EU Prepares Anti-Thinking Vaccine

30 0

“[There is today] an attack on liberal democracies, on our values, on the very foundation of European civilization……. We need to be lucid. Our Europe is mortal today. It can die. It depends only on our choices, which need to be made now.” – Emmanuel Macron, April 2024

In a recent speech, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced that the population of Europe would need to be vaccinated against “disinformation.”

When I saw the news, my initial reaction was to say: it can’t be! But there is a video fragment on the networks.

It’s real. Unless it’s a deep fake, in which case the person who managed to perfectly reproduce the cadence, voice, gestures and indescribable pink smile with which Frau von der Leyen emphasizes her most sinister ideas, is a genius of disinformation.

Newspeak and criminal thought

In that excerpt, the President of the European Commission says:

“And finally, there’s the need for resilience. As technology evolves, we need to build societal immunity around information manipulation. Because research has shown that prebunking is much more successful than debunking.”

I’ll stop for a moment to explain the barbarisms. The word “debunking” means “to expose”, “to unmask”, “to demonstrate that an idea is false”. “Prebunking”, on the other hand, does not exist. It is an invented word. By whom, I don’t know, but for what purposes it follows further from Frau von der Leyen’s speech:

“Prebunking is essentially the opposite of debunking. In short, prevention is preferable to cure. Think of information manipulation, perhaps, as a virus. Instead of treating the infection after it has taken hold of the body – that would be debunking – it is much better to vaccinate, so that the body is inoculated. Prebunking is the same approach. Because disinformation relies on people passing it on to others. It is essential that people know what the influence of malicious information is and what techniques are behind it. And as this knowledge increases, the risk of being influenced decrease. And that builds the resilience of society that we need.”

So, I understand that instead of being exposed after they emerge, misconceptions will be exposed before they emerge.

Alternatively, ideas emerge, but are unmasked before they are “transmitted to others”, being prebunked in advance. This can be done directly in the head of the person whose criminal thinking has been planted in their brain, before it can infect anyone else – the case of veteran Adam Smith-Connor from the UK, recently sentenced to two years suspended and a fine of £9,000 for praying, in his inner forum, somewhere, it doesn’t matter where, on a street.

Adam Smith-Connor

Or it can be done as soon as the culprit makes his incorrect ideas public on some network or platform; or in the company cafeteria; or on an application like WhatsApp; or on the phone, where he can infect his friends or a relative. Or, perhaps, the preventive intervention will be done at the receiver, at the target victim, by….… I don’t know……. putting cotton wool in their ears?

Disinformation kills

None of this strikes me as ideologically alien to the thinking of the President of the European Commission, but I can’t help but take note of the fact that she did mention some “research.” Because today we live in a scientific empire, clear, regular, with exact instructions on the caliper for every gesture, radiator, shower, bottle cork, action and, as you can see, for every thought and word.

Some “experts” studied, persevered, lobotomized some ideas, mutilated some words, and came to this epochal conclusion, which I don’t think there was a dictator in this world who wouldn’t yearn for, namely: isn’t it better for us to somehow prevent ideas that we don’t want from existing in the masses, rather than struggling to eradicate them afterwards?

Even so, I didn’t expect, searching for “prebunking” on Google, to find such a great deal of information. Social engineers have been working intensively on the subject (e.g., here), especially after the annus mirabilis 2020, namely the “pandemic” fuss.

For example, a 2022 study, entitled Psychological inoculation increases resilience against disinformation on virtual communication platforms and funded, among others, by the EU, says that “trust in misinformation about the coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) was associated with reduced willingness to get vaccinated against the disease and decreased intention to comply with public health measures.”

Which is nothing compared to the statements of the head of the World Health Organization, who, on the occasion of the WHO Summit on October 13-15 (which took place under the already inevitable slogan “Building Trust for a Healthier World”) said:

“During the covid-19 pandemic, false information about masks, vaccines and lockdowns spread as fast as the virus and was almost as deadly.”

Even more lethal, bad mouths would say, depending on who you attribute the “false information” to.

In any case, to combat this pandemic of wrong thinking that threatens his health in the future, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus reminded us that he is not alone:

“WHO is working with a range of companies, researchers and partners to understand how false information and disinformation spread, who the targets are, how they are influenced and how we can counter this problem.”

Coincidentally, these promises and encouragements were made at the opening of the first round of investment applications for the WHO, where – following the auction that apparently attracted 1,700 concerned bidders in person, plus some 46,000 online – the organization managed to pocket about a billion dollars.

We can therefore expect that, in the coming period, the number of expert studies on how to manage freedom of conscience and expression more quickly, more efficiently, globally and scientifically will increase dramatically, for the common good of those who commission and finance this research.

“Psychological inoculation”

Not that there isn’t enough material already. Returning to the aforementioned study on “psychological inoculation,” the experts first lament that “correcting false information (by fact-checking, for example) after it has spread poses certain problems: determining what constitutes factual information is difficult, epistemologically speaking, especially in a political context; ……. getting people to believe in fact-checkers is difficult,” among other common-sense findings.

Plus, “Unmasking……. does not always cancel out all the effects of disinformation, a phenomenon known as [I wouldn’t have thought] the ‘continuing influence effect’.”

In other words, the fact-checking search engine has kind of gone haywire. In search of new forms of censorship, experts come up with the concept of “prebunking”, which Madame Frau has also taken up.

The study says that prebunking is a preventive intervention, to increase people’s “resilience” to misinformation, and is based on the “inoculation theory”, which derives from an analogy with “medical immunization”, increasing resistance to “unwanted attempts at persuasion” (it doesn’t say unwanted by whom, but it’s understood, anyway), just as vaccination “builds a physiological resistance against pathogens” (as we know).

I quote further from the study:

“Psychological immunization treatments contain two basic components: (i) a warning that induces the perception of threat of an imminent attack on the person’s attitudes and (ii) exposure to weak (micro)doses of disinformation that contain a preventive debunking (prebunking) of the arguments and persuasion techniques that are expected to be used.”

Pause. If I were them, I wouldn’t make these studies public. What if I give ideas to child subjects and they start checking in the field how it’s done?

For example, my head was ablaze with inspiration. I can imagine a scenario like this: elections are coming up; the party that doesn’t want to win will try to “attack your attitudes”; you say no and no; as a precaution, here’s a vaccine lie from us: if I tell you that it wasn’t us, but they won the elections, don’t believe them that we rigged the elections, even if you catch us red-handed online. I have a feeling that this method will work with the precision of a Swiss watch.

If you want to see how experts have researched this profound topic of social engineering and what “psychological treatments” they suggest, there is a series of illustrative videos.

One of them starts with a movie of a sad little girl. The frame is interrupted by some stupid cartoons and the soft, cheerful voice of a lady (a psychiatrist, I imagine) who essentially tells you that if you didn’t realize at the scene with the crying girl that you were being emotionally manipulated, you’re probably stupid.

I can’t wait to see these techniques applied to Netflix movies; or to official tear-jerking campaigns promoting various products.

Black is white

Another very interesting study, also done in 2021 by some experts paid by the EU, is called From debunking to prebunking : How to prevent disinformation on immigration in the EU.

From here we learn that “disinformation” is “any form of false, inaccurate, or misleading information designed, presented, and promoted to intentionally harm the public or for profit.” So far, so good.

The “disinformation actor” is “any person, organization or institution that contributes to the writing, dissemination or propagation of disinformation. These can include states (especially Russia and China) but also local (European) supporters of radical political options.”

We are not told what “radical political options” are, but I assume that the planetary revolutionization of the species through the Agenda 2030 does not fall into this category.

The study’s authors complain that “disinformers adapt their message to the news cycle” and “impose the tone and content of the conversation before everyone else” (feel the expert chins quivering with indignation). Which sounds a bit like cognitive dissonance. Either “disinformers” adapt to the news cycle, in which case they don’t impose the content of the conversation, but the reality reflected in the news; or the news is an artifact controlled by experts, in which case the content is imposed by the controllers, but the world (i.e., the “disinformers”) doesn’t believe it, being more concerned with reality.

For these reasons the study proposes two “pillars” for how to stop this from occurring. (In parentheses, I don’t know what’s up with this obsession of globalists with pillars. Wherever you look, you’ll find a pillar. Their Olympus is probably a lakeside dwelling).

The first “pillar of the EU prebunking ecosystem” consists of the following actions:

(1) “expanding monitoring operations through coordinated multi-stakeholder initiatives to understand disinformation narratives and assess their potential for spread”;

(2) “establishing an early warning system, based on civil society monitoring work, that would allow fact-checkers and communication professionals to assess the likely spread and impact of disinformation before intervening quickly and tailoring appropriate responses”; and

(3) “using forecasting techniques to anticipate which disinformation narratives might spread in response to certain events and how they might cross linguistic and political boundaries.”

This last bit of nonsense prompts me to advise the experts: either use a crystal ball, like their spiritual ancestors, or, cheaper and without the risk of demonic possession, look out the window and see exactly what the “disinformers” might comment on.

The study’s authors are careful, after chiding “the EU (that) it does not currently devote sufficient resources to predicting future trends in disinformation”, to nevertheless sweetly praise Frau and her Commission for “starting to include predictions in policy-making activities”.

These “predictive efforts aim to anticipate possible future developments” so that “decision-makers and communicators can be better prepared for future misinformation” in an “uncertain, rapidly changing world”.

In other words, they have the script, they are perched on pillars, but reality doesn’t really stand still and shakes their hut.

Further: “pillar two, promoting societal resilience against future disinformation” consists of:

(1) “equipping citizens with critical skills through literacy campaigns, to be able to immediately identify disinformation and resist prejudice and common manipulation techniques”;

(2) “promoting migration literacy, to prevent disinformation actors from exploiting the complexity of the subject, by developing specific educational programs alongside training for journalists and other intermediaries” and

(3) “applying segmentation and targeting in media literacy efforts, taking into account the age, attitudes, and value system of those who are the targets of disinformation campaigns”.

It is very obvious that these experts are talking about a text – more precisely, about the text of their own “narrative”, for which citizens need to first be “literate” in the globalist-Brussels language in order to retain and assimilate it.

About the object to which the text alludes – the reality of immigration and its effects on European peoples, in this case – not a word. EU policies are a species of literary criticism.

The disease of conspiracy theorists: their vision of the world

Of course, no discussion about “disinformation” can fail to reach “conspiracy theorists.” The EU has already issued comprehensive guidance on the subject, and has even created some platforms to increase public resilience.

Conspiracy theory is a particular, especially serious case, and deserves a separate approach. I only note here that studies on the “psychological inoculation treatment” of conspiracy theorists are proliferating.

A 2023 study is apotheotically called Inoculation Against Anti-Vaccine Conspiracies. Another (2024) is called Evaluating the Effectiveness of Inoculation in Motivating Resistance to Conspiracy Propaganda in Samples from Finland and the United States.

Still others find links between “collective narcissism” and conspiracies (eg, here; for “Catholic collective narcissism”, in particular, here; for “national narcissism” and its connection to covid, here).

I almost miss the time when conspiracy theorists were paranoid, not narcissistic; at least they were supposed to be looking around, not in the mirror.

Anyway, speaking of anti-covid conspiracies, you learn that they are the “gateway” to “an even greater conspiratorial ideation”.

Finally, my favorites are the studies, already numerous, which conclude that the problem with conspiracy theorists is their worldview (e.g., here or here).

One of these studies explains:

“The worldview is structured around six main dimensions: the nature of reality, the self, the outgroup, the ingroup, relevant social and political action, and possible changes in the future.”

Faced with this huge problem, another study (from 2024) assures its funders that “belief in conspiracies can be sustainably reduced through dialogues with AI.” By the way, “LLM GPT-4 Turbo” in question, just so you know, “does not reduce belief in true conspiracies.”

Weltanschauung does not die and does not transform

At this point I feel the need to return to Frau von der Leyen, because I don’t want it to seem as if she is like that, namely a puppet in the hands of scientific experts and doesn’t have, sua sponte, her own ideas about inoculations, disinformation, conspiracies, and the excesses of consciousness and expression of some people.

Upon her appointment as President of the European Commission, another European leader, Emmanuel Macron, said:

“She [Ursula von der Leyen] has a deeply European culture, she was born in Brussels and is the daughter of a Brussels official, so I can say that she has the DNA of the European Union in her blood.”

I wouldn’t have allowed myself to talk about the pedigree of people, much less the European Union, but if he, the great republican, worshiper of the French Revolution and its legacy, does, I feel obligated to follow his example.

Especially since Foreign Policy, a magazine that you can’t just call conspiratorial, has already given its opinion, with a 2021 title that sounds terrible: The Aristocratic Ineptitude of Ursula von der Leyen. Subtitle: “How the EU President’s Family Ties Explain Her Rise to Power—and the Failures in Using It [the power] in the Pandemic.”

Before you get your hopes up: the Foreign Policy article is explained by someone being upset that Frau had pulled a certain company’s anti-covid injections off the market. It must have been a big deal, because, in the midst of the fluff, the article also applied some more perverse blows, which tell us something, if not about the DNA of the lady in question – although it sounds more scientific – at least about her vision of the world.

And here, in Frau’s Weltanschauung, lie answers to many potential mysteries.

European traditions

The fact that Ursula von der Leyen is of aristocratic origin is well known, and unlike Foreign Policy, I see no problem with that. After all, Philippe (Marie Jean Joseph Le Jolis) de Villiers (de Saintignon), whom Wikipedia describes as a “nationalist, traditionalist, and Eurosceptic,” is also a very aristocrat, directly descended from the Duke of Orléans, which, by comparison, makes von der Leyen a mere merchant.

Cotton and silk, to be exact. Cotton, from the family of origin, Albrecht, who made a fortune by controlling the markets in Bremen. Of course we will ask: how much cotton could grow in Bremen, anyway. No; cotton grew on slave plantations in the American South.

And that’s where the other branch of the Albrecht family, the Ladson clan of South Carolina, comes in. For genealogy enthusiasts, from Wiki: Ursula von der Leyen’s paternal grandparents (Ernst Albrecht) were cotton merchant Carl Albrecht (1875-1952) and Mary Ladson Robertson (1883-1960), a descendant of an American family that owned large plantations in the Carolinas, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Barbados.

Barbados is also the place where the Ladson family, of English origin, began to make a living.

By the mid-17th century, when they arrived there, the island’s population had already been conveniently exterminated by the Spanish, but the Ladsons contributed to the repopulation – with slaves brought from Africa – because there had to be someone to work on the plantations.

According to British laws, Africans brought to the island (the living ones, as many died during transport) and their descendants, in eternity, were treated as beasts of burden (including by burning them with hot irons – preventively, as well as whenever a problem arose).

That was initially; later, they were recognized as objects. Means of production, as it were.

As a side idea, between 1630 and 1807, about 380,000 Africans were kidnapped from their homes, put in chains, and transported to Barbados to be worked to death.

Some of these hundreds of thousands were sold by the Ladson clan in South Carolina to a special pier held by another famous Frau ancestor, Joseph Wragg, with whom the Ladsons became relatives. There is still a neighborhood in Charleston named after him today: Wraggborough.

But the Ladsons weren’t just brute force. They were also philanthropists (another tradition), in that they would herd slaves to the chapel to “Christianize” them. This was, I suspect, for them an ancestor of the concept of prebunking.

The educational efforts were as comprehensive as they were apparently unsuccessful. I found this quote from the work of thought and conscience of Ursula von der Leyen’s ancestor, James H. Ladson (The Religious Instruction of the Negroes):

“The religious and moral instruction of the Negro has, of late years, been of great interest to me, but it is clear to me that our efforts for their benefit (though there is still much, much to be done) are not only misunderstood abroad, but even criticized. To improve the Negro is a much more difficult task than most who have no experience in the process of instruction can realize. The Negro is naturally stupid, of weak intellect, but has, in general, a good memory, and those who have engaged in this charitable work complain that, after so much labor, the teachings transmitted, though memorized, are perverted and ill-applied.”

From the final lament, I deduce that the slaves were somewhat conspiratorial. Another tradition.

Anyway, before I leave the Ladsons to their well-deserved pay, I’ll mention that they fought (by proxy, of course) on the side of the slave owners in the American Civil War, emerging, personally and financially, untouched by the massacre. At the time of the abolition of slavery in the US, they had, at least officially, 200 slaves.

Kreishauptmann Joachim von der Leyen

But that was a long time ago. Coming closer, I should thank the team at Foreign Policy, who were nervous enough about the injections being removed from the European market to highlight this basket on the public face of the subject, directly hyperlinking to the Wikipedia page of Joachim von der Leyen, a relative of Frau’s husband.

Before I tell you about Uncle Joachim, I want to point out that what the original Albrecht family did during World War II is unknown. It is likely that between 1933 and 1945 they entered a state of hibernation, from which they emerged with their wealth, influence, and coat of arms intact.

Joachim von der Leyen

Joachim, however, was very Nazi; so much so that, after having been a high-ranking official in Bohemia and Moravia and in Vichy France, he became, in July 1942, one of the close collaborators, as district captain, of the Gauleiter of Galicia, Baron Otto Gustav von Wächter. What occurred in that part of Ukraine at that time, we know well. Just as well as we know what was going on a few years ago or what is occurring now. Wikipedia says that Uncle Joachim knew very well too.

In fact, I think he knew so well that at the end of the war, he kind of disappeared. According to Wikipedia, Joachim von der Leyen “probably died” in Dresden in 1945. He wouldn’t be the only Nazi who “probably” died only in Europe, when, in fact, he was alive in South America.

In any case, Joachim was a scion of the von der Leyen family, “silk barons of Krefeld” – this is because I had mentioned above not only cotton, but also silk; the latter fine fabrics being obtained by Frau through her marriage to Heiko Echter von der Leyen.

With Heiko, Frau has in common not only seven children, but also an ugly scandal related to how he became the boss of a company that makes vaccines right after the EU controlled by Frau took good money out of his pocket for those products.

It’s a scandal associated with the one in which Frau deleted all negotiation messages with another manufacturer of covid injections. But until the European Public Prosecutor’s Office’s investigation is finished (although I understand that, in the meantime, the investigation has been taken over by the Belgians), all this is just empty talk; the presumption of innocence, etc. etc.

The Importance of Being Ernst

Better yet, let’s continue our historical journey about the contents of Ursula von der Leyen’s European consciousness, getting even closer in time to her father, Ernst Albrecht.

Born in 1930, he could not have been a Nazi, but at the age of 28 he became a civil servant – one of the first – in the ancestor of the European Union. More precisely, he was Hans von der Groeben’s chief of staff in the Hallstein Commission (i.e. in the European Commission headed by Walter Hallstein, the first to embody the European Economic Community).

Not being a conspiracy theorist, unlike the aristocrat Philippe de Villiers, I will not say that Hallstein was a Nazi, as a great jurist of the “New European Order” imagined by Hitler, which emphasized the importance of imposing the same law, from the center, throughout Europe (for “harmonization” aka control). I do not say.

Richard Walther Darré

And neither – not being a conspiracy theorist – will I say that young Ernst’s direct boss, van der Groeben, was Richard Walther Darré’s deputy at the time when he was the Minister of Agriculture in Hitler’s government, but also the head of the SS on racial displacement issues.

In which combined capacity, Obergruppenführer Darré was Josef Mengele’s protector, produced the Generalplan Ost – the Nazis’ plan to exterminate the entire Slavic race and colonize Eastern Europe – and implemented the “Famine Plan”, about how the Germans were to eat every last crumb of the food of the untermenschen in the aforementioned area.

In the sense in which Darré said:

“We will be the absolute masters on two continents……. a new aristocracy of German masters will be created ……. to whom slaves will be assigned, slaves to be their property and which will consist of non-German citizens, without land……. in fact, we are even thinking of a modern form of medieval slavery which we must introduce because we urgently need it to fulfill our great missions. These slaves will in no way be deprived of the joys of illiteracy; in future, higher education will be reserved only for the German population in Europe. ”

I’m not saying anything about any of this. After all, what business did von der Groeben have with his boss, Darré, and especially what business did Father Ernst have with his boss, von der Groben.

Or what business did Ernst have with the Minister of Justice in his own Lower Saxony government, Hans Puvogel, who said that:

“Only a person of racial value has the right to exist in the community. But a person who is useless, even harmful to the community because of his inferiority, must be excluded.”

Puvogel had been a member of the Sturmabteilung (SA) and, in 1937, was a regional leader of the Nazi party. He was exposed in 1978, but said it wasn’t true. It was true – it emerged in 2012 from a parliamentary inquiry.

But then again, what business did Ernst have with his bosses, his bosses’ bosses, or even his subordinates? None. Rather, Ernst sincerely believed that:

“If we can bring people with above-average abilities to govern in an autocracy – or the rule of the few – then we will be able to create a better world than one in which the people rule.”

Since “Popular leadership, especially direct leadership, is essentially such that, instead of decisions being made by the understanding of those who have knowledge [the elites], they are made at an average, common level, based on the majority of the population.”

But that’s because, as someone commented – based on the large amount of cotton collected by others on the plantations, Ernst was part of the cream of the old Hanseatic League, about which Thomas Mann, equally Hanseatic himself, said in The Magic Mountain that it was “obstinately convinced of the aristocracy’s right to rule”. As I said, there’s nothing you can do about it, it’s tradition.

Silendo Libertatem Servo (In silence, I protect freedom)

But let’s get past this paranoid; excuse me, narcissistic speculation. The truth is that Ernst loved Ursula very much, which I find absolutely commendable. He called her Röschen, and images of the father and his smiling, blond daughter abounded in his political advertisements.

I apologize; it is necessary, however, to return; I do not say, but it seems that others thought Ernst was a bit of a Nazi. I do not understand why. In any case, for fear of some reprisal, Röschen enrolled at the London School of Economics under the name Rose Landson – the likelihood of making any enemies of the connection between slave owners and Nazis being small.

Who was Ernst afraid of? The far left – back then, the enemies were on the left. Now, according to the German Foreign Minister, the brilliant Annalena Baerbock, the situation has turned 360 degrees.

It was 1978. Rose was still safe in London, but she was about to finish her studies that year. Ernst was still the president of Lower Saxony. Western Europe was full of Gladio units – because, in the absence of a long-awaited Soviet invasion, there were, for better or worse, some extreme left-wing factions. Among these factions was the Rote Armee Fraktion (Baader-Meinhof group) – the organization that annoyed Ernst the most.

Ernst took the reins. The girl was coming home. Something needed to be done. And it was. A false flag was organized (as Wikipedia says), meaning a terrorist operation in which some good policemen and terrorists were sent by the government to carry out a hit on the prison in the town of Celle. The hit was to be blamed on the Baader-Meinhof group, as an attempt to facilitate the escape of several members, detained in that prison.

It didn’t work, as the hole made in the wall by the bomb was too small and the state terrorists fled. The police found enough evidence in their wake to make the “narrative” untenable and to lead to a parliamentary inquiry that ultimately debunked the entire maneuver.

However, in the meantime, under the prebunking system, conditions for the Baader-Meinhof prisoners were tightened so much that they went on hunger strike in protest, and some died.

There is no place here for me to write about Gladio ‘s false flag adventures in Europe (others have written books), it is certain that the above-described Celle Holle operation, which created great problems for Ernst’s government, was in print. Why do I say that? Because Gladio was coordinated by the CIA and NATO (see even Wikipedia). And Röschen also has an extremely close relationship with NATO.

So tight that Albrecht Müller, SPD representative in the German parliament, said on January 2, 2021:

“As Defense Minister, von der Leyen did what the US President wanted…… And although the ministry has had problems due to the enormous spending on consultants and other personnel decisions she made, von der Leyen has now become the President of the European Commission. Which is a key position, extremely important for the United States…… In the first major crisis that arose, von der Leyen immediately and unequivocally embraced the United States’ position, when she said that Iran was to blame for the crisis in the Middle East and for the execution of the Iranian general. With her at the helm, the US can probably make similar claims on other occasions, playing a key role in shaping the internal structure of the European Union. Ursula von der Leyen is the perfect example of an agent of influence.”

In fact, if she were not reappointed to the European Commission, Frau was the favorite in the race to replace Jens Stoltenberg as NATO chief. The reference to “consultants” in the quote above is a reference to another huge political and financial scandal in which Frau was involved, when she was German defense minister (see Politico).

Conspiracy or, more scientifically, drapetomania

I could continue describing the cultural DNA of the President, since there is information. But I think I have written enough that, returning to the pretext of the whole endeavor, I can ask myself: which part of the deep cultural and educational traditions, family, briefly mentioned above, which Weltanschauung most strongly recommends Frau von der Leyen to threaten us like this, to the face, with the prebunking psychological inoculation in view of resilience to free conscience and expression?

We have a choice, but since conspiracy theorists are now classified as psychically ill, I’m reminded of a disease that slaves on plantations suffered from when they revolted or ran away. It was called “drapetomania.”

Well, there was no illness – just as the dissidents of Mrs. von der Leyen’s policies do not suffer from paranoia, nor narcissism, much less collective, nor any other weakness in the sphere of consciousness. On the contrary. But that’s what the American slave masters said. That their subjects were sick in the head if they rebelled or wanted to escape.

Drapetomania, so you understand, arose because, sometimes, masters “became too familiar” with their slaves and “treated them as equals” – which today is avoided through multiple methods, such as taking refuge in the casemate at Davos or in bureaucratic language, dogged by any intelligence.

Otherwise (says Wikipedia), “ if they are treated gently, with clothes and food, with enough wood to keep a small fire burning overnight…… they are very easy to govern……. If one, or more, ever try to raise their heads to the level of their master or guardian, humanity itself obliges them to be punished until they fall back into the state of submissiveness for which they were destined. They need only be kept in that state or treated like children, to prevent or cure them of the desire to escape.”

Treating drapetomania was not only post-factum, but also, much more recommended, through “preventive measures”: “you whip them until the dirty idea comes out of them.”

Prebunking which, at the risk of getting their hands dirty, they did, I think, manually, in the absence of AI. O, tempora!

Author: Levana Zigmund

 

yogaesoteric
March 21, 2025

 

Also available in: Română

You might also like More from author
Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More