In my books on the subject of “mathematics of opinions” I have shown that even positive beginnings (must) end in complete decadence, unless there is a premature end. This is most pronounced in the area of ​​politics, which for various reasons must degenerate into a melting pot of ideologically intellectually limited underachievers.

What is fatal, as can be observed live today, is the complete disconnection from reality: the leaders not only have an ideologically limited horizon of facts, they are also surrounded by a dense cordon of followers who absorb the leaders’ secretions with sexually fervent desire (I have also shown the background to this) and do not allow anything to get to them, i.e. they also effectively shield them from attempts at rational argumentation, which of course has an even greater effect on the ideologization.

On the other hand, the brain is bound to a demand-reward loop: people face challenges that, when mastered, cause a hormonal feeling of happiness (again, more details in “Mathematics of Opinions”). The absence of happiness hormones, in turn, causes people to look for new challenges. A problem arises when there are essentially no more challenges, because any action becomes without consequences.

This is also explained live in today's politics: normally, politicians should have to answer for an action, even if the responsibility only consists in asking themselves “Will I be voted out and can no longer act like this?” Today, the political system has reached a point where this no longer applies. All politicians, starting with the last backbencher in parliament, can do whatever they want without any consequences. A health minister can break laws and even the constitution, prove himself corrupt, send hundreds of thousands of citizens to illness and death and finally declare that all of this was not necessary - and stay in office and can carry on completely arbitrarily. No action has any consequences anymore, except perhaps for the last backbencher who is eliminated in the next round of elections.

Of course, this does not only apply to politics. The people behind it who still have some intelligence, the oligarchs or multi-billionaires who at least partially play their games behind the scenes, are also affected. For someone like Bill Gates, no action has any consequences anymore and the reward of happiness hormones is missing.

Ultimately, this leads to a displacement activity according to the motto "one man's joy is another man's sorrow". What can no longer be achieved through positive experiences of one's own can be achieved through negative experiences of others, for which one is ultimately responsible. The appeal of the matter is that you don't have to feel any consequences yourself, but others do (this is again explained in more detail in the books). This starts with the reporting of critics (even the followers in the justice system are subject to such mechanisms, as they too no longer have to fear any consequences if they ignore the law) and continues all the way to compulsory vaccination. I think it is quite possible that some politician or another has experienced a kind of inner reward orgasm in their uncompromising commitment to compulsory vaccination against the fears of those affected.

Where does it end? Wild conspiracy theories report cruel rituals by the rich and powerful in which women or - as the crowning glory - children are sacrificed. Well, if you think the development described through to the end, these are not conspiracy theories, but for some of those affected it may well end there. The ultimate kick from murdering someone else because something else no longer gives them a kick.

Is that also the background to the current desire for war that prevails everywhere? In Ukraine, the machinations of these people, who preach daily that more and more powerful weapons must be sent there, have probably already cost 1 million human lives, and another million could well be saved by what the Israeli government is doing, also with the help of the local hawks. And these things are not even far away: on social and other networks you can watch videos of people dying there at any time. Does that give you a kick? Or are we all already oversaturated with the virtual reality of the media industry, which can depict blood splattering around and guts hanging from houses in much more colorful ways with the help of AI? Is there really a desire to experience that live? Or is there still so much residual reality that you would rather not experience it yourself, but at least see someone you know personally die?

There is a lot to suggest that the ideological view is becoming increasingly narrow. It seems that the invulnerability of the warmongers leads them to make invulnerability itself an axiom of their thinking, in the sense that a war can destroy everything around them, but not them and their way of life. They seem to believe that they will continue to live in a luxury villa with servants who bring them everything they ask for, when everything around them looks like something out of a Mad Max film. And unfortunately, this virus also seems to be infecting those who are just the bulk of the claqueurs.

The reality: in the EU countries, no one has enough weapons to wage a war for even a few days. No one has a war industry that could provide replacements. The population is anything but ready or willing to fight; they are no longer even willing to work. One might consider the replacement of a private as warlord by a lance corporal as progress, but it is certainly not. The warmongering has no basis in reality, but is nevertheless constantly intensifying. Even if there is no war, it will still lead to hardship and misery. And although this cannot be overlooked, there is still a majority of the population that continues to enthusiastically participate.

As a consequence of current experiences, one view must be corrected: up to now, sociological and psychological models have assumed that a proportion of 25% - 33% of realists is enough to overturn the ideology. Current developments, however, show that an absolute majority, i.e. >50%, is actually necessary for a tipping point. Or, to put it more brutally: if you want peace, you must first kill everyone who wants war.