Lockdown for rest of lifetime – what exponents of the corona measures in politics and media will have to face

The corona measures brought far more harm than benefit to the world as a whole. An extra 20 million died from hunger and 100 to 150 million additional people fell into extreme poverty in development countries whilst hundreds of millions had to endure restrictions, lockdowns, face-mask mandates and other measures that killed or harmed social life for months. Child suicides show an increase of up to 400% and 50% are depressed. Countless businesses went bankrupt, how many people killed themselves and how many aged died not of the virus but of loneliness we probably will never know. How many have been forced to take the vax and now suffer life-changing disabilities?

The COVID measures are crime against society and in some cases even a crime against humanity.

In an article about the anti-government protests in Venezuela a Swiss reporter asked, when and if violence becomes a legitimate means of action. Peaceful protests – according to him – have limits and violence becomes legitimate at a certain point.[1]

We know that from history. The French revolution is celebrated each year by the French. A violent uprising against a corrupt and decadent upper class that partied all the time whilst the masses were starving, a situation quite similar to today. We accept violence as a means for restoring justice.

The same goes for attempted murder of Hitler. We look back and see these people – at the time terrorists without any doubt – as just and see them as heroes.

What about the rulers of today? For the profit of Pharma et al. and – speculation: a bigger agenda – they take away constitutional rights, break the Nuremberg code, kill 20 million people with hunger, etc. (see top section).

This crisis will see people who will have lost everything. Wealth, job, family members and health. People who trusted the government and followed all the rules. Some of these people might go for revenge. Not now, but in years to come when those responsible are no longer president or prime minister, etc. but retired. When those responsible want to live a peaceful life and enjoy society, go for a walk, eat in restaurants, meet friends, etc. But that might be just wishful thinking. There might be too many that lost too much and these who have nothing left to lose because they lost everything they had due the Covid measures, will wait for them. The waitress in the restaurant might be a former doctor «boosting the starter», the taxi driver might be a former entrepreneur, during a walk in the green a former soldier of rank might use his skills in sharp shooting, etc. the list is endless.

These people that brought so much suffering – unnecessary suffering – to society might therefore be confined for the rest of their lives to live in quarantine. Of course, a quarantine that is substantially more luxurious than what the common man and woman – and the three children – had to endure living in the 65 square metres apartment on the ground floor without sunshine. But anyway, a quarantine and one with a Damocles sword above them – a sword that might look like a syringe ready to fall down at any moment.

We live in a world of affluence. Capitalist-technological surplus has reached a level unprecedented in known human history. Nobody in this world has to die from hunger any more, there is enough – especially with the new technologies of automation – so that for the first time in history everyone could live in prosperity – under the condition that wealth is distributed fairly and societies are governed intelligently[2]. Under these circumstances the crime of the ruling class is even worse. Instead of shifting towards a future of affluence for all, they invent a pandemic to torture and enslave the people. For them, it is not sufficient to be at the top of wealth, the rest (99.99%) should live in misery.

I would not see it as unjust in the sense of “fas”[3] if those responsible for this crisis (the measures, i.e. the response by government and media) would suffer this fate and will have to stay home for security reasons for the rest of their lives.

2 Systemic thinking for the organisational pattern within a society is of course a condition. Prosperity does not mean that every citizen drives his own hummer. Little private goods, lots of commons, sustainable economy, are key aspects. This eco-social vision is, however, far removed from the WEF-dystopia where a few own literally everything and the masses nothing.

3 Ius is an human invention and is separate from fas, the Divine justice.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

100% green with reduction of military spending

Let’s face it. Without a change in US’ militaristic behaviour that forces other countries not only to increase their military budget but also imposes a neoliberal form of capitalism on them, there is no chance to prevent climate change.

But if the US were just slightly willing to change its bullying attitude, there is substantial evidence and hope that we could overcome climate change within a few years. Here is how it can be done.[1]

The US spends $800 billion on its military per year – with R&D it is about one trillion dollar. Let’s assume the US gives up its militaristic foreign policy and reduces the amount of military spending by 60%, i.e. to $400 billion a year freeing $600 billion for climate action.

The rest of the world joins in and adds together another $600 billion (other countries can’t reduce military spending like the US as their budget is comparably smaller, so they together contribute just the same) raising the budget for climate action to a staggering 1.2 trillion dollar.

There are plenty of technologies around and – most importantly – there are systemic options like eradicating poverty and at the same time save or capture CO₂, but that is another topic. For simplicity I want to focus here just on one technology: carbon capture by carbfix. This company injects CO₂ into basaltic rock where it reacts and turns into minerals. It is bound chemically for thousands of years. (For more details, visit the website). The company claims that storage for one tonne of CO₂ costs just $25.

And here we are. The total yearly output of CO₂ is ~36 Gigatonnes. To offset the total yearly output of the world, we need therefore $900 billion[2], i.e. even less than the1.2 trillion that are potentially there.

In other words, with a little reduction of military spending (the US would still spend $400 billion in total for its army) the world could go 100% climate neural, even carbon negative![3]

The above example shows that green is possible, climate change can be mastered. But it needs peace. The NATO goal for military spending in relation to GDP should not be minimum 2%, it should be maximum 1%!

Without peace we can’t go green. With peace, we can go 100% green!


1 The data used is based solely on the company carbfix. The totality of options is, of course, much larger and should therefore create additional synergies and ways to reduce costs.

2 If the world would spend the projected amount each year we could expect costs even declining but for simplicity and conservatism I use a linear extrapolation.

3 Keep it mind that here we just use money from military spending and just one carbon capture technique. The totality of techniques, from capture to clean energy production, the taxing of fossil fuels and the systemic options together are far greater.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

COVID – a political Pearl Harbour?

Kit Knightly claims in his excellent article COVID, 9/11 & Forever War that COVID is a psy-op to control the masses, a war that doesn’t even really exist, so it never has to end and they definitely can’t lose. But unlike a terrorist threat, in the case of COVID it’s all being done in the name of “helping people”.

In the name of COVID we have seen taxation, censorship, surveillance, state expenditure to the private sector and state powers all increase. These are all the cliche “emergency powers” the state seeks out in wartime.
Kit Knightly

When the masses quarrel the super-wealthy thrive …

COVID killed Sander’s our revolution and reduced all the groups worldwide that questioned a neoliberal capitalist world order to a side show. Sanders did unify people across the left/right divide and therefore made them truly dangerous for the elite owning class. COVID did not only kill the in core anti-capitalist movements, it made it possible for the deep state to remove Trump from power as he was not sufficiently subservient to the ruling power.[1] By doing so, the deep state not only got rid of an enfant terrible, but also achieved a deep divide in society, a divide that plays into the hand of the rulers as divide-and-rule is not just the credo for US foreign policy. Meanwhile one segment of society – the liberal left – was pushed to hate Trump even without any substantial prove, the other segment – the Trump voters – where experiencing media lies, censorship and even voter fraud so that they understandingly radicalised. The result is a divided society, divided to such an extent that any mass movement will be unlikely for years to come.

It’s called “settlements”

I personally do not think that COVID was created by the deep state. They rather rather used and amplified it. Big pharma over the last decades tried again and again to sell us a pandemic – bird flue, swine flue, etc. – in order to sell massive amounts of medicine with less restrictions and testing, without paying for advertisement and liability externalised.

Conspiracies among the big pharmaceuticals are well known, but they are called “settlements”. Public Citizen has documented the number and size of criminal and civil settlements and court judgments over 27 years. From 1991 through 2017, a total of 412 settlements were reached […], for a total of $38.6 billion. Theseillegal but profitable activities will continue to be part of companies’ business model as these amounts pale in comparison to company profits[…] amounting to only 5% of the $711 billion in net profits made by the 11 largest global drug companies during just 10 of those 27 years.[2]

This time the deep state aided big pharma to get rid of Trump and kill social movements. This would explain why the western media was unanimous in backing the COVID lie and why they attacked all deviating opinions like a totalitarian regime.

Privatise profits, socialise losses and shock doctrine for bonus

The ruling class, the upper 0.01%, are using neoliberal capitalism as a ruling model. Capitalism is claimed to be best for all, without alternative, etc. (we know the usual phrases that are hollow and false). Meanwhile neoliberal capitalism is used by those in power to reduce government wherever it interferes with profits, this allegedly much hated government is at the same time a nanny state for the rich that socialises the losses and bails out the rich as soon as they are in trouble. In addition, shock doctrine is used in cases of emergencies to justify the printing of money and its distribution among the powerful. The shock doctrine works like a bonus to shovel extra trillions into the pockets of the super-wealthy.[3]

The public has to be fooled

Since the emergence of democracy the wealthy top fears nothing more than nationalisation. People can vote and could – if they are united – transfer the capitalist-technological surplus of society to the people or even expropriate the wealthy. Manufacturing consent or rather manufacturing illusion to keep the masses at bay is therefore tantamount for the wealthy class in order to keep their assets and stay at the top. Wars were used in the past (WW I) to deflect from wealth inequalities. The war on terror was created or at least used to the same end, now with COVID there is indeed a brilliant “threat” that allows the ruling class to rule by decree, to suspend basic rights, to censor and silence all in the name of protecting the people. The war on the virus makes it possible to keep the people at bay.

Prolonging the illusion

But each war needs an enemy, an imminent danger to be credible. Solidarity with the elderly will not work on long term. People will reach a point where they are ready to sacrifice the elderly in order to live again. They will be fed up with restrictions and demand their rights back and freedom to be restored.

So where will the masters of illusion get their needed victims from to keep the perceived danger alive? How can COVID remain for years a threat when people are not dying in sufficient numbers? Agencies could, of course, poison millions to make the danger real. But even a CIA has limits and killing hundreds of thousands or even millions to keep the danger alive is risky and difficult to do.

A political Pearl Harbour

The COVID-mania is propagated with a liberal-left or even woke flavour: dancing nurses in hospitals, solidarity with the elderly, alleged logic and science, etc.[4] meanwhile the opponents are on the far-right: Trump, Bolsonaro, Republican states, etc. Some outlets like Epoch Times are even blaming socialism or communism for the COVID restrictions – a claim so lunatic in face of the profits generated and exponents of capitalism (WEF, B.G., etc.) calling for these measures that is unnecessary to discuss it any further – adding further to the perception that the COVID measures are essentially leftist: It’s the (woke) left and too much government that brought us the COVID restrictions.

If the COVID narrative collapses – with or without vaccine victims – it will therefore be easy to frame the crisis in such a way that the culprit was the left, the state and excessive government regulations. COVID will then become a political Pearl Harbour, an event to justify going to war against leftists in general and government regulations in particular. The right will triumph and the rich will be laughing all their way to the bank as a state that can redistribute wealth from the rich to the masses will be weakened beyond repair.

The end of climate actions

As COVID will then be seen as a lie, climate change will be seen and actively smeared to be just another government lie to “take away our freedom”. The so desperately needed actions against climate change (especially taxes on fossil fuel) will become impossible to win public support. COVID and a collapsing COVID lie will throw back the climate movement for years if not decades or kill it all together.


When climate change will finally hit the people – and if it is not already too late to change course – with so much trust in government destroyed it will be very difficult to find a consensus for action. To me it looks therefore as if the fight against climate change is lost, leading first to environmental catastrophe and then even to a nuclear holocaust.

Under such conditions, activism only makes sense with a concept of a «reward in heaven» or better rebirth in next life. There is a substantial change that the world will perish. Activism needs therefore a transcendental aim, one that does not fail when the earth perishes. So do the right thing for better rebirth in next life or to paraphrase the Bible:

«Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where climate change and nuclear war can destroy it all, but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where climate change will not reach and no war can destroy it.»


1 Trump was the first president since 1936 who was not a member of the CFR. It that sense he was anti-establishment, an exception to accepted doctrine. Trump served as a brilliant scenery for virtue signalling, uniting even the Bushs and the Obamas during McCain’s funeral …

2 https://mkus3lurbh3lbztg254fzode-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/sites/default/files/2408.pdf

3 http://web.archive.org/web/20210225105021/https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/07/COVID-19-crisis-boosts-the-fortunes-of-worlds-billionaires

4 The British Tory government hired a PR firm and spent £119 million for a campaign but was hiding the fact that they were behind, so they avoid equating conservative with restrictions.

The Washington Post article Why outbreaks like coronavirus spread exponentially, and how to “flatten the curve”, https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/corona-simulator/ brought in my view a substantial change in the liberal-left academic world as it could convince people with logic. The logic works indeed but the missing question is applicability, i.e. is this model applicable to reality. After plenty of lock-downs, there should be sufficient evidence that this model – at least in its current form – is not applicable to reality.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Great Barrington Declaration

The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. … Sign it!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Critical thinking not terminal cynicism

Jonathan Cook – whose articles I think are of the best in general – disappoints in his latest article explaining his silence regarding COVID-19 and the anti-COVID-19 measures. Like many of the critical left Cook does not see the crisis worth speaking about except for a brief mention to then move back to business as usual (or, more appropriate, injustices world wide…).

To me, that is striking lack of realisation of the severity of the current crisis, not in medical terms but in opportunities for elite control and the continuation of the current neo-liberal and militaristic global system lead by the US. Class war demands constant propaganda to keep the masses »were they belong« as does the US militaristic foreign policy that needs »justification« for their interventions. The movements for more social justice before COVID-19 took over, i.e. more equal distribution of wealth and accountability of corporation especially in relation of climate change are a threat for the ruling class.

To keep the masses subservient the ruling class needs threats. The »war on terror« served that goal during the last 20 years, now it looks like that it is replaced or extended by COVID-19. That does not necessarily mean that some billionaires sat together in a dark room smoking fat cigars planning the whole thing for years to now play it out. It might well be that other factors that lead to the overreaction as we know it.2 But with the threat having been established, it is now used by governments all over the world to justify draconian reductions in constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. And like always, the bottom end of society is hit much harder than the top.

That the stars on the critical left do not speak out against these measures is – for me – disappointing. When Jonathan writes that they [those wishing he writes about COVID] think we can write about their concerns better than they can themselves he simply states a truism as he is a trained professional – in addition to the fact that his articles have a readership of a few 100k.

I expend my very limited resources and energies on trying to persuade readers of the very real and very visible conspiraciesstructural conspiracies – perpetrated by our elites to maintain and expand their power. [emphasis added]

The corona measures are very real and very visible and they are used by our elites to maintain and expand their power, they caused tremendous harm already in developing countries3 and will do more harm in the near future4.

There are very explicit conspiracies that can be grasped with only a little critical thinking … such as … the five-year campaign to destroy the party’s former leader, Jeremy Corbyn, before he could reach a position where, it was feared, he would be able to disrupt the neoliberal status quo rapidly driving us towards extinction. That conspiracy embraced senior Labour party officials, leaked documents have shown.

A similar conspiracy by the Democratic leadership in the US to prevent Bernie Sanders becoming the party’s presidential candidate in 2016 was exposed in a leak of the DNC’s emails, though that, of course, has been largely plunged down the memory hole and replaced with a straightforward narrative about “Russian” malfeasance.

It is interesting to note that COVID-19 did disrupt Sanders campaign much more than those of his rivals. As the movement was in substantial part fuelled by people coming together – i.e. direct social contact – COVID-19 killed the movement. COVID-19 also killed the yellow west movement in France or at least delayed it substantially for a few months. COVID-19 then enabled governments to print money like in 2008 to extend the de facto bankrupt system. COVID-19 was therefore used against two »dangers«, that would be able to disrupt the neoliberal status quo rapidly, i.e. the Sanders movement and the looming collapse of the system itself. Both facts are very explicit and both can be grasped with only a little critical thinking …

COVID-19 does not appear to be one of those weak points in the western narrative, not least because it is very hard to discern any meaningful western narrative about the virus other than an agreement that it is a dangerous disease for some sections of the population and that its rapid spread could overwhelm most countries’ health services.

It is almost frightening to read that Jonathan ignored not only all non-mainstream information available on COVID-19 – information by luminaries in their field like Bhakdi, Ioannidis, Bhattacharya, Levitt and plenty of others – but ignores his own advice where he writes that there is a reason why overt conspiracies … are not instantly evident to a larger proportion of western publics: the coordinated efforts of corporate media … In an Orwellian double think, Jonathan not just believes the very same mainstream media he denounces just a few lines above but even states that there is no need to disbelieve them – even when they are controlled by the same billionaire donors that pursue narrow, self-destructive corporate interests for which they lobby for endless wars against an intangible “terror”. That “terror” might have now have been extended by “bioterror” i.e. COVID-19 does not occur to Jonathan at all.

To challenge and disrupt that narrative we need people on the left – the critical left – that use their fame to make people aware that, again – like in the case of previous lies –, the mainstream media is framing the discussion, discrediting those that do not believe what they serve us and dare to ask questions. People do not want to be locked up, writes Jonathan, but people do not want wars of aggression either – until you make them demand them. If the shepherd cries ‘wolf’ the sheep demand protection, if the government cries COVID-19, the people demand lock-down. Only if people like Jonathan were to speak out, raising the voice to heaven, then more people would question the narrative, overcome fear and demand appropriate measures instead of lock-down.

When Jonathan demands that exposing these conspiracies is the best hope of getting people to raise questions in their own minds what cold be a better exposé than the German government denouncing a few hundred thousands of peaceful protesters in Berlin as nazis, conspiracy nuts and anti-vaxxers but at the same time allowing a demonstration of Reichsbürger so close to a strangely unprotected Bundestag that its raid could just be expected, a raid that then dominated all the mainstream news and created the unshakable narrative that all those protesting were nazis.5

But sadly, in the case of COVID-19, Jonathan is part of the mainstream, shares the consensus of the western medical establishment without realizing the that medical establishment might be as well controlled by billionaire donors not even pursuing their own nation’s interests, let alone the interests of humankind and the planet.

COVID-19 measures are an inconvenient truth and if we as a society accept them because of bigger problems looming, a totalitarian society might be very likely as any pretext will be used by the ruling elite to justify the status quo (class war). If we were to accept such reasoning, even eco-fascism, a totalitarian society in the name of saving the planet from climate change, might emerge. Solving the world’s problem can only happen in democratic ways by inclusion of all people. We shall never accept a totalitarian society on the grounds of the greater good. This will almost always be a perverse lie to keep the elite in power.

We, who hoped for critical COVID-19 articles, will have accept that some of the left did not realize or do not want to realize the incredible framing and falsehood of the mainstream media in relation to COVID-19 reporting. But – in Caitlin Johnstone’s own words, another star of the critical left that remained mostly silent or did not give COVID-19 substantial importance –, «you wouldn’t have to knock these people off the pedestals you put them on if you hadn’t put them there in the first place.»

People have limits and keep silent sometimes for whatever reasons.

So  «don’t plant fishes in the fields» and «don’t ask Chomsky about 9/11».

2Non-linear fluctuation amplifying where media, business (pharma), doctors obsessed by carrier and fame, etc. amplify rather harmless events until it becomes a global pandemic might be an explanation.

5Meanwhile official media stated the number of participants as 37’000, a little research makes it obvious that at least a few hundred thousand people participated. Judging from the video streams they were from all parts of society. Reichsbürger and Nazis were marginal (<1%). However, that the Berlin government officially allowed a demonstration of Nazis to take place in an area that is usually restricted and that even when hundreds of police men were on duty only three were guarding the Reichstag should be more than strange for a critical observer.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Reporting out of proportion

The Financial Times reports that «in many countries, these excess deaths exceed reported numbers of Covid-19 deaths by large margins» and shows graphs with peaks ways above the normal. However, putting this in proper context, changes the picture entirely.

I checked the data for Switzerland where FT states that the excess mortality is 27% above normal.

Screenshot from 2020-05-13 11-30-12

Screenshot of Financial Times graph depicting excess deaths of COVID-19

To put this data in perspective, we look at the graphs from the Federal Statistical Office depicting total deaths for the years 2020 and 2015.




An overlay using GIMP gives us this graph.


  • Mortality in the COVID year 2020 was lower than in 2015 (1054 vs, 1322).
  • Only one short peak with more than 1600 dead exceeds the year 2015
  • We do have excess deaths compared to the average.
  • We do not have an excess compared to regular 5-year peaks.
  • We do only have a few % of excess mortality over the entire year (if it stays)

In other words: we have a classical peak that occurs during a strong influenza wave. Such peaks are a normal phenomenon every few years:


The regularity of the «excesses». Every few years a peak.


Using weekly excess mortality instead of the excess mortality over the entire year is misleading. Every few years there are «excesses» as we can see in the graph above.  This is a normal pattern. For a single week, we can measure an excess of 27%, 61% or even 451% above average but just a few weeks later the numbers come down. Over the year there will only be a marginal increase of a few percentages, e.g. in 2015 the total number of deaths was only 5.4% higher than in 2014 or 4.4% higher than in 2016. In a graph, the change in mortality rate is hardly visible.

Media reporting is in the full sense of the word out of proportion.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

COVID – a quadruple mission?

It was frightening to see how quickly the liberal left collapsed into totalitarianism when the causes for the measures were presented as being «compassion» and «care for the elderly and weak». As if compassion had any place in the neoliberal, capitalist economy and even less in US foreign policy (Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.).
It is also puzzling that the media reporting resembles in large parts Goering’s recipe for totalitarianism. ‘Being attacked’ is extended to ‘attacked by a virus’, and ‘the pacifists’ are replaced by ‘those who do not have compassion with the elderly’.

“Naturally, the common people don’t want war …. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”
– Herman Goering

Having a «war against the virus» — a war — makes airplanes honoring the soldiers on the ground (health workers) fit well into the picture.

cui bono?

Apart from the 5 trillion financial aid that will be distributed with little oversight (i.e. to the usual suspects), corona killed the Sanders movement or at least derailed it substantially. Now people are asking for survival — and want to remain at home (!) — instead of going out and demonstrating for social democratic corrections of the system.

Was this Corona Hysteria orchestrated?

How was COVID turned into a weapon against the Sanders movement? The ‘simulitis’ article from the Washington Post seems to have started a propaganda coup for the lockdown.  Presented with logic in itself — but without proof of applicability — the article tricked plenty into believing that for flattening the curve lockdown is a necessity. Meanwhile, the simulitis model is logic in and of itself, if this model is applicable to the present situation is an entirely different question. How does the virus spread in reality? The model is nice but it is just a model. If it maps current reality sufficiently well is another question.

Climate change

If the whole COVID hysteria will turn out to have just been a panic without substantial underlying danger — and the chances are quite high for that — the movement against climate change will be put back for years. Scientific arguments demanding measures to prevent climate change will not be credible after «science» told us to go into lockdown for nothing and killed millions of jobs. That it was not science that ordered the lockdown but politicians listening to certain very questionable scientists with ties to big business will be rather irrelevant. The MAGAs who lost their jobs will not listen — understandably to a certain extent — as they were demonstrating and defending the constitution meanwhile the liberal leftists were — by following «science»  — sitting at home and watching the country go bankrupt.

Surveillance state

Instead of forcing a surveillance state on the people, let the people ask for it. With COVID fear people will demand that everyone is tracked 24-7 and has his or her vaccination data implanted in order to be checked anywhere at any time. To use an airplane a scanner scans all your vaccination. If you don’t have the required one, you can’t fly. Period. The same goes for concerts, metros, jobs, etc. It’s not compulsory, it’s just necessary to join the society.

By knowing who has contact with whom — allegedly for tracking infection — the organizational structure, i.e. the participants of any political movement will be known in detail.  Imagine everyone Sanders spoke to for more than fifteen minutes and everyone that spoke to those that are around Sanders mapped minuscule details known to an organization that wants to undermine that movement …

So this little coronavirus ended socialist (social democratic) dreams, gives Wall Street et al. new cash they direly need, puts the climate movement back for years to the delight of the oil-industrial sector and starts the total surveillance state.

I think it’s time to start a war against this virus now!

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Covid-19 and Game theory


Could this crisis be a successive build-up of more and more restrictions according to the decisions of the players involved? I am not at all an expert in game theory but I want to share some thoughts.


The virologist

The virologist is asked by the politician what to do as there seems to be a pandemic coming. The virologist has two options to offer:

Option A: do nothing

Option B: do quarantine

With option B the virologist has far less responsibility because the result is a) in the future and b) it is not he but others who implement the restrictions. When asked later, he can always say «I spoke from the perspective of a virologist, I am not a politician …» what is, of course, correct.

But option A makes him practically alone responsible for the outcome. If the catastrophe comes, he will be blamed for all future deaths. Therefore the virologist chooses B.

The politician

The politician sitting on coals due to all the frightening media reports – has two options:

Option A: do nothing

Option B: do quarantine

As long as possible he chooses option A because of economics. But then the media heats up the situation and neighboring countries take measures so he gets uncomfortable. If others take measures but he not, all will blame him. So he does what other countries do: take measures (option B) and deflects responsibility to experts and others.


After imposing restrictions, improvement is needed at all cost. The politician has three options:

Option A: end restrictions

Option B: continue with balanced & adapted restrictions

Option C: constantly increase restrictions

Option A is impossible as it would directly contradict the step taken before. It would look like a confession of the wrong decision.

The measures must bring positive results. If the more extreme measures were needed or not can only be verified much later and not with 100% accuracy so all strict measures will be right for now. Option B, on the other hand, even if it were the better option bears a big risk that people will complain that he didn’t do enough.  If more restrictions would improve the situation nor not is just secondary. The risk of «he didn’t do enough» looms to frightening.

Option C is the safe bet: Even if the draconic measures will just have a slightly higher chance of reducing the infections, it will be impossible later to discern if the measures were truly necessary or not (or the findings come months of years later when the public does not care any more).

«We tried everything possible» (Nb. possible not best) is the slogan. So the politician will rather increase restrictions for some time.

Back to normal

With time – a few weeks to a few months – the public longs for and expects that things become normal again. As people long for it, the politician can now reduce the restriction step by step to please people. If the reductions of restrictions do not create a spike in infections then the decision will be accepted as everyone wants them.


Let’s see the crisis as a change. One looser is already obvious: the free market and capitalism do not solve the crisis.

But Solidarity does.



Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Hands Off Venezuela

US interventions in other countries – a.k.a regime change – have brought innumerable suffering and death to millions but never fulfilled the stated aims: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria among others have been ruined with billions of dollars needed to rebuild the infrastructure and much more to heal the wounds inflicted. The goals like spreading democracy, reducing terrorism, etc. were never fulfilled and in case of terrorism the conditions have even been substantially worsened.

The well-being of the people is never the goal of US intervention. Simple measures for improvement like ending sanctions, normalising diplomatic relations, opening borders are routinely ignored and after destruction the people are left alone with their fate. Reparations are never paid.

International Law clearly forbids the use of force and the threat of it. The US routinely ignores International Law, using force and threatening to use force against independent states.

We all remember the lies that lead to Iraq war 2003 («weapons of mass destruction») – and we remember the outcome! Do not be fooled this time again.

Say no to meddling in Venezuela’s internal affairs.





further reading:

A Call to Halt an Illegal Invasion of Venezuela

The War on Venezuela is Built on Lies

Why Venezuelan is Rejecting U.S. Aid



1 Comment

Filed under politics

On my way to North Korea

What a horrible country!

Every year the people celebrate their bloody uprising that replaced the ruling class but left thousands dead. With this revolution a reign of terror was unleashed. In trials that can only be described as mocking justice within a year more than 17’000 people had been executed.

But people are brainwashed and do not want to question the official doctrine. They identify with and believe that the event was their liberation and brought them an equal society. It is difficult to comprehend that such a doctrine is accepted by the masses when the privileged have everything but the poor do not know how to make ends meet.

Of course, there is a part of society that can be labeled middle class but the ideals that the state worships as credo is by far not met. Some few do have plenty and a growing underclass is simply poor. That does not reflect the promoted doctrine.

About 50 years a demonstration of a minority group was brutally shattered with hundreds (!) killed. The river of the capital is said to have been filled with corpses on that day. But the public is not aware of such incidents. What does not fit the grid of idealistic superiority is overlooked, suppressed, ignored. And so is its partially aggressive foreign policy and agitation in other counties with serious human rights violations mostly unknown.

Freedom of speech has its limitation, too. Dissident opinion became more and more difficult in recent years with teenagers being arrested for posting ironic comments on a social media platforms! Freedom of expression is just granted when it does not conflict with state-doctrine.

Uff. I reach Paris Charles-de-Gaulle airport where I will take my plane to North Korea leaving France behind me. I really hope people will become aware of their history and that liberté, égalité, fraternité will be put into practice at all the levels of this society …


  • From the beginning of 1793 to the Thermidorean Reaction, 17,000 people were sentenced and beheaded by some form of revolutionary court in France (in Paris or in the provinces), in addition to some 25,000 others who were summarily executed in the September Massacres, retributions in the War in the Vendée and elsewhere. The Paris Revolutionary Tribunal was responsible for 16% of all death sentences. [wiki]



  • The Paris massacre of 1961 was a massacre in Paris on 17 October 1961, during the Algerian War (1954–62). Under orders from the head of the Parisian police, Maurice Papon, the French National Police attacked a forbidden demonstration of some 30,000 pro-National Liberation Front (FLN) Algerians



  • It may sound like an ironic joke, but it isn’t. Less than a week after the massive rallies in defense of “free expression,” following the murders of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, French authorities have jailed a youth for irony.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized