Part of an ongoing series of philosophical reflections on the corona pandemic

In this strange interstice of time, we found ourselves facing a curious anomaly. The term ‘vaccine’—historically a symbol of invincible protection—was now bestowed upon a novel medical intervention that bore little resemblance to its forebears. This ‘vaccine’, unlike its ancestors, did not promise the gift of lifetime immunity with a single administration. It was a prodigal son, deviating from the ancestral lineage, and in doing so, it questioned our understanding, the very semantics we relied upon to navigate our world.

Indeed, the conversation encircling the ‘vaccinated’ and ‘unvaccinated’ began to feel like an impromptu theatre, a farcical pantomime donned with juvenile simplicity. Yet, beneath this pantomime, a more ominous undercurrent flowed. It was not merely an exercise in language, an academic debate of semantics. It was the stage upon which the dramas of personal freedom and societal structure unfurled.

As the stage lights intensified, another quandary made its entrance. Amid the clamor for vaccination, news of a medicine—one purported to prevent 95% of hospitalizations—whispered through the wings, only to be held back, entangled in the strings of approval. A strange dichotomy came into focus—the frenzied pursuit of vaccination standing shoulder to shoulder with an apparent hesitation to authorize a life-saving medication.

Suddenly, the incessant cries to attain an 80% coverage with this chimeric ‘vaccine’, an intervention lasting no more than six fleeting months against a chameleon-like cold, were swept away as if by some magical wind. The wind whispered in the same breath that carried “Covfefe”, a term made famous for its enigmatic ambiguity. Abruptly, the looming specter of hospitalizations vanished, and with it, the very problem seemed to dissolve into thin air.

Covfefe

In the bewildering rush of events, the simple inquiries I had voiced in the May of 2020 remained unanswered, hovering like specters in the background. The essence of these questions was elementary—if the threat of Covid was indeed real, where were the anticipated cataclysms in densely populated nations such as India? Surely, a viral nemesis as formidable as projected would have unleashed havoc in such places, leaving a wake of millions of lost souls.

Yet, as the clock hands keep turning, the echo of these questions lingers in the air, much like a melody long after the last note has been struck. The tale of the pandemic, with its peculiar ‘vaccines’ and vanishing crises, continues to unfold—a tale as enigmatic as the word ‘Covfefe’ itself.

This situation urges us to scrutinize the parameters that define a ‘vaccine’ and a ‘vaccinated’ individual. It implores us to question whether we have succumbed to the ideological machinations of a dystopian narrative, reducing complex realities to simplistic dichotomies of ‘vaccinated’ versus ‘unvaccinated’. Ultimately, the pandemic asks us to engage deeply with our sociopolitical realities, to resist the lure of simplistic binaries, and to uphold the principles of precise, non-commercial application of language and concepts.

In short, these reflections echo a collective cry for precision, transparency, and compassion. We are not ‘vaccine zombies’; we are thoughtful individuals, capable of questioning and shaping our socio-medical realities. Fabio Vighi, an Italian philosopher and film theorist, challenges the standard narrative surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic in his essay “A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Systemic Collapse and Pandemic Simulation.”

Drawing on a Lacanian psychoanalytic perspective, Vighi posits that the response to the COVID-19 pandemic may be symptomatic of an underlying societal desire for systemic change. He questions the prevalent economic structures and the systemic issues that COVID-19 has unveiled. For Vighi, the pandemic has exposed the fragility of the global economic system and has intensified the push towards its restructuring.

Follow the Money

In line with Vighi’s viewpoint, this analysis suggests that the pandemic, and the response to it, may be less a random catastrophe than a symptom of a larger societal and systemic shift. It posits that our understanding and reaction to the pandemic are embedded within larger ideological, economic, and political structures. This perspective urges us not just to question the specific measures undertaken to combat the virus, but also to reflect on the deeper structural transformations these measures might signify. Thus, as thoughtful individuals, our task extends beyond scrutinizing immediate pandemic responses to critically engaging with the broader sociopolitical realities they reflect and precipitate.`

In the Netherlands, a beacon of journalistic integrity flickers brightly amidst a sea of media contrivance; this beacon is a website known as ‘Follow the Money.’ It is a sanctuary for journalists who value rigorous and unbiased investigation over succumbing to the allure of product placements from multinational pharmaceutical corporations. These dauntless journalists have long ago laid bare the corrupt practices within the ‘Outbreak Management Team’ (OMT), although, regrettably, their revelations have elicited no consequences.

A recently unveiled exposé further sheds light on the dubious dealings of the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), unveiling its adoption of ‘scientific models’ from the Tony Blair Institute. These models, to the informed eye, bear a striking resemblance to impromptu calculations one might jot down on a beer mat. It is a disconcerting spectacle to behold, the masquerade of populism parading as science – a form of populism that poses unprecedented perils to our society.

We mustn’t forget that it was this same political group that deceived the world with their tales of non-existent ‘weapons of mass destruction.’ Astonishingly, we now find ourselves acquiescing to the same ignominious war criminal, granting him yet another opportunity to pull the wool over our eyes via his influential lobby group that also steers the direction of our RIVM.

In this vortex of conflicts—The War on Terror, The War on Covid, The War on Putin—one may discern a recurring theme of ceaseless warfare. For those intrigued by this observation, I commend to you the insights of Fabio Vighi, specifically his poignant essay in the ‘Philosophical Salon’ titled ‘From Covid-19 to Putin-22: Who Needs Friends With Enemies Like These?’

The Digital Euro

Let us then shift our focus to the impending arrival of the ‘digital euro’ and ‘digital identity card’, phenomena that baffle the majority of the populace. The purpose of such innovation is stark in its simplicity: it paves the way for a potent model of coercion, paralleling the vaccine in its potential for manipulation. The possibility of having your entire wealth and identity summarily disabled with a mere keystroke enforces an ominous ultimatum—comply or face potential destitution. Such a tactic propagates a culture steeped in fear and submission; your life’s work hanging precariously over the precipice of annihilation, hinging solely on your adherence to the state-dictated narrative.

Unsettling as it may be, the Dutch and British armies have been engaged in ‘mapping out corona critics.’ Such activities are deeply incongruous within the framework of a democratic society, bearing an uncomfortable similarity to practices seen in authoritarian regimes such as North Korea. Yet, this disquieting reality is met with a deafening silence from mainstream media.

The disconcerting revelations continue: Elon Musk, upon assuming stewardship of Twitter, disclosed that covert intelligence agencies have near-unrestricted access to personal correspondences on the platform—yet another chilling characteristic of a dystopian state, wholly incompatible with the principles of a true democracy.

The overarching scheme appears to be the digitization of prosperity, enabling a stealthy erosion of wealth, conducted under the cloak of technology. To bring such a strategy to fruition, a powerful weapon of coercion is necessary—one that has the potential to reduce an individual to insignificance with a simple push of a button. A card that amalgamates all aspects of your life—financial, health, social engagements—rendering them interdependent, thereby amplifying the impact of this perpetual crisis.

A salient feature of the cerebral malaise I delineated in ‘Waarover de piranha droomt in de limonadesloot’ is what I term ‘concept-blurring.’ This malaise, which is coupled with a significant erosion of our vocabulary and a diminished cognitive receptor, consequent to an increasing reliance on visual stimuli, has virtually obliterated our evaluative faculties. Consequently, we find ourselves incessantly seeking external direction from entities such as Google and Amazon.

No more conflict of interest

In bygone eras, we employed terms such as ‘conflict of interest’ to discern opaque dealings. Today, such terminology has fallen into disuse, supplanted by the central command’s ingenious invention—’the conspiracy theory.’ Thus, any allusion to covert agreements between business entities is promptly branded as delusional, and the accuser is summarily dismissed. Can one offer tangible proof of collusion between Dutch supermarket conglomerates and hospitals, resulting in Unilever-laden dietary recommendations in hospitals? Is it not just a fortuitous coincidence?

Indeed, the phrase ‘conflict of interest’ may have outlived its usefulness. It suggests the ability to conclusively expose hidden agreements. In past times, mere plausibility sufficed, for the definitive precision of hard science was yet unknown—how quaintly archaic, their indiscriminate blending of alpha and beta sciences! Now, we possess superior wisdom: everything can be quantified with unerring accuracy, even employing multiple choice tests if needed.

Conflict of interest, therefore, seems a relic of the past, being immeasurable. Fact-checking, on the other hand, is quantifiable, despite allegations of its funding by entities like Jansen and Jansen. Your assertion that such financing taints the process with corruption is, well, let’s just say, immeasurable.

Fortunately, we inhabit a world where corruption has evolved to a state of unscientific irrelevance. If Dutch investigative journalists manage to expose a conspiracy between the Outbreak Management Team and testing manufacturers, can they quantify this conspiracy with measurable results? I, on the other hand, have a reader survey that tells a quite different tale.

In questioning my credentials, do you insinuate that I, a humble scholar in the alpha sciences, lack a proper understanding of what constitutes science, and the parameters for its quantification and plausibility? Your insinuation is peculiar, almost suggesting that your academic discipline is superior to mine.

May I point out that our faculty’s readership surveys have confirmed our field of study’s indispensable nature, thus, it merits continual exploration—a fact backed by unassailable quantitative evidence, I might add.

For your information, I have been approached for a position within the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM).