Waltz with Tina

 » There Is No Alternative « . A shocking formula, the motherhood of which is attributed to Margaret Thatcher. A maxim that he used in the 1980s to reject any criticism of his neo-liberal ideas in a market economy. 

« TINA »: the breadcrumb trail of the government’s « covidian » communication. A political slogan, to which the dominant media offer a formidable sounding board, an amplifying effect. It is no longer a question of « thinking » society, of making choices, but of following its « natural laws », formulated by technoscience. Its corollary: to discredit, even muzzle, any dissident speech. Identify the opponent well. In the Middle Ages, the witch, the heretic, were hated. In the 19th century, the cursed citizen was labelled a « socialist ». In the twentieth century, at the time of McCarthyism, he became a « communist ». Secondly, the terms « Poujadist » and « populist » are used as political scarecrows. Today, the word « conspiracy » is used as an anathema. A ban. A catch-all term where we throw in the same bag: « anti-5G », « antivax » or critics of the management of the health crisis. 

The conspiracist is the « pariah » citizen. And it works. It acts as a powerful anesthetic. A vector of self-censorship. The factory of the omerta. Coming out of one’s reserve to criticize the government’s management has become a balancing act, even a brave one. 

Scientific personalities, who have rowed against the current of the health doxa , have taken their toll. Among them: Luc Montagnier, the famous discoverer of the AIDS virus, winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine, for whom the Covid 19 virus could be a human creation in the laboratory. A thesis, scorned by scientists, accredited to feed the conspiracy theory. Another example is that of the geneticist and former director of research at INSERM (Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale), Alexandra Henrion-Caude. The researcher, who is highly critical of the decisions taken to fight the virus, is accused of conspiracy. INSERM disassociated itself from his comments. Youtube censored it. 

What should the average citizen, « scientifically illiterate », think about the discrediting of such personalities, who were once distinguished by a prestigious career and a high-flying CV? Are we to believe that they are seriously mistaken; that they have lost their marbles? Or should we see them as « whistleblowers », playing the Cassandra, ready to sacrifice their reputation, even their career, in the name of the collective interest? 

The question deserves to be asked. Faced with the oppressive straitjacket of the single thought, what would be the motive of a scientist to go and pour out his stream of infox? Are we to believe that they are on the wrong side of the fence, knowing that science can be manipulated, as Pascal Vasselin and Frank Cuveillier demonstrate in their documentary, The Factory of Ignorance, broadcast last February 23 on Arte ? The latter offers an edifying example of the nauseating strategies developed by certain industrialists (like the tobacco and pesticidelobby ) to drown out inconvenient scientific truths, or even to produce counter-science, falsified studies, in order to continue to sell their dangerous products, to avoid too restrictive legislations or legal proceedings. 


According to Prime Minister Alexander De Croo,  » we have to trust science and analysis  » in the management of this epidemic(1).

« Science : one and indivisible. Has she become a deist? On the one hand, there is the « real » science, which the government listens to religiously. On the other hand, the underground « conspiracy » movement, which can be found on social networks? 

In the Middle Ages, the dogmatic obscurantism of the Church blocked all critical thinking. The Age of Enlightenment shattered the leaden cap that locked him in. For the scholars of that time, it was necessary to question the veracity of things. Is it no longer a healthy reflex to doubt? Why should the citizen, who doubts the integrity of Big Pharma, be seen as a « suspected conspiracy theorist », knowing, among other things, that in its negotiation of advance purchase contracts for vaccines, the European Commission has given precedence to business secrecy over information for citizens? That these provide for liability exemption clauses for manufacturers? That it favors the logic of « privatization of gains » and « collectivization of losses », since in case of medical problems following their injection, the responsibility falls almost entirely on the States? That some medical personnel are reluctant to be vaccinated? That in exchange for public funding, the EU did not require pharmaceutical companies to share technology? That it protects the interests of Big Pharma in the monopoly of patents, in the World Trade Organization(2), while paradoxically claiming that the end of the pandemic depends on the vaccination of the world population, etc. ? 

In the light of these facts, where it is obvious that money takes precedence over health, it is at least legitimate to question the management of the crisis. All the more so when investigative journalism tends to be eclipsed by propaganda. 


In the crusade against the virus, « TINA » is leading the way, including in the media. In his March 12 editorial, the editor of La Libre Belgique, Dorian de Meeûs, set the tone: « The first thing I would like to say is that I am very proud of my work. It’s time for vaccination. It is essential to convince Belgians to be vaccinated in an « informed, free and voluntary » way « . A formulation that sounds like an oxymoron. For there to be an informed choice, there must be a debate, with opponents. However, the background wave is the standardization of media speech. For example, the « erthean » interviews of Matin Première, including  » Le parti pris  » of last March 16. The guest debaters: two apostles of vaccination. Emmanuel André, microbiologist and virologist at the KULeuven, and Charlotte Martin, infectiologist at the CHU Saint-Pierre, for whom vaccination should be made compulsory for the entire population. 

The dominant media is preparing public opinion in this sense. Their ritual: the daily bludgeoning of figures on the Covid of the National Institute of Public Health Sciensano, which remain relentlessly bad, even alarming. This is the main argument used from one consultation committee to the next to avoid loosening the screws, or even tightening them. The way to keep the pressure on the population, until they are vaccinated. 

By demonstrating that it is possible to make figures speak in diametrically opposed directions, the director Bernard Crutzen, in his documentary This is not a conspiracy, has created a controversy. On the flip side: announcing that Belgium has passed the 22,000 death mark serves the purpose of dramatization. This makes him a dangerous virus that justifies the serious infringements of our individual liberties, including the right to exercise his profession. On the other hand, when compared to the Belgian demography, this figure is no longer worrying: 0.17%. Certainly, the percentage increases with age, blurring however the cause of death. Are seniors being swept up by or with Covid? The announcement, in the media, that the president Valéry Giscard d’Estaing was taken by the Covid, at the canonical age of 94 years (!), leaves one wondering. The obsession with transhumanism? At the very least, the expression of a strong cognitive bias: our relationship to death. And we live on the mirage of a science capable of curing diseases, of making us invincible. 

Today, the only narrative that is valid and percolating in the overwhelming majority of the media is that of « TINA ». In doing so, they are creating a breeding ground for intolerance. They pit citizens against each other. It is therefore necessary to break up with Tina. There is indeed an alternative to the « single thought » and it is on the way. 


Notes et références
  1. Alexander De Croo: «Le moment où l’on va déconfiner n’est pas très loin» (vidéo) Le Soir
  2. L’UE bloque la demande de dérogation temporaire de certaines obligations liées à l’accord de l’OMC sur les aspects des droits de propriété intellectuelle qui touchent au commerce (ADPIC), déposée par l’Inde et l’Afrique du Sud.
Powered By MemberPress WooCommerce Plus Integration

Espace membre

Member area