How many of those who want to believe the liars will look around in 30 years time commenting on how “there are a few of them here, the unvaccinated, but it’s OK I guess.”
Great piece. It’s depressing at times when I think about how despite our sophistication and perceived superiority, we really are no better than animals. I raise birds. Turkeys and chickens on my small homestead. I love watching them. So much drama! One group takes over control of the food/water supply, then a battle happens and the loser is banished to the corners of the barn where he begs me for scraps. This happened to my favorite duck and then my favorite rooster. Both had small deformities and became outcasts. We are no different. This “othering” is human nature as much as it is in the animal kingdom. I’ve fully embraced my outlier status. It’s taken a while, but I’m comfortable in my own skin. It’s hard watching my two boys (uncircumcised, unvaccinated, and mostly homeschooled) navigate this world. They are also outliers and I see them struggling to fit in. It’s painful. The lies are so big and so pervasive it’s impossible to get away from them. All we can do is stay strong in the truth and remind our littles that some day it will get easier...it may take 48 years, like it did with me, but it will happen.
As I've mentioned before, it seems pretty clear to me that the outright REFUSAL of many people to seriously consider criticisms of The Official Covid Narrative is primary linked to FEAR. Somehow these people know that opening just a crack in the Pandora's box of criticisms of the official Covid narrative could start a Domino Effect, that is leading to the realization that “If they lied about this, then that means it is likely they lied about this other thing and if they lied about that...”. All of which could let a terrifying monster out of its cage, that is leading to the conclusion that government, mainstream media and health care system management are my enemies... Thus, for many, it is GREATLY preferable that this monster stay in its cage... At all costs... It is the only bearable “solution”... Perhaps analysing the worldview of Davos pawns now in power might be of use to understand why lying comes so easily to them...
Yes, I think this is the case. It's too much for most people to integrate. Once they see the covid con, then they have to rearrange not just the sofa and the lamp and the bookcase, but all the furniture in their mind.
This is excellent, Thorsteinn and thank you very much for the nice words on my essay. Readers might want to know that it was Thorsteeinn who brought this lie-filled "message" to the attention of writers at the Brownstone Institute's email group.
So far, all of us seem to be saying: "Damn, there's just too many lies to debunk." And if we took on this project, would it matter?
Yes, it probably would matter - it certainly couldn't hurt. Someone needs to rebut all these lies.
But, like Thorsteinn, many of us contrarian writers have been writing debunking rebuttal pieces for 40 months ... and the lies still persist. The liars keep doubling down on previous lies. My take-aways are that we're either not talented enough in our rebuttal essays ... or these essays have not reached enough people ... or people simply don't want to read what we're writing.
All of these are disconcerting conclusions. Still, what's the alternative? Quitting or giving up definitely won't improve or change anything.
That's a great saying. I also want to thank the unknown person who coined the phrase "the pack media." Per my estimate, there are at least 40,000 "mainstream" journalists and editors in America. They all follow the pack - all 40,000 of them. That is, not one will investigate the things that are important and need to be investigated. How is it possible that in a group of 40,000, not ONE of them will go against "the pack?"
A friend of mine brought up the Icelandic term "hjarðfjölmiðlar" the other day. The literal meaning is "herd-media". But "pack media" is an even better term.
Hi Thorsteinn - very thought-provoking article. Here's another angle: My mother experienced the horrors of war, fleeing from the Eastern Front aged 4, losing her father and spending four years in a refugee camp (https://thomasharder.dk/da/unwanted-german-refugees-denmark-1945-1949). I digress. Point was that she was fully aware of the horrors of war. Her experience growing up (subsequently resettled in the south of Germany) was of the various 'middle-ranking' Nazis that just got seamlessly re-absorbed into society. We're talking real nasties here, gauleiters and the like who were intimately involved with the horrific acts of the Nazi regime. There was a specific man in her community who became a rich businessman who was one such. My mother - and many of her friends and family - hugely resented this, but were not able to 'do' anything as such.
"Before mass leaders seize the power to fit reality to their lies, their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it."
(1951/1976 The Origins of Totalitarianism. p. 350)
Jacques Ellul in his 1962 book, Propagandes spends some time discussing the tensions resulting from living in modern societies and the role that propaganda can play in “resolving” such tensions. Here is another lengthy but useful quote which sheds some light on why people become cognitively “locked in” to certain ideas.
“Or, voici que la propagande devient un extraordinaire réducteur de tensions: en faisant vivre l'homme dans un univers mental, en manipulant ses symboles, la propagande réussit à éliminer l'un des termes qui produisent la situation de tension; elle rejette l'individu exclusivement vers cet univers mental, ce qui simplifie extraordinairement sa vie, lui donne une grande sécurité, une stabilité, cependant qu'il se réfugie énergiquement dans le système qui lui donne une telle satisfaction.
Cet ensemble de cristallisation provoque évidemment la fermeture aux idées nouvelles.
L'individu possède maintenant un stock fixe de préjugés et de croyances, et d'un autre côté il possède des justifications objectives. Toute sa personnalité se construit autour de ces éléments. Toute idée nouvelle apparaît alors comme un véritable trouble de sa personnalité. Il s'en défend, parce qu'elle risque précisément de détruire ses certitudes. Il prend alors vraiment en haine tout ce qui est contraire à ce que la propagande lui a fait ainsi acquérir. La propagande est arrivée à créer en lui un système d'opinions et de tendances qui ne peuvent être soumises à la critique. Il n'y a aucune place pour une ambigüité ou une mitigation des sentiments: l'individu a reçu par la propagande des certitudes irrationnelles, et justement parce qu'elles sont irrationnelles elles lui semblent faire davantage partie de sa personne. Il se sent donc personnellement attaqué lorsque ces certitudes le sont. Il y a là un sentiment comparable à celui du sacré. Et c'est en vertu d'un véritable tabou que l'individu se refuse aux idées nouvelles capables de créer une ambiguïté.” (p. 188)
Here is a quick translation:
“Now propaganda becomes an extraordinary tension reducer: by making people live in a conceptual universe, by manipulating its symbols, propaganda succeeds in eliminating one of the terms which produce the situation of tension; it pushes the individual exclusively towards this conceptual universe, which simplifies his life extraordinarily, giving him great security and stability, and as a result he enthusiastically takes refuge in the system which gives him such satisfaction [releasing him from such tensions].
The individual now has a fixed stock of prejudices and beliefs, and on the other hand he has objective justifications. His whole personality is built around these elements. New ideas then appears as a serious personality disorder. He defends himself against them, precisely because they risk overthrowing his certainties/dogmas. He truly hates anything that is contrary to what propaganda has taught him. Propaganda has succeeded in creating in him a system of opinions and tendencies that cannot be subjected to criticism. There is no room for ambiguity or mitigation of feelings: the individual has been given irrational certainties/ dogmas by propaganda, and precisely because they are irrational they seem to him to be more a part of his identity. Such individuals therefore feel personally attacked when these certainties are attacked. It's a feeling comparable to that of the sacred. And it is by virtue of a veritable taboo that the individual refuses new ideas capable of creating ambiguity.”
Relying on my Social Anthropology background, it may be useful to examine vaccines (and the Covid crisis generally) as ideologico-religioius behaviour. As a result one can look at getting Covid vaccine for example as an initiation rite, serving, amongst other things, to psychologically and physically “lock in” individuals to the “Grand Covid Narrative”. Once having taken this physical step of having an experimental drug injected into one’s body, it is that much harder to back off and question the “Grand Covid Narrative”. From that point on, one has “bought into” the narrative. Thus it is much harder (not impossible) to turn back.
I have given such ideas a spin in the following French article, discussing the Covid crisis generally as a planetary initiation.
Une surprise lors de lectures distraites: La crise du Covid, une initiation planétaire? Paul Gosselin
Normally GglTranslate would provide an rough English version, but apparently I am black-listed with Ggl. Won’t translate... This isn’t the first time...
We look around today, and we see Rochelle Walensky of the CDC, shameless promoter of the vax lies noted above. We see Jeffrey Zients of the CFR, Biden's "covid coordinator" during the vax campaign, now his chief-of-staff. We see billionaire Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook coordinating with former Facebook director Zients and others to suppress truthful virus/vax info.
We see Albert Bourla, billionaire CEO of Pfizer and featured speaker at the Davos WEF, helping Schwab and Harari promote the "great reset". We see billionaire Larry Fink of BlackRock, a major investor in Pfizer, a trustee at the WEF and a director at the CFR.
Bravo, Thorsteinn! You have hit the nail on the head. The egregious lies are patently ignored, the gullible accept them on faith, and they become the foundational opinion for all future interactions.
Lies are pervasive as paid charlatans work to keep "the people" divided. It works quite well.
Except for first hand knowledge, one mind can not determine the "truth" about anything.
Three people ... two truth tellers and one liar... the truth will become known... unless one of the truth tellers is a charlatan... then the truth will remain hidden.
Lies are powerful and pay big bucks as we have witnessed with counterfeiters, drugs and wars.
Here is a general comment on the vulnerability to propaganda. I recently finished reading a Cold War era study on propaganda by the French Sociologist Jacques Ellul. This is his 1962 book, Propagandes (English translation published in 1965). While this book comes with a lot of forgotten Cold War era politics and culture, Ellul’s observations on propaganda remain quite valuable and useful. In the last section of chapter 2, Ellul deals with the erroneous claim that the uneducated are more vulnerable to propaganda than the educated. Ellul has a lot of fun with this concept and turns it on it’s head. In his view, it’s the other way around.
Here is the pertinent French quote:
“Il est curieux de constater combien de campagnes de propagande en Occident ont «pris» d'abord sur les milieux cultivés. Il s'agit ici non seulement de la propagande doctrinale, qui s'appuyant sur des faits exacts agit au niveau des personnalités les plus évoluées, sensibles aux valeurs et ayant une connaissance assez complète des réalités politiques : par exemple la propagande sur l'injustice du capitalisme, ou bien sur les crises économiques, ou sur le colonialisme. Il est normal, ici, que les personnes les plus cultivées soient d'abord atteintes par cette propagande.
Mais il s'agit aussi de la propagande la plus grossière : par exemple la campagne sur la Paix, la campagne sur la guerre bactériologique, ont réussi d'abord dans des milieux cultives. En France, ce sont des intellectuels qui ont le mieux « marché » dans l'affaire de la guerre bactériologique! Ceci va à l'encontre des idées toutes faites sur le public crédule de la propagande. Sans doute, l’homme cultivé ne croit pas à la propagande, il hausse les épaules et il est convaincu que la propagande n'a aucune efficacité. C'est d’ailleurs là une de ses faiblesses, et les propagandistes savent très bien que pour atteindre quelqu'un il faut d'abord le persuader que la propagande est inefficace et pas très habile ! Déjà, parce qu'il est convaincu de sa supériorité, l'intellectuel est bien plus vulnérable qu'un autre à cette pulsion.” (p. 129)
And here is a quick translation (I don’t have access to the English translation):
"It is curious to note how many propaganda campaigns in the West have "taken hold" first among the educated. This is not only doctrinal propaganda, which is based on accurate facts, but also acts at the level of the most progressive personalities, who are sensitive to values and have a fairly complete knowledge of political realities: for example, propaganda regarding the injustice of capitalism, or regarding economic crises, or colonialism. It's only natural that the most educated people should be the first to be influenced by such propaganda.
But this is true also of more crude forms of propaganda: for example, the Peace campaign and the biological warfare campaign succeeded first and foremost amongst the educated. In France, intellectuals were the first to buy into the biological warfare scam! This flies in the face of preconceived ideas about the vulnerability to propaganda by the uneducated public. No doubt the educated man claims not “believe in propaganda”, he shrugs his shoulders and is convinced that propaganda is ineffective. This is one of their weaknesses, and propagandists know very well that to reach someone they must first persuade them that propaganda is ineffective and not very sophisticated! Because they are convinced of their superiority, intellectuals are far more vulnerable to this pressure than others.”
After considering Ellul’s observations, a disquieting thought comes to mind regarding the issue of why certain individuals are MORE vulnerable to propaganda than others. Here is my unpalatable thought: “The more presuppositions/beliefs you share with the propagandist, the more vulnerable you will be to his propaganda”... Chew on that...
As the years roll on, I don't think there will be so many "fully vaccinated" people still alive and feeling well enough to go out to a restaurant (and presumably worry about the unjabbed in their midst). Add to that, the fight right now is for medical freedom and that includes medical privacy, and it is getting a lot more legislative traction at the state level than most people realize. This is not being reported on in the mainstream media, of course. (See for example this video of Julie Booras, co-founder of Health Rights Massachusetts
Here's what I see in my neck of the woods: With counted exceptions my own family members drank gallons of the Kool-Aid, but now I could list several injuries, some very serious (clot, Guillain Barré) and a fatal heart attack, and one of the most ferocious KA drinkers, 5 x jabbed, now openly says it was all a con and he won't take any more. Another, 2x jabbed, says it was a scam, and she won't take more. Everyone else, well, they just don't want to talk about it. In sum: there's still a lot of Kool-Aid drinking going on, not everyone sees the injuries as very possibly consequences of the jabs (with the exception of the case of Guillain Barré, but for heavenssake that was ghastly, the person was paralyzed 48 hrs after the first jab), however, I guess you could say, more than a few are starting to smell the coffee.
Great piece. It’s depressing at times when I think about how despite our sophistication and perceived superiority, we really are no better than animals. I raise birds. Turkeys and chickens on my small homestead. I love watching them. So much drama! One group takes over control of the food/water supply, then a battle happens and the loser is banished to the corners of the barn where he begs me for scraps. This happened to my favorite duck and then my favorite rooster. Both had small deformities and became outcasts. We are no different. This “othering” is human nature as much as it is in the animal kingdom. I’ve fully embraced my outlier status. It’s taken a while, but I’m comfortable in my own skin. It’s hard watching my two boys (uncircumcised, unvaccinated, and mostly homeschooled) navigate this world. They are also outliers and I see them struggling to fit in. It’s painful. The lies are so big and so pervasive it’s impossible to get away from them. All we can do is stay strong in the truth and remind our littles that some day it will get easier...it may take 48 years, like it did with me, but it will happen.
Great comment.👍🇦🇺
I second that. Chekstein, thanks.
As I've mentioned before, it seems pretty clear to me that the outright REFUSAL of many people to seriously consider criticisms of The Official Covid Narrative is primary linked to FEAR. Somehow these people know that opening just a crack in the Pandora's box of criticisms of the official Covid narrative could start a Domino Effect, that is leading to the realization that “If they lied about this, then that means it is likely they lied about this other thing and if they lied about that...”. All of which could let a terrifying monster out of its cage, that is leading to the conclusion that government, mainstream media and health care system management are my enemies... Thus, for many, it is GREATLY preferable that this monster stay in its cage... At all costs... It is the only bearable “solution”... Perhaps analysing the worldview of Davos pawns now in power might be of use to understand why lying comes so easily to them...
Yes, I think this is the case. It's too much for most people to integrate. Once they see the covid con, then they have to rearrange not just the sofa and the lamp and the bookcase, but all the furniture in their mind.
This is excellent, Thorsteinn and thank you very much for the nice words on my essay. Readers might want to know that it was Thorsteeinn who brought this lie-filled "message" to the attention of writers at the Brownstone Institute's email group.
So far, all of us seem to be saying: "Damn, there's just too many lies to debunk." And if we took on this project, would it matter?
Yes, it probably would matter - it certainly couldn't hurt. Someone needs to rebut all these lies.
But, like Thorsteinn, many of us contrarian writers have been writing debunking rebuttal pieces for 40 months ... and the lies still persist. The liars keep doubling down on previous lies. My take-aways are that we're either not talented enough in our rebuttal essays ... or these essays have not reached enough people ... or people simply don't want to read what we're writing.
All of these are disconcerting conclusions. Still, what's the alternative? Quitting or giving up definitely won't improve or change anything.
Never give up, this is historically important documentation. 👍🇦🇺
It’s a matter of scale. As someone once said, you can’t win an argument with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
That's a great saying. I also want to thank the unknown person who coined the phrase "the pack media." Per my estimate, there are at least 40,000 "mainstream" journalists and editors in America. They all follow the pack - all 40,000 of them. That is, not one will investigate the things that are important and need to be investigated. How is it possible that in a group of 40,000, not ONE of them will go against "the pack?"
A friend of mine brought up the Icelandic term "hjarðfjölmiðlar" the other day. The literal meaning is "herd-media". But "pack media" is an even better term.
Hi Thorsteinn - very thought-provoking article. Here's another angle: My mother experienced the horrors of war, fleeing from the Eastern Front aged 4, losing her father and spending four years in a refugee camp (https://thomasharder.dk/da/unwanted-german-refugees-denmark-1945-1949). I digress. Point was that she was fully aware of the horrors of war. Her experience growing up (subsequently resettled in the south of Germany) was of the various 'middle-ranking' Nazis that just got seamlessly re-absorbed into society. We're talking real nasties here, gauleiters and the like who were intimately involved with the horrific acts of the Nazi regime. There was a specific man in her community who became a rich businessman who was one such. My mother - and many of her friends and family - hugely resented this, but were not able to 'do' anything as such.
Here is a pertinent quote from Hannah Arendt
"Before mass leaders seize the power to fit reality to their lies, their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it."
(1951/1976 The Origins of Totalitarianism. p. 350)
Jacques Ellul in his 1962 book, Propagandes spends some time discussing the tensions resulting from living in modern societies and the role that propaganda can play in “resolving” such tensions. Here is another lengthy but useful quote which sheds some light on why people become cognitively “locked in” to certain ideas.
“Or, voici que la propagande devient un extraordinaire réducteur de tensions: en faisant vivre l'homme dans un univers mental, en manipulant ses symboles, la propagande réussit à éliminer l'un des termes qui produisent la situation de tension; elle rejette l'individu exclusivement vers cet univers mental, ce qui simplifie extraordinairement sa vie, lui donne une grande sécurité, une stabilité, cependant qu'il se réfugie énergiquement dans le système qui lui donne une telle satisfaction.
Cet ensemble de cristallisation provoque évidemment la fermeture aux idées nouvelles.
L'individu possède maintenant un stock fixe de préjugés et de croyances, et d'un autre côté il possède des justifications objectives. Toute sa personnalité se construit autour de ces éléments. Toute idée nouvelle apparaît alors comme un véritable trouble de sa personnalité. Il s'en défend, parce qu'elle risque précisément de détruire ses certitudes. Il prend alors vraiment en haine tout ce qui est contraire à ce que la propagande lui a fait ainsi acquérir. La propagande est arrivée à créer en lui un système d'opinions et de tendances qui ne peuvent être soumises à la critique. Il n'y a aucune place pour une ambigüité ou une mitigation des sentiments: l'individu a reçu par la propagande des certitudes irrationnelles, et justement parce qu'elles sont irrationnelles elles lui semblent faire davantage partie de sa personne. Il se sent donc personnellement attaqué lorsque ces certitudes le sont. Il y a là un sentiment comparable à celui du sacré. Et c'est en vertu d'un véritable tabou que l'individu se refuse aux idées nouvelles capables de créer une ambiguïté.” (p. 188)
Here is a quick translation:
“Now propaganda becomes an extraordinary tension reducer: by making people live in a conceptual universe, by manipulating its symbols, propaganda succeeds in eliminating one of the terms which produce the situation of tension; it pushes the individual exclusively towards this conceptual universe, which simplifies his life extraordinarily, giving him great security and stability, and as a result he enthusiastically takes refuge in the system which gives him such satisfaction [releasing him from such tensions].
The individual now has a fixed stock of prejudices and beliefs, and on the other hand he has objective justifications. His whole personality is built around these elements. New ideas then appears as a serious personality disorder. He defends himself against them, precisely because they risk overthrowing his certainties/dogmas. He truly hates anything that is contrary to what propaganda has taught him. Propaganda has succeeded in creating in him a system of opinions and tendencies that cannot be subjected to criticism. There is no room for ambiguity or mitigation of feelings: the individual has been given irrational certainties/ dogmas by propaganda, and precisely because they are irrational they seem to him to be more a part of his identity. Such individuals therefore feel personally attacked when these certainties are attacked. It's a feeling comparable to that of the sacred. And it is by virtue of a veritable taboo that the individual refuses new ideas capable of creating ambiguity.”
Relying on my Social Anthropology background, it may be useful to examine vaccines (and the Covid crisis generally) as ideologico-religioius behaviour. As a result one can look at getting Covid vaccine for example as an initiation rite, serving, amongst other things, to psychologically and physically “lock in” individuals to the “Grand Covid Narrative”. Once having taken this physical step of having an experimental drug injected into one’s body, it is that much harder to back off and question the “Grand Covid Narrative”. From that point on, one has “bought into” the narrative. Thus it is much harder (not impossible) to turn back.
I have given such ideas a spin in the following French article, discussing the Covid crisis generally as a planetary initiation.
Une surprise lors de lectures distraites: La crise du Covid, une initiation planétaire? Paul Gosselin
https://www.samizdat.qc.ca/DossierCovid19/initiationplanetaire_PG.htm
Normally GglTranslate would provide an rough English version, but apparently I am black-listed with Ggl. Won’t translate... This isn’t the first time...
In Panda we wrote this and sent it to the Lancet.
https://pandata.org/false-covid-19-vaccine-claims-by-lancet-a-call-for-retraction/
And they didn't ... well, I don't have to ask of course.
We look around today, and we see Rochelle Walensky of the CDC, shameless promoter of the vax lies noted above. We see Jeffrey Zients of the CFR, Biden's "covid coordinator" during the vax campaign, now his chief-of-staff. We see billionaire Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook coordinating with former Facebook director Zients and others to suppress truthful virus/vax info.
We see Albert Bourla, billionaire CEO of Pfizer and featured speaker at the Davos WEF, helping Schwab and Harari promote the "great reset". We see billionaire Larry Fink of BlackRock, a major investor in Pfizer, a trustee at the WEF and a director at the CFR.
We also see Israelis awarding Bourla with the million dollar Genesis Prize for his "contribution to humanity" (sic) and his "committment to Jewish values", with honorable mention to Walensky, Zients, and others: genesisprize.org/press-center/2022-01-19-jewish-nobel-awarded-to-pfizer-ceo-albert-bourla
Bravo, Thorsteinn! You have hit the nail on the head. The egregious lies are patently ignored, the gullible accept them on faith, and they become the foundational opinion for all future interactions.
Lies are pervasive as paid charlatans work to keep "the people" divided. It works quite well.
Except for first hand knowledge, one mind can not determine the "truth" about anything.
Three people ... two truth tellers and one liar... the truth will become known... unless one of the truth tellers is a charlatan... then the truth will remain hidden.
Lies are powerful and pay big bucks as we have witnessed with counterfeiters, drugs and wars.
Here is another hard-hitting article bu John Carter along the same lines:
Why Smart People Do Stupid Things (Like Getting mRNA Injections)
https://barsoom.substack.com/p/why-smart-people-do-stupid-things
Thanks for sharing. It is good. In my view what happened was propaganda. Someone under the spell of propaganda loses the ability to think.
Here is a general comment on the vulnerability to propaganda. I recently finished reading a Cold War era study on propaganda by the French Sociologist Jacques Ellul. This is his 1962 book, Propagandes (English translation published in 1965). While this book comes with a lot of forgotten Cold War era politics and culture, Ellul’s observations on propaganda remain quite valuable and useful. In the last section of chapter 2, Ellul deals with the erroneous claim that the uneducated are more vulnerable to propaganda than the educated. Ellul has a lot of fun with this concept and turns it on it’s head. In his view, it’s the other way around.
Here is the pertinent French quote:
“Il est curieux de constater combien de campagnes de propagande en Occident ont «pris» d'abord sur les milieux cultivés. Il s'agit ici non seulement de la propagande doctrinale, qui s'appuyant sur des faits exacts agit au niveau des personnalités les plus évoluées, sensibles aux valeurs et ayant une connaissance assez complète des réalités politiques : par exemple la propagande sur l'injustice du capitalisme, ou bien sur les crises économiques, ou sur le colonialisme. Il est normal, ici, que les personnes les plus cultivées soient d'abord atteintes par cette propagande.
Mais il s'agit aussi de la propagande la plus grossière : par exemple la campagne sur la Paix, la campagne sur la guerre bactériologique, ont réussi d'abord dans des milieux cultives. En France, ce sont des intellectuels qui ont le mieux « marché » dans l'affaire de la guerre bactériologique! Ceci va à l'encontre des idées toutes faites sur le public crédule de la propagande. Sans doute, l’homme cultivé ne croit pas à la propagande, il hausse les épaules et il est convaincu que la propagande n'a aucune efficacité. C'est d’ailleurs là une de ses faiblesses, et les propagandistes savent très bien que pour atteindre quelqu'un il faut d'abord le persuader que la propagande est inefficace et pas très habile ! Déjà, parce qu'il est convaincu de sa supériorité, l'intellectuel est bien plus vulnérable qu'un autre à cette pulsion.” (p. 129)
And here is a quick translation (I don’t have access to the English translation):
"It is curious to note how many propaganda campaigns in the West have "taken hold" first among the educated. This is not only doctrinal propaganda, which is based on accurate facts, but also acts at the level of the most progressive personalities, who are sensitive to values and have a fairly complete knowledge of political realities: for example, propaganda regarding the injustice of capitalism, or regarding economic crises, or colonialism. It's only natural that the most educated people should be the first to be influenced by such propaganda.
But this is true also of more crude forms of propaganda: for example, the Peace campaign and the biological warfare campaign succeeded first and foremost amongst the educated. In France, intellectuals were the first to buy into the biological warfare scam! This flies in the face of preconceived ideas about the vulnerability to propaganda by the uneducated public. No doubt the educated man claims not “believe in propaganda”, he shrugs his shoulders and is convinced that propaganda is ineffective. This is one of their weaknesses, and propagandists know very well that to reach someone they must first persuade them that propaganda is ineffective and not very sophisticated! Because they are convinced of their superiority, intellectuals are far more vulnerable to this pressure than others.”
After considering Ellul’s observations, a disquieting thought comes to mind regarding the issue of why certain individuals are MORE vulnerable to propaganda than others. Here is my unpalatable thought: “The more presuppositions/beliefs you share with the propagandist, the more vulnerable you will be to his propaganda”... Chew on that...
Thanks Paul! This is a brilliant insight. I just got myself Ellul's book in English. Would take me too long to plow through the French original.
As the years roll on, I don't think there will be so many "fully vaccinated" people still alive and feeling well enough to go out to a restaurant (and presumably worry about the unjabbed in their midst). Add to that, the fight right now is for medical freedom and that includes medical privacy, and it is getting a lot more legislative traction at the state level than most people realize. This is not being reported on in the mainstream media, of course. (See for example this video of Julie Booras, co-founder of Health Rights Massachusetts
https://rumble.com/v2ugusu-julie-booras-health-rights-ma-co-founder.html )
Here's what I see in my neck of the woods: With counted exceptions my own family members drank gallons of the Kool-Aid, but now I could list several injuries, some very serious (clot, Guillain Barré) and a fatal heart attack, and one of the most ferocious KA drinkers, 5 x jabbed, now openly says it was all a con and he won't take any more. Another, 2x jabbed, says it was a scam, and she won't take more. Everyone else, well, they just don't want to talk about it. In sum: there's still a lot of Kool-Aid drinking going on, not everyone sees the injuries as very possibly consequences of the jabs (with the exception of the case of Guillain Barré, but for heavenssake that was ghastly, the person was paralyzed 48 hrs after the first jab), however, I guess you could say, more than a few are starting to smell the coffee.