This document will be about the world people live in and the perception that arises from it. We see a lot of division in society and that is why I am writing this article. Because we can understand each other better, there may be a way to get closer again.
However, I do think that 2 clear currents have emerged, which may not be able to collaborate in the future. That would mean that a parallel society is created, which in principle is already being built up.
Anyway, this document is an analysis of the 2 different perceptions that are currently emerging within the corona pandemic. I was very curious how this could happen, because people often see the opposite of each other. I noticed this myself in my own family, where I am practically the only one who does not want a vaccine.
We're going to see what I think is the source of the difference of perception. Again, this article should be seen as an analysis based on my opinion, which I will update if necessary.
The Story of the Sheep Farmer
Imagine the following scenario;
A farmer who owns a pasture on which sheep can graze. These sheep have a good life, because they can eat, reproduce, move freely on the pasture and are protected from predators by the farmer. We know that the sheep belong to the farmer, but they also get something in return. Many of these sheep are therefore satisfied.
Plot twist, what if this is reality and you are the sheep?
Let's see if this is possible, using a similar overview as above.
Farmer = billionaire class, who indirectly own the world and you. Obviously not every billionaire involved.
Pasture = the freedom that people experience. For example, a further restriction of freedom (more rules) means less pasture available for the sheep.
Food & drink & entertainment & shelter = with income from your employer (which is often indirectly owned by the billionaire class) you can afford this. Sheep have no income because they give their wool, meat and milk to the farmer.
Protection = assists the government and certain institutions. The billionaire class has an indirect influence on this, because they direct governments to a certain extent via, for example, the WEF (World Economic Forum). We also know that RIVM has received or is receiving funding from the bill & Melinda gates. To what extent does this fund have a say in the policy of the RIVM?
I have a cat called riff. Very nice animal, but the same example as the sheep applies here. The life of riff looks like this;
Food = he gets consistent and not cheap crap.
Freedom = is free to move in the house, but is not allowed to go outside because of his aids.
Protection = no dangerous animals in the house and he can visit the vet regularly for care. We also clean up his faeces.
Entertainment = Riff gets regular attention and gives it to us.
The sheep and my cat are most likely happy with their lives, as are many people. They simply have enough to live and therefore are not interested in being or not being a slave & property of someone. I have heard the following a lot from my environment;
- We're fine, what are you worrying about? The Netherlands is a beautiful democratic country.
- You (I) have a house, enough wealth, health and other forms of property. Why are you not satisfied?
- If it was the same here as in White Russia, or North Korea, I would indeed have fought for freedom, or I would have gone to protest. That is not necessary in the free Netherlands.
All nice and nice, but these people don't realize that they FEEL free, but are NOT. I don't want to feel free, but to be free. However, that can become a danger, just think of the following statements;
Happy slaves are the bitterest enemies of freedom and A happy slave is the greatest enemy of freedom.
Happy slaves are content and will fight less for their freedom. In some cases they will even ridicule people, or report them to the authorities, if those people do fight for (real) freedom.
Inspiration = > skip to 30:30 pieter helmsman speech.
Some other relevant statements;
Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily. Napoleon Bonaparte
Explanation = I don't want to live as a slave, I want to be free, or dead.
“The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it” George Orwell
Explanation = people think that the lie is the truth and thus see people who speak the truth as “extreme”.
You can't see what you don't want to see.
This is my thought. What it comes down to is that people may see or feel that something is not right, but they don't actually want to know. The brain prefers to stay in a comfort zone.
Jan Terlouw – freedom and dictatorship
When you're free it seems obvious.
You only miss it when you lack it, and whoever took it from you propagates that freedom means obedience.
Who breathes does not find that special. You only appreciate it when you're short of breath,
the oxygen machine can teach you. Unobstructed breathing is a miracle.
He who knows and cherishes and protects freedom, truly breathes with healthy lungs.
The joy of the law be sung, for liberty in bondage is good.
You are really free when you can do what you have to do in a relaxed way, according to your own choice.
Stupidity and power, terrifying friends, arch-enemies of reason and justice.
Great dislike of publicity, because it tolerates untruths poorly.
Stupidity and power, once together, is a force that is difficult to break.
Which, so often has been shown, continually breeds injustice.
Make sure those two don't embrace each other, and guard with a lot of energy, with all the means you can find, the rule of law, the constitution, democracy.
If we look at the policy and compare the 2 different perspectives, we may see the differences between these 2 mindsets and the perceptions that result from them.
Is it dangerous?
For = dangerous for everyone, many people die and some have to recover for a long time after getting sick.
Against = covid can certainly be dangerous, but especially for people with underlying suffering & old age.
This is one of the advice given by the cabinet.
The virus can spread through physical contact and therefore regular hand disinfection is recommended.
According to some scientists, the virus hardly spreads through physical contact, but mainly through the air. In fact, by regularly disinfecting your hands, you ensure that your immune system is taxed, which is bad.
Origin of virus
Man eats animal and gets sick.
For = sounds possible, we've seen how unsanitary those markets are.
Against = can a virus mutate so quickly that it suddenly infects the whole world? Gain of function research lab Wuhan sounds much more likely. This seems to have done Fauci and he is friends with Bill again. Possibly Fauci provides the virus and Bill provides the vaccine, which brings a lot of money/power.
Do these things work and are they therefore of added value?
For = every little bit helps and takes little effort.
Against = No or hardly any scientific evidence that it works, but that it is dangerous for health (lower immunity, various complaints). Long-term effects unknown. Step by step you get used to obeying and not thinking for yourself. It is recognized by the leaders that it hardly works, but serves as a behavioral influence.
Keeping distance 1,5 meters
This should work in preventing contamination, but is it?
Fine, I think it's a good idea to stick to it.
There seems to be no good study for this, otherwise the distance is based on the distribution of large large droplets, but according to Maurice the dog, among others, it is most likely aerosols that cause the real spread. As a result, the physical distance is less important than good ventilation. May also have to do with a divide and conquer strategy, where people are literally divided.
Call authorities in case of danger
Since the covid pandemic, we see that some people do not follow the rules, some are against it.
The rules are there for a reason, we have to stick to them to get the virus under control. So it's okay to call the police if you see people not following the rules. After all, they are a danger to public health.
This can be seen as clicking, because the people who don't follow the rules have made their own decision as to why they don't. It is therefore possible that they see the rules as absurd and unnecessary, so that they do not adhere to them.
A – virus status
Covid has been given the status which stands for a very dangerous virus.
Fine, we need to get the virus under control.
Covid is therefore on the same list as Ebola, which is many times more deadly. Covid may be contagious, but the number of people who die purely from covid (ie without underlying suffering) is very low. Is this label therefore justified?
Doesn't seem to be extensive, just like the number of beds for regular care.
Capacity has been expanded mildly.
Main ic has said scaling up will lead to boredom (while more and more elderly need care), what about the empty test streets at times? why were many alternatives bureaucratically rejected while we were in an EMERGENCY situation (covid boat)?
Can these be justified?
For = Lock downs are good, because otherwise it would have gotten much worse. The strict measures are therefore justifiable.
Against = The side effects are much too high and many of the measures may not be scientifically proven.
Can they be trusted?
For = Can be trusted, because many journalists work there.
Against = Cannot be trusted, because journalists often work there who take their information from untrustworthy sources and practice self-censorship. They will tell some of the truth, but not all. There is a good chance that they will go along with the official story and that this is also their world view.
Can we use medicines?
There are no good working drugs that can completely eradicate covid, that's why we need to have a good medicine.
They may still be in a testing phase, but this is the best we have. Scientists have done their best to make it safe. The more people take it, the sooner we can go back to the old society. New mutations caused by unvaccinated people. It's fine to exclude them, because dangerous and selfish!
The vaccine is still in an experimental phase until 22/23, so everyone who takes it will participate in the experiment. Is not necessary at all for many people under 50, because the vaccine could well cause more damage than it prevents. Because medicines (Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine & Zinc + correct situation) are available to prevent covid, an experimental vaccine should not even be allowed! Mutations occur naturally because the virus searches for an ideal balance in which to live. It could well be that precisely vaccinated people are pushing new variants, because they force the virus into a corner. Why is it almost never talked about striving for a healthy lifestyle, which makes the immune system work better?
Recently, the Netherlands has approved the vaccination of children between the ages of 12 and 17.
Great, because they are also vaccinated, the virus has less chance of spreading.
You vaccinate to protect yourself, the chance that children will get sick from covid is very low, so they themselves have little benefit from vaccination. That this is strongly encouraged as good for the collective is Orwell worthy of propaganda. These children are taking part in an experiment whose long-term effects are still unknown. It is also unusual that these children are allowed to take the vaccine WITHOUT parental permission. No alcohol, drugs, tattoos, voices, but an experimental vaccine or gene therapy?
Can these be kept?
For = this is dangerous, so they can be ended with a heavy hand, if it doesn't work out in a normal way.. Why protest for freedom at all, in times of a pandemic? it makes sense that we have to be careful when a dangerous virus is going around? What kind of wappies are these?
Against = the virus is not as dangerous as being told. Other than that, we just want to live and accept the possibility of getting sick. We believe that a government should not (to a certain extent) be able to dictate what people can and cannot do. If we want to dance with people in the midst of a pandemic, running the risk of infection, then that is our choice, isn't it?
Is this test good?
For = not perfect, but good enough.
Against = by using it properly it can help as an indication, but without further research it cannot show whether someone is contagious at the time of testing. It only indicates whether someone is carrying virus leftovers. In the Netherlands, however, they seem to work with a high cycle, so you get a lot of false positives.
Privacy and censorship
This has been happening since the pandemic.
This is necessary for = in times of emergency and fake news is dangerous. So it's okay to be censored. Science agrees that the current state of affairs is good and vaccines are essential to get out of the “pandemic”.
Against = privacy violation only in emergency, but covid is not an emergency. Due to the censorship of alternative sounds, only limited debate takes place. As a result, many people only see 1 narrative and therefore do not see any other solutions. In our view, it is precisely the monotonous policies of the government and the propaganda of the MSM that are dangerous.
Nice story about “science”;
Step 1 = all scientists agree
Step 2 = One or more scientists disagree, often based on factual research & findings.
Step 3 = these critical scientists are being shamed, fired or censored. Can find it more difficult to find a job after this (which is why many do not do it).
Step 4 = all scientists agree.
Covid passport/test society/app
Is a document/app that states whether you have been tested + vaccinated and the roll-out of a test & control society.
Good idea, people with vaccine, or negative test are free to move again. This must be demonstrated and this can be done easily with a passport or app. Temporarily, people who prove nothing may be excluded, because they can pose a danger to others. This may or may not be temporary.
The virus is not nearly so dangerous that it would be necessary and may only be relevant for very dangerous viruses. Test society costs a lot of money, limits the economy, test is not accurate. Situation can be used to exclude people who do not want to participate, then you are a second class citizen. Possibly an obligation for the vaccines later, where you have to get it every year to be able to regain freedom. Sooner or later, therefore, vaccinated people will also be confronted with having to re-vaccinate or being excluded.
Possibly a start towards a comparable system as the “social credit score” variant, because who says that no other things can be linked to the passport/app?
Other features of the official story
-There are always new variants lurking, with potentially major consequences (read deaths) but these forecasts rarely come true. According to the official story, it's always policy. Other causes for the failure of certain forecasts are not mentioned, ridiculed, or even explained as "dangerous thoughts good".
-The government is there to protect you, but for that you have to give up something, namely your fundamental rights. Don't worry, it's only temporary... I'm no expert, but people who often want to protect others actually prefer to control them. They can't say that directly, so they look for an excuse that the victim can agree with…
If we look at government policy, could we as people really not have been able to do it ourselves?
So we already see that the way of thinking has practically turned around (will of course differ per person). How can it be so different? My suspicion is that it revolves around trust and mistrust. Check out the comments I often hear from those around me;
- I generally trust the government.
- I trust the media, because that's where good journalists work.
- I wife the medics who say the vaccine is safe enough. I trust "science".
- Limited knowledge now available (often available for a long time), we can look back in years to see how things could have been done differently.
Because of this trust, people think less for themselves and therefore do not conduct their own research. They simply follow the news or general newspaper and assume that the information is fair. In itself, I think this should also be the case, but in my opinion that is not the reality.
The people who are suspicious will do their own research to see what the real truth might be. The regular news does of course not always have to be "fake", but often seems to put down a certain frame. My suspicion is that especially the employees in the lower regions themselves believe in the official story and therefore have a certain bias. It is true that the people who are suspicious also end up in a bubble, because not everything has to be a conspiracy.
The people who trust the official story will continue to do so for the time being, until they are directly confronted with the consequences of that trust. For example, someone who becomes disabled after vaccination, or who dies. Until then, they will not understand why the wappies are demonstrating while dancing. It doesn't click for them. Also a demonstration for freedom is totally illogical; we're free aren't we?
A clear event must arise, with which these people do NOT click, which makes them think; wait, what's happening here? I do not agree with this. Many people still find current policies logical based on their beliefs & information provision, but they are also often convinced that sooner or later everything will return to normal.
It's helpful to keep talking to people about this, especially those who trust the official story. I have been trying to convince these people for a long time that things are not right, but it has practically no result. It seems that once people have invested in a narrative & story, they can't just walk away from it. Of course that also applies to us.
So I'm very curious what they will do if that old normal doesn't come and we get a lockdown every year.....
These are mainly additional examples that further confirm my suspicion of trust and mistrust.
Comparison between face masks and driving through a red light?
Many people walk on the platform with a mask on, in the open air, without anyone around. Do these people even think about what they are doing? Yes, on the platform the rule is that you wear a mouth cap, but the chance is 0% that you infect someone else, or yourself.
What do these people think, or do they think at all? Are they afraid of a fine, or do they find it easier to just do what the rules dictate? After all, you don't have to think for yourself. Of course it can also be fear and in their eyes they take “no risk at all”. These are potentially dangerous people, who turn on others through their own fear & docility.
Driving through a red light
This is not directly related to covid, but it does have to do with the principle of thinking for yourself. We all sometimes find ourselves in a situation where you have to wait a long time for a red light, while you see that nothing is coming and it is therefore safe. What are you doing? If nothing comes up, I will drive through a red light (especially at bike transitions). If things go wrong, you have to hold yourself responsible.
However, there are also people who wait for the red light, because this is “the rule”. These are people who apparently don't want to think for themselves and can therefore be a danger to people who do. In China you get a bad score if you do it, which leads to people not thinking for themselves anymore and more and more the government decides for them what to do.
The ultimate slave.
Recently, another meeting took place between world leaders, where of course the covid measures were partly implemented. If we analyze this from a perspective of trust and mistrust, what do we see?
What does someone who has confidence in the policy see?
The leaders initially keep their distance, give each other an elbow as a greeting, mouth caps, have received a vaccine, so keeping your distance is not always necessary. Click, click, click. What's strange about this, they're doing what we're supposed to do too?
What does someone who distrusts the policy see?
A large theater piece, in which they keep their distance from each other in the open air, purely for the photo. Give each other an elbow while smiling and have masks on, while they hugged each other several times before, or were within 1,5 m. So inconsistent behaviour. It is also so exaggerated that it is laughable and weeping at the same time.
Merkel again holds her hands in a separate shape, suspected of giving a Masonic sign. I don't know exactly what it means myself, but she often does Default usefull idots present; climate change, gender inequality and vaccine shortages. Give our leaders a reason to “protect” or “control” them, but they may not mind.
I'd love to hear what you think of this article and if you have any information that could supplement this article, I'd love to hear it!