The fact that people are talking about a Third Corona Autumn shows just how useless the injections have been, yet it appears Beatrice Achterberg are unable to see that. (Unless she is and her editor didn't let her point it out.)
I agree on both counts, as well as with someone else (h/t Barry) notion that this might be some 'controlled opposition' think, incl. the option for future claims of 'plausible deniability', i.e., being able to state, with reference to this piece, that 'we've been on the right side since at least.…'
On the other hand, the NZZ also 'broke' the story of the Swiss Federal Council finally releasing the (heavily redacted) contracts with the injection manufacturers:
I've noticed a comparable uptick in coverage of what migth come across as 'highly technical' issues, too, such as this item about the German Constitutional Court issuing an injunction against the Federal President to stop Mr. Steinmeier from signing a law duly passed by the Bundestag in spring 2021: fearing illegal and unconstitutional changes to the EU treaties, specifically with respect to what is called a 'transfer union'--i.e., a US-like federal superstructure via judicial and/or regulatory fiat--the issue is reported on correctly in the NZZ (but virtually completely omitted from all other EU media, German and otherwise, which I regularly, if rather cursorily, check out.
Thank you! I saw the article in the Zurich Daily website but couldn't access it.
Sadly, the subsequently proposed Infection Protection Law for the coming winter in Germany is anything but a concession of errant ways last winter. Instead of apologising, they are doubling down (again)!
I hope Eugyppius is right that the proposed October-Easter measures are so obviously daft and problematic to implement (sound familiar?) that it will be their undoing, but I am not quite so confident.. I'm feeling a little despondent reading the news these days. We are led by donkeys..
Time to log off for some school-free weeks with the kids in the mountains :)
Well, compared to Norway, the charade in Germany (and Austria) is certainly one for the ages. It's not reported here at-all: a factual blackout, if you'd like.
As to the vacation: enjoy the time off and get lots of sunshine: you'll need it come autumn.
Could be, but it's also possible that the NZZ, which has a long tradition (and hence, to me, some credibility) in more comprehensive foreign reporting (their domestic sections are as bad and biased as they come, I didn't claim the NZZ is the NYT equivalent for nothing), at least relative to the rest of the self-declared 'quality media' outlets.
Indeed: let's hope more stuff like this is soon to come.
About religion: I'm not religious myself, but it would appear that the deeply religious were less likely to fall into the hysteria. It seems that way to me, but it's all anecdotal. It would make sense, though. If you already worship at the temple of Jesus (or whoever), then you don't feel as much of a need to worship at the temple of Pfizer.
So much of the cohesion of our societies is based upon recognition and acceptance of established norms with implicit levels of TRUST/FAITH in our family, friends, colleagues, neighbours, banks, etc, and organs of the state - but the primitive FEAR instinct (especially in times of existential uncertainty) can override this.
Having more FAITH in the guiding hand of God than the guiding hand of the market or governments I suspect religious are less susceptible to fear of disease and their own MORTALITY than those whose secular worldview revolves around the benevolence of the organs of the state and faith in boundless scientific mastery of nature and the promise of perpetual progress.
IMO we have witnessed a traumatic severing of many of the bonds and beliefs underpinning modern western democracies.
Anecdote: I recently spoke with an apolitical acquaintence here in south Germany who previously back in winter was accepting (if not approving) of the government corona measures. With hindsight they recognised I had been right in my harsh criticism of the state and the societal division they had created. He said with the looming winter debacle of anti-Russian sanctions he had now lost all and any FAITH in the political system. This guy is a relatively middle ground normie civil servant type!
==
p.s. I highly recommend Mattias Desmet's new book The Psychology of Totalitarianism
The severing of social bonds will have far-reaching consequences. It isn't pretty, and it's unlikely to become pretty any time soon. It's crazy how a not-particularly-dangerous virus (or rather: an overreaction to the said virus) created war-like conditions, with levels of mistrust characteristic of civil wars.
Anyway, yes, I've been planning to read Desmet's book! In fact, I've ordered it, but it hasn't arrived yet.
I'm unsure about the religious falling deeper into this kind of hysteria. Thinking about the Amish, for instance, there's no panic, Covid, or emergency whatsoever.
Apart from them, though, I'd say that the more religious people are, the less tempted they are to cast away their (metaphysical) ideals and social principles, esp. relative to their mainstream media-watching peers.
Would depend on whether or not the corporate/state message conflicts too hard with the main precepts of the faith in question.
Like this: judaism, islam and christianity regularly co-operates to make abortion ifficult to completely banned, block access to contraceptives, and keep a culture of shame re: alternative lifestyles going, despite also co-operating with national authorities in various nations.
Because all the Abrahamic faiths have the escape clause of rationalisation for a higher purpose, and can thus seamlessly co-operate with secular authoity when it suits them, without actually chaning very much internally - and the core tenet of all the Abrahamic faiths is "Obey god, meaning his self-appointed priesthoods and interpreters, or else!".
Which is why there's not very much conflict between churches (temples, mosques) and states today. Individual believers will of course be a different matter as they may well try to emulate the actual deeds and words of their prophets, rather than the anointed clergy-bureaucracy of the various respective cults.
And monodominant, intrinsically intolerant, and monolithic cults such as those of the god of Abraham who purport to follow statutes laid down thousands of years ago has been forced to develop rationalisation to an art, since the scripture and prohpets do not say word one on things like cars or vaccines - hence interpretation, which will vary with what is most expedient as a means to reinforcing existing power structures and make up for any losses in authority. These orders do not think on decades or even generations, but centuries. Right now secular capitalist democracy is still ascendant. But what has risen may sink, and what has sunk may rise again. The papacy and the Moslem Brotherhood both thinks in centuries and sees the game as open-ended. Sometimes your power ebbs, sometimes there's a flood. Adapt, align with the greatest wordly power at present, infiltrate it, change it from within, align it with your core tenets, make it your tool. Rinse, repeat, eternally.
The contrast are the rapidly dwindling religions outside this. All their power plays are local, still mainly centered around ethnicity*, and generally confined to a specific geographical area. Also, they are not concerned with converting people to their cause, preferring to let prospecive belivers make the choice freely whether to come and hear or go away.
*Judaism would fit this if not for its position of supreme power, being so well-integrated in the political, judicial and financial power structures of the western world. No, that does not mean some "jewish world conspiracy" or thinking they are one homogenous co-ordinated team, just stating facts. Using the (inherently flawed yet widely accepted) metric of proportionate representation, jews are compared to their tiny number (a rounding error compared to indian or chinese demography) extraordinarily well-placed in all important organisations - well done, and more power to them for mastering the game despite so many disadvantages I say.
Sorry for the lengthy outburst but this reflex we all share of using different metrics for religion, politics and businesses when it's all large organisations operating from a core set of various principles anyway is a pet peeve of mine. Do the name-swapping game, see if the organisation would behave differently given the same sets of circumstances, based on historical actions. Cults persecute nonbelievers and heretics, states persecute political dissidents, and corporations fires people not complying wth core corporate values.
Don't know about the concrete report, but I've seen footage of the protests. It was "mostly peaceful" in the way that human beings are "mostly water." So, technically true, I suppose, but...
The fact that people are talking about a Third Corona Autumn shows just how useless the injections have been, yet it appears Beatrice Achterberg are unable to see that. (Unless she is and her editor didn't let her point it out.)
I agree on both counts, as well as with someone else (h/t Barry) notion that this might be some 'controlled opposition' think, incl. the option for future claims of 'plausible deniability', i.e., being able to state, with reference to this piece, that 'we've been on the right side since at least.…'
On the other hand, the NZZ also 'broke' the story of the Swiss Federal Council finally releasing the (heavily redacted) contracts with the injection manufacturers:
https://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/bund-veroeffentlicht-impfstoffvertraege-doch-viel-ist-geschwaerzt-ld.1696335?reduced=true
I've noticed a comparable uptick in coverage of what migth come across as 'highly technical' issues, too, such as this item about the German Constitutional Court issuing an injunction against the Federal President to stop Mr. Steinmeier from signing a law duly passed by the Bundestag in spring 2021: fearing illegal and unconstitutional changes to the EU treaties, specifically with respect to what is called a 'transfer union'--i.e., a US-like federal superstructure via judicial and/or regulatory fiat--the issue is reported on correctly in the NZZ (but virtually completely omitted from all other EU media, German and otherwise, which I regularly, if rather cursorily, check out.
Here‘s the link to the (paywalled) content: https://www.nzz.ch/wirtschaft/eu-verfassungsklagen-gegen-den-corona-wiederaufbaufonds-ld.1690329?reduced=true
Perhaps I'll write about this next week?
Please do, because the subject deserves extreme scrutiny.
It would be very interesting to read more about this topic. Thank you for the links.
I'll see what I can do, o.k.? There's a bunch of other things I'd like to write about…but we'll get there.
Also, readers of these pages already know a lot about how the EU operates, but this issue is important, no doubt about that.
Thank you!
Thank you! I saw the article in the Zurich Daily website but couldn't access it.
Sadly, the subsequently proposed Infection Protection Law for the coming winter in Germany is anything but a concession of errant ways last winter. Instead of apologising, they are doubling down (again)!
I hope Eugyppius is right that the proposed October-Easter measures are so obviously daft and problematic to implement (sound familiar?) that it will be their undoing, but I am not quite so confident.. I'm feeling a little despondent reading the news these days. We are led by donkeys..
Time to log off for some school-free weeks with the kids in the mountains :)
You're welcome.
Well, compared to Norway, the charade in Germany (and Austria) is certainly one for the ages. It's not reported here at-all: a factual blackout, if you'd like.
As to the vacation: enjoy the time off and get lots of sunshine: you'll need it come autumn.
I bet we will pass each other without knowing...
I'll be refuging in Tessin :)
Oh, then it's unlikely. We will be just south of Chiemsee.
Don't be fooled. The op-ed was permitted. The media, and "they", are two-timing us. It is so easy to do.
Could be, but it's also possible that the NZZ, which has a long tradition (and hence, to me, some credibility) in more comprehensive foreign reporting (their domestic sections are as bad and biased as they come, I didn't claim the NZZ is the NYT equivalent for nothing), at least relative to the rest of the self-declared 'quality media' outlets.
Indeed: let's hope more stuff like this is soon to come.
About religion: I'm not religious myself, but it would appear that the deeply religious were less likely to fall into the hysteria. It seems that way to me, but it's all anecdotal. It would make sense, though. If you already worship at the temple of Jesus (or whoever), then you don't feel as much of a need to worship at the temple of Pfizer.
So much of the cohesion of our societies is based upon recognition and acceptance of established norms with implicit levels of TRUST/FAITH in our family, friends, colleagues, neighbours, banks, etc, and organs of the state - but the primitive FEAR instinct (especially in times of existential uncertainty) can override this.
Having more FAITH in the guiding hand of God than the guiding hand of the market or governments I suspect religious are less susceptible to fear of disease and their own MORTALITY than those whose secular worldview revolves around the benevolence of the organs of the state and faith in boundless scientific mastery of nature and the promise of perpetual progress.
IMO we have witnessed a traumatic severing of many of the bonds and beliefs underpinning modern western democracies.
Anecdote: I recently spoke with an apolitical acquaintence here in south Germany who previously back in winter was accepting (if not approving) of the government corona measures. With hindsight they recognised I had been right in my harsh criticism of the state and the societal division they had created. He said with the looming winter debacle of anti-Russian sanctions he had now lost all and any FAITH in the political system. This guy is a relatively middle ground normie civil servant type!
==
p.s. I highly recommend Mattias Desmet's new book The Psychology of Totalitarianism
Same here with Desmet's book, but I haven't found the time to read it yet.
The severing of social bonds will have far-reaching consequences. It isn't pretty, and it's unlikely to become pretty any time soon. It's crazy how a not-particularly-dangerous virus (or rather: an overreaction to the said virus) created war-like conditions, with levels of mistrust characteristic of civil wars.
Anyway, yes, I've been planning to read Desmet's book! In fact, I've ordered it, but it hasn't arrived yet.
I'm unsure about the religious falling deeper into this kind of hysteria. Thinking about the Amish, for instance, there's no panic, Covid, or emergency whatsoever.
Apart from them, though, I'd say that the more religious people are, the less tempted they are to cast away their (metaphysical) ideals and social principles, esp. relative to their mainstream media-watching peers.
Would depend on whether or not the corporate/state message conflicts too hard with the main precepts of the faith in question.
Like this: judaism, islam and christianity regularly co-operates to make abortion ifficult to completely banned, block access to contraceptives, and keep a culture of shame re: alternative lifestyles going, despite also co-operating with national authorities in various nations.
Because all the Abrahamic faiths have the escape clause of rationalisation for a higher purpose, and can thus seamlessly co-operate with secular authoity when it suits them, without actually chaning very much internally - and the core tenet of all the Abrahamic faiths is "Obey god, meaning his self-appointed priesthoods and interpreters, or else!".
Which is why there's not very much conflict between churches (temples, mosques) and states today. Individual believers will of course be a different matter as they may well try to emulate the actual deeds and words of their prophets, rather than the anointed clergy-bureaucracy of the various respective cults.
And monodominant, intrinsically intolerant, and monolithic cults such as those of the god of Abraham who purport to follow statutes laid down thousands of years ago has been forced to develop rationalisation to an art, since the scripture and prohpets do not say word one on things like cars or vaccines - hence interpretation, which will vary with what is most expedient as a means to reinforcing existing power structures and make up for any losses in authority. These orders do not think on decades or even generations, but centuries. Right now secular capitalist democracy is still ascendant. But what has risen may sink, and what has sunk may rise again. The papacy and the Moslem Brotherhood both thinks in centuries and sees the game as open-ended. Sometimes your power ebbs, sometimes there's a flood. Adapt, align with the greatest wordly power at present, infiltrate it, change it from within, align it with your core tenets, make it your tool. Rinse, repeat, eternally.
The contrast are the rapidly dwindling religions outside this. All their power plays are local, still mainly centered around ethnicity*, and generally confined to a specific geographical area. Also, they are not concerned with converting people to their cause, preferring to let prospecive belivers make the choice freely whether to come and hear or go away.
*Judaism would fit this if not for its position of supreme power, being so well-integrated in the political, judicial and financial power structures of the western world. No, that does not mean some "jewish world conspiracy" or thinking they are one homogenous co-ordinated team, just stating facts. Using the (inherently flawed yet widely accepted) metric of proportionate representation, jews are compared to their tiny number (a rounding error compared to indian or chinese demography) extraordinarily well-placed in all important organisations - well done, and more power to them for mastering the game despite so many disadvantages I say.
Sorry for the lengthy outburst but this reflex we all share of using different metrics for religion, politics and businesses when it's all large organisations operating from a core set of various principles anyway is a pet peeve of mine. Do the name-swapping game, see if the organisation would behave differently given the same sets of circumstances, based on historical actions. Cults persecute nonbelievers and heretics, states persecute political dissidents, and corporations fires people not complying wth core corporate values.
A rose is a rose is a rose.
Jesus was a rebel against hierarchy, these modern clergy are nothing even remotely following his lead.
Exactly my point.
Seems like when I get to the point I think I can't make a mistake is when I do. Hahahaha!
"fiery but mostly peaceful"
maybe, just maybe?, you should actually just watch the report in which those words were used by the reporter instead of just parroting others?
Don't know about the concrete report, but I've seen footage of the protests. It was "mostly peaceful" in the way that human beings are "mostly water." So, technically true, I suppose, but...