Major van Kappen spoke last year about a "preferred reality". You can tell from Rick Niemann that he doesn't believe a word of it: "information operation..." “… preferent reality...!?". Let alone that he understands that he himself is helping to build that preferential reality, which televised reality. If you have built your life in that preferred reality, the world as the media wants you to see it, you cannot be taken out of it either. Look at the behavior of Maarten Keulemans in the Balie conversation with Ira Helsloot, among others. It just doesn't go in. His mind can't handle it, he will always remain in denial.
Arguments don't help, nothing sticks from a good conversation, there is a lack of interest and time to go through black-on-white evidence, video recordings are deep fake, a coincidence or otherwise unreliable: nothing lands, nothing is internalized. After all, it would change everything you stand for. The Teflon layer that has been applied unnoticed helps you to keep your identity upright.
I don't know how a process of realization can take place with some (I estimate about 10%-20% of the population). I only see around me that it has nothing to do with education or IQ. In any case, not the kind of IQ that is praised and with which people obtain (honorary) doctorates and high positions.
Especially with information processors (newspaper readers, talk show viewers) the brain is stimulated with symbols (letters that mean something) and the senses are overloaded with image impressions and sound, tamped with tasty leaders and tunes. The information that is poured out on us through the media is omnipresent and unambiguous. For that reason alone, it is more powerful than interpersonal communication. People on talk shows talk more civilized than those on the street, everything looks slick, stylization, leaders and sets add quality and authority and above all: the message is delivered with conviction: powerful, one-sided, self-affirming. The critical journalist also nods yes. Only the real experts have their say, otherwise they wouldn't be on TV. So there is never anyone who kicks things down. That confirms it right away: good quality criticism is not to be found – or so it seems.
This is how you come to live through the media in a world (a Truman show) in which reliable media exist, just like independent science, critical journalists and interpreters, and not to forget: selfless politicians. Wars are between a good and a bad side. Of course, we help the right ones. That is nice and clear. The preferred reality has become your context. And it is that personal context that determines how you interpret what you perceive.
On a personal note: about my WWII programming
When Hedy d'Ancona compared our democracy with how Hitler came to power earlier this week, in Bar Laat, it reminded me of how in my youth NSB members were portrayed as bad, evil traitors to the people, the most despicable creatures you could imagine. They were bad through and through. They reported their neighbors, looked away when they saw Jewish friends standing outside from the restaurant (or being taken away) and some even publicly gave the Hitler salute if it was good for their shop or for their career. Someone like Mengele was the devil, what had done to those people was unimaginable...!
I now see how the attitude of my parents, the history lessons at school, my WWII-obsessed neighbor boy, documentaries, cartoons, jokes and comics about WWII (tough nonchalant Americans with crooked helmets and a cigarette between their lips) have given me the context with which I have been able to work well all my life. It was easy to internalize and practice. No doubt: whoever had betrayed his country or his own people was an inhuman, an evil villain. That has been my firm conviction ever since. Anyone who contradicted that was a traitor himself. (And side-effect vaccines save lives: that world still. This aside.)
The most important lesson I have learned from Corona is not, as a professor of gynecology taught me, 'that video conferencing actually goes quite well'. For me, the lesson was a completely different one: a wake-up call. My context changed because of Corona, which kicked the sets of my Truman show.
I now take it for granted that the NSB was one of the fastest growing parties ever in our country and how the media contributed to this. Those who paid attention have seen the same process take place in recent years. For the most part, those NSB members were just well-behaved, concerned citizens, very normal people with confidence in the media and in politics, to which they even wanted to contribute.
However, not everyone went along with that at the time. The number of resistance fighters was estimated by historian L. de Jong at 40,000. We modern Dutch thought that was a bit little for such a brave people, so a new estimate was made, including everyone who had ever done something resistance-like. They now came to 1 million and history looked a bit brighter for our proud country. That's a different number: twenty-five times as much!
How much is that actually? If we exclude the children, this new count amounts to roughly 15% of the population. The other 85% just let themselves be 'jabbed' by the Germans. There is nothing inferior or stupid about that, by the way. That's how people's societies are structured. Without a certain docility among the majority of the inhabitants, we would be at each other's throats in constant anarchy – so it is not 'wrong' to be a 'sheep'. We owe our prosperity and a long peacetime to accommodating people.
But those who manipulate them – you can certainly question that. How do you prevent them from abusing their media over and over again? How do you guarantee that they act in the interest of the people and not in their own? (Spoiler: with far-reaching transparency).
Don't believe it? See for yourself
Optical illusions illustrate how your perception is distorted by context. They are just as compelling as textual or other framing. We think we can recognize framing, but that is only easy if it is not in line with our existing opinion, which in turn can be based on other framing (a 'preferred context'). Otherwise 'if it's just like that', then it's just right. Just look, what you see on TV is also in the newspaper: the ultimate check. That's just how you're programmed and some people break through that more easily than others.
I drew one of the most beautiful illustrations of this years ago. You see a checkerboard with two checkers on it. The light is set up in such a way that you recognize shadow and light; Immediately -unconsciously- you correct the entire checkerboard on this.
Move your mouse over the checkerboard and see the checkerboard change color – even if you know it isn't. That's what context does:
the background information that colors your observations.
It is therefore easy to understand that constant elements, which do not adhere to the framed light correction, get a different color depending on where they are placed. The two checkers you see have exactly the same color. But you have already understood the context far too well, so you refuse to acknowledge that.
If you hover your mouse over the board (on desktop), you will see a checker move. Test it. It may take a while before you understand how you are being manipulated. Or you remain convinced that those stones do discolor, that is also possible. Take comfort: you are not the only one.
It just depends on the light in which you place something.
The Truman Show is a very informative -and also very entertaining- film, which is also more than 25 years old. What strikes me is that it is still often shown on TV (the conspiracy theorist in me thinks this happens for a reason, a reason I have to guess, and since I don't like guessing, I'll leave this comment in parentheses).
Anyway, when I first saw it (25 years ago), I thought... I don't remember what I was thinking. But I have always found the film informative and intriguing. When revised, I always find something 'new' (something I hadn't noticed before). Recently he was on TV again and I noticed the button (which Laura/Sylvia is wearing) that says 'how is it going to end?' – Which in turn makes me think about why she wore that button and why Truman reacts positively to that button of Laura/Sylvia.
Anyway, I assume everyone here knows The Truman Show, so don't have to go into it any further.
Of course, such a major Van Kappen says it very precisely. I always find it such a shame that only people who are out of service (retired) turn out to be able to say wise and true things in the media. I used to think: 'it's because you have to have life experience before you can say wise and true things in the media.' I still believe that (a little), but I also believe that it has to do with the fact that you are not allowed to say 'things like that' (which are outside The Truman Show) in the media as long as you are still playing in The Truman Show yourself. You can't be a spell-breaker when you compete on The Truman Show.
Anton, I don't know if you've seen my interpretation of The Truman Show with regard to my former colleagues in the podcast with Wybren van Haga (where I equate some with Truman Burbank) (and to which I referred yesterday), but I believe that the film still gives a very good framework of how you, as an outsider, should deal with the Truman Burbanks that are rampant in our world: like Sylvia/Laura who hopes that Truman will one day step out of that made/fake world, but can't do it for him.
The Truman Show is very similar to the allegory of Plato's cave. There are (if I can believe the internet) older texts available that, just like The Truman Show (and Plato's cave) try to explain why people still prefer false existence to real existence generation after generation. It is then (again) the meaning that comes from the shadows that are seen in the cave that explain life in the sun behind it, which no one looks at. -Do you know the movie Amelie? – There is a beautiful scene in which Amelie is in the cinema, not so much to see the film, but because she likes to turn around during the film (to the light-shining projector) and then look at the people watching the film. You can't hate such Truman Burbanken (the watching public), can you?
There are only a few who can or can see it, or want to see it. There is something mysterious or even magical about 'seeing'.
It's like that famous picture of Jastrow/Wittgenstein where you always saw a duck in it until you 'suddenly' see a rabbit in it. How you come to that insight: no one can say.
I don't know anything else. I do think that one of the problems that plagues the Truman Burbanks of this world – and let's face it: everyone has believed in Santa Claus, everyone has been Truman Burbank at some point, I think – is that they think they know TOO MUCH. A little more 'not knowing' would be more appropriate, the 'not knowing' that Socrates stood for, I think of now.
Regarding not knowing that, I found another video with a beautiful imagination about how there is not color in light (as Newton taught us) but that color is a combination of light with dark (Goethe's color theory), where Goethe himself was honest enough to say that he did not understand what he saw, but he did see it (which is depicted in the youtube video below). That kind of not-knowing, I am in awe of that and that feeling is something I would like to pass on to the Truman Burbanks of this world. Only the latter.. that is not possible according to the definitions of the movie The Truman Show.
Anyway, the afternoon is too beautiful and colored to want to go deeper into it (assuming I can do it...), so here is that video in which Goethe's color theory is depicted.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vu_7uG6KlsU
I've seen a piece of you and Wybren, still have to watch it. That film is certainly a striking allegory. What Cees Mul describes in his comment is also so recognizable...
Nice text. And then you haven't even mentioned preferred context, punctuation and 'loyal' triangulation with regard to any preferred realities...
Preferred context... https://x.com/maximumpain333/status/1918632759792206200 Philosophically speaking, it goes much deeper in terms of preferential 'scientific' worldview.
In between all the companies, "consciousness" fascinates me. When I wake up in the morning I am not a zombie; coffee makes me a bit clearer... Our preferred real names our consciousness from an early age as a kind of epiphenomenon of complex matter... Who ever stops to think about the absurdity of that? Just naming something without a mechanism of how, what, why, etc. is completely meaningless. And yet... Some form of consciousness seems to me to be essential for the experience of life from an early age. Primary rather than secondary... (Experience = subjective.) My education was only about external matters, without any relation to 'consciousness'. (Objective observation.) Some feelings were part of it, but those were chemical and hormonal things... Absurd at its best again. The map is not the territory. What I want to say: the preferential way of being in our Western world is deeply colored and manipulated from an early age.
"Just naming something without a mechanism of how, what, why, etc. is completely meaningless." I don't think so. It can be very important to name it, even if you don't understand it. And I also think that it is not only like this in our Western world. Here we do have media that are seen as information authority.
Smile. You're right. Just my assumption about mechanisms is already seriously colored. I hope that no one takes external parties as authority on information anymore. Meanwhile, I have never seen anyone report anything meaningful about consciousness and any 'material' existence. (Except Arthur Young.) For me, this follows: If consciousness is not in the equation, then it is not about anything, is it? (Slightly provocative.)
Let's keep it simple: a worldview where "consciousness" – which in my opinion is essential for "being" – has no place, has disqualified itself in advance. I don't immediately say: the rest is nonsense, but I do: the rest is marginal.
I love this kind of musing, Anton. Thanks.
Willem has already said a lot about the Truman show. But here are some scenes that are also relevant: when Truman accidentally sees a number of cameramen or technicians who are supposed to be sitting behind a panel. Or when he suddenly sees his father walking down the street. Also nice: when Truman tries to leave the city, and Christo (Ed Harris) organizes traffic jams from his control room that pop up exactly when Truman goes in that direction. All these incidents together make Truman doubt more and more.
Dat gevoel had ik toen ik die persconferenties van het paar apart Mark&Hugo op tv zag. Was dit echt? Bijna niet voor te stellen. Ik heb alleen de eerste kunnen uitzitten, bij de tweede moest ik al afhaken. Slecht voor de bloeddruk. Of het toneelstukje van Bruno Bruins met dat gele papiertje. Over alle andere onzinnige propaganda hoeven we het hier niet te hebben. Ik verbaas me inderdaad over het feit dat zoveel mensen een andere werkelijkheid waarnemen. In het begin was het een raar, eenzaam gevoel, maar langzamerhand kwam ik op het spoor van gelijkgestemden. Eerst via de site van Maurice, en via die site op andere bronnen, waaronder het uiterst verfijnde virusvaria.
About WW2: Do you know 'Grey Past' by Chris Van der Heijden? As the title indicates, this nuances black and white thinking in a beautiful way. There was a lot of discussion about it at the time.
REALITY does not actually exist. I think we agree on that. Everything is an interpretation, and depends on the channels through which the information comes in. There are actually a few choices: You try to analyze the facts of each topic before forming an opinion about it. For me, that's not doable. When I see that Jan Bonte is writing a thick trilogy about the Wuhan lab leak alone, what about the nitrogen story, the vaccinations, the CO2 panic? All kinds of other things that we take for granted, but may also be just opinions. One option is to be selective and let some topics go. Or looking for people who can interpret the events in a sensible, fairly unbiased way. They exist, you can recognize them by their doubts. Fortunately, there is room for dissenting voices on substack, the new world, Maurice etc. The communication with my old friends and most of the family leaves much to be desired.
So recognizable that lonely feeling, Cees. And then meet all those like-minded people. So impatient that it's going so slowly now. Or that even the most awake people of the past are now sleeping on other topics. Growing up in a sect and from a very young age I felt that it wasn't right. In July 2019, during a holiday in France, the word "malade" kept coming to mind and I thought it was finally time to write a book about health, but also the oppression I felt in the sect came back and still regularly with major events in the world. During New Year's Eve I told my partner that it was going to be very big. This summer it is 6 years ago and we will travel through France again but the feeling of freedom has still not returned... To be honest, I have to admit that I have already bought three pairs of wide-legged pants because in fashion 🤔☺️
Today's France (I currently travel around by bike) is, just like NL, full of cameras 'to protect you'. The new European reality. :-(((
Zum kotzen.
https://www.trouw.nl/binnenland/het-coronavirus-stelde-artsen-voor-raadselen-vijf-jaar-later-kijken-ze-terug-op-hun-handelen~bcf2cb5f/
Nice example of the pervasive power of a preferred virus reality.
Conditions for establishing a preferred reality seem to be fear (There is a pathogenic virus. And that virus has an IFR of 5%) an authority (WHO, Association of Intensivists) that, in addition to fear-mongering, also comes up with redeeming answers in the form of a protocol/measures behind which one can hide.
As a result, the also occurring pulmonary embolisms are no longer seen and out of fear of infection, given that high IFR, one intubates to prevent one's own infection and puts pot-bellied men on their stomachs because protocol indicates that this ventilates better (and thus blocks possible diaphragmatic breathing?)
People think (now) they know how things went, but do not see that they continue to follow blind toilet duck protocols. (In other words: only the hare in Wittgenstein's picture sees but not the duck). It is probably too painful to recognize the iatrogenic damage done with fatal consequences as an individual. People stay safe with each other. (With a few exceptions:👍)
PS. And suppose that there is no pathogen but only a commensal coronavirus: an undesirable, unpreferable reality. Perhaps also here?
Loneliness is not too bad now, you hear c. It was a strange experience, especially in the beginning, because we hardly knew anyone who was also critical. And I strongly doubted my observations. My partner shares the same worldview, so that's very nice. We also live in a remote area with a lot of nature around us. A daughter and partner also notice. She works in the medical sector and has refused vaccinations. That takes quite a bit of courage.
I assume Crocs under shorts are not seen as fashionable?:-)
Aren't we all looking for REALITY? The real story, who, at what time, did what? The complexity is enormous and in my opinion is deliberately increased. Something with trees and forest, but it is nibbled on all sides. I remain optimistic that one day we will know how things have been. Whether it will ever get through to the masses is of course another matter.
Highly recommended for the "lonely" among us:
https://de-verleiders.nl/producties/bureau-buitenschot/
Almost sold out so hurry up!
Six actors who have a different story than the preferred one. And a full house that also seems to realize that we are being taken in many areas.
Everything comes along, from the way in which the consultancy industry (Mc Kinsey) has fingers in the pie everywhere to the current warmongering. It is also nice to hear how the government has tried to use the Tempters for their cart.
The stakes are apparently very high!
"You only see it when you get it"... Said Johan Cruijff. And that's exactly how it is.
Of course, a lot revolves around the question of whether you can trust the government and all kinds of institutions that are (often financially) linked to the government. And if one day you realize that governments do not necessarily have your best interests at heart, something turns and you see retrospectively how you have been fooled. How powerful framing is. Old images are adjusted. Like 'the courage' of our royal family during the war. And yes (good example) the despicable wickedness of NSB members. Incidentally, governments themselves are of course often unable to keep the rudder straight in the power play of big tech and big pharma and other influences in the background. Take Fleur Agema. What exactly happened to her behind the scenes? It's a losing battle. Especially now that the media and the judiciary have also ended up in the preferred reality. Or was that always the case and I didn't notice it because their vision was in line with my ideas?
When I try to give people a 'non-preferred truth', my intention is that awareness grows. So much insight that the march towards a totally controlled or social credit society can be reversed. A society in which our digital identity is so conveniently linked to our digital wallet, our vaccinations, health information yes ... to what actually not. Here and there some nice wearables so that our entire health condition can be continuously monitored. And why not, because so wonderfully safe and 'after all, you have nothing to hide'.
I think it's an interesting idea that all those docile sheep also ensure the smooth marching of our society. But if many of those tame sheep had refused to get green ticks, then a vital milestone on the road to total control might not have been reached. If those docile types would consistently pay in cash more often, then it will be a lot more difficult with the cbdc/the digital euro. Always that stupid pride that as an early adopter you already have your phone, with your watch and soon with your subcutaneous chip? can afford.
So recognizable that people dismiss information from the internet as unreliable because 'everything can be faked these days', but of course you can completely trust the NRC. There is no arguing with it. When I told a friend how oppressive and stigmatizing I found the green ticks, you said: "I don't understand what you're dealing with. You just have to see it as a traffic rule, like stopping at a red traffic light. You don't think anything of that either, do you?"
Finally: thank you Anton for all your interesting articles. You always put it so beautifully: nuanced, visual and precise. Or as Cees Mul writes: 'extremely refined'. And Willem... I watched the fascinating interview of you with Wybren van Haga. Very important because your experience shows a new aspect of the covid madness from within: fatal medical errors in diagnoses because only one disease could exist (covid). Important information also because this fact can be recognized a little more easily within the prevailing beliefs. Furthermore, you, as one of the very few, have managed to stand against the strong current. Deep respect! Especially because you dared to go against the preferred reality when you were still fully 'participating in the Truman show'.
You take the words out of my mouth, Elisabeth. Cruijff was a visionary. We will never know if he would have realized all this himself.
We can perhaps learn a lot from what happened to Agema. I saw her at the premiere of "Death by Guilt" about the work of Maurice de Hond. You won't get there if you don't realize that the government has at least dropped a stitch by deliberately denying aerogenic transmission.
Now as Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport, the critical attitude has almost completely disappeared. She must have been sensitized. How did "they" get Fleur to defend the preferred story again? And who are "they"? Is it money? Or, "I know where your grandchildren are at school"? Can we hope that Agema is a mole who will soon come out with a wealth of information about the secrets at VWS?
I bet my few pennies on the national interest. And what a good move, putting one of the most critical people in the House of Representatives in a post where she can do nothing but conform to the preferred story. She must have thought that she could make a difference there. Until the officials told her what interests were at stake.
So no Agema who comes to EVA and Bar Laat to tell us that Maurice was right from the start, that the SC2 virus has been put together, that there will be rehabilitation for dissident doctors or that there will be thorough research into excess mortality.
Because in good English: the stakes are too high. We don't have the money for it. And we cannot afford the social unrest that arises when everyone realizes that mRNA is not the panacea that we have been presented with. So, just like with Groningen and the childcare benefits affair: slow down until the urgency has disappeared.
Finally, wonderful last paragraph, I am also happy with all of Anton's pieces and the more nuanced reactions to them. Because although not lonely, the feeling of becoming a kind of relic now that the attention for corona is fading away.
The human mind will first try to find an explanation to make something plausible instead of the other way around, immediately thinking that it has made a mistake.
I think that is also the difference between people "who see it" and people "who don't".
The latter takes much less energy and is also much easier. Since humans are programmed to survive, the second species will be with more, it takes less energy.
For me, it also has to do with my profession, I suspect. I'm always looking for the exceptions of a pattern. As an IT professional, I have to be alert to that, because that's where the errors in the programs are.
My mind is trained in that and I also let it go on daily life.
Simple questions like:
Is that true?
Does that make sense?
Are there no exceptions?
ensure that I look at things from multiple angles. As a result, I notice much more often that things are not right or that things coincide too coincidentally.
Once you see it, you also see coherence in reporting. You can see the framing arise, so to speak.
Like the "measles epidemic". The news coverage followed each other nicely and other topics are now being added that are nicely in line with it (the call of the coalition of healthcare professionals for more vaccination).
If you don't see this, then the reporting is a confirmation of your previous belief and you have no need to refute your belief.
In fact, you will do everything you can to maintain it. Beliefs are very "persistent".
Lots of food for thought, in the article and in the comments.
"I now take it for granted that the NSB was one of the fastest growing parties ever in our country and how the media contributed to this. (…)”
Yes, and with the NSDAP in Germany.
I walked out of the library for half my teenage years with piles of books only about WWII, obsessed as I was with the big why-questions (it was not so bad that the person who stamped the books never asked "Do you ever read something else?"). We also talked a lot at home about the war, about the what, the how, the why. But the most important question "why could the Holocaust happen?" remained. I found the beginning of an answer in the Jewish Historical Museum: only there did I realize how incredibly small the steps were with which the occupying forces isolated the Jews from Dutch society. Each step in itself seemed to be only small compared to the previous one, and thus to flow from it. Once a lot of steps on the way and the time progressed, a sliding scale was used and the distance from say, the 5th to the 1st step was no longer in view. Unprecedented manipulation.
I must indeed confess that in the disruptive dystopia of the past 5 years, the answers have imposed themselves further. To my horror. Nothing "Nie wieder". It is possible that people who have studied, your own family, your dearest friends do not realize that they do not realize it.
I think it's good, Anton, that you write "There's nothing inferior or stupid about that, by the way." That's right, we could have been them, they could have been us. Less brave, less open to doubt, different considerations (whether or not to have a vulnerable family, whether or not to have a job at risk, etc.), less learned to think for yourself, to investigate, no news etc. on TV* ... But that doesn't cover everything. And besides, the "manipulators" are basically just people like us, only with very far-reaching responsibilities / in positions of power, elected by the population and aware of the fact that there is manipulation and outright lying. You can expect those people to be brave, to be able to look at a case from more angles, to be able to think and reason and investigate well, to have integrity.
* Never had a TV myself and watched very little TV (only when I couldn't get away from it), I'm totally allergic to it. I have often thought that something extra happens if many people watch the same news explanation at the same time. That is fundamentally different from reading a newspaper and stopping and thinking, possibly. looking up something ("is this correct?") – for as long as you want – and read on. Unfortunately, I have never seen a good study on this, and the control group is small.
Indeed, the article and the reactions do not let me go. Why so much malice if one "can't do anything about it" because of the "marketing strategy" of malicious actors. The ICU doctors I had immediate contact with and even begged not to carry out the protocols because it was (is) murder in my eyes, really only thought about their high mortgage and did not stick to anything at illegal parties. Comments like "after clapping, now the flaps!" I knew a lot of so-called care heroes and was already excluded because they found me annoying as long as the hardware stores remained open and they could practice dances in the empty buildings with colleagues. With shoes on on the empty operating tables and dressed up with the so-called scarcity of protective equipment. I still have the photos... Angry, no angry, no furious I am still grateful that there are still good among all those evils in healthcare. Personally, I don't know a single one. Fortunately, not lonely anymore because my family was quickly convinced that it was not right. It took jobs, training and a lot of grief about everything that is not necessary and yet happens... Cees, crocs are in fashion 😎
A word about the 'preferred reality'. Namely that I don't always find it nice and easy to live outside. When my daughter asks if I want to knit a sweater for her, I now wonder how long she will be able to wear it. If my sister wants to 'come over' from America at the end of this year, I think 'I hope it won't be a war here yet'. I haven't felt an 'indefinite, future tense' for a few years now. The future has become limited.
A few months ago I had a chat with a genuinely nice market vendor. He told me that the son of a friend had died very suddenly. A man in his 40s. I said something like: 'Yes, those vaccines don't seem to have been completely harmless'. To which he said: "I am glad that those vaccines were there and I have a lot of confidence in our government". He said that so touchingly sweet, so happy and confident indeed. And for a moment I was almost jealous of his sunny view of the world, his carefree being able to live in a world that is good and worthy of trust.
With several close friends, sometimes for 40 years, I feel a distance. In 2021 I was antisocial because I didn't want a shot, I was a conspiracy theorist when I dared to suggest that we had been unfairly frightened with covid. I always leave the vaccines themselves out of it. They are in there and then people better trust it. But when I opened a conversation about corona tickets or vaccinating young children, etc, only very strong emotions came back by default. Especially extreme anger. And then sometimes it is glued back together (we don't talk about it anymore) sometimes not. But it never became the same (for me) after that. Not exclusively because of covid, but because seeing what has happened around covid means so much more 'comes along'. And that at some point you get the feeling that you can no longer say anything about things that really concern you and that you have partly started to live in a parallel universe. That you interpret a lot of news differently. That a basis has disappeared that was always there for granted before.
Do you recognize this?
Totally, Elizabeth. My ex has atrial fibrillations, just like many people around her. My son-in-law in his 30s suddenly had a brain hemorrhage, friends of his in the hospital with a 'flesh-eating bacteria' and other infections. Jonnie Boer? Spontaneously a pulmonary embolism. Indian colleague has had greatly increased numbers of leukocytes (white blood cells) exactly since the injections. Always sick, swollen painful spleen. How can he be so sure? Because his blood values were tested very regularly because his parents are diabetics and were tested regularly where he also had his blood values tested. He didn't want to be jabbed, but had to because otherwise he couldn't travel (to see his family). I advised him to contact NTG to look for alternatives. Traditional medicine does not know. Vaccine damage is not in their vocabulary.
I know so many more, but that's all anecdotal, and it's never appropriate to ask questions in those moments when people are suffering. It's too big to come to light I think. It has to stay under wraps until people forget about it.
I think the trick is to keep seeing it but not to get carried away too much. I still try to understand as much as possible, but also to be open to other insights. Factual knowledge (Hans Rosling) is essential. And in the meantime also very different, fun things to do. Every good conversation is one.
I recognize that. Plato recognized this too. I can't retell it as beautifully as it says in the book (The State), but if you want to understand the feeling of the parallel world from Plato's point of view, then it is actually described just before the allegory of the cave. There Plato makes it clear that, especially through so-called science, we have ended up in a make-believe world because the scientists, also from Plato's time, cannot see, but can only parrot the form (procedure) without knowing the content and thus think to describe reality and are believed as such. Those who do not want to participate in that false existence will have to place themselves in another world; I read the voluntary excommunication or parallel world from it where, tragically, you lose touch with all those who do believe in the false existence.
Plato then comes up with the allegory of the cave, which is a bit difficult to understand (I think), because, Plato argues, when someone disappears from the cave (has seen the sun) he always wants to get back in, which is only possible, according to Plato, if you lie to the individuals who wish to stay in the cave in a certain way (the noble lie). But there is something in it... Because, whoever tells the truth to a person who prefers the shadows of the cave to the sun gets a lot of aggression over him (in the worst case) or a totally incomprehensible look (stupidity) that we all know here the moment you tell something to a covid believer what... does not fit within that belief.
Or that's what I read back from Plato's State and the Cave.
If I put something back on my own life, I end up with Sinterklaas. At one point I knew it didn't exist. But other friends/classmates still believed. I was not going to try to convince them of the non-existence of Sinterklaas: on the one hand because I didn't think that was my responsibility (it was up to the parents or the classmates/friends themselves), on the other hand because I didn't want to disturb the party (in the belief of Sinterklaas) for the other. I think this detachment was/is the right attitude.
What makes the aloofness to faith (from Sinterklaas for adults, e.g. covid) difficult is that Sinterklaas was/is not omnipresent, it's e.g. the covid fairy tale for which we have all been in lockdown for two years. Also, you don't die if you believe in Sinterklaas as a child, while if you (only) believe in covid as a doctor, then... But I repeat myself.
Complete. Of course, it does mean that we are far too concerned about it. And that while I once sent many friends the well-known why-worry video:
https://youtu.be/9YRjX3A_8cM?si=e6bZugafmn2kv8Fi
Apparently it doesn't work if something really concerns you or if you think there is great danger to yourself or your loved ones. Then our crocodile brain takes over.
I have developed some kind of tactic for recognizing other recalcitrant people.
Voorzichtig een hoekje lostrekken door over mijn stokpaardje (aerogene transmissie) te beginnen. Geen interesse —> koetjes en kalfjes. Blijf bij één onderwerp en neem daarvan het minst controversiële element. Gaan ze daar in mee dan kun je vaak een stapje verder komen.
I have experienced many times that people were completely on my wavelength. Because it is very digital: if you have found out that much of the preferred corona story was wrong, it is a lot easier to start doubting the (major) role of human CO2 in climate change.
You will find them mainly among practical people. Theorists far too often blindly trust the models of other theorists and far too often hide in the "consciously incompetent" if it is not their field of expertise.
And as said further on, great pleasure was given to the top actors of the Leaders. The whole performance shows that the five gentlemen and one lady are very well aware of how the world works and Pierre Bokma as a master consultant is almost even more villainous than his German teacher.
Not bad people to be in a parallel world with!
How nice to read reactions to my question 'do you recognize this?' And by the way, I also recognize your wise advice: don't worry too much about it! And especially not in a worried/anxious way. Very important indeed guys. Thank you. My son often says that I need to read the book 'Don't give a fuck'. In short: live a bit past it, don't get too worked up and make it good for yourself.
By the way, I also recognize 'exploring the terrain' with a relatively innocent remark. And sometimes a vague acquaintance unexpectedly turns out to be a soul mate and you are just in a heartwarming conversation. At those moments, it is indeed not bad at all in the 'parallel world'.
I never tend to want to inform strangers and totally unaware people, but with people with whom I have been hanging out for half a lifetime... it has been more difficult. The landscape has now been mapped, but it has cost me more emotions than was good.
And Willem, the allegory of the cave is indeed so enlightening and so applicable to this time.
And Rob 'Why worry' is a great good, important and entertaining video!
The why worry argument is true and false. It is, if I may be so bold, a Rabbit-Duck Jastrow/Wittgenstein illusion. It depends on how you look at it.
On the one hand, you get rid of that gnawing sense of responsibility when you can shrug your shoulders for something you can't change anyway. That is the guru's argument if I understand it correctly. There is something in that. It's the duck in the rabbit-duck illusion, so to speak.
On the other hand, you should never dive into your responsibility. So if you see people destroying themselves completely, you can't shrug your shoulders about it, you have to do something, even if you can't do anything. This side (the hare side in the rabbit-duck illusion) is beautifully depicted by Madelein Stowe in Terry Gilliam's film Twelve Monkeys. And in which she (as a psychiatrist who has written a book) explains the myth of Cassandra. Cassandra could predict the future (a gift), but was punished by the gods that she could not change that future.
(That myth is very ingeniously depicted in the movie twelve monkeys: another movie that is on my list of favorite movies, and which also tells a lot about the covid period, just like in The Truman Show.)
The only thing I don't agree with the myth of Cassandra, or Gilliam's translation of the myth, is that being Cassandra is a punishment. Yes, it is not nice to have to watch unnecessarily how people plunge themselves into the abyss. But by noticing it, you can't blame yourself for not having feelings. Not everything in life is fun to watch. But you do have the guts and humanity to look at it, to describe it, perhaps without it solving anything for the other person. But I think it makes a world of difference for you by seeing and documenting it.
And yet there are also days when I adhere to the guru (of why worry). It depends on how you look at something. It is richness if you can look at something from multiple angles. Perhaps that is the lesson or the true being behind the parallel world. To the point of being pedantic, something beautiful has been said about this in literature, something I quote in a manuscript, which I shamelessly refer to (but you don't have to read it), and is summarized by Yeats who wrote,
'There is another world, but it is in this one.'
Manuscript: https://bvnl.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/06-Over-het-nemen-van-verantwoordelijkheid.pdf
I have tried to find out how Gillian thinks about the latest developments, but was disappointed that he also suffers from Trump Deraingement Syndrome.
In addition to 12 monkeys, he also made Brazil, so you expect more!
Unfortunately, total transparency is probably too burdensome for the majority. That's how they kept Truman on his Show for so long: uncertainty is threatening. I think this is separate from education and intelligence.
You can write what you want here or there, apparently there are D66 officials who decide for us what we do or do not want. In other words, there is no democracy.
We are forced to think that we have anything to say.
That is a total illusion unfortunately.
Not 100% connection with the original subject, but then again.
https://blog.maryannedemasi.com/p/merck-rigged-gardasil-trials-to-conceal
Gardasil is apparently an HPV vaccine. The failure of these tests has been hidden in hundreds of pages of semi-scientific nonsense. Young people have been pushed through government propaganda to take these vaccines. Dick Bijl has published extensively on this. Peter Gotzsche is apparently filing a lawsuit against Merck.
Maybe already read. The content does not surprise me. That Merck and the controlling authorities are fraudulent and deliberately choose to roll out dubious vaccines should not surprise anyone. In the past, the various pharmaceutical companies have already been sentenced to billions in fines.
What is astonishing, and in line with the preferred context in the article, is the fact that despite all these facts, they have succeeded in convincing the world that vaccines are a great good and have saved millions of lives. And that people apparently have boundless confidence in the pharmaceutical companies and controlling institutions sponsored by these same pharmaceutical companies.
Decades, and perhaps centuries of government propaganda and manipulation have ensured that 'vaccines' (there are all kinds) are seen as a great good. I also believed it for a long time. Admiration for Door Frankema and the people around her. For me, reality only dawned on me when the mRNA 'vaccines' were forced to roll out. Initially assumed that the 'traditional' vaccines are a lot safer than the mRNAs. This is usually the case, but that is mainly because the mRNAs cause extremely many side effects, and have been rolled out in volumes never seen before. Until I started looking into it. The 'traditional' vaccines are not 'safe and effective' either. And then you're just an antivaxxer:-)
And an anti-vaxxer equals a terrorist? Every provaxxer is apparently preferent. In the first year of the c-jab, my child spoke out on twitter at the time. The statement was about healthy food (graduated in this field). Soon my child gained followers and to our astonishment also a former policeman, who was an alderman of a large city and at that time mayor in another town. After some detective work, it turned out that this man had been participating in the Vaccination Alliance for years. Google "vaccination alliance" Founded by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport since March 2019 and it is already about "fighting disinformation". The man had no interest in healthy food at all...
Yes Cees, that's how you become an anti-vaxxer from the get-go. And it's more than funny that 'the side effect' of all that pushing is that more and more people are becoming anti-vaxxers and critical vaxxers. Maybe they can't do that 'trick from 2021' again.
If they had said in 2021: 'here's a vaccine, it seems to help a bit, just to be sure'... Then there would have been no polarization and no broad doubt about vaccines. Yes, the familiar dktp, still so connected to our youth when everything was still good... at least better... was or seemed??? Doubt is increasing hand over hand!
And Willem, as far as the 'worries' are concerned, I think that taking responsibility and being 'worried' often come from each other, but are not necessarily the same. If you can take responsibility without worry or fear, you're likely to be more effective, and in any case, it's a lot better for your own health.
Cees, your story is my story.
I have to say that after the swine flu shot – which I later turned out not to trust – I developed a healthy suspicion. Especially after seeing the Zembla repo starring Ab O. My girls have not been stung with the Gardasil poison.
When I saw a documentary about the, sometimes fatal, side effects of Diclofenac (I think also with Peter Gotzsche and Dick Bijl), I was shaken up a little further.
Rutte (whom I didn't trust for a penny) and Hugo with their absurd pushing and denying natural immunity, did the rest.
My youngest asked me last year: 'With what you know now, would you let us get vaccinated with the childhood vaccinations?'
Then I was still a bit hesitant. Not anymore! By Frankema is a heroine!
I took some more vaccinations in 2019. Because of a business trip to Vietnam. I think Tetanus and Hepatitis B. I wouldn't do that so quickly now. Received invitations for the flu shot since I was 60, but never taken. Now officially off the list of people who receive an invitation. Usefulness has never been proven, what remains are the risks that have never been mapped out. Roman Bystrianik's substack is an interesting read. Full of graphs that show that the known diseases had already almost or completely disappeared when the vaccinations were rolled out. Hygiene, better nutrition, fewer toxic substances (DDT), better living conditions. Door Frankema also cites these graphs in her book.
I would like to see a serious discussion between proponents like Abje O. with well-versed critics, someone like Dick Bijl.
Maybe an idea for the New World. Will post a suggestion there.
About anti-vaxxers, I read the following in Multatuli (in his book about specialties = experts, dated 1871)
"Truths:"
'That the vaccine has a detrimental effect on health'
And
'The opponent of the vaccine is mainly opposed to forced vaccination.'
And
'How one judges the effectiveness of vaccination itself, every liberal must recognize that forcing it to do so is a medieval abomination.'
And
'What certainty is it that artificially combating the natural smallpox disease does not cause the transmission of syphilis and consumption?'
And
'But even without this sad possibility [of causing disease by vaccine], the question always remains whether the prevention of disease - other than hygienic ways of course - is desirable?'
And
'People attach too much weight to the remark that fewer people die of smallpox since the vaccination with cowpox dust. This does not prove much. The question is whether this has improved the general state of health.'
And
'In view of Hippocrates' opinion that illness is a healing process, I think I can ask these questions'
If the above questions from Multatuli do not indicate that little has changed since 1871 about the opinion of the how, what and why of vaccine, that is not all.
Multatuli says:
'How [...] a government dares to continue to maintain its coercive system [of vaccination] is a mystery to me. Once, it seems to me, it came in dubio abstinae here!'
According to Multatuli in 1871.
I think little has changed in 150 years!
I devoured his aphorisms in the past, but they escaped me at the time. What a genius that man was.
With health and war as a common thread, it is very annoying that both our idea of health is wrong but also the reason why we are waging war.
Are we really so easy to manipulate that repeating messages is enough?
The wheel of five is a monstrosity for at least 75% of our fellow man.
You should refuse flu vaccines if you love your life and that applies to all vaccines.
But I am not calling for a boycott, only for a world in which everyone is free to decide on matters that have to do with the integrity of you as a human being.
If I have to be chased hundreds of times a day with the idea that I have to do something for someone else, where am I? I want to be able to decide for myself in all freedom and yes where has that freedom gone?
It is of course wrong that Putin started a war, I don't want to sugar coat anything in that.
But why do we think we have to bring democracy in the way we are known?
In Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and so on and on, people have been killed because we impose our supposedly superior worldview.
The wheel of five for everyone?