"When will people wake up?" A rhetorically intended question that I regularly encounter. Let me turn it to my own field: "How long does the population continue to swallow the media reality that is constantly being scattered about them, and especially the pseudo-scientific Kromprate about tricky topics?" Thanks in part to my communication science background (I think), I have formed an idea about that. The expert speaks - and this time I am myself.
So when people wake up, the question is and then I start with the statement that people who are not awake, believe the mainstream media: "It was in the newspaper!". That belief in reality as painted by the media will remain for a long time, for a very long time. Perhaps forever but at least as long as our instincts control us. And if we will be better off if we can ignore (or have lost) our instincts in the long future, that is just the question, because those instincts have brought us to our dominant position on this earth's loop. But until that time the majority will continue to believe the big media. We are selectively gullible, that is our nature. That has a history.
What makes us people
Animals get their information exclusively from observations of their own world. Their communication is set within hearing, visual and smell. There is no question of collective memory, what is anchored in the genes. We humans, on the other hand, are able to form a reality image thanks to our communication capacity, purely on the basis of information exchange. If we perceive something, the media can hear what we should think of it.
Suppose the Americans have been imagining a life -threatening archenemy since WWII (for example, to prevent us from working with that party) and that this is taken over by the sensation -based media (because of it fear sells). Then the result is that we will experience a realistic image of the enemy - no, I say that wrong: will have a real enemy or even create against whom we can do ugly.
But then the experts? Everyone who is professionally involved in our national protection, every expert, will at least emphasize that danger - emphasizing the importance of his task. Exaggeration is also lurking ("they are eager at the border"). The vast majority believe that. For about 100,000 years, that faith has been a survival strategy that has not bothered us.
We are social beings from self -interest.
From an evolutionary point of view, we have been formed much earlier, millions of years earlier, in small groups in which survival depended on cooperation and mutual coordination, which was developed into shared belief in stories, in authority, in the common narrative1Nicely described in Sapiens door Yoval Harari, on whose warnings globalists are now navigating. Within such a group, someone came to the surface who felt narrative and could articulate. Someone who was successful in the group, whose views mattered.
They listened to that voice with respect around the campfire. That was the voice with authority. Not because everyone repeatedly tested the statements for truth, but because the whole system assumed that it was better to go along with it than as a loner against it. It is short because of course that one person also had his advisers. But he also had the importance of feeling and respecting the group and not just the advisers.
Again, very important: the group wax society. Whoever acted as a dissident would look out - then you were lost because without a group no future. That is our nature.
This survival strategy has nestled in our DNA for hundreds of millions of years (the "group strategy" is also seen in herds, packs, fishing schools, swarms). Looking at that time scale, it is not surprising that our instincts have not been able to keep up with the developments of the few last centuries. We are still primarily wired. Moreover, deviating from the dominant story is not only risky. We even succeeded in protocoling that feeling. It is So even now risky - not only social. Because it also has career -technical, financial and legal consequences, it intervenes directly on the livelihood of the individual.
That mechanism still works, even though the campfire and the tribal head have been replaced by television, news media, social platforms and policy campaigns. The reflex has remained: what is repeated daily by authoritative sources, we assume. Certainly if it is outside our own perception. Not because we investigated it, but because everyone says it and feels uncomfortable to doubt.
From leadership to Talking Heads
It used to be the most experienced, the wisest, the strongest - the the first one in pairs - who set the line. That position had grown naturally within the group. Groups without a leader covered highly guided groups. Or they joined it.
The current societies have become too great for that. They have split policy and decision -making and outsourced in mandates. Mandates must be monitored and protected, so they are guaranteed in institutions, each with its own hierarchy. Those institutions have the size within which the group algorithm can do its work again: the most successful comes to the surface. And that is of course the one who serves the interests of the group best. Note: from the group; So that is no longer society, it can even get out of the picture.
A new dynamic is created within that hierarchy: serving the institute as the ultimate goal. After all, the device that must execute the mandate must be powerful (that is also the assignment) and preferably further expanded. Officials within the institute receive a new social context with foot people, workplaces, cars, colleagues, coffee machines, bosses, supreme bosses, EU guidelines, etc. Their position in that structure determines their life, their prestige, their career. Not the mandate, not the question from society, but the institute itself has taken over the right to exist of the officer. It has become its own thing. The officials have become dependent on the survival of the institute. Well functioning then means: helping the institute ahead, strengthening the authority, increasing support for the institute.
Those who do that best will automatically peristalsis. Dissidents who think that the original intentions of the mandate are not served or even respected are seen as threatening, anti-institutional. They filter themselves out at an early stage. The most successful, on the other hand, those who fulfill their task without grumbling as efficiently as unscrupulous, it is those who lie without any problems, identify with the institute agenda, therefore consider themselves untouchable and are always equally enthusiastic about what the system requires (also known as (also high-functioning psychopaths named). They also find each other in new, informal consultative bodies.
So we can get angry with the Von der Leyens, the Faucis, the Rutte's, De Jonges, the Bontens and name them from this world, but the problem is that we ourselves always create the systems in which these types are flourishing. If they had not been there, there would have been someone else in that position with similar qualities and similar behavior.
"Power corrupts" is therefore too easy for me. "They are bad people" too. You want diversity in people, everyone must be who he is. Characters simply differ, one is a bit easier to corrupt than the other. That is part of a pluriform population. But yes, systems filter on that. As principle objectioners, wheel turners and impossible querulants are worked out because they just stop the case, who will go to the absolute top ...? Precisely.
Tag
The findings of Stanley Milgram2The percentages of Milgram: https://ChatGPT.com/c/68a96fc2-5a38-832d-9927-bdb551b270a2 apply m.M. Also for people who are given power. Or is the filter already in operation?
Those with the least psychological or moral means are best equipped to serve a system.
This results in mediocrity in places where to excel.
Ordinary corruption: Money
Another disturbing factor is money. Government officials can be influenced by lobbies (1st chapters of "in the absence of better", although that is specifically about the US) and in turn use tax money to create "support" through subsidized media and NGOs (then I certainly do not specifically talk about the US). This ensures a closed circuit: the message is sent from the government, confirmed, strengthened, repeated and who deviates from it is placed outside the group.
In our time, that role of speaker at the campfire has been reduced to a belly consultation doll function: the "talking head" on the screen, which expresses words that are set up elsewhere. Helped by sturdy budgets and a slick format on prime time, the most viewed, the most beautiful presented, the most read, the most listened to. Those are still the "mainstream" media. It is hopeful that they are increasingly called "legacy" media, but the viewing and listening figures are declining. That will eat on their authoritative position.
How do we get out of this?
Ultimately, history teaches, the shore turns the ship. Then, after bloody confrontations barefoot, the dictators walked barefoot through the streets to be taunted and spit by furious citizens with pitchforks. Then it seems resolved. But as soon as new power concentrations begins, everything will start again from the beginning because the incubator of all that evil is ourselves. We do not require transparency. Certainly not now that it is all going so well for us - don't fix it is it is that broken. We let ourselves be overruled by the people we have given ourselves our mandate. They are going to do sneaky things to increase their decisiveness and the media just let it run. While everyone knows that transparency is the lifeline of a democracy.
We want to prevent the pain of such a harsh revolution. Perhaps it is possible to make a softer twist, without victims, destruction or capital destruction. But if that has to happen organically through the path of graduation, it will take many, many generations. How can we promote the recovery process? That will not work without the media anyway.
If the media were going to rebel, it would soon be over, but we could forget that, they have been completely encapsulated as propagandists of power.
Then we could hope that the media will be overwhelmed by citizen initiatives (Weltschmerz, DNW, Dak, GV, John Campbell, Dwarsnieuws, Trueman Show etc)? Given the new EU law, that could be difficult3The EU has introduced the European Media Freedom ACT, which has been in force since the beginning of August 2025. Intended to strengthen media freedom, independence and pluralism, but the law contains vague criteria such as tackling "harmful content" or "disinformation". Member States may decide for themselves what is in the "public interest"..
We drive further and further away from what can ultimately be the only remedy: transparency. Can friend and foe perhaps be about that? That would be a first step. But given the DSA, Ursula is against it.
Transparency in politics ...
Full transparency is necessary with every mandate, with every form of power, with every decision that has an impact on society. Control is essential. In good faith or not: power concentrations should have to build themselves into distrust or distrust. We do not need communication strategies, framing or narratives if we cannot test them independently against sources and interests. Open debates are essential, just like substantiated criticisms.
In fact, the House of Representatives was put in the organization chart for that. The House of Representatives should curb the government and the institutions. That should force transparency, but everything goes wrong there, as we have learned from the corona period:
- They often do not know what exactly is happening because they are being informed incorrectly or incompletely (by the talks of the young or the interpretations of Ruben van Gaalen)
- They are themselves part of the government machine and be held to maintain the status quo (criticism as an anti-institutional extreme right)
- They often miss substantive knowledge of the problems in their file (s) (See the interim role of Karremans in the over-damping debate-and actually almost the entire TK-MBT Corona, and of course I also call Rob Jetten again, the absolute nonsense about nuclear energy, nitrogen etc. is nevertheless oracle in the talk shows every day.)
- MPs who address fundamental issues are canceled in the media ("Fall outside the group")
- Government officers are to a large extent career politicians (See also the EU, see also the recent "career switch" by Tijs van den Brink). The "good functioning as a parliamentary member" is by no means the same as being a "good representative". A good people's representative has a feeling for the supporters and can articulate and defend it well. That are skills other than what is expected from a good MP/politician (negotiating, compromising, lubricating syrup, closing bonds).
We cannot expect self -study for various reasons from MPs. With all this we have to determine that we can no longer count on the control function of the House of Representatives. Apart from the prevailing mediocrity, we must not underestimate the suction effect of power. Everything comes to that.
... then the media
The last protection of the citizen against the government should really be the influential media, which force transparency and inform citizens about it independently. But they cut/paste Reuters and AP News, call a friendly politician or government expert and receive with happy support from the EU and probably also from the missing 5.1 billion of the young-to keep the population "well informed". Especially if the country is in heavy weather!
We will have to keep looking at America for disruptions because a) Our language area is too small for courageous journalists such as a Joe Rogan or Tucker Carlson and B) our political system tolerates no radical price changes, the civil service is too powerful, too top heavy.
Without transparency, we will continue to work in our own country with the dominant voice that paints our worldview and the one who does it for us is no longer driven by finding truth. Newspapers and public broadcasters are not reliable sources of information in the current constellation.
The media are the key to the dissatisfaction about our and fewer democratic processes. If that valve does not open and the balance between mandate and power is not restored, the tension in society will only grow. History is full of examples of where that can ultimately lead: a hard reset - and it will not be glorious or big.
References
- 1Nicely described in Sapiens door Yoval Harari, on whose warnings globalists are now navigating
- 2
- 3The EU has introduced the European Media Freedom ACT, which has been in force since the beginning of August 2025. Intended to strengthen media freedom, independence and pluralism, but the law contains vague criteria such as tackling "harmful content" or "disinformation". Member States may decide for themselves what is in the "public interest".
Best Anton.
An interesting argument and very recognizable.
Maybe I have overlooked it and you have said it in a different wording, but there is a very important cause in my vision.
People no longer have a credible guidance and float like an anchorless ship.
People used to have guidance within the churches, but since they found out that they abused their power and brought them as true faith (which it was not in many cases), then something broke with many. And rightly so, because a lot of abuse was made of it. And with the washing water the child (the good part) was thrown away. People became anchorless. Who was still reliable? Politics not and so media and science remained.
Uncritically, because otherwise you have nothing at all. Thinking yourself there is many too easy for it. It just follows the crowd ...
We may not always agree, but we will think.
I wanted to add that to your story.
Illegible story of an autodidact?
I just take that of those millions of years of humanity with a bale of salt.
This assumption also applies to most people:
"The reflex has remained: what is repeated daily by authoritative sources, we assume. Certainly if it is outside our own perception. Not because we have investigated it, but because everyone says it and feels uncomfortable to doubt."
😀
Want:
The pair found human fossils that have been dated at most a few tiets for thousands of years with witnesses, leave big questions open. Where are those masses, masses, old people who must have lived to have made the alleged human evolution possible?
For hundreds of thousands (!) Years a world population of a few thousand people? Well ...
The DNA science of the last 30 years now painfully lied to the "classic" (= 170 years of young) macro-evolution theory.
I don't write "Millions of years of humanity". Group behavior is not limited to people at all.
Anton is correct! If I remove the word "humanity", will we agree? I am not the most difficult today;))
I mean this: that "we" go along in those millions of years is because it has been repeated for many decades, and not so much because we have investigated and concluded it ourselves?
The parallels with your article are therefore that in the branch of evolution science it is bad for your career to make a different sound than "millions of years". Hardly any money is available for investigations that doubt that premise. And the "talking heads" in this industry are rather dominant.
Knowing that, I respond to when it is mentioned as a matter of course in an article that wants to point out this phenomenon with this question: "How long does the population continue to swallow the media reality that is constantly being scattered about them, and especially the pseudo-scientific cromprate about tricky topics?"
By the way, I also want to have said: Thank you for your always critical look and thorough articles. Have a nice weekend!
I would formulate it this way: we survived millions of years, partly because we are going to be repeated in what is repeated for decades. The average citizen cannot do otherwise and should not otherwise. But in particular the media are the herhales while they do have a broader responsibility and therefore have a obligation to investigate.
Exactly this ad!
Thank you for your input.
@Anton, suppose this evolutionary time path is also fiction ... .. then your entire "group betoog" will fall over.
In the end, science is not that exciting. It is the explanation of the "facts" that make the argument.
As an example:
In terms of gravity, there is little new. We know how it works, and how we can "escape" and thus fly to the moon.
We don't know exactly why every object attracts a different object. But we can take measurements on it.
We can investigate contemporary laws of nature, and have few new startling discoveries in some areas. Other research areas still have enough options.
The question remains, how did those laws of nature arise?!
For example, if we look at dating techniques, then the laws behind them are fairly clear and we understand reasonably well the contemporary halving times, etc. But if we perform a date on well -known rock (volcano, for example), we often come out of a hundred thousand to millions of years, while this must be in the dozens.
In other words ... here too you can say very stoically that flat date says that something is 100k years old, but that this does not have to be the truth immediately.
Our contemporary institutions do the same. The thermometer goes in, a certain number comes out, and that is the truth.
And in all areas it works the same afterwards. Make a caricature of something, fights this caricature, and without any floor, this is taken over.
Whether it is about Corona and the "Wappies" or the Creation discussion // Evolution that stupid "creationists" or "ID-ers"….
It does not lead to legitimate questions or deepening, but people just laugh at you.
I personally think that you should always approach the truth as close as possible. So also no whipped numbers, or use quotes drawn from the context. The truth usually comes up.
Without millions of years I will also come out. Gosh you sound like "viruses do not exist" critics when I am talking about disproportionate measures, but then "evolution does not exist."
That group instinct is a survival strategy that we see from schools fishing to bird swarms and a lot of what is in between, especially in "social" animal species. For my part it comes directly from the Lord, I don't care ... or make it 10,000 years. Read it for my part as an allegory and replace that evolution for something that fits better in your own picture. What matters: that group dynamics is an elementary mechanism: unconscious and instinctive.
Unconscious and instinctive, so we can use it and influence it. "The system" starts to ridicule itself. By participating in panels such as "what you say" from De Telegraaf Online (click on menu) and via email at "one today" you see "the plans" through the questions. There I plant neat seeds. The image has already been completely reversed: food vouchers was a waxie language and now his food vouchers the future says Rutte. Etc. Also with the C-pricks: they proudly showed their plasters, people forced others to answer, etc. And now most in my area are going to get the autumn booster anxiously secret, the doubt has been struck. I hope that the pants with wide legs will stay in fashion a little longer 😉
I have, stop!
I only say that we all look at the same data, only that we draw other conclusions.
You actually say: "I didn't delve into it, but it sounds plausible for me, and I derive rights from it, to support my story."
I think that's fine. But don't turn it now that I am a denier of something.
I have followed a lot of (EVO/creation) debates and weighed the pros and cons, and I think that at least reasonable doubts can be introduced on Evolution of Science.
That does not mean that I no longer have any questions, or that I am constantly rejecting. On the contrary.
However, it is all about viewing (all) data, and drawing conclusions out of it.
You can just say in this, Lareb, RIVM, UMC, they all conclude the same, so it will be true ... ..
I look at the same mortality data as you and Herman, and yet I draw other conclusions from it.
And I tried to make that clear to you with the previous post.
I fully agree that we are in the tongs at institutions and media (and scientists).
The (deniers) was recently thrown at me once. "You don't believe in Corona!?" (because we were not vaccinated).
And I pull that badly. Precisely because I have studied it considerably, I draw other conclusions than many others who follow the story of politics and media as standard.
That's why I often say. I had taken the red pill for Corona for years.
Again, you are right that we are in the tongs!
Good story Anton! I am not going to disprove it, but sometimes truths can be depressing ...
Therefore, here some counter gas or piracy, based on
"How do we get out of this?
Ultimately, history teaches, the shore turns the ship. "
Here is such a story. See Slauerhoff's poem:
"Letter found in a fine
He Stiet on 't Rif with full sails
And has become smooth again,
But fell deeply, there was a gauge
Three vam in the spacious, he was cracked.
Then all deck hands on the pumps;
The skipper, as the water rose,
Tried to stomp us zeal.
We plundered the drink cupboard.
He walked up and down over the reasonless wreck
Like a rat in the fall: "We sink!"
I was already lying too cage with a Flesch Cognac
I drink a last intoxication.
I looked through the gate: a boat steated off
And tried to spawn a praw.
I went to a fair sailor grave
They died of the auxe deggings.
(Part unreadable)
We have awakened from a long intoxication.
The storm was subsided, days later.
We got ashore on a raft
And found fruits, fresh water;
And, in a deep cool cave,
A pleasant home.
We are satisfied with our destiny,
Happier than a king;
And only suffer from two things
For which we wanted to give a little finger:
We don't have a thread of shag here
And much less gin.
You who was allowed to find Deez ’Flesch on 't Strand,
Put some drinks and tobacco in a box
And send it with sea flow and winds
To the survivors of 't Wrak
There insulinde. '
Nicely described. Yet 1 comment.
You write: "So we can get angry with the Von der Leyens, the Faucis, the Rutte's, De Jonges, Bontens, De Bontens and name them on this world, but the problem is that we ourselves always create the systems in which these types are flourishing. If they were not there, there was someone else in that position.”
I say: no, and consciously paraphras a little caricature and not the way you mean it. "So we can get angry with the men who bother women, but the problem is that we ourselves always create freedom in which these types are flourishing, etc. ..."
Yes, the system can and will be abused. The system makes that possible, but then the abuse is the fault of the abusers and not of those who have to or want to live in that system.
Or, on his Texan said: It is not the gun ("the system"), but the one who shoots it that is and remains responsible.
The system can be better, but guilty is guilty and I am not going to better fool misconduct (you do not, for the sake of clarity).
We understand each other. Just for a moment: 1) I don't get the guilty free. Their own responsibility remains. As far as I'm concerned, they can't hide behind their function. But they put behind bars for life and blame them for everything, that will not solve the problem.
2) In a free society there will also be room for crime. That is unfortunately inherent; The price for freedom and pluriformity. The comparison will be limited: men who are bothering women are not given a salary increase or better positions because of that fact. This is how it works within those systems: they withdraw from view so that they can do what they are able to do.
I would like to contradict the suggestion in the beginning of this article, the not mentioned, Russia, in the further excellent argument.
Als je Catharina de Grote, Turkmenistan 1881, de Holodomor 1932, het Molotov-Ribbentrop pact 1939 (verdeling Polen), de vorming van de USSR in 1945, de Finlandisering, Boedapest 1956, Praag 1968, Grozny 1994, Georgië 2008, Krim/Donbas 2014 niet vergeten bent, dan weet je dat angst voor de Russen helaas niet onterecht is. And then I miss Armenia, Azerbaijan, the Caucasus, etc. etc.
Only it is heavily exaggerated that they are (already) in front of the gates of The Hague…. We agree on that.
Thank you Jan, admitted: I don't know much about it. In any case, it is something to question.
For what it is worth: I miss in your list that the Russians in WWII were counted among the Allies who played an important role in our liberation. But I also listened to clients such as John Maersheimer, Jeffrey Sachs, Ad Verbrugge and Ab Gietelink, who together create a fairly consistent image. I think it is not unlikely (probably probably) that Russia has indeed made attempts to find more connection with the West and that the US has always played us strategically apart, with the blow -up of the Nordstream as a provisional apotheosis.
Certainly, Stalin was in WW2 on "our" side. But "we" were already wary at the time because of the Molotov pact, in which Russia annexed his "part" of Poland in 1939.
I also know John Maersheimer, Jeffrey Sachs, Ad Verbrugge and Ab Gietelink. I have seen and checked many of their videos and debates. But unfortunately they twist the facts about the crucial theme "Not One inch" (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_One_Inch
) too often. Bush Sr., as Sarotte shows on the basis of documents, made Gorbachov crystal clear that there would be no moratorium on NATO expansion and that this is the sovereign choice of states-and the 1990 agreements were primarily Germany-specific stationing.
They also act as if NATO expansion 1: 1 is comparable to the expansion/restoration of the USSR. Nothing could be further from the truth. NATO is extensive at the explicit request of the new entrants. In practice, the "restoration" of the USSR consists of increasing Russian influence and, where necessary, coarse violence (Grozny, Georgia 2008, Krim/Donbas 2014).
Gorbachev was indeed looking for more collaboration. But with Yeltsin's rise and from 1994 the war in Chechenia/Grozny shone in EU and US, the enthusiasm for further integration with Russia - membership of EU or NATO was therefore not a real path. All of this is well documented, but is handy by the four men mentioned.
About Cuba: It is often said that the US/EU does not want Russian or Chinese influence "in the back garden". However, the Cubac crisis was about offensive missiles. After 1962 the US refused such weapons on Cuba, while there was a long -term Soviet/Russian influence and heavy sanctions remained. NATO expansion at the request of sovereign states cannot be compared with that. With the German unification, it has been promised not to place NATO core weapons in the former DDR area; No binding agreements were made about other Warsaw Pactlanden-and that Germany-specific promise was complied with. And until recently also with regard to placement in former Warsawact countries.
In short: referring to Cuba is out of place to deny support to Ukraine. What Russia did in Cuba (nuclear missiles) is not what the US/EU in Ukraine does (support and partnership at Kiev's request).
The rhetoric of Putin that the US/EU pays a direct existential threat is just as absurd as the image that Russia is "in front of the gates of The Hague". At the same time, the concerns of the Baltic states, Poland, Finland and the Czech Republic are real in view of the recent Russian aggression.
About Orbán (Hungary) and Fico (Slovakia): their position is difficult to reconcile with Budapest 1956 and Prague 1968, but partly to be explained by energy interests and domestic politics. Incidentally, other EU countries have not phased out all Russian energy in one go.
Finally, the twist of Trump compared to Biden is very welcome on the one hand: consultations are being made again. On the other hand, his position is that Ukraine "started" and that the occupied country (plus!) Should be transferred to aggressor Russia too bizarre for words without a struggle. I suspect Putin that he knows private things about Trump that should remain hidden ... I appreciate that Trump's ambition to become peace pigeon is a false; That too is pure opportunism and self -interest. But of course it sounds very nice an idealistic. But not from someone who deals with women and other things like he does! I don't trust his peace intentions for a cent.
My credo remains: Nobody trust until you have seen the evidence yourself. Alternative media are also sometimes wrong and rarely acknowledge that. "
Thank you for your additions Jan. If you put this next to the pattern that the US has shown, the whole will become a bit brighter again. Again: I know too little about it.
For example, I don't see why EU states would reduce their energy, was that also in Dei tolerated? Was that also an idea from America?
That Bush unilaterally stipulated that NATO expansion The choice of Souvereine Staten also draws the disrespect of the US side. The US has just as little say that Russia, rather less. You get a fight from that, but it will then be fought on a different continent than the American, but with American turnover. I don't trust that for no cent.
(The 2Cts of a layman.)
The EU was already (completely idiot; read Clintel and others who are against climate alarmism) busy phasing out fossil, but still reasonably gradually. So not only from Russia.
Under Merkel, Germany had used gas from Russia (Nordstream) massively after her equally idiotic atoma stieg. Because sun and wind were not enough to make German industry run. Logically; A child could have seen that coming. The US and other countries from the EU again objected to this because it would make dependence on Russia too great. After 2014 (Ukraine Donbas and Crimea) there was hardly any response. Afterwards, a capital blunder. Then Russia should have stopped immediately. But gas was already playing a role. And therefore opportunism from the EU countries, in particular Germany.
After her departure, Merkel admitted that her "Walking Durch Handel" policy compared to Russia was a blunder.
Only after 2022 did the EU countries accelerate the import from Russia (still not entirely ... The EU is still, cynically enough, still to a large extent the Russian economy.). And they switched to gas from Norway and LNG/Shale gas from the US (which the US is fantastic again, but the environmental freaks not). So American economic interests certainly played here.
The decision of Bush Sr. To allow states to choose their own club is not a disrespect, but really liberal. And are 100% correct with the principles of sovereign states. The US must also deal with that Cuba is under the influence of Russia/China from its own choice. That is symmetry in geopolitical relationships.
The energy interests play a major role anyway. The Donbas and especially the Black Sea around the Crimea is bursting with oil and gas.
You should actually read my more extensive historical story if you want to know more about it [quickly]. That also goes deeper into that… ..
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cRIz4TC946NgSvnlNBQdgoHJKNxsRK75/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=113155463720193786240&rtpof=true&sd=true
Yesterday sat at a campfire with people who watch all the talk shows and all the MSM news. People with very serious, in my eyes and now written on the package leaflets, side effects of the C-pricks. Old friends who missed us. Despite the cosiness, my brain turned overtime, which happily work for me (with us). "Have we been in a theater piece?" Someone (after two very serious brain bleeding and now skin cancer) asked me "we're still in it" I said and immediately regretted because it is no longer to reverse that person and trust in government, medical science, etc. the only support. I quickly said that we don't have to look at this theater piece and listen to ourselves more. I had never had a leading role in this group of people and because of their questions I felt so terribly uncomfortable. Isn't it possible to turn the roles around? Many managers appear to bluff and radiate learned certainty, they are not all as described in this article. De Ruttes, De Jonges, De Koopmansen etc. etc. That of course.
Niet alleen de reguliere media maar ook de wetenschappelijke media functioneren onvoldoende transparant. Meerdere verschillende virologische publicatie werden/worden gepubliceerd door 15 tot 27 auteurs (vaak vanuit meerdere landen).Indien eenlingen open vragen stellen of kritiek hebben en de onbeantwoorde vragen inbrengen bij commissies ,die de integriteit pretenderen te bewaken , worden vragen en kritieken niet behandeld met de motivatie van brede consensus over het onderwerp waarmee de vragensteller in het ongelijk wordt gesteld.
I have had a problem with what is wise and good.
Not that I want to make it difficult for myself, but it comes down to it.
Can we talk about who finds what wise and why?
I am not against acting wise but I find it difficult if I am supposed to accept it. I think it's a normal thing that I can just ask questions.
If asking ordinary questions causes stress to what is what is good and wise.
Then I tend to doubt that attitude because there are questions to answer.
Powerful story, Anton. Also find that photo at the top of the page very beautiful.
What I am still with: we know that we are being manipulated (cheated), but how do you know what really happens? What is reliable news? What is reality?
Small anecdote: A neighbor is walking his dog and stands in front of the house with us, I am also outside. He has raised an umbrella. I ask him why he uses his umbrella. "It's raining," says HJJ. "No," I say, "it's dry." His answer: "According to my app it is raining."
Kind of Revelation. So we are already that far.
I limit myself to a subject that I meanwhile thought I understood. The Covid madness, the prototype of mass manipulation.
Theory 1: There was a deadly virus that originated in China (Lab Leak seems likely) and the world was running in rapid train. The Lockdowns and vaccinations have saved millions of lives and the virologists and the WHO are the heroes of the story (the plot of the film "Contagion" around). And we will continue to boost forever. I personally left theory 1 for a long time. There is no ball for many reasons that have already been discussed here.
Theory 2: There was never a deadly virus, but the panic and fear that were raised have created the impression of a pandemic. The totally unsuitable PCR tests made random - even healthy - people who have been treated with the wrong protocols. The real crisis only started after the crisis had been declared. Before that time this "deadly" virus had not not been noticed. The mrna vaccines did the rest. Bottom Line: The crisis was actually an iatrogenic crisis, initially due to absurd lockdowns (misery care homes), dramatic hospital protocols and the fraudulent PCR test, followed by massive injecting with experimental mrna. The LNPs, the mrna, the pollution, the bad batches, we know the story. What is behind it, ignorance combined with stupidity and especially also "Groupthink" (Antons article), or a conspiracy? I tend to the first when I look at the history of Sapiens.
Here I feel the best at home, with theory 2.
But, now a third has also been added: theory 2 is partly a hoax. The majority remains, but there is still a magic trick within the magic trick.
People like Mike Yeadon have shifted a bit and he says that it has never been proven that viruses are conveying diseases. Your own immune system determines whether you get sick or not (the terrain versus germ theory). And then there is also Stefano Scoglio (recently died) who says that MRNA is not possible at all via LNPs. He explains that it cannot work technically at all.
https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/the-spike-protein-deception.
Which does not mean that the "vaccines" are safe and reliable, but that the damage is therefore caused in a different way, and reliably - that everything around the Covid crisis is based on very blurry science, mainly created by virtual images of viruses. The film "Inside mrna" explains in detail how the mrna vaccines work. Pierre Capel has also explained this to Den T slee. It all sounds logical. But what is from here? Is it even worse than we thought?
It is not a very coherent story, for which apologies. But there is so much to play at the moment that I sometimes no longer see the forest for the trees. The annoying thing is that the same lack of clarity is absorbed for all other known files, and how can you, as a layman, without understanding the content 100% form a judgment? The only way is to trust reliable sources. But he determines who provides reliable information?
Or you are going to work in the garden, in the sun.
I also saw that last video from Yeadon. I have seen too often that contagiousness would not exist, I always refer to that poker experiment.
His story of "if you have pain in your heart, you don't wonder who you sustained that". Maybe you should do that, but moreover: if intestines are upset, you wonder what you have eaten wrong. If you have a result, ask yourself whether you have been somewhere in the dirt or in the nettles or have an allergy. Measles not contagious? Come on. As if your immune system does not respond to external influences. If you don't want to mention that "virus": fine but then it will be difficult to communicate ...
Virus (betektent gif) maar is het gif niet
Er gaat IETS via de lucht. De vraag is alleen wat. Het is denkbaar dat je ziek wordt van iets dat via spray of vloeistof in je luchtwegen gebracht wordt (cf. poker experiment). Dit kan overigens ook de ‘verpakking’ van het vermoeden ‘virus’ zijn ( cf. het LNP bij de mRNA vaccins.)
Het lichaam zal bij ziekte opgedaan door schadelijke stoffen binnengekregen via de luchtwegen (aerosolen) dat o.a via luchtwegen naar buiten proberen te werken. Waarschijnlijk zullen anderen die (langdurig) in een zelfde ruimte verblijven dit op hun beurt binnenkrijgen en hier vervolgens ziek van worden, enz.
Is een virus hier voor nodig? Lijkt me niet noodzakelijk. Mogelijk zit het gif in iets anders en werkt de methode van toediening wel extra pathologie in de hand door aangebrachte schade.
Neemt niet weg dat ventileren waarschijnlijk wel werkt tegen overdracht en ook tegen opdoen en binnen zitten in goed geïsoleerde ruimte (in winter) niet gunstig is en dat bij grof gif mondkapjes ook wel enigszins werken.
Een gifgroen stekelig plaatje van een virus, zoals hier boven bij virusvaria doet denk ik meer schade in ons hoofd dan we beseffen.
Lies are unbecoming blijft een interessante website. Of alles wat er staat… waar is… durf ik te betwijfelen, maar, en dit is het probleem wat jij ook aankaart, vaak kan ik niet zeggen of iets waar is of niet omdat mij de kennis ontbreekt. Dat is met veel zo wat in de media verschijnt.
Toch ben ik wel in staat om de hoofdzaken van bijzaken te onderscheiden. Of het Higgs partikel bv bestaat is iets waar ik wel een geloof in heb (ik denk dat het onzin is), maar wetenschappelijk bewijs (dat het higgs partikel niet bestaat) heb ik niet, het is een geloofkwestie waar ik verder geen aandacht aan hoef te besteden: het higgs partikel verandert mijn leven niet. Hetzelfde geldt voor het uitdijend heelal, snaartheorie, etc.
De tragiek van ons huidig ‘denken’ als je het zo noemen mag, is dat ons, vanaf onze geboorte, aangeleerd wordt dat er wijze mensen zijn die beter weten dan jij, wie je op basis van hun gezag wel moet geloven (en anders doe je niet mee). De kortzichtigheid van zo’n ‘gedachte’ neemt alle verwondering bij iemand weg, die ik beschouw als het begin van een wetenschappelijke aard.
Goh, zou het heelal dan toch niet eindig zijn?
Goh, bestaat er misschien geen anti-materie?
Goh, zijn vaccins misschien niets meer dan gifspuiten waarin zelfs de ‘aangetoonde’ werkzaamheid niet werkt?
Allemaal vragen die je niet mag stellen van de wijze oude mensen, die hoog in de wolken hun wijsheden over ons uitspreken, met uiteraard de beste bedoelingen voor ons. Maar hier is iets wat ik wel weet: er zijn geen oude wijze mensen die hoog in de wolken zitten. Ik zie ze in ieder geval nooit als ik naar de lucht kijk…
Toen ik begon als wetenschapper werd tegen mij gezegd (door wijze oude mensen) dat ik geen wetenschappelijke artikelen mocht aanhalen die ouder dan 20 jaar waren, want die artikelen waren obsoleet.
20 jaar verder concludeer ik dat wat toen gold, nog steeds geldt…
I think the truth here is in the middle. Someone who lives under poor conditions, poor food, poor hygienic conditions, etc. runs a good chance of becoming sick. The discussion is then whether virus or that bacterium is the cause, or the poor health of the person who falls ill. That's how I see the Terrain versus Germ discussion. That is also beautifully described in "Dissoling Illusions" by Humphries and Bystrianik. All those diseases had largely disappeared by the time the mass vaccinations were rolled out. Plumbers have probably played a greater role in improving average health than doctors. Even diseases for which there is no vaccine have been or disappeared or are described as mild. Roodvonk is a good example of that.
I agree with you, it is also going too far for me (to deny viruses), but it is all part of the information that comes to you. Not from the MSM this time but from the alternative side. It is relevant because viruses are now described as a kind of enemy (we are going to play the virus, Rutte said), even relatively innocent airway viruses. Fauci himself notabene has said that a working vaccine against airway viruses has never been developed. It is also not bad at all to have a cold now and then. The fear of viruses has been beaten. But a whole industry has been built around it.
I especially wanted to indicate how difficult it is to navigate between all those different opinions and visions and to determine what propaganda is and what is not.
Getting an emergency calling from a family in my family. Of course I will help and a few days later I am also lying next to a bucket on the couch (nearest toilet). Sometimes it is not so bad it is disappointing. If it is the same as a few months before, I skip it sick, Joepie. Everyone who takes care of small children happens to this. For a (possibly crafted) infectious disease such as CO VID, group immunity could have arisen very quickly and that was certainly consciously taken away from us! Navigating with logic and if you cannot reason so well, listen to people who can. So not to that neighbor with his weather app and umbrella, hilarious 🤣
Waar gebeurd, dat buurman verhaal. Vreemde gewaarwording, en was bijna een welles-niets discussie geworden, maar ben er maar mee gestopt.
Met de logica zit het wel goed, maar om zaken logisch te benaderen moet je zoveel mogelijk feiten kennen en daar zit het probleem. Er is heel veel informatie, een groot deel daarvan zijn meningen, en het is onmogelijk om op al die terreinen een expert te worden.
Een voorbeeld: Ik was altijd gefascineerd door de Apollo reizen en heb daar veel over gelezen, zelfs de coding en logica bekeken van de AGC (de Apollo Guidance Computer). Het is een ongelooflijke prestatie geweest. En nu zijn er mensen die zeggen dat het nep was (Thierry Baudet onder andere). De logica die ze gebruiken? Als we het nu niet kunnen met onze huidige techniek, hoe was het dan mogelijk met 60er jaren techniek? Dat klinkt als een valide redenering maar dat is het niet. Het is te oppervlakkig. De techniek was indrukwekkend en er zijn honderdduizenden mensen betrokken geweest bij de productie. Een groot deel van de huidige computer capaciteit gaat op aan presentatie en oneindige laagjes software. De AGC werd bediend door de astronauten die simpele codes intikten die ze moesten onthouden. Geen gebruikersinterface. Error codes als 1202 die men in Houston moest opzoeken tijdens de landing op de maan. Het is voorafgegaan door de Gemini en Mercury projecten. Evolutionair dus.
De techniek was primitief maar er werkten super gekwalificeerde mensen aan. Honderd duizenden mensen hebben de Saturnus raketten zien vertrekken. Alleen al het testen van die motoren is een verhaal op zich. Het heeft bovendien een enorm deel van het Amerikaanse budget opgeslurpt (reden dat men uiteindelijk gestopt is).
Heeft even niets met virussen te maken maar wel met waarheidsvinding en manipulatie. Met een paar simpele stellingen maak je een historisch project verdacht, maar als je je echt in de materie verdiept wordt een fake landing (6 dus eigenlijk) onwaarschijnlijker dan echte landingen. Ironie is dat je in de tegenwoordige tijd waarschijnlijk wel in staat zou zijn om zoiets te faken.
Ik concludeer dat de theorie dat de maanlandingen nooit hebben plaatsgevonden een complot theorie is. Er zijn veel meer feiten aan te dragen, maar dan wordt het te lang. Youtube staat vol met mensen die er zeker van zijn dat de maanlandingen nooit hebben plaatsgevonden.
Misschien dwaal ik af, maar ik zie wel een verband met het hoofdartikel. Al die informatie komt indirect bij ons binnen. En ik begin te denken dat het onmogelijk is om over elk onderwerp een volkomen gefundeerde mening te hebben. Misschien hoeft dat ook niet.
Ben het helemaal met je eens! Ook dat je niet overal een gefundeerde mening over hoeft te hebben. Hier ook een waargebeurd verhaal. Afgelopen dinsdag stopte het vakantiespel (kinderweek) in mijn woonplaats een uur eerder vanwege “de hitte”. Ik fietste langs de kinderen vlak voordat ze dus eerder opgehaald moesten worden. Kinderen met truien en vesten aan en zelf droeg ik een lange spijkerbroek en lange mouwen. Gelukkig hoorde ik later dat echt iedereen het belachelijk heeft gevonden. Nu hopen dat er bij velen een lichtje gaat branden. En dan bedoel ik niet over de maanlanding maar over de lancering van de C-prikken en de aanstaande booster.