Covidistan Annals XVIII: The (Coming) Changing of the Guards

Finally, my reading of the Supreme Court's letter--it signals to the Covid Puppets that 'the system' is switching into survival mode, i.e., a large sacrificial offering of 'pawns' is in the making

I’ve promised to compile my take on the Austrian Constitutional Court’s laundry list of data requests that have had quite an impact on both the Covidistan putschists’ attitudes as well as their fellow travellers beyond the borders, most notably in Germany. Pushed for quite some time by Health Minister Karl Lauterbach—yes, he studied, but never practiced, medicine—harsh mandates are still the one and only thing that appears to matter to Lauterbach, Mückstein, and their ilk, all evidence that introduces nuance, introspection, and consideration be damned.

So, we shall talk about the fast-moving events that appear here and there even in legacy media of the state and de facto garden variety. While this would be a daring undertaking, here’s a brief, very selective sampling from Covidistan legacy media that tells very much by itself:

• Here’s the Kurier, reporting that ‘numerous North European countries are opening up: the Omicron wave has crested’.

• Israel, Pfizer’s biggest lab colony to-date, is similarly rescinding numerous of its more onerous mandates, as per ORF.

• And ‘even’ Italy is now opening up, according to yet another piece on ORF.

• Also, news broke last night that Czechia’s supreme administrative court has declared the 2G rule in hotels and restaurants illegal, which the ORF briefly mentioned and quickly removed from its frontpage (see here for the Oberösterreichische Nachrichten’s take)

Sure, Germany is closely following the—in my opinion #UNACCEPTABLE—way the Committee of Public Safety in Covidistan is treating its inmate population of former citizens. As mentioned above, Health Minister Lauterbach has a lot of wet dreams about implementing comparable vaccination mandates (that, as time will tell, may or may not be against EU law, but then again, if the EU court system somehow discovers abusive government overreach in this, it’ll be a first).

So, this brief post explores two questions:

1. Why opening up now?

2. What I think is behind these moves.

As an aside, there may be some musings as to why (even) Covidistan legacy media kind of accurately, if highly selectively (no recent mention of the Canadian Freedom Convoy or the protests in Ottawa), reports on these developments.

Sidenote: contrary to my usual reporting, this piece is more of an op-ed, hence fewer direct quotes from media reports.

What’s driving the lessening of mandates?

Given the widespread—and rising—anti-mandate sentiment in Covidistan and beyond, any such question should recognise that the Constitutional Court’s dispatch of a long list of requests to Health Minister Mückstein to fork over essential, if hitherto unavailable data, on 26 Jan. 2022 is a key driver.

Curiously enough, that letter appeared on social media first before legacy outlets began mentioning it briefly on Sunday and Monday. I’ve reported on this development, but what’s more important is the fact that while legacy media was catching up to these developments, the item also quickly vanished from the frontpages. As of today, there’s virtually no discussion in state and de facto state media about this. Note further that ‘even’ the Constitutional Court’s own website—which typically keeps track of these procedures—hasn’t been updated since 18 Jan. 2022.

One of the readers, Yakari, has expressed his or her desperation about the Court’s intent:

I don’t think that the questions from one (!) FPÖ judge will change anything. That’s not a letter from all Supreme Court judges but only from one.

While at the time I disagreed partially with the comment—I wrote: ‘this is an official enquiry, and the odds that [Judge] Hauer’s colleagues on the bench didn’t at least not disagree with [or object to] the letter is telling in and of itself’—my thinking has since evolved on this matter. A few days ago, I wrote this (lightly edited for clarity):

Propaganda works, and these senior jurists aren’t immune, hence they fall quite likely into ‘high-risk’ groups by age (and, presumably, lifestyle). They also don’t work alone, hence—assuming for the sake of the argument a staff of 5 people, statistically, at least one of these five would be unvaccinated, to say nothing about family members—it is highly unlikely that the judges didn’t hear anything about the valid criticism of the mandates, serious adverse events, and vaccine injuries.

I also don't think that party politics and/or affiliation play that big a role. My gut feeling is that the judges see that the crowds protesting the vaccination mandate aren’t going away. If anything, supreme court judges are exceptionally good at reading the audience (otherwise they’d never be appointed to such sensitive positions), hence I think that Hauer and his colleagues are sizing up the government.

That said, my estimation is twofold:

First, I’m usure the Court intended the enquiry to be so widely publicised as it eventually became. The fact that the Court’s website wasn’t updated to reflect this is certainly indicative of this.

Second, I do think that the Court is kind of loath to have the public know, which I deem reprehensible at best (as this is a mostly family-friendly newsletter). State and de facto state legacy media is, of course, in cahoots with the ongoing Covid coup d’état against popular sovereignty, bodily autonomy, and the sovereign individual, hence the above notes about the quick memory-holing of these and related issues.

What may be behind this?

There are, of course, many factors at work, including personal experiences, high levels of credentials, intimate knowledge about ‘the system’ (no outspoken critics are ever appointed to the bench), and wide-ranging contacts among the judicial branch all-over Europe, facilitated in Judge Hauer’s case by his ‘prior experiences’ in academia.

Hence, I think that the Court is seeing the sustained mass protests; they are also aware of developments elsewhere in Europe (e.g., the Czech Republic, Croatia, Germany, but esp. in Northern Europe), which are, frankly, impossible to hide. In addition, the judicial branch is the part of government as a whole, in particular with respect to popular opinion (which is, of course, in part by design).

Now, why would they go against the putschists and their willing executioners in the legacy media?

Well, I think it was a shot across the bow to signal to the régime that they’d better watch out. I think this entire letter—which, by the way, legacy media has a really hard time to explain away all the questions that have so far been associated with tinfoil hat-wearing right-wing extremists—is the preparation for the next step in the contingency planning of ‘the system’.

In other words: the current crop of putschists is the designated ‘fall crew’, in particular the already-damaged goods like Nehammer (former interior minister) and Mückstein (formerly the president’s physician), and the Court’s letter is a rather unusual way of informing them that the game is (soon) up.

It’s also a sign that ‘the system’ is closing its ranks, has switched into retrenchment mode, and is preparing to sacrifice a, really any, number of ‘pawns’ to safeguard their continued existence.

Yes, I believe it’s really ‘that simple’: energy—and hence soon also food—prices are up by some 40% in January, which is a significant hike in the cost of living. Add to that the precariously low gas storage (some 1/3 of capacity), which renders a snap cold perhaps the trigger of blackouts. Cold and hungry people, forced to endure these mandates, have never been a winning combination, historically speaking.

So, bottom line for now: Nehammer, Mückstein, and perhaps a few more of the putschists will be sacrificed if needs be. Hence, the Court’s letter—irrespective of its detailed origin—while interesting and asking the ‘right’ kinds of questions, is a potential game-changer, but rather in the sense that it signals ‘danger’ to the putschists.

The Court has allowed the régime to get away with so many bad, controversial, and illegal actions in the past two years. Still, to me it’s hardly surprising that none of the supremes had any real problems with that, neither professionally nor conscience-relatedly.

But the Court certainly cares about the perpetuation of ‘the system’. Hence—the letter is a testament to the rising anxiety among the people who steered the ship of state into very, very dangerous waters.

And if you desire more ‘proof’ of my take, well, here’s state media ORF, which earlier today came out with a long piece on the vaccination mandates final legislative and procedural steps—and the conclusion that the mandates envisioned third part (automated penalties for those who elect to forego vaccination) may never be implemented.

So, what do you think?