Judgment Hurts and it Leads to Bullying

This week is “anti-bullying” week. Kids get to wear a pink shirt to school and learn that bullying is not okay. The teachers may talk about it in class. Next week, the idea will be forgotten and the bullying will continue, often under the noses of the teachers and without them being aware of it.

Some people believe that bullying is just part of school life and “it never hurt me, so just get tough”. That was the official message until very recently, promoted in schools with the help of counsellors.

That is why I wrote Soup and Bread (published 2015), which was written for ages 11 to adult, to try and show that the motivation for bullying is way more complex than what we see, wear or do.

I made every effort to bring my book to the attention of schools, work places and other bullying-prone environments. I wrote the ministry of education and the mental health committee and countless social institutions that deal with children in New Zealand. I even wrote a teacher’s guide, still thinking, then, that there would be interest in a new approach, since the accepted approaches clearly didn’t work.

The story addresses the bystanders and uses metaphor, games and experiences from many different characters to put the picture together, as well as the shocking consequences of bullying. At the end of the book, there is a “parent-night” at the school, where the adults also get their say. The kids in the story create the following postcard to help spread the message.  These cards are still available.

I was hoping that real children would pick up on the message, start recreating the card and be active. But children do not buy their own books; parents and teachers choose those for them. Schools and other social institutions, despite the words they use, are not often keen on accepting differences in children.  

So, I was told that I was sending the wrong message. Either the bully came from an abusive home or the victim wasn’t tough enough. That was the message to be promoted.

The book was published in 2015 and things may have changed, but even recently, when trying to get my books listed with an online library, I was told that it would not sell. That was their issue, that books had to say what people wanted to hear, because it was about sales. Sorry, but that is not why I became a writer.

Thus, they list books that come up with the victim suddenly standing up for their rights (which is psychologically highly unlikely). They list books where the bully suddenly feels remorse (equally unlikely, because they tend to have an in-group). They list parent books about “bully-proofing your child”, which give advise that focuses purely on the superficial behaviour.

None of those touch on the cause of bullying.

Why keep promoting what has proven not to work?

Because it is much easier to find something objective to blame than to look deeper, and we have all been told that we live in an objective world. Most people never question that. Therefore, this is not a deliberate act on the part of those who have never suffered from bullying, but it happens nevertheless. And, although the general trend is to say that bullying is wrong, those words are not substantiated if the true cause is not addressed.

This cause is not so easy to point at, because it comes from the underlying, unconscious, relations between people, which, in turn, are a result of their different inborn personality types.  

The cause of bullying (even if not the act itself) is unconscious in its origin, and as long as those who claim to be against bullying do not understand the psychological causes, they are going to keep addressing behaviour, have fun little projects, wear a different shirt once a year and it will continue.

Today, everybody tends to get active for anti-bullying week, but bullying continues nonetheless, and it is still the victims who get most of the blame.

Just ask yourself what happens to the child who goes to school without a pink shirt on this week? What does the teacher tell them or the other kids? If they are lucky, it will be posed as a question, “Why are you not wearing a pink shirt? Don’t you think bullying is wrong?” (The accusation is there, in the intonation).

What happens to the employee who does not want to participate in the promo?

They are told (often by looks or sudden silences) that they are not doing their “duty”.

Thinking different from the norm is not allowed, regardless of the topic.

In other words, there is a trend, today, of using bullying to promote an anti-bullying message.

Judgment or Bullying?

You can argue that judgment about behaviour is not bullying, and I agree that there is a difference, but bullying is an expression of moral judgment, which is judgment by the in-group about the members and how they should behave.

Judgment, as I have explained often on my psychology and philosophy blog, as well as in my books, is part of human nature; we all use judgment, because it helps us survive. We all experience what our mind notices as objective, and we assume that this means it has to be the same for all people, and, thus claim the right to tell others they are wrong. Every misunderstanding and every conflict are based on this simple psychological assumption.

However, we do not all judge the same things, because we are different types of people. and our inner self feels differently about different things. And the types are not all equally represented in societies, so that those who are in the majority, and especially if extraverted, tend to get together to pressure the aberrant into belonging or behaving.

This use of peer pressure as a tool for obedience, has become a social institution and bullying is often part of that. Institutions tend to promote such peer pressure to get compliance; they still do!

Those in power believe they have the right to use such pressure, because “we are all equal” (by which they mean “identical”).  

Many of those who work in such jobs, truly believe they are doing the right thing; that everybody will be happier if they all act or think the same. Some types of personalities are more prone to expressing such judgments and some are more likely to use it to bully, while others are more prone to being victims. This seldom changes throughout life.

This was the message of my book, and it explains this unconscious and for many people not easy to imagine aspect of our differences. The book addresses the bystanders (those who let things happen; not just other kids, but schools and work places). It is they who have to create an environment that is aware of these inborn underlying differences that cause in-group forming and consequently moral judgment and bullying. You create such an environment by teaching people about these personality differences, not by focussing on superficial expressions or behaviour.

This is still my message and I am still willing to come and explain those differences at schools or work places (and for a lot less money than official type teachers ask).

Sure, schools (and work places) are mostly interested in the behaviour. Schools, after all, have to create adults that “fit in”. But to do that at the expense of their mental health, is not helping, nor does it solve the mental health problems we have.

And yes, judgment hurts, even if not intended as bullying. The fact that nobody bothered with my book, which I spent so much time and research writing and which could help so many victims, still hurts, every year when I hear about the pink shirt week and every time I see books about superficial remedies in shops, while children (and adults) are still being bullied, some time in name of the pink shirt they ‘should’ wear.

Thank you for reading with an open mind.


Some alternative answers to the Grand Jury Testimonials

I have been following the Grand Jury trials and some of the interviews of the Corona Investigative Committee, and I have learned a lot of things that I was not aware of, especially the extent of the scheme, which makes me once again regret my comments in 2020, when I still believed the government to have done the best they could in light of the pandemic. Today, we know there was no pandemic and that we are talking about a much more sinister and grandiose threat. 

Nevertheless, it is possible that the government did the best it could, in which case their best was not good enough for all the people who have since suffered.

I am not an economist, financial expert or historian, so I will not comment on the testimonies of the people in those fields, and so for the witnesses from the industries and from the logistical parts of the WHO.

There was some confusion in me as to whether the pandemic was a complete fabrication, caused by false PCR positives and scare tactics of a normally existing cold or that the viral threat was man-made and deliberately released. From the testimonies of some people (Dr Shankara Chetty and Soňa Peková) it was pretty clear that the different strains of this virus could not have naturally mutated from one to the other (mutations do not reverse) and that we were dealing with different disease patterns, causing different allergic reactions in some people. That points to deliberate release of more than one agent, and a huge threat to what they could (and would) release next from their bio-weapon facilities.

In the meantime, I found an interview with Dr Richard Fleming that leaves little doubt that we are dealing with bioweapons as the definition of a bioweapon is that of a modified agent that does not bring benefit to people’s health. That makes both the virus (which was tampered with) as well as the vax, bioweapons.

However, the details of that science go beyond my expertise.

What I would like to do is make a few comments on some of the psychological, political and philosophical conclusions. Especially, I’d like to look at the motivations, not only of the schemers (those who deliberately developed, released and lied about the disease and the inoculation), earlier referred to as Mr Global and its total disregard for human dignity, but also of those they are toying with. Why was it so easy for them to persuade the politicians? Why did so many people get caught up in the fear induction and what can we do in light of this psychology to overcome the threat and prevent this from going any further?

There are five comments I’d like to respond to.

1. The notion of academic research, schooling and media coverage having been controlled by those who fund such research, and the way the academic system itself is inducive to keeping new ideas at bay in this manner.

2. The notion that disciplines have been brought together to create a new science, which, I think responsible for the entire mental health crisis, which is also part of this scheme, and is now targeted to try and create artificial intelligence.

3. The notion of them redefining language to suit their goal, and the philosophical consequences of their rewriting our political structure.

4. The notion of systems within systems, of groups and subsets, and how difficult, if not impossible, it is to get out of certain beliefs. But that applies to the masses as much as to the schemers, which may be the angle we need to overcome their imposition.

5. Lastly, the psychology and the way it directs people’s strengths and weaknesses, which can explain all conflicts, differences and misunderstandings that have emerged between partners, families and cultural groups, and which are more or less consistent the world over.

I am a philosopher of psychological type (psychotype) and I believe that the answers and solutions lie in understanding our psychological diversity. The specifics of the theory can be found on my philosophy blog and in my books, but I will start with a very brief outline so the reader can put my comments in perspective.

First of all, let me point out that psychotype theory is a holistic approach. It takes the personality (the whole person) into account and explains their motivations, beliefs, behaviour and communication in light of their immaterial mental processes, the exchange of mental energy. This is opposed to the dominant academic view that explains people’s behaviour in light of their neurology and genetic disposition, taking a materialist and reductionist stance.

Psychology in brief.

We need to realize that we are not psychological clones anymore than we are physical clones. Yes, I know, researchers say that “we’re all individuals”, but they measure every person to an ideal set of brain functions or hormonal levels and medicate those that don’t measure up. 

Our mental energy is in constant flux, making it possible for our inner permanent Self to communicate with its environment and get what it needs to survive. A person in whom the Self is not developed either becomes autistic or psychotic; they lack the ability of healthy communication. Every entity relates and communicates through information. Therefore, all our information is relative to the other entity. Some scientists measure energy in electrical current, in metabolic joules or in physical particles, but mental energy is also part of this information exchange, and, as we all know from experience, nothing is as fast as a thought, so that no laboratory can measure it. That is why we say that matter follows energy and energy follows thought. 

We all know about evolution theory and natural selection, and the notion that we need diversity to stay strong as a group. A colony of clones, like bacteria, is very vulnerable. Likewise, without psychological diversity, nothing would be achieved and we’d live in a dogmatic unchanging world, in which everybody would notice the same things and think the same thoughts. Some might argue that that diversity comes from upbringing, but there are too many examples of generations growing up in doctrines that impose just one view, yet they change the moment the oppression is gone; that would not be possible were it nurture only. If it were that easy to change people’s survival mode, we’d have long been extinct. Likewise, the diversity is only too obvious within families, so that, even if it isn’t nurture, neither is it purely genetic (which is a code for the physical body).

The answer is, of course, that nurture and nature both play a role and influence each other; that all illness is psychosomatic because of that interaction and that neither the matter alone nor the environment alone are deterministic. The preferred mental functions start developing in the womb and that evolves in one direction. Imagine a riverbed, in which the water follows the easiest path, that which has been carved out already, and it is no longer possible for the water to decide to go another way. With each sensory input and each thought, the ‘mind bed’ gets more pronounced. Measurements in neurological impulses show this pattern, because of the plasticity of the brain, which adapts to habitual behaviour.  

The best way to understand psychotypes is to imagine styles of music; they are not tangible and not exactly determined in their limits, because musical interaction (information exchange) is fluid, yet those who know music will recognize a style instantaneously, and those styles are very real.

In short, the most important thing to understand is that we are not and cannot be all alike and that that is a good thing. That different personality types learn differently, need to move differently, sense and notice different things, have different emotions, have a different sense of justice, have a different need for company, relate differently to authority, interpret concepts differently, have different natural talents and skills, have a different sense of community, BUT need equal respect.

I use the acronym VITAL, because these psychological differences are essential for human survival and progress.

1. VALUE: each type and trait are of equal value to the world; there are no “bad” types.

2. INBORN: we are born with our information filters (see the river bed); we do not choose or change our type, and the division of types is constant across cultures and times.

3. TENDENCIES: personality type is about inclinations, because it is about psychic energy, and does NOT determine specific beliefs or actions (which are influenced by the environment and personal experiences).

4. ANIMATE: There is no static measure, as life forms have two-way communication (as opposed to inanimate objects) and are constantly adapting.

5. LIMITED: Each type is limited to their own perspective; nobody knows better. Everybody is stuck in a mind, so no one person (no matter their education) can crawl into another perspective, yet exactly because of that, do we often not notice our biases; we assume that what we observe and think is self-evident.

And because information IS existence and our minds deal with information and have never experienced anything else, it influences everything, including how we see others, what we believe objective, how we feel, think, see, hear, interpret, and how we do science. It transcends all other groupings, such as culture, gender, ethnicity, religion, orientation and social class.

Hence, the clashes we see are happening in every culture, in every family, in every society, in every gender group etc.

There are 16 different types; no more no less. That is because information itself has only four aspects. Whether human, tree, animal or neutrino, an entity can only do four things with information:

1. Be aware of it (pay attention) or not.

2. Notice or not notice (perception) what is in that awareness field.

3. Make a judgment about that perception: is it dangerous or real?

4. Take action or not, now or later. In other words: react.

To explain this a bit more vividly: If I am in a room, I do not notice what happens on the road and vice versa. I have to pay attention (1). I notice a big dark blob, whether tangible or imagined (2). I judge whether it is real or not, whether it is dangerous or friendly; after all, it could be a car coming at me at full speed (3). In a fraction of a second, I need to decide on action and jump (4).

These aspects, in psychological terms, of which each person naturally prefers one, are: Extraversion or Introversion (1), Sensory or iNtuitive perception (2), deductive (Truth-based) or inductive (Feeling or value-based) reasoning (3), and Judicious or Persuasive implementation (4).

Thus, four aspects of information, each with two poles: we are aware or not, notice or not, judge yes or no, act or not. All combinations make for a total of 16 different types. This is the only personality type theory that can explain why there are 16 types and not more or less; the others have taken a random number (based on their observations), but without evolutionary or information theory support.

Besides that, Jung did not simply pull his theory out of thin air. He conversed with philosophers and physicists about it, and applied it in his psychiatric practice.

That is the very basis of it; better explanations are on my blog and I will explain some more as I discuss the points below.

1. Let me start with the conclusion that 50-90% of scientific articles in medical journals cannot be trusted to be accurate; that the pharmaceutical industry owns the journals and funds the research, that they often represent a conflict of interest and that many ‘research’ articles are written and published without proper peer review. Mainstream media is in the hands of the same powerful puppeteers, and will report only what is pre-approved.

Let me emphasize that this is true in every discipline. Those who do not agree with the accepted viewpoints are ousted, their careers destroyed and their writing ridiculed. Likewise, for those who stepped out of the system and went independent from the start, so as to have the chance to research and write what they believed rather accept a pre-approved thesis topic. I know this from people who work in archaeology, and from personal experience in philosophy and psychology.

A few examples are the popular science writer, Michio Kaku, who may be a brilliant physicist, but knows nothing about the mind, yet whose popular book “The future of the mind”, is based solely in neuroscience. Likewise, a Yale English prof, writing under the guise of a biography attacks type theory, without understanding the first bit about the topic, and yet, her book is promoted by popular radio stations and by public libraries as a psychology book.

In light of what I heard in the Grand Jury model proceedings; I now believe that such writers are used (with or without their knowledge) to destroy the other perspective. In other words, the “long arm of the inquisition” stretches way further than previously thought.

And because schools, libraries and media blindly accept such writings, because of the credentials attached to the name, these views become ingrained in the population from very young onwards, and most never again question it. How many of you refer to your brain instead of your mind when you talk about your thoughts or beliefs?

Hence, during the trial, there were those who quoted titles and academic credentials to support their view, unconsciously reinforcing the exact view that they came to the conclusion cannot be totally trusted.

The reason I bring this up, is because we need to be aware of our biases, most of which are unconscious, because we have, all of us, grown up with them, but so have the people on trial, and we must be careful not to reinforce their flawed thinking.  

For example, the assumption that mostly intellectuals fall for the deceptions is based in such an assumption, because we unconsciously equate academics with intellectuals. But that is no longer an accurate assessment, since it is expected that all people go to university, and, therefore, it is often those who easily accept the status quo who find their career in academia. Independent intellectuals bow out.

The problem of academia today is that everybody is specialized. Everybody is expected to write what their peers (and certainly their teachers if they are not yet graduated) agree with and because similar personality types enter similar fields, and without communication across disciplines, it reduces diversity, tolerance and open-mindedness. In other words, the system works in-group beliefs and dogma in the hand.

2. Another conclusion about academia was the deliberate creation of new disciplines out of the merging of existing ones. Mentioned was NBIC, an effort to combine nanotech (atoms), biotech (genes), ICT (bits) and “cognotech” (neurons), in which it is assumed that, because all deal with information particles, they must all be related and convertible.

The schemers, being all of a similar psychological type, as well as the intellectuals within those four disciplines, will, indeed, more easily believe that the four can be used to explain and alter humanity and create artificial intelligence. But the reason they believe this, is because of their own mind being primarily concerned with sets and subsets, with deduction and materialism (see below).

Carl Jung pointed out a long time ago, that science maintains one standard ideal, because it works with means and statistics, which might work for the hard sciences, where the object is inanimate or statistical data, but without seeing that in the life sciences, not one individual could possibly match that ideal. However, it is from that ideal that they set expectations and then proceed to label or medicate those who do not fit. This applies to mental health care, but also to school standards.

Academic specialization and “peer reviews” work this kind of bias in the hand, as the academic system has been run mostly by people who naturally gravitate towards data and hard sciences, because, until recently, being good at mathematics was a prerequisite for getting the grades to enter university.

In the sixties, an ideological attempt to merge genetics, anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, psychology, physics and information science resulted in the new discipline known as “neuroscience”, the word already implying its deductive and materialist focus. Since then, most holistic psychologists (those addressing the whole person and the complete personality) have been bullied out of their own discipline, because this merger replaced academic psychology, but not any of the other mentioned fields – at least in the anglophone world. Every new student is indoctrinated with the notion that people’s emotions, beliefs, perceptions, actions and reasoning (all of which immaterial) can be fully explained in genetic, neurological and hormonal terms, and most have internalized those views.  

So, even if I agree with Meredith Miller that the double bind relationships people have with the government are identical to those in abusive homes, I do not agree with the explanation. Not every person has an identical “perceived act of kindness”; some types are naturally more vulnerable than others, and I object to the use of “disorders” to label every person who does not fit the ideal. As she said, such terminology comes from the DSM5, the “diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders” of the American Psychiatrists Association, who are also groomed by this belief. Not only that, but their new terminology excuses the behaviour of exactly those who are causing harm.  

I argue that, in light of what is happening in medical science at the moment, this merger was instituted to assist the sale of mental health drugs and to create a similar victim attitude in the population as we have had for much longer in medical science, in which a person was considered a collection of detachable organs, totally dependent on external treatments and deterministic traits. – As long as people feel they are victims, they will keep accepting the pills or jabs.

And that seems to be exactly the condition that led to what is happening today, because, as Mattias Desmet explains, the attitude of being a victim, of being depressed, of having nothing to live for creates the perfect environment for mass formation and totalitarianism. This also explains why so many young people fell for the narrative.

As I have written many times before, we created a generation of young adults who are writing dystopias and hiding in fantasy, because they have been brought up with “objective science” in which the ‘truth’ had to be told and spiritualism was ridiculed, and therefore have been inundated with threats of asteroids, super volcanoes, global warming and so on. Schools and media have actively contributed to this generalized despondency.

3. That brings me to the politics and philosophy and the usurping of common language, with the purpose of enticing the population to believe the threats and get them to obey.

The obvious ones are the redefinition of “vaccine”, “infectious”, “immuno-compromised” and “mental health”, but also “sustainable development”, “biodiversity”, “ethics”, “climate change” and “global warming”.

In brief for the reader, as per the conclusions: a vaccine is only a vaccine if it prevents disease in the vaccinated individual. It does not mitigate disease and it does not weaken symptoms. To use the definition for those intentions is to deliberately deceive people.

Likewise, being infectious or infected cannot be diagnosed by a PCR or antigen test. Only symptoms can be used to diagnose, and a positive test has no meaning at all, as fruits and inanimate objects also tested positive.

More dangerous redefinitions came with governments advertising that “children also get strokes”, as if that was a normal occurrence in children, but it was not. Only since the inoculations made by Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Janssen, did children start having strokes. Therefore, that is not an acceptable side effect. And “immuno-compromised” has been given the blame for side effects and corona deaths, without explaining that the vax causes this compromise in many cases, because it causes an auto-immune reaction.

Likewise, misusing “ethics” or “ethical” for product marketing to make believe a product is the right choice. First of all, ethical has nothing to do with right and wrong, because it is about innate values, not about behaviour (which is where “moral” is used). Secondly, nobody can decide ethical for another person, exactly because it is about innate values and an innate sense of justice, which cannot be defined.

And the afore mentioned DSM manual has been redefining “mental health” in terms of disorders, in which only obedient citizens are considered healthy (see above).

From a political standpoint, phrases like “sustainable development” were said to be used to force the world into a technocratic tyranny.

Sustainable development, of course, has a positive ring in most people’s ears, because it suggests using the resources of the Earth in a sensible manner. By using this term, the schemers claim they are dealing with the environmental crisis in a way that allows a sustainable future for all people, while, in fact, they believe that if there are less people, life will be better for those who survive and they seem to be looking to eliminate those they deem not valuable.

But I don’t totally agree with Patrick Wood about “technocracy” opposing capitalism. Capitalism (like communism and socialism) are economic distinctions – possibly what the schemers have in mind – while technocracy, along with all other “-cracies”, is about how to govern. Of course, democracy and capitalism often go hand in hand, because they both rely on popularity (of people or products), and both are, therefore, very vulnerable to being abused.

To repeat from an earlier post, the definition of government is “organizing PUBLIC life”, which does not, never did and never will include people’s private bodies. That politicians have to protect the people is not in their job description either. To assume the right to protect others is invasion of privacy. People are adults; they can protect themselves. The only job of the government is to make the means available for them to do so. However, today’s governments, almost everywhere, knowingly withheld all the safe means to deal with the virus and enforced what they knew to be dangerous.

Besides that, in a democracy, there is no such thing as “national security” that allows them to withhold documents or other information from the people, because the nation IS the people and therefore, the government cannot withhold information from them without violating their contract with the people.

In that light, I should make a correction to my own last post, where I said that it was “outright criminal”. But that was misusing the language, because it was not criminal as no law was broken. It was, however, legalized murder.

In short, from a philosophical perspective, they are in breach of all ethical values (because those are personal and cannot be controlled by a government), most moral values (which is represented by the Human Rights Declaration), which they signed and therefore subscribed to. In addition, they violated the Nuremberg code, the Helsinki agreement, and even, according to Richard Fleming, the bioweapons treaty.

But in many cases, they also breeched legal agreements, not only where it concerns the definition of government and its limitations, but also, because their own legal rules state that the people shall be informed of changes and will have a voice, and that was not heeded. Laws were changed secretly or without waiting to inform the people, and, it appears that this has been done at the level of the United Nations; they have been rewriting our constitutions, which makes them usurpers. As a consequence, they have freed us from any obligation they say we have to obey or follow national rules – exactly the justification used by the founders of the United States against the English king. The only power they have left is military power, but no legal or moral claim.

Everybody who has read my previous writing knows that I am not a fan of democracy, for exactly the reason that it is corruptible, and that I do believe we need proper leadership to help us survive the environmental and mental health crises. I do not believe democracy has much bearing on equality or freedom; distribution based on compliance or popularity is not equality and is not distributive justice.  

However, I envision proper leadership in terms of people who know how to be leaders because of their personality type and not any other distinction; not race, not gender, not riches, bloodline or popularity. Those who are aiming to create one world government do not have the right personality and neither do the current politicians – despite my brief belief to the contrary in my open letter. Those who rely on military power and resort to secrecy and fear-induction, are not leaders.

And even if a natural leader, the system must have a manner in which to replace them, would they go too far, like a captain on a ship can be ousted. In other words, the system needs to be organized so that one crazy person cannot ruin everything.

However, as we are seeing today, democracy (and some other systems) attracts similar types of people to power and they reinforce each other’s delusions, so that the system needs to be organized so that even a group of like-minded lunatics cannot take over. We need type diversity across the board.

In this, I mostly agree with Ariane Bilheran, and I just wanted to point out that it is predominantly in anglophone countries that materialism and behaviourism seem to have been promoted in the middle of last century, which is still evident with their quoting Galton, Watson and Skinner.  

I agree with Ariane, that we are talking about mass terrorism from governments on their people.

Interestingly, she mentions school closure as a sacrifice for children, but that is also based on an ingrained belief, namely that schools educate children. But they do not: they school children in the beliefs of the state. Sure, children may lose out in playing with their peers and parents lose childcare, but education is better done at home.

In book eight of The Republic, Plato discusses four imperfect societies and how they evolve from each other by changing which type of person is valued. Excessive desire for ambition (timarchy) leads to wealth, excessive desire for wealth (oligarchy) leads to freedom; excessive desire for freedom (democracy) leads to chaos and madness, and excessive power madness will induce the mob to welcome the tyrant (tyranny). Plato specifically points out that both oligarchy and democracy have many idlers.

Plato also said that the only way a city (community) can function is if all contribute from their own job and we can trust them to do so, like the farmers grow the grain, the baker makes the bread and that leaves others to be doctors or politicians or philosophers. Of course, if the baker poisons their bread, the whole city will get sick, which is what is happening now with the pharmaceutical industry. In that case, we have to return to doing it ourselves. Thus, the exact opposite of what the schemers have in mind, the solution is to return to localized control and everybody contributing according to their own inborn psychological skills. This will also give them back their sense of value as a human being and a purpose to live for.

4. Another belief that is ingrained in people today is that we are intelligent and can understand most of reality. This is largely the belief of the AI focused community. But, as I said, they are naturally inclined to look at the components of a set and to believe that the full understanding can be found there.

What most people forget is that reality is layered in systems within systems. Atoms are subsystems of molecules, molecules of substances, substances of beings or objects, beings or objects of yet bigger systems, like lifeforms are subsets of ecosystems and those are subsets of the Earth.

It has been long accepted that Gaia is a holistic system that has as much a homeostasis and a human body does, so that individual humans are to the Earth as the flora and fauna inside our bodies is to us. We are a system within a system.

Systems of a different level cannot communicate with each other. Like we will never be able to understand the communication of two bacteria in our body, but one dose of antibiotics might eradicate them, so we will not be able to tell whether the Earth communicates with her peers, but she can just as easily take antibiotics to eradicate us. We need the Earth, but she does not need us. Sure, we can make her ill with our behaviour, like the cells in our body can make us ill, but archaeological evidence abounds that she has disposed of humanity before. 

And this system within systems view applies to politics as well, and the nation state is a step up from the individuals and therefore, the needs of the nation state are not identical to those of the people; individuals are disposable in light of the bigger scheme.

In short, we may need to understand the subsets for our hard sciences, but if we ignore the holistic view, we are missing the context.

5. I will finish with a brief discussion of the immediate problems that cause some of us to stand in protest, some to follow and be fearful, and some to try and coerce others to their ideology.  

Remember that type psychology is about inclinations, not specific behaviour, and that additional circumstances lead to corruption and abuse, so that I am by no means attacking those in the general population who happen to have the same type as those who are currently destroying our future. I often use the example of Hitler and Martin Luther King Jr, who were both of the same personality type. Both excellent orators, convinced of their ideal, with the people skills to motivate vast groups of people and passion behind their words, yet as we all know, one used those traits to destroy and the other to liberate.

Therefore, if we understand the “style” of a person’s information processing, then we can get a good idea of their weaknesses and strengths and how to influence them, and even whether they are natural leaders or not, but we can never know their exact thoughts.

Now, in light of the schemers; they may be slightly different types, but their apparent obsession with technology and materialism, makes it likely that they reason deductively, value truth and data, but are not aware of holistic or emotive aspects of reality. They have a dream that artificial intelligence is possible, having grown up with science fiction stories and the message that if all the bits, atoms and neurons can be modified and influenced, it will naturally change the whole person from the bottom up; that if you can manipulate the hardware, you can read or change the software. More so, they believe that the content of the files can be read from the wiring of the computer. So convinced of their own superiority that they believe they have the right and ability to program the rest of the population to become clones. Yet exactly they, who believe the mind is totally dependent on matter and who ridicule religion in favour of evolution, dismiss the foundation of evolution theory (diversity) for mental processes.

The politicians most often mentioned as recruited by these schemers to be groomed as “young leaders” are all EJs, meaning that they are extraverts with a judicious expression, which very briefly means that they believe the world to be as they see it and that, therefore, they have the right to declare those who disagree as crazy, wrong, anti-social or to simply ignore them. Their social stance tends to be that everybody has to give up some of their individuality for the group and, because that is self-evident to them, they accept that as a justification to force others or call them selfish. They may truly believe they are doing the world a favour; that the ‘simple’ people (those who are wrong) must be helped or forced to obey “for their own good”.

In that light, I think they were ‘chosen’ to be groomed through a combination of having the right social background (influential parents or status) and a personality that jumped on it when offered.

Jacinda Ardern, Justin Trudeau and possibly (though it is harder to assess a personality if all clips you get on TV are dubbed), Emmanuel Macron, are EFJs, meaning they have a huge feeling component, which they use to relate to people; they come across and kind and caring and compassionate. They have the skills to lead groups, using their heart to motivate people. However, their logical reasoning (T) is weak, meaning they might be easily convinced if something sounds nice without having the skills to question the justifications behind it, and in pursuit of their ideal, they frequently end up going beyond their own moral values, just so as to belong to the in-group or get approval from their authority. In this case, if that authority groomed them to become prominent politicians, they have little backbone to take a stand even if they no longer like what is happening.

Bill Gates is (probably) an ENTJ, which means he has the logical function, but is otherwise equally inclined to believe in objectivity and even better skilled in driving groups of people toward distant goals. He too, may therefore believe that everybody will be happy in the same circumstances, but, in addition, he won’t ‘feel’ it if people are not happy and will easier accept the reductionist view of the schemers.

With regard the masses, about 50% of people (J) need an authority to confirm their beliefs, so they check social positions, credentials, mainstream media and scientific articles. However, if introverted, these people may pick a different authority than that which is traditional or popular, meaning they might find a spiritual explanation or find different sources of research, and that is why many of them now stand in protest despite being Js. Their opposites (Ps) have, by nature, a ‘healthy’ disrespect for authority; they need a truth to stand on its own merit, regardless of credentials or status. This does not mean that all Ps stand in protest, because the other aspects of their personality also play a role.

About 80% of people are focused on the here and now (S); practical rather than theoretical (which is N), and without inclination to compare future, past and current events. They are less likely to see possibilities or to speculate, and, therefore, if they are told there is a virus, they take that as a given and look for practical solutions.  

Another 75% are extraverts (E), which makes them more likely to accept the external world as objective and powerful. In the case of a virus or a jab, they are more likely to think those can affect them for good or for bad, making them easier victims for the fear-induction, while introverts (I) tend to give more power to their personal subject and believe they can stop things from harming them.

And, as said above, 50% of people (T) naturally rely on reductionism and data, so if the governments keep spitting out statistics, they see that as evidence, although they are better than Fs at analysing the data and notice if it makes no sense.

In normal circumstances, the arguments between these groups (especially T-F views about reasoning, E-I views about reality, and J-P views about morality) tend to be divided. Over the ages, the views of one and then the other take prevalence and they have been argued about for over 3000 years of philosophical writing. However, when fear is thrown into the mix in a mortal species, and especially a species that has been believing that dying is something terrible, the game changes.

This then, also explains why we are often in conflict with our loved ones over what is happening, because types are not genetic and not environment induced, so that every family has different types of people. The politicians then make things worse, by trying to set loved ones, colleagues and others up against each other, because they believe that will make more people obey, but all it does is create more anxiety and stress inside the home and more anger.

Personally, I believe that artificial intelligence taking over humanity is a naive notion, based on the wet dreams of little boys with aspirations of world domination, but a lack of insight in what reality is like beyond the material they can observe and what the human mind is like beyond the wiring.

If it were really that easy to change our basic psychological existence, we would have long been cloned or been eradicated. All those who tried before have failed. Those who work with machine learning acknowledge it is a far cry from “dealing with new and trying situations” (the definition of intelligence). What machines can do, at best, is repeat and respond to similar situations, but they can neither anticipate, understand context or go beyond their programming, and we know that those who program them tend to rely on superficial markers to recognize emotions and insights, because their own materialistic and data-focused mindset is not aware of most emotions and motivations.

The equally naive notion that we are better than ever before, expressed in phrases like “now we have the power”, “now we understand”, “we evolved to have a conscience”, “we can build a better tomorrow”, “in ways previously impossible”, are all based in a similar belief as that God created humans in its image.

RNA may be the software of life, but it is coded in natural cycles that cannot possibly be understood by people, and certainly not by people who only look at the components and miss the connections to the whole.

Mr Global (or the schemers) appears to be a combination of aristocrats and oligarchs, both from last century and outdated, who measure worth in material things like money and fame, and they will go into history as monsters, their individual names forgotten.

However, they can destroy people physically, as well as their spirit and mental health, but only for a very short time, because people get desensitized. Once they are, the fear disappears and so does the power of those using it as a weapon. Yes, they could, with the help of soldiers destroy all their opponents and even create their one world government, but it will never be based on having changed people; it will never make all people happy and the moment they are dead, things will return to how they were.

But what about the politicians, who were gullible and fell for the deceptions? Are they excusable?

I do not believe so. Even if their type is for a big part responsible for their being deluded themselves, they should have listened to ‘the people’ and should not have acted as if they were superior. This is akin to white people believing they were superior, but the justification for that belief was in their own head and nowhere else, and it did not make discrimination acceptable.

To believe something is a human right, but to impose it on others is NOT.

To believe in a delusion, at the very least, makes one unfit to rule.

The problem is that in times of ideologies, we may actually need a megalomaniac to throw a spoke in the wheel of the blindly following masses and upset the cart. But most of us (me included) ridiculed the megalomaniac who tried to do so.

I previously mentioned the similarities between what we are facing today and what the world faced during or just before the Reformation. A fantastic fictional book (Q by Luther Blissett) follows the events of this complex and tumultuous time. The author’s name is a pseudonym for four Italian writers who have put amazing amounts of research into this.

It very clearly shows the oppression of the Inquisition, but also how easy to influence the masses and how even the oppressors are stuck in their thinking. They were Christians. It didn’t even occur to them that something else was possible. The Catholic Church was the institution that claimed reality and most believed that their ideology, their religion, would make everybody happy. It would create blissful people, who didn’t need to own anything, but would be happy with their faith if they just obeyed the church.

That is why my fictional account of today’s situation is named The Vaccination Inquisition.

How did they eventually overcome the Inquisition? How did the Reformation come about?

Very slowly, by waking the people, one by one, until a tipping point was reached. By helping them to see that their human worth came from God directly and not from the institution that claimed to be the only interpreter of God.

Likewise, today, we need to wake people up to the notion that nature gives us worth, not academia and not politicians who claim to know better than we do. That our psychological diversity gives us the right to think differently. That even those at the top are limited to their own mind and cannot possibly know what is better for others. And, with a bit of luck, considering we have the internet, our tipping point may come about a bit faster.

Thank you for reading.

Don’t celebrate too early…

As many of you are aware by now, the plandemic we have been exposed to was intended as a fix for the financial crisis, and not a danger to human health, at least, not in the form of a virus. There was no hyper-infectious disease, but a flu-like cold, to which some people, like in any other such case, developed additional problems. Only they needed extended treatment. Of those who went into hospital to receive that, most died, because of a combination of misinformation and misdiagnoses in response to fear, and malpractice with (often experimental) drugs. Of those treated at home by competent doctors with traditional and tested medication, these patients survived and recovered.

But however well-intended the first wave treatments were, even if not successful, what followed was outright criminal – and possibly unbelievable for some readers.

The details, with extensive testimonies and evidence, are presented in the proceedings of the Grand Jury, court of public opinion (grand-jury.net), which has been running during February, and in which we, the people, are the jury. This is performed by an international group of lawyers and a judge, with testimonies of countless scientists and experts in every field, and others with inside knowledge, presenting step by step what was behind the so-called medical emergency. Those on trial, the instigators, in short referred to as Mr Global, are faced with charges of crimes against humanity.

This hearing asks for hours and hours of watching, which may be impossible for many people, but if you can, watch the summary: https://corona-ausschuss.de/en/

I will not go into details of the contents at this point, but I will try and discuss some of the testimonies and topics in a future post, especially the psychological aspects of those implicated, their personalities and their grand plan.

For now, this post is intended to help spread the summary to those not yet aware, so they may decide for themselves to follow the proceedings, or, if not, at least be aware that the inoculations promoted by your government, no matter which country you live in, are NOT safe; that over five hundred thousand people have already died from them.

The short of it is that the ‘pandemic’ was no more than an ordinary flu, made into a hype by those with ulterior motive, predominantly to create chaos and ‘reset’ the economy. With the “plandemic” failing, they are now turning their attention to war.

In New Zealand, for one, police and military, supposedly, just won a great victory in court against the mandates. But don’t celebrate too early, because what is more likely, is that the judge was told by the government to make this ruling to appease the people, claiming human rights the judge had thus far not cared for with regard civilians. This is a ploy to soften up the police for turning against the people and the military to get ready for a global war, which has been started in Russia-Ukraine.

In short, do not believe that your government has suddenly seen the light; it is simply turning to plan B, which will mean more restrictions. Same for those following climate change; beware that it will be used to restrict you.

And for your own mental and physical health: be aware that your government has signed a contract that obliges them to keep promoting and rolling out the vax and to keep forbidding the previously existing safe medications, so their invasion of your living room with scare messages will continue. The next cold season will be used to declare another big virus: it will be a lie.

Be aware that they control the media and are using false accusations of racism against those who protest; that there is no free speech in mainstream media.

Be aware that Mr Global owns not only the pharmaceutical industry, but nearly all major universities and journals and that, consequently, between 50 and 90% of so-called scientific articles (especially those issued and ‘reviewed’ by prestigious institutions) are not to be taken for granted. This applies to all academic fields, but especially in mental and physical health. Be aware that hospitals are often funded for ‘diagnosing’ covid cases, but that PCR and RAT tests cannot be used as diagnostic tools; they give false positives, and may be designed to do so. Be aware that asymptomatic respiratory illness is NOT possible. Even some ‘charities’ are controlled by these people.

Be aware that those institutions created to oversee and safeguard the medications that come on the market (The FDO and its companions in other countries) are also under control of the pharmaceutical industry and that medical doctors look at those for their guidelines, often without questioning what they write; every authority looks up to an authority above them. Likewise, the World Health Organization and the United Nations have been under the influence of the same people, who also have a stake in the PCR test that creates false positives, the vax that is supposed to prevent the disease, but does not, and dangerous anti-viral drugs such as Remdesivir, which has been used to literally kill people.  

Be aware that every person who asks for vax passports is in violation of the Human Rights Declaration and that masks do not only not protect you, but are dangerous for many other reasons. Be aware that we, the people, are enticed to turn against each other because that makes us weak. We need to stand together. They, the instigators, are not capable (from a psychological perspective) to understand such unity and are not capable of fighting it.

Humanity has seen situations like this many times before, and the instigators and their followers always believe they are new, the best, the most original, more intelligent and moral than those who came before and so they claim today that “we have overcome nature” or we can do things “in ways previously impossible”, while simultaneously ridiculing the religious and spiritual people for believing in something other than evolution. Yet they ignore evolution’s most basic premise: diversity; the notion that people cannot be made into clones that all obey without protest.

Especially in psychology, this attempt has been going on for a while, ever since it was usurped by neuroscience to make us believe we are not more than grey matter and genes, and, therefore victims. Hence, the mental health crisis, which may have been deliberately caused, and was used to threaten parental rights just over a decade ago. Most of the guidelines for what we call mental health come from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) form the Association of American Psychiatrists, who have been creating labels to sell medications and so encourage victim thinking, because they, too, are regulated by those who control pharma.

When I started to realize that, twelve years ago, I wrote a little book called The Happiness Inquisition. For the disaster of the last two years, I have just finished The Vaccination Inquisition, which will be available in March. That is because fiction is sometimes a better medium to reach people.

I use Inquisition, because what we are faced with today is a mirror of what happened in the run-up to the Reformation. It makes no difference what they claim:

“Our god is supreme; we (the priests or Inquisition) know our god, so you must submit to our will.”

“Our race is supreme; we (Hitler and co) know purity and therefore you must submit to our will.”

“Our technology/computer data is supreme; we (Mr Global) know AI and therefore, you must submit to our will.”

Whether the rulers claim God, race, genes or intellect, and whether the critics are silenced by the stake, gas chambers or a covid-vax needle and Remdesivir makes no difference. The psychology remains the same and those aiming for world domination are absolutists with a one-track mind, who have openly said that “the people” are no better than cattle to them.

In that case, why should we believe it when they say “we only want to help you”, “we all have to give a little”, “we can’t be selfish”.

In my book, I call it a “utilitarian beast”, the use of guilt, fear and shame induction in order to get people to obey and, more than anything, to get them to give up their individuality and even their freedom and life, for “the greater good”. Some types of people are more naturally inclined to see this as a positive than others, but everybody can understand that the greater good does not mean the pockets of the super rich.

At the start of the ‘corona crisis’, I wrote an open letter saying thanks to the government for the way it handled the situation, which I since retracted. I believed then, and to a degree I still believe, that the politicians, at that point, were also under the impression that we were dealing with a real disease and that they were doing the best they could.

After the vax became available, they changed their attitude and nothing they said had sincerity to it. If they knew before then, they did a pretty good job acting, and might have done better finding their career there.

I have also written a five-part science fiction series, Of a Note in a Cosmic Song, which starts in a society such as Mr Global is proposing (total control by one government and people allocated rights based on behaviour). The novel follows the characters in their escape from this control, but also from the ingrained belief in it. Because none of us can totally escape the messages we have grown up with, and materialism, artificial intelligence and victim thinking have been ingrained in us. The schools make sure of that.

In short, remember that extreme fear is terror and that those instilling it in people are terrorists, and TERRORISM is the induction of terror in order to have obedience. The goal is to create a wedge between the people, to create panic, so they will welcome the tyrant (Mr Global) and the ruling politicians are used for that purpose; they are puppets. The free will of the people as well as their health is being sold off in pursuit of an impossible dream that aims to make us all into clones. (More about this in a later post).

Also remember that they CANNOT succeed if the police and soldiers stand with the people instead of against them.

So, please, don’t take my word for it: watch the summary and preferably the court proceedings, because everything is there. In the meantime, protect yourself and your children.

This is not over yet, even if some governments seem to be giving in. Be watchful, be strong and stand together.

Thank you for reading,

Nōnen Títi (www.nonentiti.com)

Gina Poekeleen (www.ginapoekeleen.com)

Please Save YOUR Children

Vaccinating kids under 12 may end up in mass murder. You don’t have to believe me, but do yourself a favour and think about it. Don’t stop reading because it makes you uncomfortable, because it SHOULD make you uncomfortable.

Put one and one together, do some research and read with an open mind. It might save the life of your child.

New Zealand has two levels of information that is allowed to be made public in this crisis.

Firstly, the word of one man, the director-general of health, who speaks for the whole population, and who, despite having a health background, does not have the expertise in related topics, such as chemistry, psychology, statistics.

The other source is the WHO, which has conflicting interests, since a large number of its members have shares in the pharmaceutical industry.

Those two very limited perspectives are not enough for objective assessment.

We now have plenty of medical experience and research to know that cheap, effective medication is available to combat this virus, that the disease is less dangerous than Influenza, that it is already weakening due to the countless localized variants, and that it is no longer epidemic, but endemic with a mortality rate way lower than Influenza and Malaria.

But, instead of telling the people the danger is over, so they can relax, which would save the economy, save countless people from poverty, would diminish the escalating rates of abuse, domestic violence and suicide, and the out-of-control mental health disaster this has caused, on top of what was already a serious problem, governments increase the fear- and guilt induction, along with other measures that are intended to force every person to take a so-called vaccine that is highly dangerous.

The list of side effects alone screams “poisoning” to anybody with some medical background, which is why so many doctors, nurses and ambulance personnel are willing to give up their job. Knowing these are the least likely people to ever protest in any society, that alone should tell you enough.

But daily graphs and numbers that are not scientifically supported, are used to numb people into thinking that the infections are rising and the vaccine is safe, neither of which is true.

Despite the rapidly rising numbers of vaccine deaths and permanent injuries (only 5% of which is recorded as such and has already reached over 10,000 in Europe alone), there is now the notion of vaccinating young children.

The measures used to coerce and force people into this vax, is setting off alarm bells all over the planet, but those who are affected by this mass psychosis caused by the initial fear, cannot see that and that is, indeed, reminiscent of the mass psychosis that washed over Europe in the early 1930s.

Some of those bells include the fact that the manufacturers of the vax tried to hide the details for fifty years, that some doctors and hospitals refuse to treat people for other conditions or refuse to test in case somebody tests positive and they have to act on it, and that people who do develop a reaction in the vaccination centre, are left to their own devises, because calling an ambulance may scare away other people, while hospitals dismiss the connection and send victims home to die.

Then there’s the information deception with students hired as “fact checkers”, without any understanding of the big picture and context, and being used to dismiss the professors who are older and dare to speak out – because the younger ones are threatened that their career is over if they do. That is academia today.

The fact that the media has been told to stay quiet – and which they shamefully accepted – and that social media is censored, while daily scare messages inundate everybody’s living room without any proper science behind it.

Then the rushed amendments to laws that the public is not informed of in time, and which remove their liberties to the point where the government is threatening with policing the streets, forcing people to be picked up to be tested and treated (by which they don’t mean treat for the virus, but treat with the ‘vaccine’). Children being vaccinated against the will and without the consent of their parents (secretly at schools), never mind the increase in luring young people with goodies (like a university grant, ice cream and holidays).

But most of all, the refusal to even listen to opponents, except in token committees of which the members do not have the expertise to make informed decisions about the context and magnitude of the problem. The refusal to listen to doctors, chemists, vaccinologists, pharmacists, lawyers, philosophers, psychologists and statisticians, and that those who do speak out are silenced to the point that on December first, one was actually murdered immediately after broadcasting the dangers of the ‘vaccine’. Anybody seeing these signs should be completely alarmed.

Yet, governments dismiss the protests, because they “do not represent the majority”?

Actually, they do.

Sure, most people don’t take to the streets; they have been threatened. But 15,000 lawyers, doctors and scientists in the Nuremberg tribunal, another 50,000 signatories of people with knowledge in the fields, in addition to millions of people taking to the streets around the world, far outnumber the world’s politicians and members of the WHO.

You claim a global virus, a global response, the “world” health organization and follow the example of global politicians. Then you also have to count the world’s opponents, and millions of protesters ARE a MAJORITY.

Besides, those are the people who understand the topic, because they are diverse, because they come from all disciplines, because they talk with each other and share information. The collective voices of the public are diverse views.  

One man with one diploma and a status, who takes his advice from a few specialists who are only focused on their own academic topic, is only one perspective, one opinion and psychologically speaking, the director general is inclined to stick with the tried and true and with authority, while this is not a tried-and-true situation.

If you want to vaccinate the children, we need the personal, verbal and answerable promise of the director general that this new campaign will not cause any deaths, because proper vaccines do not kill children. We need the absolute guarantee, backed by proper science, research and analysis, that the following can be 100% negated.

The following being this:

The murdered chemist, Andreas Noack, said that the molecule the mRNA is wrapped in, so that it will be absorbed by the cells, is sharp “like a razor”. Normally, that is not a problem if the substance is injected into the muscular tissue, but if it touches a blood vessel it could end up in the bloodstream. This is not about intravenous injecting, but about accidentally hitting a tiny capillary that is in the tissues. Those are so tiny, they cannot be avoided, so that it is hit and miss in any injection, and in normal circumstances that would be no worse than a tiny scratch on the skin. But with this nano-molecule being so tiny, it can enter the vessel and it being so sharp starts cutting into the blood cells. THAT is where the blood clots come from that eventually hit the heart or lungs and cause death.

Now, I am not a chemist or doctor, but I am putting 1 and 1 together. IF it is mostly young boys and athletic people who have these side effects, then it is not because they have underlying conditions, but because the injection is more likely to hit a capillary than in more bulky people in which the fat cells may give protection. That also means that, if you are going to inject tiny children, who tend to have very little fat cells, you are increasing this risk enormously.

I may be totally wrong and I welcome all input, but the risk is too big to dismiss the theory until it has been 100% ruled out by all those who can know and not just those with a title.

For now, we are talking about a medical experiment that is getting totally out of control and which potentially will be lethal to thousands of children. In the face of this knowledge and theory, to continue without ensuring that this is not the case, would be murder!

I understand that the politicians and the director-general act with the best of intentions and with the hope of eradicating the virus, but Jacinda, goddamn it, you have a child, do you really want to be instrumental to the deaths of those of others?

Ideology has to stop somewhere. A world without viruses would lead to a stagnation in evolution. We need these things, and this one is manageable. Let the people who know what they are doing manage it. Listen to the people. That is your job!


I will try and keep this short, but this goes to the core of the ethical and moral dilemmas the world is facing today, and although obvious to some people, others might need some time to think things over. It is a psychological reality that no person can accept ideas that are totally new to them. They need to be open to the need for change and some take longer than others. This is one of the main reasons that governments are apparently oblivious to the solutions that are everywhere; they have made up their minds and are not listening to doctors, lawyers, teachers, psychologists – not to the people.

This post is meant to give hope to those who are in protest, to give insight to those who are on the fence, frightened and not sure, and maybe help open the door a tiny little crack for those who don’t want to know, but can no longer ignore the situation. And maybe I can explain the feeling of helplessness that so many people feel when they realize their loved ones have different ideas than they do.  

It won’t be so bad…

Let me start by saying that I was paid compensation some twenty years ago for hardships suffered during WWII, although those hardships had actually been my mother’s, who lost many members of her family in the concentration camps.

I have often wondered how it was possible for the situation then to get so bad so quickly. I have often wondered why so many people stood by and let happen what did, carried on with their daily life, trying to make the best of it. I recall a story of my grandmother going to the house of her mother-in-law every morning to make sure “she was still there”. I have often wondered what I would have done. Would I have believed it wouldn’t be so bad… until it was.

I am not a doctor, but I do have a medical education and I was trained to be able to make diagnoses and assessments “where there is no doctor” (i.e., in rural areas in developing countries). That means making decisions at the spur of the moment when that is all you can do, because there are no protocols, no supplies and nobody else to ask.

This is equivalent to what physicians in the world are faced with today, in light of this virus. Some are doing really well using observation and continuous adjustment to keep their patients alive, while those who follow protocol are having much less success, mostly because they dare not make decisions that are outside of the book; they are indecisive and wait too long (possibly for fear of repercussions).

I have been out of physical healthcare for a long time already, and have since studied philosophy, education and psychology, and in all my writing (books and blogs) I have been trying to convey that if we keep voting for popular people to run countries, we are heading for disaster, that political decisions are just as much bound to fail if they stick with protocol in the face of an emergency as are medical decisions, and that democracy cannot work in a crisis. Until recently I meant specifically the environmental crisis and the mental health crisis, but this virus has made my point much more clearly than I managed to do.

Radical or evil?

My problem is that I am very attuned to the big picture and in doing so, my writing is often too far removed from their daily concerns for most readers if there is no immediate crisis, and I am accused of being too radical when I try to warn against the weaknesses of the democratic system. Then, when things fall apart, as they are now, they get so angry that they think I am not radical enough when I try to explain the root of the problem rather than start shouting “evil” with them. Nevertheless, the speed of the recent deterioration of common sense in the world of Covid surprised even me. Today has answered the questions I asked when young… all but one: Will it really not be so bad as then?

Luckily, I found some wonderful people, who are no more willing to sit back and take it all than I am, and around the world, people have been standing up, demonstrating, calling out the politicians who have betrayed them, and in some cases, those people are winning step by step – which is no guarantee that those governments will not turn around again and turn on their people.

For now, I can still explain what is happening in terms of the problems of democracy and psychology. But we need to be aware how quickly things can escalate, because that happened before, didn’t it?

Don’t use the Hitler example again?

In many ways, we face a similar situation as the people in Europe did in the thirties, when some became corroborators and others became outcasts, but most (including politicians) didn’t know what to believe and were mostly frightened. I always use ENFJ as an example for why personality type does not imply good or bad. And I want to stress again that Hitler, as well as Martin Luther King Jr, were the same psychological type as Jacinda. That is because psychology is NOT about what you think or do about specific topics, but about how you deal with information, and in this case, about being able to motivate others. Yet these personalities, who are great leaders and motivators that put their heart and soul into their cause, are also very sensitive to praise and will rather easily go against their own moral values when the pressure is on. Is that what is happening now?  

Despite the objections of those who prefer not to think about it (and, thus, wait until it is too late), we do have a right to make this comparison to World War II. The Danish people have only just managed to get the law revoked that would have openly made it a dictatorship that threatened their lives and freedom with forced medications and isolation – which resembles the concentration camps. The people in Australia are facing a similar situation, as their government has already confiscated homes and possessions and frozen bank accounts – as they did to those considered no longer desirable in Nazi Europe. Elsewhere, teachers are indoctrinating children in classrooms with the message that their parents are evil – like in the Hitler Jugend camps. Those are the worst cases, but most other countries are covertly turning toward similar dictatorial decrees, despite claiming to be democracies and despite having signed the declaration of human rights.

That declaration was written in 1948 with the intention of preventing a Hitler from ever happening again, but today it is happening and politicians are violating the moral law they signed in name of ‘national security’. – I have written many posts about the specific articles of that declaration and won’t repeat that here.

The state and your body

The reason politicians do this has to do with their ingrained assumption that individuals must sacrifice for the group and that the group equals the nation, which they have control over.

And that brings me to the first cause of this pending global disaster: The job of a government is the nation. They do NOT care about you as an individual. They are not there to represent you; they represent “the people”, by which they mean the mob, the majority, the mediocrity. And their objective in all its institutions (especially education and judicial) is to keep this mob behaving and thinking as one. Hence the fear-induction and the use of guilt – both of which detrimental to mental health.

The nation, as an entity, needs to be preserved and whoever suffers in the pursuit of this is seen as “collateral damage”; they even use those words. I have said this before, the nation is a collection of individual people, like you as a person are a collection of individual cells. When you get ill and take antibiotics against invading bacteria, you do not care about the healthy body cells that also die. Likewise, if you abuse your body with substances or dangerous behaviour, you don’t care about the individual cells that suffer, but you will care once groups of those cells get together and become ill in protest. Just as unhealthy bodies create illness in the cells, so unhealthy societies create mental illness in its members. And whether at war with other nations or with a virus, to the nation the individual people are not of importance, only the winning is: the numbers.

That is why they publish those statistics daily, and why the politicians, no matter how much they express sympathy and personal messages and no matter how many memorials they set up to commemorate those ‘collateral’ losses, are speaking for the nation, for the bigger entity.

Most of them are not aware of this, no more than most individuals in the population are. But if they say “protect the people”, they mean protect the nation.

But what about teaching them?

Schools exist to instill in children the beliefs of the state. That is why home-education is forbidden in so many countries; that is why teachers are often so limited in what they are allowed to teach, that is why curriculums are written by the state. That is why children in Victorian times learned that only the aristocracy was capable of leadership and children in the Middle Ages were taught by church schools.

That is also why the academic system is so slow to accept change, why every paradigm shift takes decades, because new ideas are not assessed on their own merit, but on the merit of those who have made their career on the old ideas; they decide who gets a diploma, they have the last word and they are the people who are consulted to advice governments. Today’s only accepted view is that a collection of detachable physical organs is all there is to people; that their mind is just a by-product of their brain and that, therefore, these minds do not really count. Every system is designed to keep those at the top and their ideas in power and our establishment is still stuck in 20th century reductionism and materialism.

Children today learn that having a voice is equivalent to an anonymous vote, which means they are free and equal, and that the only alternative is tyranny.

NO, it is not!

But why then, you might ask, do not all individuals protest or not protest? Why are we divided?

That has to do with our psychological diversity, which directs how we relate to our environment and how much of that schooling we accept or dismiss. Half the people in any population – so that this transcends gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, culture and religion – naturally feel that the group (community, family, nation) is the bigger entity and has, therefore, the right to decide, to hand out rights and to demand individual lives for its survival. This is why many people say that soldiers who ‘gave’ their life for their country are heroes. The other half of any population sees nature as this bigger entity and only it has the right to hand out rights and decide over lives. That is why many protesters are saying that it is better to die from a virus than at the hands of the government and its forced jabs.

Remember that this is a feeling we have inside – it is our inborn sense of justice, which cannot be defined, objectivized or put into law – it is about the relationship of our inner Self with the group and that cannot be changed.

However, not everybody in the first group feels that the community means the political nation. Many connect to their families, culture or community in this way, and many are not okay with the government invading people’s private lives.

And that brings me to the second point.

Politicians are doing a job for which they are paid (and often paid excessively), and the job description reads “organizing public life”. There is no justification anywhere, and no linguistic ambivalence in which “public life” can be equated with people’s personal bodies.

That is not to say that they didn’t violate that many times before.

But we let them, didn’t we?

Every time you vote in a democracy, because you want to vote for freedom, you are actually voting to allow politicians to take away your individuality.

Everybody who belongs to a minority and who votes in elections is voting to be discriminated against.

Every time a comedian jokes about “lizards” and when people claim that “power corrupts” they still go back and vote to keep these people doing that.

I call that the battered spouse syndrome. Most people prefer to keep suffering what they have rather than try something new… until it is too late. Until the aggressive husband kills his wife or the children. And that is what they are threatening to do now.

What? Too radical again?

Nearly everybody in the western world has grown up with a series of myths that are so ingrained in them that nobody questions them anymore, including those who believe they have the right to decide over other people’s lives because they won a popularity contest.

Yet, despite the generally accepted notion that we have ancient Greece to thank for our freedom and democracy, both Plato and Aristotle, who so often disagreed about other topics, were radically against the democracy; it didn’t work, and that was in a time when each individual voice was still allowed to speak. Later philosophers, equally divided at other points, like John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant, totally agreed that democracy is mob tyranny.

My writing, based in psychology, information theory and evolution theory, aims to debunk the current assumptions people have internalized, in this case by showing that an alternative is possible and that true leadership has some very distinct traits that are not negotiable. Today’s politicians have told themselves that they are leaders, that leaders sometimes make unpopular decisions and that they are therefore in their right to do what they are doing now.

Yes, true leaders make unpopular decisions, because it is not possible to please everybody. However, a true leader is transparent, they don’t hide behind deceptions, don’t change their mind every few days, explain their reasoning and if they are good leaders, they allow people a voice rather than a vote.

And yes, I have written many stories in which I allow for autocratic rule, but I did that to show that just as much as democracy can be tyranny (the tyranny of the mob), so autocracy can be free, because it does NOT need the military to support it. Good leadership can achieve consent without threats, without lies, without passports or warnings or isolation.

Does power corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolutely?

Corruption happens because those who are not capable of a job make mistakes and then try to patch that up and accept bribes to save face. Being voted in for repeating what the mob wanted to hear – and therefore being followers and not leaders – is what gets politicians in government. They can’t see the far-reaching effects of their actions, which means they make mistakes and then resort to lies and deceptions. They lack the at the spur of the moment decision-ability, because they want popular support. An absolute ruler has no need to save face and can be honest.

That does not mean I prefer autocracy; my preference, as clearly outlined in my book, is typocracy (but it is way too early for that).

In any case, I want people to have a voice and not a deception: not a vote, which allows them to fill in a piece of paper, which gets ignored and then told that they have to shut up because they had their say. In a good leadership system, people have a voice, which means that they are listened to, but also that they have to have something sensible to say; they have to reason their choices, not just shout and see who is loudest.

I use the example of paying to get admitted somewhere and we each bring our little golden nugget, which is the cost. But the representatives simply collect them and count them, but they do not notice that most people bring fools’ gold; they do not notice that fake opinions are not reasoned opinions but rather mob-based sentiments or empty agreements.

So, we did not have a say. Not one person who voted in the elections for this government voted for forced invasion of their bodies, for inadequate early treatment for a disease that can be handled by competent physicians, for having their bank account frozen, their children removed or threatened, their person imprisoned and their livelihood removed for disobedience.

Meanwhile, those popular candidates are driving the population apart; they set up teachers against parents, employers against employees, businesses against their clients, doctors against their patients and parents against their children. They are throwing a wedge between family members and then dare to talk about mental health.

Is that corruption, deception, desperate clawing at straws, plain stupidity or evil?

I still choose to believe that it is fear-induced ignorance and the inability to lead, but I could be wrong. There are so many discrepancies in the statements of the politicians and their behaviour. For example, there is no justification for isolating their country and then going on a holiday abroad, allegedly to attend a climate conference. Besides, if they choose to keep an army, which practices with destructive weapons that kill wildlife, they obviously do not care about the environment. They can’t have it both ways. So, what are they really discussing at that conference?

For now, I do not agree with those who say the politicians set out to be dictators and are only in it for power. But that is the scary part, because that means that it is that easy to change the well-intended intentions of popular candidates to be open to totalitarianism in the face of fear. They are THAT easily influenced and one after the other shows that those influencers are the big pharmaceutical industries.

Neither do I agree that this is a plot meant to force communism and that we need to make sure to get back to democracy. Communism, like capitalism, is an economic (not political) distinction, and like democracies and autocracies (and all other ‘cracies’), it can be equal and fair or it can be oppressive.

Democracy, as said above, was never free, equal or brotherly. What we see today IS democracy; it is the rule of the (frightened) mob. What we see today is what democracy looks like the moment a crisis appears. Look at history: Hitler got 92% of the democratic vote – and no, those numbers were not falsified. Don’t let your school indoctrination fool you.

But majority vote is justice… the judge will make sure justice is done.

No, it is not and they won’t. Judges do not deal with justice; they deal with lawfulness. A judge makes sure the law is upheld, but the government makes the law, and only if there is strong opposition or a vote of no confidence, will a judge turn against the government. High court judges have had months, apparently, and they are still on the fence.

Justice is an ethical concept. No one person, no matter their social status, job or personality, has the final say in what that is. Justice is what you feel inside right now. It is what makes you angry when you feel attacked on your inner values; it is what makes you protest in anger and others angry at you for protesting. People experience a different sense of justice inside and that is due to the way their mind processes information, which is inborn. Thus, you might find yourself at odds with your loved ones, because all conflict, whether interpersonal or between the individual and the society, is a direct result of this diversity.

The other side of the coin, of course, is that we have progress. If we were all psychological clones, we’d live in peace, but dogmatic and stagnant lives.

But different personalities are naturally better suited for different jobs and those suited for detail work and legislation are not necessarily good at making decisions and strategy, yet the democratic system insists they have to be one and the same person. THAT is why we are having the problems we have today.

A national virus?

In short, there is no medical or logical reason to besiege the country from within against a virus that does not acknowledge national borders. There is no justification for the numbers of heart attacks, lung collapses, strokes and heart failure in children, nerve damage and other side effects to be written off as coincidental rather than be added to the statistics of the jab.

There is no ethical justification, and there never will be, for putting a country in a state of war against a virus. There is no moral justification either, because national security is not at risk when you cannot achieve herd immunity. And even if you could, the declaration of human rights clearly opposes any interference in people’s private lives, opinions, correspondence and their physical bodies. This declaration was written after WWII to prevent such atrocities from ever happening again, but today the UN is filled with ex-politicians who lack the personality for leadership, and they are using the declaration to rekindle those violations of human rights, in its name.

But as all their arguments fall apart, in the end all the governments have is soldiers to justify their power. That is called Might-makes-right morality. And unlike 76 years ago, this time there will be no claiming that they could not have known – hence my writing and that of many others – and there will be no saying, they were just doing their job.

I don’t blame anybody for being afraid, but everybody is in a dilemma and some have to make a choice. Doctors have to decide whether to allow patients a chance or follow outdated protocols. The police have to choose: be individuals with a family or tools for the state and the oppression?

When the people win – as they recently did in Denmark – these governments that fell so easily should not be allowed to carry on. There is no doubt in my mind that the opposition would have done the same thing, or else there would be many more diverse outcomes around the world, but to set an example, the people should demand that those governments that were willing to sell them out to tyranny are not allowed to keep being paid for their incapability.

In any case, I want to add congratulations to those people who have put so much effort into bringing the case to their judges (even if in vain) and for standing up for freedom, because freedom is also an ethical concept and it lives in people’s hearts – NOT in nations – and together these people form a community, even if they sometimes disagree about the details.

Thank you for reading.

The State Against the People

Open Letter to the Government, November 2nd, 2021.

I choose this medium, because it has more chance of reaching members of government than a letter to the government directly.

I do not know about other members of government, but I do know that Jacinda understands enough of type psychology to know that people are diverse, that this is inborn and that this affects their sense of community and justice.

You represent the nation, I get that. And as such, your concern is with how the nation as a whole functions and how it looks to other such nations. In the case of this disease, it is about the numbers of deaths from the virus against the numbers of deaths from the vaccine, and just like in a war against another nation, you care for those numbers, while individuals are “casualties” or “collateral damage”.  

Like it or not, that is simply a function of how information works and how the nation as a system is a step up from the individual. And just like in any war, the propaganda for both sides will influence those numbers and be influenced by them, so what we are actually fighting here is not a war against a virus, but a war of propaganda.

What that means is that, currently, you promote the vaccine, because that makes you win the war. In this case a jab instead of a missile, but the idea is the same. It doesn’t matter if that missile hits a school with little children in another country, for they are the enemy so their lives don’t count. – Remember that this is the perspective of the nation, not that of individual people (including politicians). But you are the voice of the nation.

However, if the missile is poorly constructed and could come down on your own people, you would remove it from your arsenal until a better one is found.

At the moment the viral problems are still considered more dangerous and this may get worse when you let it loose (especially if you refuse to give doctors license to treat people early). But there will come a moment when vaccine cases will exceed virus cases; you will lose the war. We already see that elsewhere.

What nations do in such cases, is run to the other side. Suddenly they find different allies and change their propaganda. The moment more people are casualties of the vaccine, you will suddenly change your laws, open your borders and consider the virus-related deaths as collateral damage, because you are still the nation and it is still about numbers and you still do not care about individual people.

Your problem, as I have cautioned, is that these individual people care about their own lives. In their heart (without fear-induction or school indoctrination), 50% of people – which means you do not have a majority – experiences the value of the community opposite of how most of you value it.

You (as a J) feel that the individual should be sacrificed in name of the group, because it is an entity in its own right and the individuals depend on if for their survival, just like our body cells will die if we do – although not everybody in this 50% translates that group to the political entity we call a nation.

However, the other half of any population feels (just as naturally and just as based in their inborn Self) that the group should prioritize the needs of every individual; that their survival depends on nature and only it is entitled to hand out rights and decide over life and death.

So, what you need to consider is how far you want to drive this, because for half the people, it is not okay to force your power, you do not know better, and no argument will ever make it so.

You can jump up and down and claim that “moral values” are about the group, but that is your personality talking in name of the nation – which is why you are in that job. However, half the people in the nation are not of your personality and for them revenge is ethical and coercion for compliance to the group is not.

And since justice is not a legal concept and not something objective that can be written down or made into a law, but lives in people’s hearts, it is stronger and more powerful. You have attacked at least half the population on their sense of justice, their existential belief, their reason for living, while claiming to represent their wishes. That is where all the fury comes from and the excessive comparison to ‘evil’.

When this virus was new and nobody quite knew what to expect, there was some justification for caution. But politicians focus on detail and the immediate effect of their decisions, not on the far-reaching consequences, and are especially sensitive to criticism, because voting is about popularity. Likewise, the Health Board fired a GP for referring people to colleagues when he didn’t feel comfortable giving the jab, in which he behaved exactly according to bio-ethical codes. But he got fired. What that tells the people is that the board knows the jab is not effective and not as safe as they say or else there is no need to fear criticism.

But NOBODY expected miracles. Every sensible New Zealander would have understood this could happen and would have accepted honesty and an apology. But what they got was lies, sudden changes to laws that are becoming more oppressive and no reasonable arguments to support this nor the chance to have their voice heard. When they ask questions, they get some civil servant, who does not understand the topic, repeating the sentences they have learned or dismissing the request out of hand. In other words, at the interface between people and politicians, the other voice is silenced by bureaucracy.

While the medical community is learning more about the virus and becoming more confident about how to prevent its danger, governments are setting the nation up against the people and denying psychological diversity. But you forget that the nation IS the people. Just like you cannot continuously abuse your physical body or else the cells it is made of get sick, so our nation is being made sick.

What worries me is that this clash of values between state and people will escalate and that those who represent the state will become the target of the retributive justice of that half of the population that is not like you. Then you have civil war. And all that because you are afraid – afraid to give the people some freedom to decide over their own lives and that of their kids, to admit that you didn’t have all the answers to this virus.

Who did?

All you need to do is make all treatment options available without repercussion and allow people to choose and sign a waiver of liability to protect doctors and others from the consequences.

Even if you cannot protect all people from this virus, at the very least you will be restoring a bit of mental health and a healthy mind is half the battle won.

Your job description, as members of government, reads “organizing public life”. Public life, no matter how you phrase it does not and will never include meddling in people’s private bodies, as outlined in article 12 of the UN Human Rights Declaration, which is a moral code you signed. This makes your action immoral according to your own values. 

And even article 29 – although it could be used to justify mask wearing and closing the borders (for a period of time) – is not applicable if you cannot achieve herd immunity with this jab.

No stricter rules can stop this virus; it is here to stay. We have to adapt; that is called evolution.

Yes, you are right, people’s choices have consequences for other people. Yours too and if you keep vaccinating, you are creating a new strain that may be even more virulent and more people will suffer. If you keep using fear induction, more people will get sick, because any virus or bacteria thrives on those who are stressed or anxious. 

I really appreciate what the government did at the start, and I have published that, but right now you need to accept that being a leader is not simply pushing unpopular opinions without answering people’s questions. Being a leader is not following other countries into a hype based on fear. Being a leader includes understanding your own psyche and limitations; if you don’t understand psychology, you have no business making decisions for people.

Being a leader means realizing that people are smart enough to make their own decisions. Over-regulation, over-protection will lead to disaster. “That government is best that governs least” (Thoreau).

As long as all our questions are done off by civil servants or by claims to faith beliefs (“trust us, what we tell you is true”) then you cannot blame people for resorting to more sinister explanations.

If there is pressure from outside, or, if you were not fully informed by the report from the pharmaceutical industry as the European Parliament MP for Rumania claims, because the report was not transparent, then at least be honest with the people here. Admit that you don’t know it all and that you picked what seemed the best option.

A good leader does not keep pushing in order to save face.

So be careful how much pressure you put on your doctors and servants, because even if your job is the nation and your concern is to keep the numbers positive for a win, those you consider casualties are human beings and they will find the human behind these decisions.

Is that really how you want to continue, with soldiers to protect your kids from possible revenge, because you sent soldiers after the kids of others?

Or can you take a step back and reconsider freedom and allow parents to decide for their own children, and people about their own bodies and physicians to make the choice whether to offer or refer and make all possible treatments available, even if they have not been pre-approved, because they give people a fighting chance? Because nobody knows for sure and no one option is safe, and THAT is why people make the choice for themselves.

Nobody expects miracles, but we do deserve respect.

Thank you for reading.

Mirjam Maclean (writing as Gina Poekeleen and Nōnen Títi)

Please Stop Feeding the Virus

I had closed down this blog, thinking I’d exhausted all topics, but in light of Covid, and especially the arguments for and against vaccination, it seems I was wrong. So allow me to make a plea for the only means we possess that can actually stop the pandemic.

And let me stress right now that I am neither talking about the virus or the vaccine and that this post does not take sides. It only means to clear up some persistent misunderstandings that are a direct result of the society we live in – a society that ignores a huge part of reality because it cannot be seen, and a society that is so focused on specialization and competition that it prefers to set people up against each other, rather than try and overcome this pandemic together.

The political and psychological explanations for this can be found in my other posts, both on this blog and my philosophical one. Here, I will deal purely with the current pandemic.

A virus is a bit of information. Whether it is alive or not has been debated and depends on your definition of life. Genetic scientists can isolate its DNA, which is also a bit of information; a small string of the code that is the basis of life. Thus, any virus is an entity made of information, but not all viruses are alike.

The vaccine they prepared for Covid is also a bit of information. It is matched as closely as possible to the virus, so that our bodies will recognize its sequence and target some of the mechanisms the virus uses to cause harm. In other words, it is intended to reduce the symptoms, and so, put less people into hospital or the morgue.  

However, it is not a vaccine like in your childhood illnesses, which were literally derived from the weakened virus. Those viruses do not mutate and hence, they entice your body to create antibodies (its own code) to recognize and destroy the virus would it come back. Thus, the vaccine protects you against that particular virus for the rest of your life, as if having been through the disease.  Vaccinating a population with a vaccine like that achieves mass immunity, since whatever body the virus comes in contact with, it gets destroyed and cannot spread.

But Covid, like Influenza, are different sorts of viruses. They mutate very rapidly and all the time. Having a very high reproduction rate, they can respond to us much faster than we can to them. What that means is that you cannot stop the virus from spreading, and having been vaccinated against one strain, does not guarantee immunity against the next. This we all know from seasonal “flu”, which is why some people get an influenza vaccine every year.

Yet information is not limited to substances that can be isolated and tested for a string of DNA. The information we encounter every day when communicating with people, whether in person or on the internet, is immaterial, and, therefore, faster even than the virus. The problem is that this sort of information – dismissed as irrelevant by an academic establishment that still embraces 20th century materialism – is currently used in aid of the virus, while it could be working against it, and both those for and those against vaccination are part of this misuse of information.

So, let me try and put some things in perspective.

First of all, governments are doing the best they can, but, as I explained many times before, it was only a question of time before we’d encounter a crisis which elected politicians, who are not by nature leaders, could not cope with. And I am afraid that this pandemic is not the worst disaster we’ll have to endure before people wake up to this.

So, for those of you who believe governments are deliberately trying to poison people or secretly implanting control devices, just think about it for a moment: If you were going to create a dictatorship with absolute control, the first requirement is that you are able to handle your own everyday business, and governments today cannot even manage that. Secondly, if they wanted to exercise mass control, they’d not have invested into buying an expensive vaccine, as well as needles and personnel; they’d have dumped it in your drinking water.

There is NO conspiracy, at least not from politicians. The vaccine is not meant to control or to kill.

However, it was manufactured in a rush and they did not test it for long-term effects, so that they cannot be sure what it will do. Vaccines are never totally safe. Just like the virus, some people will be worse off than others.

And of those of you who are for vaccinating everybody, who tend to act out of concern for the group, for people’s health as well as animal welfare, I have yet to meet a person who asked how many animals were killed in the pursuit of this rushed vaccine.  Or did you think they tested it on people first?

As always: DO NOT MIX up the system with the individual. Just as you (as the bigger system) are not interested in the life of the individual bacterium or cell (even of the healthy flora) that gets destroyed when you take antibiotics, so the system that is the nation is bigger and does not care about you as an individual.

Governments want everybody vaccinated, because their job is the group, the nation. They cannot see, and, in most cases, are not interested in the individual. Civil servants are not aware that many people are amassing medication for possible suicide in case the policing becomes too much; they believe the policing to help the group. They cannot feel the insults and personal attacks their rules cause in other people, because they do not relate to rules like that – just like you would not become a tool for the system.

Those who will die from the vaccine or from suicide (or violence) will be considered collateral damage. However, that does not mean that individual politicians or civil servants do not care about individual people, but their objective are the numbers, the majority, not the minority. And is that not why you voted?

In the pursuit of their goal, however, the representatives of the government will use immaterial information to their advantage. This means that they will dismiss problems that result from the vaccine and assign it other causes, while attributing any problem that happens simultaneously to the virus. And this reflects in the statistics that are published. Thus, if you have a heart attack caused by stress around an outbreak, you will be added to the Covid cases, but if it happens immediately after the vaccination, they will assign it unrelated. And most civil servants are not aware that they are doing this, so they will outright deny it, despite the numbers of those so-called unrelated cases getting bigger every day.

So what does this mean for Covid and vaccination?

As most governments are now finally admitting, the vaccine will not stop the infections, but they hope to make the symptoms less severe, so as to be able to cope and not overrun the emergency units; they want to save lives. And for many people that is good enough.

However, we will not achieve herd immunity if the infections are not stopped. People who have been vaccinated are still getting sick and are having symptoms, which means they can spread it – and not just to those who are not vaccinated.

And as long as herd immunity cannot be achieved, those who favour mass vaccination have no moral claim on others for their own protection. Each person must make the individual choice whether or not to take the risk of the virus or that of the vaccine. The virus isn’t great for the lungs, but the vaccine isn’t great for the heart. Therefore, an individual will make that decision according to their own experiences and existing health problems.

In short, ethically speaking, we all have the right to exercise our freedom of choice, and nobody has the right to tell others what to do. That is the freedom most people today preach. If a government makes vaccination a legal requirement, they will be acting against basic human rights and can be considered a tyranny. And that includes promising that people are free to choose, but then putting restrictions on their life or firing them from their job. In other words, they are using blackmail or repercussions to get compliance.

I must add that I still stand by my earlier post about the NZ government doing the right thing originally. Nobody knew exactly how dangerous this virus was, so at that point their actions were justified and once back at level 1, the whole country enjoyed a more or less normal life for nearly a year. It is the latest reaction that seems over the top and brings the risk of seeing lockdown as the easy option for every infectious agent. The problem, once again, is that most politicians do not have the personality type to be able to see the long-term or far-reaching consequences of their actions. And, when it later turns out that a new wave of the virus actually harms those vaccinated, they will deny any responsibility. That is not freedom.

Yet it tends to be exactly those who preach freedom, who are, from a psychological perspective, the most likely to also preach herd immunity; to use public morality (peer pressure) to try and force others into getting vaccinated, and they do that out of fear – either fear for their own life based on the mistaken understanding that herd immunity is possible, or fear for those they love.

Those who made the personal choice, whether for health reasons or out of principle, not to get the vaccine, feel personally attacked by this judgment and retaliate.

Consequently, the immaterial information going around the internet (and in families) is starting to become nasty with judgments. But judgment hurts, even if in the form of cute analogies or jokes, and it causes anxiety and stress, which weakens the body. And the virus loves nothing more than a body in a state of weakness. In other words, those who will succumb to the virus or the vaccine, are exactly those who are experiencing stress and anxiety.

At the start of the pandemic, everybody went in a panic, and people dropped dead on the streets. Since the storm settled, of the people infected only small numbers die; the rest gets over it, just like with influenza. Likewise, each time governments put out statistics about how many more new cases in an area, the number suddenly goes up in big leaps – they are literally feeding the virus – until the fear dies down.

You don’t believe the mind can be that strong? Just look up St Vitus Dance.

The best defense against both virus and vaccine, is a stress-free mind and a healthy body. Therefore, those who are spreading negative judgment or fear (and that includes governments), are helping to spread the virus and cause death.  

So this post is a plea for all people to begin with understanding how information spreads (whether virus, vaccine, fear, hope or judgment).

The vaccine, even if it is not very powerful against the virus, works for the vast majority of people, not because it kills the virus, but because it gives them peace of mind, and there is NOTHING wrong with that.

Anybody who understands information and psychology (the mind) knows that the placebo effect is the strongest safe medicine you can get and the best defense against virtually anything.

That the pharmaceutical industry is in control of academia and has turned contemporary psychology into a materialist science, so as to be able to keep feeding people tablets for their fear and anxiety, does not mean the immaterial mind does not exist.

However, judgment about what people should do and expressing that, no matter how much everybody promotes freedom of speech, is actually spreading stress, fear and vulnerability to the virus.

So I ask all people, regardless of which side of the debate you are on, to consider that information has an interesting quality: it grows when given attention. Therefore, focusing our attention away from the virus, from the fear, from the numbers, from each other, is the only means of truly stopping this pandemic.

Thank you for reading.

Closing Post for Judgment Hurts

Dear Readers,

I have been writing Judgment Hurts since 2012 and I feel that I have probably said everything I want to say on the topic and that it is time to move on.

I will leave the blog up as it is, and maintain my Facebook page.

I want to thank all of you who liked, followed and commented on my posts for your support, and please keep spreading the word: Judgment Hurts, especially when spoken. If we wish to create a peaceful society, we must act with tolerance and understanding toward each other.

Personaly, I will continue to send this message and explain those differences on my psychotype blog ,as well as in my books, both as Nōnen Títi and Gina Poekeleen.

For it is our inborn psychotype differences (not gender, ethnicity, orientation, group beliefs or nationality) that cause judgments, usually with the best of intentions, as we tend to believe that all people must benefit from our beliefs the way we do. Yet, we are different; that cannot be changed. That makes us diverse, resilient, progressive, intelligent and caring as a species (the flipside of conflict).

Over the Invisile Wall

I also have two Facebook groups:

Who am I? Understanding Personality Types is connected to our Wellington Meetup group about psychotypes, but you don’t have to live in Wellington to become a member of our Facebook group.

Serious about Fiction is for those interested in fiction as a serious pursuit and to create a better world. This group is meant to discuss fiction in all its diversity, but not to be used as an advertising medium, although you can share your book as a means of discussion.

Thank you for reading; thank you for not judging; thank you for being you.

p.s. All my books are available in print from RealNZ Books

And as eBooks (both ePub and Kindle) from meBooks

You can also directly go to Amazon.com

Judgment by Legislation

Violence by Civilians and Police

We are having a pretty rough time in the world today and I am not just talking about a virus that is innocent of any malicious will and simply trying to survive.

The rough times come with the riots, the violence and the inhibition of human rights that are inappropriate for the situation, and are in many countries imposed after the danger is largely over, which suggests an agenda different than protecting the people from a virus.

In the absence of such an agenda, the politicians making such decisions are simply not capable of leadership.

I live in New Zealand, so I will take my example from there, but with the explicit notion that circumstances here are a lot better than in many countries and that the COVID situation was handled well.

But two things happened in New Zealand in short succession recently. Some thugs shot a police man dead and some thug police officers used extreme and unnecessary violence in apprehending people.

The PM went on social media expressing her sadness for the loss of the police man, but I did not hear any official response to the violence by policemen.

So, what is the government saying? What is any government saying with laws that promote police violence and openly state that the lives of people in uniform are worth more than that of civilians? That those who are supposedly there to protect the public, are more valuable than the members of that public.

Sure, they don’t outright say it, but any law or judicial court that believes it right to punish civilians harder for hurting a police officer than a police officer for hurting a civilian, is saying it, even if not explicitly so. The message to the officers is, that they will probably get away with their violence, because the judge is on their side (after all they work for the same state) and the message to the civilians is that you won’t stand a chance if you disagree with the police, and therefore that justice will never be served.

That is the message people grow up with. That is then made worse when such inequality of human worth also includes ethnic differences.

Why do such laws exist?

The police are said to “protect and serve”, suggesting their job is protecting the public and serving them, which is what kids are told at school, but that is a deception: They serve the state and they protect the state.

The state is only interested in obedience from the public at large – its identity is made up of an image of identical “nationals” – which they try to enforce with threats rather than outright violence.

Such threats include incidents such as where the police or soldiers abuse individuals, because that sends a message to the rest of the people, a message of fear, while counting on the idea that most people will not care about the few abused individuals if they did not know them personally.

Most of the time, that is exactly what happens, but sometimes you get a global response, like when the atrocious behaviour of the police in the US sparked the global BLM movement and has, in that sense, created a lot of awareness in a short period of time.

But how to maintain that awareness?

By telling people the truth.

However, not just in schools, but even at university level, it is openly taught that judicial repercussions are there to “deter” others from potential misbehaviour. This expresses a focus on using the individual as a means to an end rather than hold each individual responsible for their own actions. – Children are taught that “criminal” is about doing wrong, which is not true: it is only about doing something unlawful. If the law says you are allowed to kill somebody because of the colour of their skin, then it is lawful to do so, but that does not make it right. Judicial courts are about lawful, not about justice. If the law says police are entitled to more protection than civilians, then that is the law, but not just.

As explained before, politicians are not natural leaders, leadership is not equivalent to being in power, and words and actions based on “national security” express an interest to protect the state from the people.

Whether politicians are unwilling or not capable, either way, they are not suited for the job. Of course, the politicians are not the only ones responsible for the disaster our world is facing. We have long known that democracies cannot deal with crises, and that has become only too obvious over the last four months.

Therefore, all the people that keep such systems in place, by voting for politicians who are not leaders or by allowing such imposition where there is no reason, are helping incapable politicians abuse their power.

The people committing violent actions as a group, act largely because of their uniform. Uniforms protect them against individuality. We see this not just in the police, but in the military, in school bullies (especially uniform schools) and in gangs; exactly those institutions that reward blind obedience and punish individuality. The police man may be a decent guy when at home, but once in a group, they act as a group. Vandalism by kids is almost always committed when they are in a group and in uniform.

Of course, if you protest the government, especially in countries that openly flaunt police and military power, you may risk your life or freedom, since those powers are hired to enforce obedience at any cost.

So, we must start in countries where there is still a willingness to make things better on the part of the governments, where they may simply be unaware, but with the best of intentions.

The first step to creating awareness and helping to create better leadership, therefore, is to help the public see this: the voters. In the past, when there was no internet, children were completely indoctrinated by schools and many of them still believe the stories they were told then.

But we now do have an internet and we can help people learn the truth. So, let us start there: create awareness.

Violence is always wrong, but sometimes people are driven to it and laws that promote the deceptions and inequality based on obedience, are the poison that creates the violence against those in uniform.

The murdered policeman may have been a good family guy, who had done nothing to deserve being shot, but many of the people who are violated by police or end up in prison, did nothing wrong either, except disagree with the state or respond to discrimination and inequality by the state, which led them to seeking revenge. This may be a slower process, but nobody begins life as a criminal.

We need to remember that violence creates violence and oppression creates revenge. Judgment hurts, after all, so if you hurt or discriminate a person often enough, they will lash out. That is called survival instinct.

Smart leaders prevent that by creating respect.

If the government wants to express its good will, then the abused civilians must also be mentioned on social media by the PM, and if you want people to respect each other, the government has to start with respecting all people. The first thing that has to go is the law of inequality (apartheid) between those in uniform and those without. That is a simple measure any government with good intentions can achieve.

Thank you for reading.


The US is a disaster. Many countries in Europe are acting as if dictatorships. Many politicians are openly declaring tyrannical measures and say those are justified. The Netherlands is on the brink of revolution against ignorant politicians. Even in countries that returned to virtually normal, like New Zealand, the military is suddenly called in.

Some of that is probably because of, or started with, ignorance. Too many people think of viruses like they do of bacteria: a life form that can be eradicated, which is nonsense. The lockdown and social distancing was always only going to work as a short term measure, so as to give the medical facilities the chance to cope.

In addition to the draconian measures many governments are trying to enforce, there is the fear of the vaccine and that it will be forced. Again, that is based on people believing that viruses can be killed. But viruses are not alive the way people are; they are not living beings. In some definitions, they qualify as life, because they use two-way communication and adapt, but in other definitions, they are not considered alive. What they are, are bits of information and the vaccine is there to give our bodies the code to lock the doors in time so as to prevent the virus from even getting in. If you catch a viral disease, your body does the same thing, but the defence is slower because the code (and lock) has to be derived from the virus first.

Right now, governments that act either on panic, fear or ignorance, are causing more danger to mental and physical health than if they relax the measures. Some of those governments may be trying to create a dictatorship, simply because that gives them power over the economic crisis they have, themselves, caused.

We need to remember a few things: War and tyranny are nearly always a response to an economic or environmental crisis, whether the rulers caused that or not. Those working in law enforcement and the military must make the decision NOW, whether they want to support such regimes, because they are the ones who make those possible. No war and no tyranny can exist without those who enforce their ideas.

They must remember that helping the enforcement puts them on equal terms with, for example, the SSrs in WWII. Same for the health workers who, instead of treating patients, are willing to be used to enforce testing or vaccines, like the doctors in the concentration camps did. Those were also caring doctors before the war, and suddenly they find themselves doing things they never thought they would. Remember that the psychology of people does not change, regardless of the time and circumstances. People will do strange things out of fear, such as dob each other in, because the governments make that easy. That is fear induction, so do not fall for it.

And let us not get complacent. During the 1930s most people also said it would not be that bad; “just wait and it will all blow over”, but a little bit of studying history, and you know that it will not. Not speaking out now, is aiding the oppression. The virus is never going to be as dangerous as governments with absolute power.

Let us all be sensible together.

Using the military to enforce laws is by definition declaring war on the people. You cannot justify doing this and still say you act because of public health.

All the people of the world: We have the internet now. We can actually communicate and stop governments abusing their power, a chance the people in the past never had. Please stand up as one: all the people against those who try to oppress them. Try to do this without violence. Remember, they need their nations in order to be rulers, but we do not need them.