Min kone er kommunal dagplejemor. Derfor har jeg nu i flere år været vidne til mange små børns indkøringsperioder, når de kommer for første gang fordi deres mor igen skal tilbage på arbejdsmarkedet. Nogle græder i ugevis – dog heldigvis ikke uafbrudt, men i en rum tid om morgenen. Andre bliver bare stille. Og andre igen har tilsyneladende slet ingen reaktion. Nogle reagerer først senere. Der kan gå måneder og så pludselig kan de give udtryk for deres savn og være kede af det dag efter dag. Alle reagerer de men på forskellig vis, når mor eller far siger afleverer dem om morgenen i dagplejen. Så sidder min kone med den lille “snotklat” indtil gråden holder op. Og den holder jo op! Og de “glemmer” det hele. Og så er alt jo såre godt. Nej, alt er ikke godt. For den ukyndige kan det se ud som om alle ungerne kommer fint ud af det uden mén og at det ingen konsekvenser har senere i livet. Men hvordan kan vi vide det? Fordi det siger eksperterne. Men kan vi stole på eksperterne? De er jo slet ikke selv enige.
Det er faktisk umuligt at vide noget om mulige konsekvenser af at skille børn fra deres forældre i vuggestuealderen, for vi har ikke et samfund præcist som vores, hvor vi kan afprøve en helt anden samfundsmodel i 40-50 år og derefter sammenligne de to. Måske ville det ene samfund producere lykkelige, fredfyldte og raske borgere og det andet forjagede, ulykkelige, identitetsløse og syge. Selv ikke den bedste teoretiske model som skal forsøge at udregne påvirkningen af et menneske hvis det er sendt i vuggestue/børnehave vil virke. Normalt bruger man tvillinger som “forsøgskaniner” fordi man da har to individer med ens gener. Men da skal man have tvillinger hvor den ene sendes i børnehave og den passes hjemme af mor og/eller far. Og sådan et scenarie er næsten utænkeligt.
Med social-forskning er det derfor næsten rent gætværk, for forskerne baserer deres resultater på en række spørgsmål, de stiller, og svarene peger i præcis den retning, de stiller spørgsmålene. Dvs: “Som man spørger, får man svar!” Et eksempel på dette fænomen er når vi hører om, at det og det land er verdens lykkeligste. Hvilken målestok bruger de? Eller hvilke spørgsmål stiller de, for at finde frem til deres svar? I årevis har Danmark været placeret som et af verdens lykkeligste lande? Men hvorfor er Danmark pludseligt røget langt ned i rækken i 2019? Jo, fordi man har indført et nyt spørgmål som ændrer alting. Ét nyt spørgsmål er nok, og det er: Hvor meget CO2 bruger man pr. indbygger? Man har nemlig sat som målestok at jo mere CO2 man bruger pr. indbygger jo længere nedad tæller det på lykke-skalaen. Totalt absurd, men ikke desto mindre er det det man gør! Men dette viser hvordan forskning er blevet? Man kan fremstille et hvilket som helst reultat, som magthaverne måtte ønske for at fremme en vis dagsorden eller fastholde et status quo. Everything in Denmark is good, as long as you go along with the official way of thinking – the state induced beliefsystem. You say: “What…induced!?” Doesnt the ideas of the wellfunctioning danish society rest on well supported, scienticic formulas? No! It rests on something very, very different than what is best for people. It rests – as anywhere else in the Western world – only partly on logic, scientific observation, but on ideology which is NOT based on what is good in terms of health and happiness. Actually it is based on what is good for SOME pepople (the “nationbuilders) and satisfactory for the rest of us. But there is a catch to this you have to be aware of. To reach the so-called satisfactory level in society you have to fit completely into a model which is designed by the “nationbuilders” in such a way that you have to follow their blue print carefully in order to succeed. And the thing is: The nationbuilderes has infected the education system from the root to the top so when you reach adult life you have only ONE idea fixed into you brain how to live this life. You say that this is not true. You say there is a varity of possibilities…nearly too many. I answer yes there are a trillion of possibillities, but ONLY as long as you don’t step on any “holy cows” which is the central state induced belief system. Because inside the system (education system) you cannot discover lifestyles that divert fundamentally from the central state induced belief system. It is first when you already have been formed to serve this system that you are released and then it is by “accident” you meet other ideas and people who live “outside the box”. It is also more or less by accident that you meet opinions that strongly contradict the values and beliefs state induced system. In that late state, it is very difficult to break through to you. In my own situation, a grew up in a conservative, none-innovative family. It was just not possible that our state supported authorities could be wrong. Our experts were a kind of oracles. Thats the tricky thing about the news on televison. When you watch the news, what you see on the television screen is a “show” comprised of three ingredients which put together bakes the perfect cake of manipulated narratives:
- The news presenter
- The reporter (mostly a journalist)
- The expert (mostly an academic person picked from a University)
The news presenter is someone that you feel is just 100% neutral as the title “presenter” indicates. You are not supposed to think that he or she is doing anything else than introducing you to pure facts. Thank you for the presentation, så we know what is all about. Israeli soldier killed on the West Bank by Palestine terrorist…or something like that. When the presenter says “terrorist” is MUST be a terrorist, because the presenter is only a news-machine” who has no opnion, no values, no aganda. The news presenter keeps all his og her own ideas out of the game. Neutral!, did you hear me!?
And then a cut. We now see a reporter who reports directly from the events taking place right in front of your eyes. We see the dead body, and some screaming Palestinians. Now you have come very close to facts. You are bathing in facts, so to speak. You can SEE that they are terrorists, and you can identify with the poor soldier because there is a short clip with his mother who cries. Cut back to the tv studio. But what is this? Beside the news presenter, we see an expert, and the presenter asks some questions so we – the stupid people – can understand the facts we are still wet from bathing in. The expert explains what consequences this and that will have. Or maybe some predictions of future scenarios. They give their “personal” take on the situation. But as you grow older you find out that this “personal take” was somehow totally identical to all the other expert in the West…except for the all the experts who have an opposite take on the situation but which is also so mysteriously identical to each other that you know that it is agreed upon BEFORE they went on screen. How does this come about? Are the experts phoned by someone – a news editor – who dictates to groups of experts with two different and conflicting opinions? No. This is not how it works. It works like this: There is already an agreed upon narrative about a case. Lets stick to the West Bank story. The narrative is that the Palestinians are terrorists! Thats it! We dont question that. Even though Israel has occupied their land then they are terrorists. So in the West are brain washed by the news presenter (the nice guy og the beautifull “neutral” lady in the studio. In the moment that say “terrorist” and say it again and again there is no way you can keep that concept out of your brain. It slowly settles into you way of thinking…UNLESS you are very awake and suspiccious. And this the trick: News in the media is all about serving you the stories in a way that both seems smooth, easy, and with such a demonstration of credibility that you totally surrender. Your critical sence is swiched off. You are served two opposing opinions. But never the third! The two first ones agree on the idea that the Palestinians are terrorists. But they disagree on minor points. Thats the way they cut the news-cake!
wonderful atmosphere that you relax and BELIEVE every word. When there is a debate, then that situation also makes you belief in the predetermined narrative become even stronger
And my nature was introvert.
Dont ask questions. Dont question authorities. Bent over and respect. Nobody forced anyone. Everything was moving foreward nice smooth.
I had no idea, at all about
vi kun har resultatet at se på. Vi kan af gode grunde ikke vide hvordan mennesket og samfundet ville være hvis vores samfunds- og familiestruktur var fuldkommen anderledes. Måske ville det være langt mere empatisk, mere omsorgsfuldt og sundt på alle måde. Det tror jeg. Og nu vil jeg give dig et billede på hvordan sådan en sund samfundsstruktur kan se ud. Men først vil je skitsere for dig hvordan det er blevet som det er blevet. For her spiller to samfundsstrukturer en afgørende rolle, nemlig perioden før og efter industrialiseringen i 1800-tallet.
How the social structure of modern societies promotes mental and physical suffering
How to unhook yourself from this sick society
It is not that difficult, but you cant do it all at once. And for most people, it is only to a certain degree you can unhook. One thing that is important to know, is that at the moment you begin to divert from the state-supported organizations for advice, you cant trust them.
In the moment you begin to change your course of life away from the official guidelines from state-supported organizations, you are entering into a world where you cant trust their advice any longer. Here are a few examples where their advice is totally based on propaganda:
Warnings and fear-mongering against veganism.
Warnings against choosing not to vaccinate.
Completely confused recommendations when it comes to nutrition in general. Read an example here about sugar (the Arne Astrup case).