"Wanneer worden de mensen nou eens wakker?" 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?" Partly thanks to my communications science background (I think), I have formed an idea about this. The expert speaks - and this time it's me.
Dus wanneer mensen nou eens wakker worden, is de vraag en dan begin ik met de stelling dat mensen die niet wakker zijn, de mainstream media geloven: "Het stond in de krant!". Dat geloof in de realiteit zoals die door de media wordt geschilderd, zal lang blijven, heel lang. Misschien voor altijd maar in elk geval zolang onze instincten ons besturen. En of we beter af zullen zijn als we onze instincten in verre toekomst kunnen negeren (of kwijt zijn geraakt), dat is nog maar helemaal de vraag, want die instincten hebben ons wel gebracht tot onze dominante positie op deze aardkloot. Maar tot die tijd zal de meerderheid de grote media blijven geloven. Wij zijn selectief goedgelovig, dat is onze natuur. Dat heeft een voorgeschiedenis.
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 real enemy image - no, I said that wrong: we will have or even create a real enemy against whom we can act ugly.
But what about the experts? Anyone who is professionally involved in our national protection, that is, any expert, will at least emphasize that danger - thus emphasizing the importance of their task. Exaggeration is also lurking ('they are eager to get to the border'). The vast majority believe that. For about 100,000 years, that belief has been a survival strategy that has done us no harm.
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. Anyone who presented themselves as a dissident was out - then you were lost because without a group there would be no future. That is our nature.
This survival strategy has been ingrained in our DNA for tens, hundreds of millions of years (we also see the 'group strategy' in herds, packs, fish 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 last few centuries. We are still primitively wired. Deviating from the dominant story not only feels risky. We have even managed to protocolize that feeling. It is so it is also risky now - not just socially. Because it also has career-related, financial and legal consequences, it directly affects the individual's social security.
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. Leaderless groups lost out to strongly led 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.
This creates a new dynamic within that hierarchy: serving the institute as the ultimate goal. After all, the apparatus that must implement the mandate must be powerful (that is also the assignment) and preferably be further developed. Officials within the institute are given a new social context with foot soldiers, workplaces, cars, colleagues, coffee machines, bosses, bosses, EU directives, etc. Their position in that structure determines their livelihood, their prestige, their career. Not the mandate, not the demand from society, but the institute itself has taken over the official's right to exist. It has become its own thing. The officials have become dependent on the continued existence of the institute. Proper functioning then means: helping the institute move forward, strengthening authority, and 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 at the von der Leyens, the Faucis, the Ruttes, the de Jonges, the Bontens and you name them of this world, but the problem is that we ourselves keep creating the systems in which these types of people flourish. Had they not been there, someone else would have been put in that position with similar qualities and behavior.
"Macht corrumpeert" vind ik dus te makkelijk. "Het zijn slechte mensen" ook. Je wil diversiteit in mensen, iedereen moet kunnen zijn wie hij is. Karakters verschillen nu eenmaal, de een is wat makkelijker te corrumperen dan de ander. Dat hoort bij een pluriforme bevolking. Maar ja, systemen filteren daarop. Als principiële bezwaarmakers, raddraaiers en onmogelijke querulanten eruit worden gewerkt omdat ze de zaak maar ophouden, wie gaat er dan naar de absolute top...? Precies.
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 allow themselves to be influenced by lobbies (1st chapters of 'For lack of better', although that is specifically about the US) and in turn use taxpayers' money to create 'support' through subsidized media and NGOs (I am certainly not talking specifically about the US). This creates a closed circuit: the message is sent from the government, confirmed, reinforced, repeated and anyone who deviates from it is placed outside the group.
In our time, the role of speaker at the campfire has been reduced to a ventriloquist dummy function: the 'talking head' on the screen, which pronounces words that have been written elsewhere. Aided by strong budgets and a slick format on prime time, the most watched, the most beautifully presented, the most read, the most listened to. These are still the 'mainstream' media. It is encouraging that they are increasingly referred to as 'legacy' media, but viewing and listening figures are declining. That will eat away at their authoritative position.
How do we get out of this?
Ultimately, history shows, the tide turns. Then, after bloody confrontations, the dictators walk through the streets barefoot, shaven-headed, to be taunted and spat at by angry citizens with pitchforks. Then it seems solved. But as soon as new concentrations of power begin to form, everything will start all over again because we ourselves are the incubator of all that evil. We do not demand transparency. Especially now that we are all doing so well - don't fix it if it isn't broken. We allow ourselves to be overruled by the people to whom we have given our mandate. They will do sneaky things to increase their decisiveness and the media will simply let that slide. While everyone knows that transparency is the lifeblood of a democracy.
We want to avoid the pain of such a heavy-handed revolution. Perhaps it is possible to make a gentler turn, without casualties, destruction or capital destruction. But if this has to happen organically via gradual means, it will take many, many generations. How can we promote the recovery process? This would not be possible without the media.
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, the law contains vague criteria such as tackling "harmful content" or "disinformation". Member States may decide for themselves what is in the "general 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 Tijs van den Brink's recent 'career switch'). 'Functioning well as a member of parliament' is certainly not the same as 'being a good representative of the people'. A good representative has a feeling for his supporters and can express and defend them well. These are different skills than what is expected of a good MP/politician (negotiating, making compromises, spreading syrup, closing unions).
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 just the media
De laatste bescherming van de burger tegen de overheid zouden toch echt de invloedrijke media moeten zijn, die transparantie forceren en burgers daarover onafhankelijk informeren. Maar die knippen/plakken Reuters en AP News, bellen een bevriend politicus of overheids-expert en ontvangen met graagte steun vanuit de EU -en waarschijnlijk ook uit de missende 5,1 miljard van de Jonge- om de bevolking "goed geïnformeerd" te houden. Zeker als het land in zwaar weer verkeert!
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 with our increasingly less democratic processes. If that valve is not opened and the balance between mandate and power is not restored, tension in society will only grow. History is full of examples of what that can ultimately lead to: a hard reset – and it won't be glorious or grand.
Footnotes
- 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, the law contains vague criteria such as tackling "harmful content" or "disinformation". Member States may decide for themselves what is in the "general 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.
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 (means poison) but is not the poison
SOMETHING is going through the air. The only question is what. It is conceivable that you will become ill from something that is introduced into your airways via spray or liquid (cf. poker experiment). This could also be the 'packaging' of the suspected 'virus' (cf. the LNP for the mRNA vaccines.)
In the event of illness, the body will try to escape through harmful substances through the respiratory tract (aerosols), among other things, through the respiratory tract. It is likely that others who stay in the same room (for a long period of time) will in turn ingest this and then become ill from it, etc.
Is a virus necessary for this? Doesn't seem necessary to me. The poison may be contained in something else and the method of administration may promote additional pathology due to damage caused.
Nevertheless, ventilation probably works against transmission and also against putting it on and sitting indoors in a well-insulated room (in winter) is not beneficial and that face masks also work somewhat against coarse poison.
I think a poisonous green spiky picture of a virus, like the one above with virusvaria, does more damage to our heads than we realize.
Lies are unbecoming remains an interesting website. I dare to doubt whether everything it says... is true... but, and this is the problem you also raise, I often cannot say whether something is true or not because I lack the knowledge. That is the case with much of what appears in the media.
Yet I am able to distinguish the main issues from side issues. Whether the Higgs particle exists, for example, is something I do believe in (I think it is nonsense), but I do not have scientific proof (that the Higgs particle does not exist), it is a matter of faith that I do not have to pay any attention to: the Higgs particle does not change my life. The same applies to the expanding universe, string theory, etc.
The tragedy of our current 'thinking', if you can call it that, is that we are taught, from birth, that there are wise people who know better than you, whom you must believe on the basis of their authority (otherwise you will not participate). The short-sightedness of such a 'thought' takes away all wonder in one, which I regard as the beginning of a scientific nature.
Gosh, wouldn't the universe be finite after all?
Gee, maybe there's no such thing as anti-matter?
Gosh, are vaccines perhaps nothing more than poison injections in which even the 'proven' efficacy does not work?
These are all questions that you should not ask the wise old people, who speak their wisdom about us high in the clouds, with of course the best intentions for us. But here's something I do know: There are no wise old people who are high in the clouds. At least I never see them when I look at the sky...
When I started as a scientist, I was told (by wise old people) not to cite scientific articles that were older than 20 years, because those articles were obsolete.
20 years later, I conclude that what applied then still applies...
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 🤣
True story, that neighbor story. Strange sensation, and it almost became a good-nothing discussion, but I stopped.
The logic is fine, but to approach things logically you need to know as many facts as possible and that is where the problem lies. There is a lot of information out there, much of it opinion, and it is impossible to become an expert in all of those areas.
An example: I was always fascinated by the Apollo voyages and have read a lot about them, even looked at the coding and logic of the AGC (the Apollo Guidance Computer). It has been an incredible achievement. And now there are people who say it was fake (Thierry Baudet among others). The logic they use? If we can't do it now with our current technology, how was it possible with technology from the 1960s? That sounds like a valid argument, but it is not. It's too superficial. The technology was impressive and hundreds of thousands of people were involved in its production. A large part of the current computer capacity is used for presentation and endless layers of software. The AGC was operated by the astronauts who entered simple codes that they had to remember. No user interface. Error codes like 1202 that people had to look up in Houston during the landing on the moon. It was preceded by the Gemini and Mercury projects. So evolutionary.
The technology was primitive, but super qualified people worked on it. Hundreds of thousands of people saw the Saturn rockets take off. Just testing those engines is a story in itself. It also took up a huge part of the American budget (which is why it was eventually stopped).
This has nothing to do with viruses, but with truth-finding and manipulation. With a few simple statements you make a historical project suspicious, but if you really delve into the matter, a fake landing (6 actually) becomes more unlikely than real landings. The irony is that in this day and age you would probably be able to fake something like that.
I conclude that the theory that the moon landings never happened is a conspiracy theory. There are many more facts to be provided, but then it would be too long. Youtube is full of people who are certain that the moon landings never happened.
Maybe I'm digressing, but I do see a connection with the main article. All that information comes to us indirectly. And I'm beginning to think it's impossible to have a completely informed opinion on every subject. Maybe that isn't necessary.
Totally agree with you! Also that you don't have to have an informed opinion about everything. Here is also a true story. Last Tuesday the holiday play (children's week) in my hometown stopped an hour early because of "the heat". I cycled past the children just before they had to be picked up earlier. Children wore sweaters and cardigans and I myself wore long jeans and long sleeves. Fortunately, I later heard that everyone thought it was ridiculous. Let's hope that some light will come on for many. And I don't mean about the moon landing but about the launch of the C-shots and the upcoming booster.