volgens de fact-checkers maken die patenten van mij een "zelfbenoemde" uitvinder.
Hun chaos-agenten proberen anderen aan onze kant van het hek te overtuigen dat ik "gecontroleerde oppositie" ben. Mijn verleden wordt ontleed alsof ik in een grote machtspositie zat. Dat ik op een of andere manier de mislukkingen van het COVID-beleid had kunnen veranderen. Nu verzinnen diezelfde chaos-agenten verhalen dat ik verantwoordelijk ben voor 9-11, de miltvuuraanslagen, banden had met de Mossad, dat ik geheime offensieve bio-bedreigingslaboratoria leidde, enz. Laat staan dat het laboratorium in kwestie was opgericht om een klinisch borstzorg programma te ondersteunen. Serieus? De aanvallen van beide kanten lijken nooit op te houden.
One person has posted literally thousands of tweets about me - mostly fake, detailing all the amazing feats he claims I'm 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 to take people's eyes off HHS, DoD, and Fauci's role in all of this. But who cares enough about me in the deep state to do all this? Maybe I'm seeing it wrong? Maybe the government is throwing so much money around planting stories that I'm a target.
As I wrote before, following the money can be very useful. 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 are trying to link me to anti-Semitism also have deep state roots. But the other chaos agents? 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 is duidelijk van mening dat hij zal moeten samenwerken met regeringen als hij Twitter in leven wil houden. Zijn visie van een ongerept social media platform is verdwenen (als het ooit echt heeft bestaan), omdat zijn doelen om van "X" een one-stop financieel platform te maken groter zijn dan zijn doelen om Twitter vrij van censuur te houden. Er was de dreiging van winstderving voor nodig om hem ertoe te bewegen een WEF-functionaris aan te nemen als CEO van Twitter. Het lijkt erop dat hij is gezwicht voor de regering van de VS, de EU en het WEF. Twitter zal weer gewoon een arm van de regering worden, het is gewoon een kwestie van tijd en incrementalisme.
Dus, hier is een interessante gedachte. Is de federale overheid in zoveel fracties verdeeld, dat de diepe staat zich tegen zichzelf begint te keren? Is het gebruik van valse informatie, die voortdurend in de media wordt geplaatst, zo gewoon geworden, dat het de vorm aanneemt van een "circulair vuurpeloton"? Waarbij verschillende facties binnen de regering voortdurend concurrerende nepnieuwsverhalen planten? Zien we dit in real time gebeuren met het Durham rapport? Het eindresultaat van dit alles is een volledige degradatie van het publieke vertrouwen in onze beide overheidsinstellingen en politieke partijen.
Censuur en propaganda zullen de "democratie" (technisch gezien een representatieve republiek) niet beschermen, maar vernietigen.
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.