from bartender B. Stehle //
Before the pandemic, it was common for people to enter a restaurant or bar, sit down at a free table that had not been explicitly reserved and wait to be greeted and served by a waiter. Since then, however, it has become common for people to enter an empty bar and ask uncertainly whether there is still a table for two. We have quickly internalized this behaviour, this new normality, and now regard it as the norm. This phenomenon of people quickly becoming accustomed to certain situations makes sense from an evolutionary perspective and is referred to in psychology as shifting baselines. Another, related image for similar behavior is the frog, which (allegedly) does not react when the water temperature in which it sits is slowly increased. In other words, the respective cultural, social or political framework in which we operate serves as a reference for what we perceive as normal and therefore do not question. Being aware of this and reflecting on it can be helpful in recognizing how drifting off course is progressing.
Where has our system gone when a politician who obviously has unhealthy eating habits gives us advice on nutrition? When an incompetent children's book author is responsible for far-reaching economic decisions? Such caustic polemics are in vogue and only serve to vent frustration. Behind this lies the underlying problem that our political system promotes those professional politicians who can stage themselves in the media and, above all, understand the game of rope teams within the parties, but have no competence in their specialist area. Even more generally, it can be observed that those in positions of responsibility have an alarming lack of moral grounding and professional experience. The frame of reference seems to be limited to understanding what should not be talked about and which point of view must be avoided in order not to be canceled. Especially in the field of international politics, the coming together of shifting baselines and politicians without backbone is deeply threatening.
We are currently experiencing two conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Middle East that are causing enormous suffering and whose consequences are unforeseeable. At an economic level, the so-called BRICS states are expanding their radius and deepening their cooperation. This bloc is increasingly forming against the G7 states, leading to a de-integration of the global economy. Sanctions and the loss of Russian gas are making trade and energy supplies more difficult. The explosions of pagers and other electrical devices in Lebanon can lead to a far-reaching loss of confidence in Western technologies.
At a military level, the image of an escalation ladder is often used. With each further step up the ladder, new measures are discussed which, if you take a few steps back, were previously completely unthinkable. The rolling of German tanks towards Moscow or direct technical support for long-range missile attacks on Russian territory can be cited here as examples. The problem with such dynamics is that they are sometimes similar to the young cat that climbs the tree but doesn't know how to get back down again.
We have now become accustomed to escalation in both areas, both economically and militarily. This impression of being in a spiral of escalation is reinforced by the way the mainstream media reports. This includes the choice of words in headlines (it is the "Russian war of aggression on Ukraine;" but can anyone remember reading about the "American war of aggression on Iraq"?) as well as the dehumanization of the other side. Above all, however, it is the selection or the weighting of the topics that leads to a
distorted picture of the situation and make escalation appear plausible as the only possible course of action.
Most Western politicians seem strangely unconcerned about this dramatic situation. In his book Höhenrausch, the journalist Jürgen Leinemann has shown that the generations who experienced the Second World War either directly or through first-hand accounts had internalized the fact that peace was of the utmost importance. Their experiences served as a guardrail for their actions. More generally, historians have repeatedly observed that societies that have directly experienced what war means are very keen to avoid it. The current approach of Western politicians to these conflicts is irresponsible and a departure from established ways of thinking and acting since the Second World War.
A telling example of the combination of shifting baselines and the actions of blind politicians can be illustrated by one question: who remembers a far-reaching initiative by the European Union for peace negotiations in recent years? The mere demand for such an initiative appears to be an affront. Reference is often made to the failed appeasement policy of the 1930s. However, this historical comparison is flawed in many respects and can be misused as an argument for killing. The arguments or needs of the other side are not heard, as they are assumed to be radically unpredictable. The latter has been refuted by numerous historians and political scientists [1], but these arguments have no place in public discourse. As during the pandemic, the public narrative falsely suggests that there is a consensus among experts. In July, Viktor Orbán made such an attempt. Die Zeit introduced its report with the following words: "Hungary has held the EU Council presidency for a few days and now Prime Minister Orbán wants to talk about peace in Russia. The EU is clearly criticizing him for this." The fact that this completely absurd news is perceived as normal is an expression of the situation that this article has roughly outlined and can only leave reflective people concerned.
Sources
[1] These include Prof. John J. Mearsheimer, one of the most important political scientists of our time, Prof. Jeffrey Sachs.
English 
German 
Spanish
5 Responses
„Wir bauen auf und reißen nieder, dann haben wir Arbeit immer wieder.“
There are several major topics that stand like elephants in the media room, but which should not be fundamentally debated as they are more or less taboo: First and foremost, the United Europe project, followed by unbridled migration, the economic imbalance and over-indebtedness of Western economies, the neo-colonialism of finance capitalism, the countless wars of the US empire and the support provided by its vassal states (vassal state is a technical term in geopolitics), the oppression of the Palestinians by Israel, the expansion of NATO in the East and Ukraine - war with the support of the EU and NATO. And most recently, the consequences of the pandemic policy. Anyone who seriously scratches the surface of these taboos will be silenced by the media and personally harassed. These topics are certainly dealt with, but in an affirmative manner and following the narratives, pseudo-critically at best. The state, the ruling left-green-conservative center and its parties, makes use of many preliminary and auxiliary organs, as it is itself obliged by the Basic Law to uphold freedom of opinion. A truly open debate no longer takes place, even in most social media. The frog is boiled slowly, i.e. the escalation ladder is constantly being climbed. Phrases, repetition and amplification are the usual means. None of this could take place under the eyes of a truly left-wing or liberal public. The socialists have been bought off and distracted with the hunt for neo-Nazis, while the liberals have degenerated into a party of dentists. The neocons are up to mischief worldwide. ... Orwell foresaw all this in his novel 1984 when he formulated the "Newspeak": "War means peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength". And the party (or parties) are always right. And the media are their mouthpieces. So nothing new under the sun. The return of the same old thing. The costumes change, the play is always the same.
the cat in the tree was not able to understand that its way back was difficult or even impossible.
This may also apply to underexposed personnel such as Habeck, Baerbock, the Greens in general, etc.
Their mental horizon is certainly not even that of a cat.
A Merkel, v. d. Leyen, Scholz, Lauterbach, Spahn, Lindner, Merz, Kiesewtter etc. are clearly acting with intent here.
This pack has booked the helicopter service for the world's largest financial managers and the pharmaceutical and arms industry. Politicians such as Trump and Orban put the shuttle service in need of explanation.
Ich stimme hier teilweise zu. Die Grünen auf ihre Inkompetenz und arrogante Dummheit zu reduzieren, führt am Kern der Probleme vorbei. Einen totalitären, ideologisch basierten Machtanspruch kann man bei einigen grünen Figuren durchaus erkennen. Bei der besten Aussenkriegministerin aller Zeiten offensichtlich vermengt mit infantilster Dummheit, so dass man die ideologische Bösartigkeit kaum noch erkennt. Bei Habeck ist ein eiskalter Wille zu einer totalitären Machtentfaltung unübersehbar, er befindet sich auf dem Kriegspfad gegen das eigene Volk, das er zutiefst verachtet. Ich bezeichne ihn zuweilen als den „grünen Pol Pot“, da ich ihn aufgrund seiner unübersehbaren Charaktermängel für ungemein gefährlich halte. Die Beschreibung der Grünen mit den Begriffen „Inkompetenz“ und „arrogant anmassende Dummheit“ ist also meiner Einschätzung nach eine echte Verharmlosung dieser destruktiven Bande.
We are governed by deliberately stupid, incompetent criminals who are supposed to incapacitate Germany and Europe on behalf of the USA.
Proof of this is the unspeakable terrorist daughter von der Leyen.