A great deal of attention is now being paid to someone who has not shown any sharp insights, original thoughts let alone analytical, critical reflections in recent years. While there was still sufficient reason. The scoops were there for the taking. But it's just not possible with our Tijs van den Brink, after all, he only presents. I must confess that I didn't expect much from his self-examination anyway, as well as could already be seen here and in March '23 again. What he suffers from really seems to be a mediagenic disorder, which is highly contagious given the range of every infected media individual. Real evaluation will have to come from abroad – but that's what the next post will be about. Let's start with Tijs.
Unanimous debates
On Radio1 I heard a debate between two climate alarmists who were squabbling over details. Like-minded minds who both don't know exactly how to proceed, that's called 'a debate' in Hilversum. In it, the following observation came up: 'we are all on the same planet' and I suddenly realized that I don't feel that way anymore. I really feel that I'm on a different planet than that clique in that Hilversum radio studio. On my planet, we make a mess of things just as well, but it's not nearly as dramatic and panicky as it is on theirs. As if two parallel universes are moving through each other or, conversely, our universe has started a fission process.
More and more I understand the statement 'the world is run by reptiles, I really believe that'. The statement is literally untrue -because of course I don't 'really' believe it- but such a statement as a whole can adequately reflect how you stand on something. In the old days, it would lead to curiosity in the good listener. After all, you are willing to defend such a proposition because it represents something important, so important that others should also see it, hence the hyperbole.
Moreover, it is a lot easier to talk if you refer to the cold, empathetic, anonymous, non-communicative, unblinkingly strangling and poisoning institutions and their cold-blooded spokespeople as reptiles. They really don't realize the suffering they are causing, that's how far it goes. See also Tijs – he really has no knowledge of what he has co-caused.
And why 'reptiles' in the first place? Everyone will have their own interpretation of this. I am thinking of giant dragons who inflict a fatal bite in the leg on a bovine and then watch quietly for days until they can eat the weakened animal at their leisure. Without an ounce of remorse.
Mediagenic infectivity
Tijs van den Brink uses debates to come to terms with himself afterwards and immediately turns it into a format because he finds himself interesting enough for that. Apparently, there are no debates to better understand the reality of dissenters in the present moment, on an equal basis.
If there seems to be any light falling through a crack, then the door is kicked shut with an underlying ideology, belief or higher purpose that was more important. It can also be a delusion or a fear. Or, also often used as an argument: a belief of which they did not yet know whether it was important because no one could know that, but it could be so, because someone who is never checked (because he was trusted) suggested that. Hup, the flamethrower on it, is apparently the conscientious thought 'for their own good'. That's what trust does. I'm not going to put any energy into analyzing the logical errors – a lot of circular reasoning, I noticed that in the interview Flavio had with him (link at the bottom).
Would Tijs know anything about deprogramming people who have been in a cult for years out of full conviction where, thanks to their trust in the cult leader, they have been exploited, belittled and abused, without experiencing it themselves? And perhaps have enjoyed the honour of being assigned a role, of keeping others on their toes? These are the most grateful and therefore the most unruly members. You can't convert them in a few conversations. A new thorough brainwashing is needed against this.
Symptoms in colleagues
The media sect has more members. Pieter Klok, editor-in-chief of de Volkskrant, talked about his own blind spot on Radio1 yesterday. He teaches his editors that you should never give your own interpretation in the first paragraph of an article. First give the indisputable facts, only then the signature of the newspaper. These follow-up paragraphs provide the leeway in which you can recognize the DNA of the newspaper or the identity of a journalist. The facts, on the other hand, don't touch them. That, in a nutshell, is what he said.
He cited the situation in Gaza as an example. I thought to myself "... and the climate, and nuclear energy, and Corona, and Wilders..." These are all established facts that should not be tampered with. Speaking with one voice with the government, especially in times of crisis. Self-reflection...? Isn't that only necessary if it turns out that you have been wrong?
Klok doesn't understand that his own DNA is most expressive, what he not only accepts as facts, but also selects as newsworthy, embraces deeply and then propagates as The Truth. The starting points, the mantras that don't need to be examined, that's the real DNA. What matters most is in that first paragraph. Reflecting on that is the art.
Wouter van Noort (NRC) also made a contribution on Twitter in the 'wir-haben-es-nicht-gewusst' (better: 'wir wissen es noch immer nicht') or mea-culpa-indulgence bag. Bart Maes' reaction was very close to my heart. (link also below)
So far. This is in response to a lot of consternation about very little, unless you relate it to the behavior of the Dutch media and not just to Tijs van den Brink, the poor guy who meant so well.
See the links below: the 'Letter to Tijs van den Brink' in indepen.nl with suggestions of what a real research tour could have looked like, the reaction of Bart Maes to the Tweet of Wouter van Noort, the interview of top interviewer Flavio Pasquino with presenter Tijs van den Brink and of course the reaction of Maurice de Hond, one of the mirror extras in the format of Tijs van de Brink. He opens up about what was cut out of the conversation for the final public screening.
I haven't seen the broadcasts of Tijs himself yet, that's in then "viewing figures -minus 1" for the NPO. This is how we contribute together.
The following contributions on this subject stood out for me. Tijs is now the head of Jut, but he should hold all his colleagues accountable.
Maurice de Hond about his conversation with Tijs, after watching the broadcast
Indepen gives suggestions about the topics that Thijs could have tackled, had he really been interested in something other than himself:
Top interviewer Flavio Pasquino in conversation with Tijs, presenter at the Public Broadcasting.
Lawyer Bart Maes responds to Wouter van Noort's lame mea culpate:
Oh well, that Tijs, the "Judas of journalism", who takes him seriously anymore. All he can say is: "Yes but the ICUs were full, yes but the ICUs were full, yes but the ICUs were full (30x)". If that is your only argument to justify all the devastating measures, then as far as I'm concerned, you're not worth a penny. That argument doesn't hold water, by the way, because the ICUs were already full of flu in previous years. In addition, hundreds of ICU beds have been cut. Yes, then they fill up quickly of course. Instead of making some kind of self-resolving program, he would do better to do an in-depth study of excess mortality. But I'm afraid he doesn't have the capacity to do that in the slightest.
Nice overview. I had already followed it all and it makes me a bit blasé. It was nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. Half of NL is in a cult it seems. The climate, corona, Ukraine or whatever sect. Jan Bonte tweets about Tijs, says it well:
https://x.com/john_bumblebee/status/1730569227273109867?s=61
———————
I'll summarize the phenomenon @TijsvandenBrink one more time. And then I stop talking about it. Because it's bad for my blood pressure and bad for my mood.
The man has absolutely no chance. So I'll reflect for a moment, dear Tijs. Your statements at a glance:
1. "I want to believe in the government, which has our best interests at heart. I'm a firm believer in that. And anything that doesn't fit with that belief, I just ignore."
2. "No, I don't check what the government tells me, I don't ask critical questions about it, because the government is always right, because it has our best interests at heart. That's why I don't check what the government tells me. After all, she has our best interests at heart?"
3. "No, in four years I have read nothing that could make me wiser, or that could make me doubt the usefulness of the #coronamaatregelen, and convince me of the enormous damage it caused. Because 'many scientists' tell me that it has been good. And you can never prove that they haven't been good."
4. "No, I haven't studied scientific articles – after all, I'm not an expert – and no, I haven't read any reflections by critical scientists, as they were published in many – including 'non-alternative' – media. Why would I do that? After all, 'many scientists' tell me how it works. "
4. "Despite this, I absolutely know what 'the facts' are. That's what 'many scientists' tell me. For example, an Ab Osterhaus, who is a great virologist, and knows everything about lockdowns, diagnostic tests, face masks and school closures. Just like Marion Koopmans, an expert in the field of the same subject matter and of vaccines, even though she has never developed one herself. Because Ab and Marion also want the best for us. Just like the government, by the way."
5. "If many scientists all tell me the same thing, that's just true, because there are many. And because there are many of them, they are right. And because what they say is in line with my beliefs and assumptions, it is even more true. Very true. Absolutely true."
6. "Scientists who say otherwise, even if they belong to the very top in their field – such as a @MartinKulldorff, a @DrJBhattacharya, a John Ioannidis or Peter Doshi – are simply wrong. And with it, politicians who quote these scientists. Because what they say doesn't fit with my assumptions and beliefs, and so what they say is just 'disinformation'. Because like I said, I certainly know what 'the facts' are. And therefore also know what disinformation is. And that has to be vigorously opposed, and who better to do that than myself, the one who knows very well what 'the facts' are."
7. Did I mention that the government has our best interests at heart? As well as Marion and Ab? And that I know what 'the facts' are, because 'many scientists' tell me what the facts are, so that I don't have to think about them myself? Because I don't want to take the time for that. And because I know all that – despite the fact that I don't read anything myself and don't know anything – I'm perfectly capable of separating 'disinformation' from 'the facts'. As many scientists tell me."
Encore.
Encore.
Encore.
Encore.
Encore.
Needle piece. Needle replaced.
"Did I tell you that the government..."
#De_diepe_kloof_van_Dunning_Kruger: #Onoverbrugbaar
———————-
That we are ruled by reptiles stems from claims made all over the world in response to geographical and archaeological finds, and even from portraits of French nobility. Call it conspiracy and unbelievable, but human remains have been found with particularly elongated skulls, there are many statues on temples of reptilian creatures, half human, half reptile that go back millennia. It is stated that these "people" are with large skulls and reptilian aliens and that they have forever represented or controlled the world's leaders. It sounds too fantastic for words. But if you let yourself go for a moment in this, suddenly it seems to explain our history, a history that keeps repeating itself in detail as if it were meant to be. Is humanity really that stupid or are those aliens that smart? Nowadays I feel like I'm in a James Bond movie with an elusive Spectre, only without James unfortunately.
Tijs evokes one of my favorite quotes from Einstein: "Two things are infinite, the universe, and human stupidity. But I'm not quite sure about the universe yet." Tijs is an exponent of the masses who have completely lost sight of the meaning of the concept of expertise. Expertise seems to be such a clear concept, it simply means 'professional competence' or 'competence'; An 'expert' is knowledgeable, an 'inexpert' is not. But corona has turned this concept completely upside down. To stay with Einstein for a moment, let's consider, in terms of particle physics, a subject (theory, claim, model) as consisting of neutrons in the nucleus of an atom. In addition, the nucleus contains protons, the positively charged particles; They represent the protagonist 'experts' of the subject. They are closest to the neutrons for a reason. The electrons circulate around the nucleus; As negatively charged particles, they represent the antagonistic 'experts'. Strict rules apply in quantum mechanics, so under normal circumstances electrons and protons remain neatly separated. An electron can only fall back into the nucleus of the particle under special conditions, but when this happens, a proton is 'neutralized' and a (new) neutron is formed. To prevent a new opinion from being formed in this way, similar rules apply in the corona debate, with the difference that they are not natural but have been imposed by anonymous bodies. The result is the same: the points of view remain completely separate; Given the fact that they are mutually exclusive, it should be clear that only one of the two can be 'true'.
Imperceptibly, a dimension seems to have been added to the concept of 'expertise': a person is now only 'expert' when his statements and assertions fit within the bandwidth around an already existing, established opinion, hence the comparison with the atomic nucleus.
A condition now seems to have been created for recognition as an 'expert', a condition that cannot be met with an intrinsically valuable judgment, but only with a 'proof' of conformity. The SARS-CoV-2 virus has caused an atomic reaction with its 'impact' in society, in which protons have formed in the nucleus and electrons have been thrown out (NB this is an imaginary atomic reaction). As a result, many 'experts' have seen their status change overnight to 'incompetent', read 'expert with dissenting opinion', for some even 'unacceptable opinion'.
May I briefly summarize it with the conclusion that most so-called corona experts just don't get it?
You could sum it up like this. I can also put it in a more nuanced way. No NPO celebrity would dare to ask Ab Osterhaus if he can clarify which specific virological knowledge has yielded something positive in the pandemic. The reality is of course this: the database on 'variants of concern' is bulging, we now know everything about the mutations in the spike protein, governments have imposed one lockdown after another to their heart's content and bombarded their people with control measures, thousands of publications have been published about Covid19, tens of millions of jabs and 'boosters' have been administered and billions of PCR tests have been done, all this does not alter the fact that SARS-CoV-2 simply went its own way. Nothing, literally nothing, of any knowledge has made any positive contribution to the course of this crisis. The knowledge of Koopmans and many others who join the corona chorus is the knowledge about which philosopher Rein de Wilde said at the beginning of this century: "Sooner or later, however, the knowledge society will come up against its natural limits. One of these limits is the usefulness of the «knowledge» developed in a society driven by total mobility and flexibility. If breaking with traditions and with the individual and collective past becomes the norm, in the long run nothing of yesterday will be comparable to something of today, with the result that no one knows anything anymore. Despite the appearance of progress, the cult of knowledge eventually produces stagnation." How applicable to the course of this 'pandemic'. A real expert, in order to make himself useful, would have delved into the studies that have been done on the Spanish Flu, and could have read what clever researchers had already written, namely that the moment the consequences of such a virus outbreak become visible, the virus has already spread among a large part of the population and that, consequently, lockdown measures are by definition ineffective and only harmful. A real expert would have studied the studies on SARS-CoV-1 and could have concluded that in the event of such a virus, it is immediately important to stop all transport. Koopmans, on the other hand, "didn't see it coming". The benefit of her virological knowledge is therefore practically zero, as are those of many others in the narrative.
Et tu Tijs!
At the end, Tijs (suddenly?) states at BlckBox that a goal of the series was also to bridge the gap... But he fails miserably to really examine his own failing role.
How in the name does Tijs think (pun intended ;P) that he thinks he can build a bridge with this!? The opposite is the case of Tijsje, 'the ICUs were full' van den Brink ... Huge failure that you are! ... fcuk, I still get angry at figures like he say, not normal... Let's do something else now ... better for my health.
Recognizable 😀
😊👍🙏