The exclusion of dissenters – a letter to our critics
On 16 July 2021, I (50) stood at the top of the 3-metre diving board in Lutry on beautiful Lac Léman and couldn’t believe my eyes: from below, it didn’t look so high after all! Next to me stood a smiling boy of about 10 years old who politely wanted to give me a way, which of course embarrassed me deeply; after all, it had been about 40 years since I had last jumped off such a board, and now I was actually considering retreating via the ladder. But the boy encouraged me: “You can do it, just take a run-up and then down.” My daughter, who as an adult was also hesitant, showed me how to do it (after what felt like 5 minutes of embarrassment) and I simply jumped into the void and then into the cold water. Afterwards, we both had to laugh heartily at ourselves.
This admittedly very trivial story inspired me to write down the following thoughts.
The boy could have reacted in a completely different way: mocking, gloating, accusing, disapproving, gloating, spiteful, pointing his finger at us … just like we are used to from our critics nowadays. But no, he was just open-hearted and kind. Whether it was a question of his upbringing or due to his age-related unspoiltness, I don’t know, of course.
Why, I wondered, do some people, of whom until recently I thought I could actually talk to quite easily, not react like this boy? For the past 15 months, I (and my like-minded peers) have been intensively maltreated with sometimes very hurtful insults, accusations, disapproval and other spiteful reactions for exercising our legally enshrined freedom of expression. Our critics know hardly any inhibition. Any price “we” are asked to pay for our opinion seems justified. Even if a person who publicly ends up on the media pyre has responsibility for some 350 workers and their families. No matter. The more hateful and hurtful, the better. The main thing is to make headlines. Because nowadays people usually only read the headline anyway and the rest – if any – is interpreted and selected according to their own taste with a good portion of imagination, ignorance or lack of understanding. If you don’t find anything wrong with the content (which we pay a lot of attention to), even a banal spelling or typing mistake can be used for defamation purposes, regardless of the fact that this is common practice in our big media houses. We are the conspiracy theorists, a danger to society, who are to blame for the suffering and death of our fellow human beings.
ACTUALLY A COMPLIMENT
Yet “conspiracy theorist” is still the most amusing term for us, because once you have studied the history of the word, you know that it is actually a compliment, at least until the 1950s, after which it gradually became a dirty word. If you then consider that every prediction that this “compliment” triggered: “We’re getting a lockdown/exit ban.” “We’ll get a mandatory mask.” “We will soon not be able to travel/shop/… without a mask.” “We will no longer be allowed to go abroad.” “We will get a vaccination certificate.” “Hopefully, in the end, compulsory vaccination won’t come too” … etc. became bitter reality, then one wonders: why actually do the excuses for the aggressions fail to materialize? Is the time for decency definitely over?
WE ARE NOT REALLY THAT DIFFERENT…
From a purely human point of view, we were not much different from our critics: we also know this diffuse fear of a killer virus and confirm that we too have the need to trust the government and the media and to be – according to our conditioning – a dutiful fellow citizen and thus a part of society, which is genetically anchored in Homo sapiens. But then came the first doubts. Disbelief. Uncertainty. Disorientation. A questioning of oneself for the time being. (Do you do that too?) It felt something like the view from that 3 metre diving board. The fear of the virus itself took a back seat to the fear of those who use it as a tool of manipulation and segregation (do-gooders versus conspiracy theorists). One felt betrayed. One did not want to admit it. Not only that, but one does not want to look. You want to run back up the stairs, back into the supposedly safe nest, the cocoon, the womb of the society that takes away your responsibility for thinking for yourself. Talk about it? Write about it? That was a huge leap for us! Except that there was no nice boy to give us back our impartiality for a brief moment. We had to take our courage into our hands all by ourselves and now together as a team – and we do it anew every day.
THE SHOOTING OF THE MESSENGER
We are not even messengers of bad news, who were still beheaded until the late Middle Ages, as we learned in history lessons. The opposite is true! We have merely found out that the sensational headlines in our almost unbearably synchronized media, are exaggerated and unnecessarily spread fear and panic. So for us, it’s more about good news. But even for that, figuratively speaking, one is beheaded. Nowadays, of course, there are much more subtle methods: Defamation, discrediting, insult, exclusion from the group, public gloating … These means are used both in the direct environment and in the social media without any consideration for losses. Even the official, state-sponsored mass media hardly shy away from embarrassment, and yet it is they who are supposed to stand for neutrality, information, justice and truth. Frightening, don’t you think? Have we humans really learned nothing?
GUT FEELING COUPLED WITH EXPERT KNOWLEDGE
The only thing we have to “blame” ourselves for is the fact that we – following our gut feeling – use our respective expert knowledge and scrutinize and question statements about science (often elementary statistics) and the newly introduced social rules a little more closely. Things that seemed so incredibly illogical to us from the start that we simply HAD to take a closer look. Not because we have nothing better to do with our time and energy, but because we can’t help it. And because we know that science constantly delivers controversial and contradictory findings. Accordingly, there is no one, single truth. And for both sides! But if we are privately wrong within the framework of our personal responsibility, we can discuss it (perhaps even together in a group), weigh it up and correct it if necessary, but if politics is on the wrong track, which is our view on many things, then the damage can hardly be repaired now, because it is making decisions for millions of people at the same time. Where is the middle way, the ability to compromise, the consensus, the weighing up? Or the modesty that, in the face of natural forces, man himself can at most act preventively and, in the end, reparatively, but can never really dominate them. From where does man get the crazy and arrogant idea that he can eradicate a virus?
THE INFORMATION IS THERE
Anyone who is interested in the subject and can read and calculate should by now have enough information to know that the supposed excess mortality was merely due to the fact that every person who tested positive and died was included in the Corona death statistics. Sick or not, it didn’t matter.
Symptoms of someone who tested positive were automatically attributed to the Coronavirus, as no check was made at the same time to see whether another virus, e.g. influenza with mostly similar symptoms, might not be present at the same time. Influenza thus seems to be extinct, who still talks about a boring flu today?
Since a disease is always multifactorial, it would have been essential to analyse other factors (general state of health, environmental pollution, quality of nutrition, social environment…) in the countries that were hit worse – and thus find sufficient arguments to reassure the citizens in countries where it is different, if necessary even to mobilize them to help the disadvantaged regions instead of closing borders and isolating themselves.
Countries that did not introduce restrictions such as lockdowns, mandatory masks, etc. have demonstrably not fared worse than countries with strict rules. In fact, the opposite is true: as they now do not have to deal with collateral damage.
And that the PCR tests, like the masks and plastic protectors, are not much use in everyday life (except, of course, for a turnover in the billions for the producers) … we know this not only from official sources but also from daily practice. But hardly anyone is surprised.
We have been researching, checking, proving and repeating all this in real time for 15 months now. The current figures and tentative reports – we call them rays of hope – confirm our so-called “conspiracy theories” a posteriori. They do indeed leak out now and then in the mass media, of course not on the front pages, but no one is interested any more, since the focus has long since moved to the next stage: the “vaccination passport”, the measure of all things for a carefree holiday trip. But hardly anyone is surprised.
IS IT ABOUT OUR HEALTH AT ALL?
If so, why have beds continued to be cut almost everywhere and hospital capacities reduced?
Why are doctors or scientists with other findings, who are interested in our health and would approach the issue differently, stubbornly ignored?
Since when has a politician known more than the best-known and most renowned epidemiologists in the world and been allowed to defame and discredit them in the crudest way and, on the basis of their power, override their valuable professional assessment by putting together his task force in such a way that it arranges things in the best possible way for him?
Why is no one getting upset in the face of the hair-raising conflicts of interest that involve billions worldwide?
And then this “vaccination” which even the WHO defined as genetic manipulation until recently, a definition that had to be quickly revised to allow a provisional emergency approval for a novel disease-prevention injection, and this despite the fact that effective drugs exist. But wait, you can’t say that, because then the provisionally approved “vaccination”, for which (far too) many of us willingly or forcedly give ourselves up as guinea pigs, would be illegal, wouldn’t it? Hundreds of studies prove the efficacy of these drugs, which are still used in everyday life, but doctors who talk about them in public simply have their work permit revoked, a sure tactic to discourage other treating doctors from too much public courage. To be on the safe side, the other doctors are paid a few thousand more to represent the official opinion and to motivate healthy people to get “vaccinated” without first having ruled out natural immunity on the basis of a complete blood count! One does not even have to be a doctor to find such a preliminary examination actually logical. Don’t you have to know your patient inside out to come to the decision that an exogenous substance is actually necessary? Shouldn’t one first check whether there is already a natural immunity before coming with a chemical club whose extent of side effects is completely unknown? But hardly anyone is surprised.
Every day we are confronted with ever more complicated questions: how should we interpret the explosion of new Covid-19 infections among the fully “vaccinated” (see: Israel, Malta …)? Where are the alarm bells of pure logic? They are not ringing, because the culprit was quickly found: it is the mutations!
Don’t you think this apportionment of blame is a bit hasty? Shouldn’t we also let the warning slip that “vaccination” may not even contribute to what (again, unheard) experts have been warning about for a long time? No, better a third “vaccination”. Better safe than sorry. After all, this can increase the turnover of the pharmaceutical giants by another 50%. Albert Einstein is credited with the quote: “Crazy is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result”. So have we gone crazy?
FOR RISKS AND SIDE EFFECTS, PLEASE ASK YOUR DOCTOR OR PHARMACIST?
How should we now deal with the accumulation of side effects and deaths? The number of unreported cases is almost certainly much higher, as not every country has a similar reporting culture. The Netherlands and the Finns are model pupils, the Luxembourgers are more reticent, which is what we know from the reporting of suicides. What now? Instead of playing it safe, some countries decide to introduce compulsory “vaccination” (why actually and why all contact professions except the army and police?) and others even consider “vaccinating” children without thinking about the effects this injection may have on their health and fertility in several years. Even the WHO is reluctant to “vaccinate” children. Who cares? Because once the time comes, the responsible politicians are no longer in office anyway and a causality between health problems and “vaccination” is difficult to prove. The main thing is that the parents can go on holiday with their children or the young people can go to their parties … it will all work out somehow. The pharmaceutical industry has earned its money, in rich Luxembourg the state is liable for the “vaccination” damages anyway (in other countries … nobody is liable, because the pharmaceutical companies have excluded any liability in advance), similar to Sweden in the case of Pandemrix, the vaccination that was pushed through within a very short time in the context of swine flu and from which thousands of children are now suffering from the incurable disease narcolepsy. Sweden pays 1 million euros per child, but it doesn’t cure it! Would their parents turn back time if they could? Would you if they were your children?
And anyway: since when are people “vaccinated” to protect OTHERS? Since when are the children (who don’t develop Covid-19, or hardly at all) responsible for the health of the “old”? Is the cow there for the calf, or the calf for the cow? Anyone who believes that “vaccination” is a social duty obviously still believes in the rather unlikely story of the symptomless contagious, or how else are we to understand it? After all, if you have a contagious disease, you stay at home anyway, don’t you? On the basis of numerous examples, in case we are openly interested in it, we now somehow know that this anyway injection does not protect against illness. At least we should consider it as an option, even if those who see salvation in “vaccination” understandably do not really want to admit it. A recent example is that of our Prime Minister, who fell ill after his first “vaccination” and also infected others. Oh yes, he still needs the second or third shot… And how do you see the “vaccinated” deaths in our old people’s homes and the drastically increasing mortality in Israel, Malta? Why are “vaccinated” deaths not causal to the “vaccination”, but deaths with a positive PCR test automatically causal to the virus? Where is the logic in this? Why is this not being discussed in the media? Why are people still not surprised?
No, all this information tells me: it cannot be about our health. But what is it about, then?
When two argue, the third is happy
What if this whole pandemic is actually just a distraction for something else? An employment strategy where you, just like us, are fixated on masks, PCR tests, statistics, travel permits, “vaccination” … and all of us together, just like us, are completely missing the point?
CAN THAT BE?
Please do not misunderstand me: this is not a suggestion, but an honest question to which I do not know the answer.
By now we are all slowly realizing that a return to the old past, as we knew it until today, is not going to happen. Even “vaccinated” people will have to continue to wear masks, ideally “update” their vaccination certificates every few months (because of all those nasty variants) and put up with obstacles. Especially now that they are becoming increasingly ill. Quite apart from the actual sword of Damocles: the long-term health risk of these injected chemicals … oh yes, that’s right, it’s not about health, it’s about supposed freedom. People don’t get vaccinated for health reasons, they do it for freedom, convenience, holidays, parties, social recognition. Well, as long as people believe THAT, I don’t think there will be any more freedom. Is having a mask, vaccination card and restrictions in an over-regulated world really freedom? What exactly is your definition of freedom? For me, freedom is like jumping off a 3-metre diving board: you have to be allowed to question things that seem illogical to you, even if they concern so-called authorities. Even if it is uncomfortable and means swimming against the current.
WHAT IF…
I re-read the books Brave New World by Aldous Huxley and 1984 by George Orwell during my holiday, after more than 30 years. These works were compulsory reading when I was at grammar school, and I’ve had this nagging feeling of déjà vu for about 15 months and wanted to know where it came from. So please forgive me if this thought is now bothering me so much that I’m asking you all these questions.
And yet: what if? There are so many parallels to these books, which seemed to me at the time to be pure entertainment science fiction, that my hair almost stands on end. Would you find it good to “exist” in this kind of society, or would that be going a bit too far for you? When is the moment for you to jump off the 3-metre diving board? When it is too late?
You really don’t have to be a journalist to do what we do at Expressis-Verbis; given the fact of our media’s pronounced financial dependence on the state apparatus, it almost seems to be an advantage these days not to have to call yourself an officially recognized journalist. No, we are professional people. Maybe our writing style is different and our headlines less sensational, and we don’t have something new on the paper every day, and maybe that’s a good thing!
We shake hands with everyone, just like the 10-year-old boy did with me. The only thing we would like to have back is a more respectful togetherness, without coercion, without judgement and without aggression for having jumped off the 3-metre board and looking for answers and dealing with it.
What if you could just open your mind to these thoughts in an unbiased and objective way? Can you?
What is the worst that can happen to you?
About The Author
