by Michael Esfeld
The open society and its Enemies is the title of Karl Popper's major work of political philosophy, written in exile in New Zealand during the Second World War and published in 1945. This book was one of the intellectual foundations for the political course set by Winston Churchill's speeches in Fulton (Missouri) and Zurich in 1946: the formation of a Western community of states based on the rule of law and human rights in opposition to the Soviet empire. As a result, the Iron Curtain became not only a physical border, but above all an ideological one - the assertion of freedom against the claim to power of totalitarianism. This course was set within a framework that encompassed all major social groups and political parties in the West: whatever different interests and different party political programs existed, the liberal constitutional state based on fundamental rights in contrast to the totalitarianism of the Soviet empire was not up for discussion. This course-setting shaped politics and society for four decades. In 1989, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, no new course seemed necessary: freedom and the rule of law had prevailed. Francis Fukuyama even spoke of the end of history.
That was a mistake. The course is being set now, in 2021. Today, too, it is about a choice between freedom and totalitarianism, which in turn could shape our lives for decades to come. And it is again about a trend that could encompass all major social groups and political parties, whatever their differences may be. We will be able to determine this course by the consequences we draw from the coronavirus crisis.
Popper on the open society
The open society is characterized by the fact that it recognizes every person as a person: the person has an inalienable dignity. They have the freedom to shape their lives as they see fit, as well as the responsibility to be accountable for their actions on demand. Freedom is the human condition. When we think and act, we are free. This is because we can demand reasons and thus justifications for thoughts and actions - and only for these. For behavior that is a reaction to biological stimuli and desires, on the other hand, it makes no sense to demand reasons. We are free because the human species has freed itself in evolution from the constraint of being subject to a mere reaction to stimuli.
This freedom gives rise to fundamental rights. These are rights to defend oneself against external interference in the formation of one's own judgment about how one wants to shape one's life. In philosophy, these fundamental rights are conceived in such a way that they are given with the existence of persons as such. They therefore do not depend on the positive law of a state or contingent historical circumstances. For example, in natural law since antiquity; in the Enlightenment, which politically demanded universal human rights that apply equally to all people and led to the abolition of slavery, among other things; in Kant, whose categorical imperative demands that people should always be treated as ends in themselves and never merely as means to an end; in the 20th century, for example, in Karl-Otto Apel's discourse ethics or John Rawls' theory of justice. The state is a constitutional state that protects these rights; it does not direct society, but gives people free rein to shape their social relationships.
According to Popper, the intellectual enemies of the open society are those who claim to possess the knowledge of a common good. On the basis of this knowledge, they claim to be able to control society technocratically in order to realize this good. This knowledge is both factual-scientific and normative-moral in nature: it is moral knowledge about the highest good together with scientific or technocratic knowledge about how to steer people's lives in order to achieve this good. This knowledge therefore stands above the freedom of individual people, namely their own judgment about how they want to shape their lives.
These enemies come from within our society. Popper makes this clear in the transition from Socrates to Plato and then from Kant to Hegel and Marx. Socrates and Kant lay the intellectual foundation for the open society; Plato, Hegel and Marx destroy it by replacing the search for what everyone regards as a successful life for themselves with the claim to knowledge of an absolute good towards which history is heading. This knowledge entitles them to disregard basic rights and human dignity, because it is about the goal of human existence. This is why we are dealing with totalitarianism: the entire society, including the lives of families and individuals, is geared towards the realization of the alleged absolute good, without any limits being set by human dignity and fundamental rights.
These enemies of open society have been exposed by the mass murders that proved to be unavoidable in the 20th century on the way to realizing the alleged good. On this path, not only were human dignity and basic rights eliminated, but at the same time a bad result was achieved in relation to the absolute, alleged good. Under communist regimes, the economic conditions of exploitation on the road to a classless, exploitation-free society have been worse than ever before under capitalism. In National Socialism, the path to the goal of a purebred people's community led this very people to the brink of destruction. These ideas and their political consequences do indeed belong to history.
The new enemies of the open society
Nevertheless, today we are once again faced with a choice between an open society and totalitarianism. The new enemies of the open society are once again coming from within society with claims to knowledge that are both cognitive and moral in nature and which in turn result in a technocratic shaping of society that overrides human dignity and fundamental rights. However, the new enemies of open society do not operate with the illusion of an absolute good, but with deliberately fueled fear of threats that allegedly endanger our existence. These threats are based on facts, such as the spread of the coronavirus or climate change, which is correlated with industrialization over the last two centuries. These threats are used as an opportunity to make certain values absolute, such as health protection or climate protection. An alliance of experts, politicians and some business leaders claim to have the knowledge of how to manage social, family and individual life in order to safeguard these values. Again, it is about a higher social good - health protection, living conditions for future generations - behind which individual human dignity and fundamental rights must take a back seat.
The mechanism used is to put these challenges in the spotlight so that they appear as existential crises - a killer virus that is going around, a climate crisis that threatens the livelihoods of our children. The fear that is stirred up in this way then makes it possible to gain acceptance for setting aside the basic values of our coexistence - just as in the totalitarianisms criticized by Popper, in which the supposed good motivated many people to commit de facto criminal acts. After all, it is not primarily evil people who do evil things, but often good people who, out of concern for what they believe to be a threatened and existentially important value, do things that ultimately have devastating consequences.
This mechanism strikes at the heart of the open society because a well-known problem is being played out, namely that of negative externalities. This means the following: the freedom of one person ends where it threatens the freedom of others. The actions of one person, including the contracts they enter into, have an impact on third parties who are outside of these relationships, but whose freedom to shape their lives can be impaired by these actions. The boundary beyond which the free organization of one person's life causes harm to the free organization of the lives of others is not fixed from the outset. It can be defined rather broadly or rather narrowly. The aforementioned mechanism consists of creating fear and, under the guise of solidarity, defining this boundary so narrowly that there is de facto no room left for the free organization of life: Every free lifestyle of one person can be interpreted in such a way that it is accompanied by negative externalities that potentially pose a threat to the free lifestyle of others.
The new enemies of open society are stirring up fear of the spread of an alleged epidemic of the century - but of course any form of physical contact can contribute to the spread of the coronavirus (as well as other viruses and bacteria). You are stirring up fears of an impending climate catastrophe - but of course every action can have an impact on the non-human environment and thus contribute to climate change. Consequently, everyone is expected to prove that their actions are not unintentionally contributing to the spread of a virus or damaging the climate, etc. - the list could be extended indefinitely. In this way, all people are placed under general suspicion of ultimately harming others with everything they do. The burden of proof is reversed: it is not necessary to provide concrete evidence that someone is harming others with certain of their actions. Instead, everyone must prove that they are not harming others, including members of future generations. Accordingly, people can only free themselves from this general suspicion by acquiring a certificate that clears them - such as a vaccination certificate, a sustainability certificate or a social certificate in general. This is a kind of modern indulgence trade. This abolishes freedom and installs a new form of totalitarianism, because the exercise of freedom and the guarantee of fundamental rights then depends on a license granted - or denied - by an elite of experts.
The course we are facing is therefore this: an open society that unconditionally recognizes everyone as a person with inalienable dignity and fundamental rights; or a closed society to whose social life one gains access through a certificate whose conditions are defined by certain experts, as Plato's philosopher-kings once did. Just like the latter, whose claims to knowledge were debunked by Popper, their descendants today have no knowledge that would put them in a position to set such conditions without arbitrariness.
The illusion of knowledge to control society
Viral outbreaks of a similar magnitude to the current coronavirus pandemic have occurred frequently - most recently the Asian flu in the mid-1950s and the Hong Kong flu at the end of the 1960s. Open societies have always successfully combated these through spontaneous behavioral adaptation and purely medical means. This knowledge of efficient pandemic control was thrown overboard in spring 2020 and the experts who advocated the proven medical strategy with general hygiene recommendations and targeted protection of people at risk were defamed - as if anyone with any scientific reputation who advocated the traditional approach to a pandemic had lost their mind. The aim was to replace the medical strategy with a political strategy that would attempt to steer the whole of society through the pandemic by controlling physical contact across the board. Human dignity and fundamental rights take a back seat to this control. This is not about solidarity with the people at risk. Their targeted protection is undermined by the political regulation of social life as a whole. The political regimentation of everyone's social life becomes an excuse for not having to specifically take care of the protection of vulnerable people, with fatal consequences for them, visible in the scandalously high number of corona deaths in old people's and nursing homes. It is about social control of everyone's life.
There are now numerous studies that show that political reprisals such as lockdowns do not make a statistically significant difference in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic. This can be illustrated as follows: You present people with the relevant data on infection incidence such as hospital admissions and deaths in relation to the population from countries with a similar geographical location and economic development over a longer period of time. This data does not show which of these countries have taken strict political measures, such as a lockdown with stay-at-home orders, and which have not.
One example is the comparison between Germany and Sweden from May 2020, after Sweden got to grips with the initial failures to protect retirement and nursing homes: there has been no statistically significant difference in the success of the fight against the pandemic between Sweden without lockdown and Germany with lockdown since May 2020. Another example is states in the USA, such as Florida and California, which are comparable due to their warm climate and coastal location. Since September 2020, the governor of Florida has been following the science, namely the science that has always been used to successfully combat pandemics of a comparable magnitude medically. Despite all the catastrophic prophecies, if you follow this science, Florida is no worse off in the fight against the pandemic than California, where political reprisals continue. The same is true for South Dakota, which never resorted to political coercion, compared to North Dakota.
What's more, numerous studies from many countries now confirm that the health, social and economic damage caused by the so-called coronavirus protection measures will far exceed their benefits. This is calculated as follows: You accept the assumption that lockdowns can actually prevent premature deaths due to infection with the coronavirus in a statistically significant way. You then estimate the years of life that can be gained through a lockdown and compare them with the years of life that are lost as a result of the health, social and economic damage caused by lockdowns, because people will die earlier than would otherwise be the case because of this damage. Of course, these deaths will only occur in the future, worldwide and in a socially unequal manner: They primarily affect underprivileged social classes and developing countries, mainly due to the regression in health care and poverty reduction in these countries. These figures cannot be estimated precisely, but their magnitude is clear: the damage in terms of years of life lost exceeds the potential years of life gained many times over.
All of this confirms a well-known result: if you place value X - in this case health protection - above human dignity and fundamental rights, then you not only destroy these, but ultimately also achieve a bad result in relation to X. In this case, these are serious negative effects for health protection, for the entire population and worldwide, as a result of the devastating damage caused by the so-called corona protection measures. The consequence of this should be to ban lockdowns and the like in the constitution so that what we have experienced since March 2020 cannot happen again.
Unfortunately, a similar situation is to be feared in the political handling of the climate crisis. Global warming correlated with industrialization is undoubtedly a serious challenge. Nevertheless, history's approach to climate change shows us how humanity has always mastered it through spontaneous adaptation and technological innovation. An open society provides the best conditions for this. Setting political conditions in the form of controlling the economy and society, which in turn overrides human dignity and fundamental rights and operates with rather arbitrary, politically influenced definitions of what is to be sustainable, does not lead to the goal. The facts already show that the CO2-emissions in industrialized countries without an energy transition (such as France, the UK and the USA) have fallen in percentage terms by the same amount as in countries that have made a huge financial investment in an energy transition over the last 20 years (Germany). The decisive factor is technological innovation and not political paternalism based on scientists who claim to have moral and normative knowledge to control society. In turn, it is to be feared that the political steering to supposedly save the global climate will actually prevent a targeted, localized fight against those specific environmental problems that are actually causing a large number of deaths every year.
It is no coincidence that it is largely the same group of experts and their organizations such as academies in conjunction with some politicians and some business leaders who are using the coronavirus crisis and climate crisis as an opportunity to steer us from an open to a closed society. The spread of the coronavirus is apparently being used as a dress rehearsal for the following: to define negative externalities so comprehensively by deliberately stirring up fear that every exercise of freedom is under general suspicion in order to then be able to enforce control of freedom through conditions formulated by supposed experts.
Why is this happening? For many scientists and intellectuals, it is apparently difficult to admit that they have no normative knowledge that enables them to control society. They succumb to the temptation that Popper already identified in the intellectuals and scientists he criticized. For politicians, it is not very attractive to do nothing and let people's lives take their course. So the opportunity comes at the right time to talk up familiar but new challenges into existential crises and stir up fear with pseudo-scientific model calculations that result in catastrophe forecasts. Scientists can then put themselves in the limelight with political demands that have no constitutional limits due to the alleged state of emergency. Politicians can use scientific legitimization to gain power to intervene in people's lives that they could never achieve through democratic, constitutional means. They are willingly joined by those economic players who profit from this policy and can shift the risks of their companies onto the taxpayer.
There are individual scientists, politicians and business leaders who had already called for coercive political measures during past virus outbreaks such as swine flu in 2009. These individuals were prepared to use the next best virus outbreak to push through their plans - out of sincere conviction, a desire for power or profit interests. But it is precisely Popper's theory of science that teaches us that no individual or group of individuals can determine the development of society by means of a prepared plan (a "conspiracy"). It was contingent circumstances - such as perhaps the images from Wuhan and Bergamo - combined with panic reactions that this time led to these plans finding favor in broad circles of media, politicians and scientists. A trend then emerged that swept more and more social actors along with it and was difficult to escape.
This situation is easily comparable to the outbreak of the First World War, which also developed out of contingent circumstances in July 1914. In fact, there is a danger that the history of the 20th century will repeat itself in the 21st century: the political handling of the coronavirus pandemic is similar to the First World War. Demands for a radical upheaval of society such as "Zero Covid" (and its counterpart in climate activism) correspond to Bolshevism. A radical right-wing populism is forming against these demands and the failure of the elites as a whole, which could develop into the contemporary equivalent of fascism. The economic consequences of the coronavirus coercive measures and the unlimited printing of money to cushion these consequences could lead to inflation and ultimately an economic crisis like the one at the end of the 1920s, in which the liberal forces in continental Europe were crushed between Bolshevism and fascism. It is important to be aware of this danger, to recognize the parallels with the course of the 20th century and to oppose the fatal trend that has developed in dealing with the corona pandemic.
The problem of negative externalities and its solution
The problem that arises here is an old one. It is also inherent in a state that is purely limited to protection: in order to effectively protect everyone from violence, everyone's whereabouts would have to be traceable at all times; in order to effectively protect everyone's health from infection by viruses, everyone's physical contacts would have to be controllable at all times. The problem is the arbitrary definition of negative externalities, against which liberalism and even libertarianism per se are not immune. Because it is not simply clear what is a negative externality and what is not. For example, negative externalities can be derived from the spread of viruses or changes in the global climate, which ultimately occur in all human activity and require regulation, be it state regulation or market regulation through the expansion of property rights. For example, every person could be granted property rights to the air around them, so that this air must not be contaminated by viruses that are spread by human bodies, or must meet certain climatic conditions that are influenced by human actions, and so on.
Consequently, the contrast is not between the state and free markets. Thinking in this way is not enough to tackle the underlying problem of the arbitrary expansion of negative externalities. Control can be exercised by state or private bodies. The certificates that cleanse people and allow them to participate in social and economic life can be issued by private or state agencies. There can be competition with regard to them and their specific design. All of this is ultimately irrelevant. The point is the totalitarianism of all-encompassing control, into which even liberal state and social orders can slide if negative externalities are allowed to be defined so arbitrarily that in the end everyone and everything they do is under general suspicion of harming others.
This can only be tackled with a substantial view of humanity based on freedom and human dignity. This results in fundamental rights that apply unconditionally in the following sense: Their validity cannot be subordinated to a higher goal. They can only be suspended if the defense of the existence of the state, which enforces their validity, requires this, as in the case of an external attack. This is the foundation of the open society in Popper's sense, which, as mentioned above, is laid by natural law, the demand for the political enforcement of universal human rights in the Enlightenment, etc. An open society includes a science that is just as open in its research and teaching as society itself, as well as freedom of contract and the economic freedom associated with it. However, the latter does not exist on its own, but only on the aforementioned foundation. For it is only from this foundation, which unconditionally grants everyone the right to shape their lives freely, that negative externalities can be limited in the form of concrete and significant damage to the freedom of others, which then indeed justify external interventions in people's lifestyles.
To put it another way: The axiom is the freedom of every person to think and act; recognizing a person as a person means granting them this freedom and thus respecting their dignity. This is associated with the right to shape one's own life. There is no moral value that stands above this dignity and in view of which it could be justified to define negative externalities that place the actions of every person under the general suspicion of harming others with regard to this value (such as health protection or climate protection). In philosophy, such a consideration is called a transcendental argument that applies a priori. Empirically, from history as well as from our current experience, it is also obvious (if you just want to look) that if you leave this basis, great harm is always done to the vast majority of people and benefit only the elite of those who benefit from the conditions that regulate access to a closed society. This empirical argument complements the aforementioned transcendental argument.
As was the case after the Second World War, we are now facing a turning point that could shape our society for decades to come because it could set a trend that encompasses all major social groups and political parties. In March 2020, at the beginning of the coronavirus crisis, Peter Sloterdijk said that the West would turn out to be just as authoritarian as China. Unfortunately, he was proved right last year in a way that many, including the author of this paper, did not think possible after the experience of the totalitarianisms of the 20th century. A large part of the organizational forms of social groups as well as political parties - including those that use the label "liberal" - have joined the trend towards the new totalitarianism of comprehensive control. But there were also many who opposed it out of liberal, religious or social conviction - or simply because they did not allow themselves to be deprived of common sense by a modeled reality presented to them by the media.
It is high time we became aware of the course we are facing. This requires a sober view that does not allow itself to be clouded by the fears stirred up by the new enemies of an open society, namely a view and trust in what distinguishes each and every one of us as rational beings: the dignity of the person, which consists in their freedom of thought and action.
Prof. Dr. Michael Esfeld has been Professor of Philosophy of Science at the University of Lausanne since 2002 and a member of the Leopoldinawhich he strongly in February 2021 criticized. Esfeld is a member of the academic advisory board of the Liberal Institute. The text with all references can be found on the Institute's website download. Esfeld has written on this topic in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung published. You can read the detailed essay in the Club of Clear Words.
Summary:
- As after the Second World War, we are once again faced with a choice between freedom and totalitarianism - between an open society that unconditionally recognizes everyone as a person and a closed society that ties the granting of fundamental rights to certain conditions.
- Challenges such as the spread of the coronavirus or climate change are not entirely new in terms of their quality and magnitude. Such challenges have always been overcome by open societies through spontaneous behavioral adaptation and technological innovation.
- Actors from science, politics and business, in conjunction with the mass media, are talking up these challenges as existential crises for humanity in order to gain acceptance for casting aside the basic values of our coexistence by means of deliberately fueled fear.
- Externalities are played out in such a way that ultimately every free action is suspected of harming others. The only way to free oneself from this suspicion is through a vaccination, sustainability or general social passport. The exercise of freedom is thus placed under conditions set by experts who claim to have the moral and normative knowledge to control society - like Plato's philosopher kings of old.
- This can only be tackled with a substantial view of humanity based on freedom and human dignity, which results in fundamental rights that apply unconditionally. There is no moral value that stands above the dignity of each individual human being.
Thank you for your Support of independent journalism in Germany.
English 
German 
Spanish
42 Responses
Salute!
Is there an English version/translation of this article?
Or the one that appeared in the Zūrcher Zeitung about a month ago?
Thank you very much!
Inés Belluscio
A bit of meta-level: The Corona religion - the new world religion
In 2020, the new coronavirus fear religion has replaced the Christian religion of hell and purgatory. The leading figure of the Pope surrendered to the fear priesthood of the virologists on Good Friday and at Easter; Islam has also ducked under the virus whip. The political puppets have risen to the position of high priests and currently have the same status as the banking hedge fund mafia, the 1,800 billion-euro arms industry and the Relotius media. The undisputed coronavirus god is the man who wants to vaccinate 7.8 billion people ...
Why this success? Answer: For many decades, a psychopathic "elite" called MIMBK (Military-Industrial-Media-Banking-Complex) has been working towards this to secure absolute power. (In politics, nothing happens by chance. If something happens, you can be sure it was planned that way. Franklin D. Roosevelt)
Tittytainment through television, media stultification, destruction of the family, destruction of trade unions, destruction of religions, fear production through wars, through terrorism (abolition of fundamental rights in the USA after 9/11), materialism, junk food, consumption instead of meaning, fear production through precarious employment, temporary work, unemployment, fear production through climate/global warming, ... all preparations for the final blow with the virus club, which will be the sure way to totalitarianism and enslavement via ID2020, corona app, cash abolition. Far-fetched? No - the proof is the current face mask wearers ... (Interjection - as of 14.5.2020, 10h - supplement 1.1.2021 - nota bene "great reset" of the sociopath Schwab and "elite fascism" according to Ulrich Mies)
AND: irreversible vaccine mRNA vaccine damage, cash abolition, police state and total surveillance are near ...
Dear Mr. Piechotta,
that sounds very dystopian and threatening, as do the pronouncements of our governmental fear whisperers on the other side. I hope that it is not or will not really be like this...
However, it's still not out of thin air and really only tells me that I (as a single, older person) am probably best advised to look after my peace of mind and a private environment that is as healthy as possible. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that all these people from the complexes you mentioned will also have to answer their questions at some point.
I find the text from the Aria (BWV 516), which I reproduce here in excerpts, fitting: "Why do you grieve and bend to the earth, my very troubled spirit, my weary mind? ........ If you do not firmly establish yourself in God's will, you cannot find true rest in eternity."
"Fundamental rights arise from this freedom. These are rights of defense against external interference in one's own judgment about how one wants to shape one's life."
Defending oneself against external interference in one's own judgment is hardly possible in a country in which the registered non-profit association "Netzwerk Weitblick e.V. - Verband Journalismus & Nachhaltigkeit" (s. https://www.netzwerk-weitblick.org/) formulated the following three e-mails (including spelling and typing errors) after receiving (in CC) extensive evidence of an inaccurate portrayal of the energy policy of the FDP and Christian Lindner in a report in DIE ZEIT:
AFTER ONLY 2 MINUTES: "please remove us from your mailing list" as the subject of an otherwise empty e-mail
(this is all the more astonishing as this was my first conscious contact with this network and my extensive e-mail, including various attachments, could not even begin to be recorded at that time)
AFTER MY FIRST ANSWER:
"Thank you for promptly proving my thesis. It's easier for attitude journalists to create a mood with mendacious arguments than to look the simple truth in the eye and deal with justified criticism.
Truth is relative!
Yours sincerely
Roland Aßmann")
AND MORE THAN 4 HOURS LATER, THIS SECOND E-MAIL ARRIVED FROM NETZWERK WEITBLICK:
"Hello Mr. Aßmann,
No, that is the reaction to your confused texts. And the fact that you see this as proof shows even more how lost you are.
Best regards"
THE NEXT DAY AND AFTER SENDING FURTHER INFORMATION AND AN IRONIC COMMENT ON MY PART, I RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING THIRD AND FINAL E-MAIL:
"Please stop your confusing e-mails, otherwise I will report you. You have no right to spam this mailbox. We are not obliged to communicate with you.
best regards"
The complete correspondence with this association, whose members are made up of journalists from various editorial offices of the press and media as well as some scientific institutions (see https://www.netzwerk-weitblick.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Mitglieder-Medien-30.6.pdf), is available to the CdkW. The self-image of this association "fits" with this: "Members exchange experiences and cooperate in the association. The association informs and supports journalists with tips, advice and events on issues relevant to the future and connects them with experts. The aim is to establish sustainability more broadly in all journalistic departments in order to promote social discourse."
My complaint to the Press Council was rejected on the following grounds:
"Dear Dr. Aßmann,
We are returning to your above-mentioned complaint. We regret to inform you that we are unable to carry out a press ethics review of the content of this website. The German Press Council is only responsible for purely online sites if they disseminate journalistic-editorial content and if we have a declaration of commitment for the website in question in which the operator agrees to voluntary self-regulation. This is not the case with regard to the website you have criticized. We are therefore unfortunately unable to process your complaint.
Yours sincerely
Name"
When an association whose members are predominantly made up of journalists from the press and media threatens citizens because they send them copies of unwelcome truths, this has a quality that should and ought to be of interest to the Press Council.
With this self-image of the press, it is no longer surprising that almost all of the facts and anomalies described here about climate change and drought in connection with wind energy are in fact absent from reporting and thus from public perception: https://freier-wald-ev.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Standortgebunden-abgeschopfter-Wind-verursacht-Windsterben.pdf
Exceptions, e.g. the news from Nordhausen, only confirm the rule: https://www.nnz-online.de/news/news_lang.php?ArtNr=273203
It is fitting that, according to the latest Forsa poll, the Greens are at 26%, while the CDU is only at 24%. At 15%, the SPD has long been paying a high price for lagging behind the Greens.
When will the other parties finally understand that the suppression of facts, which formed the basis of my letter, which I sent in CC to the Netzwerk Weitblick and others, only harms the parties mentioned and helps the Greens and the many journalistic followers among their supporters?
So it is not surprising that politicians like Sahra Wagenknecht, who have long recognized this (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIlUci-PJVA) are massively bullied by public broadcasters, for example the recent ZDF report from Berlin. It is not only in Turkey that citizens are led by the media during elections. Unfortunately, there are still too many people in Germany who believe 1:1 what Kleber, Slomka & Co. report and base their voting decisions on this.
The core lies in upbringing and education. We were made slaves through punishment and reward. Why does a slave need freedom? He can't handle it. The golden cage seems to be better for him and with an artificial intellect he no longer needs to think about what is good or bad for him. The common good is misinterpreted and destroys the individuality of humanity. While all the intellectuals are discussing freedom and basic laws, our children are being psychologically and physically abused. They will have to get used to the "common good" and learn to wear the masks.
"Fundamental rights arise from this freedom. These are rights of defense against external interference in one's own judgment about how one wants to shape one's life."
Defending oneself against external interference in one's own judgment is hardly possible in a country in which the registered non-profit association "Netzwerk Weitblick e.V. - Verband Journalismus & Nachhaltigkeit" (s. https://www.netzwerk-weitblick.org/) formulated the following three e-mails (including spelling and typing errors) after receiving (in CC) extensive evidence of a misrepresentation about the energy policy of the FDP and Christian Lindner in a report in DIE ZEIT:
AFTER 2 MINUTES: "please remove us from your mailing list" as the subject of an otherwise empty e-mail
AFTER MORE THAN 4 HOURS: "Hello Mr. Aßmann
No, that is the reaction to your confused texts. And the fact that you see this as proof shows even more how lost you are.
Best regards"
(and my reply: "Thank you for promptly proving my thesis.
It is easier for attitude journalists to create a mood with mendacious arguments than to look the simple truth in the eye and deal with justified criticism.
Truth is relative!
Yours sincerely
Roland Aßmann")
THE NEXT DAY, AFTER SENDING FURTHER INFORMATION AND AN IRONIC COMMENT ON MY PART, I RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING E-MAIL:
"Please stop your confusing e-mails, otherwise I will report you. You have no right to spam this mailbox. We are not obliged to communicate with you.
best regards"
So far, these are all three e-mails (available to the CdkW including my original replies) from an association whose members (see https://www.netzwerk-weitblick.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Mitglieder-Medien-30.6.pdf) includes journalists from Handelsblatt, ARD, the Institute for Ecological Economy Research (IÖW), Klimaretter.info, Süddeutsche Zeitung, FAZ, Redaktion grüner Journalismus (www.grüner-journalismus.de) at Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences, the Chairman of the Supervisory Board of ARTE, Tagesspiegel, deutsche Verkehrszeitung, reich.media, ARD aktuell, TAZ, Capital, NDR info, Leipzig University and ZEIT. In addition to other academic institutions and freelance journalists, the association's publicly accessible list of members (see link above) also includes the employee of a bank.
Anyone who has been puzzling over why many editorial offices are suddenly reporting on so-called conspiracy theories should take a closer look at this non-profit organization.
It is therefore no longer surprising that all the facts and anomalies described here about climate change and drought in connection with wind energy do not actually occur in the public perception:
https://freier-wald-ev.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Standortgebunden-abgeschopfter-Wind-verursacht-Windsterben.pdf
Exceptions, e.g. the news from Nordhausen, only confirm the rule: https://www.nnz-online.de/news/news_lang.php?ArtNr=273203
With regard to my written complaint to the Press Council, I have not even received a confirmation of receipt of my 3 e-mails.
The otherwise estimable text does great injustice to three important thinkers: Plato, Hegel and Marx. Plato and Aristotle were under the shock of the Athenian democracy's murder of the philosopher Socrates; under the circumstances of the time, salvation only seemed possible through a tyrant. - To count Hegel among the totalitarians, i.e. those who were wrong about totality, is completely misguided, as he worked out the difference between the state and bourgeois society like no other thinker. - Marx was only accused of totalitarianism until the "Communist Manifesto" in 1848; from 1858 onwards, he developed a clear concept of the Asiatic mode of production and thus of primitive communism in the "Rough Draft of Capital". Unfortunately, he was no longer able to complete his main work himself; this was left to the theorists of 1968, which is now completely obscured by the catastrophic consequences of the feminist counter-revolution.
By enshrining it in law, the absurd political becomes not a bit more rational, but simply more dangerous for all of us affected, because the crazy/sick is declared the legal, immovable norm.
The vote on June 13 in Switzerland on the Covid19 law is unfairly conditioned under these conditions (abundance of state power, scientific uniformity, media alignment, etc.) and should be challenged in court and postponed until there is more clarity about all the incredible events and occurrences and until, with a little distance, an independent, reasonable classification will be possible at all. Otherwise, it's purely a decision of faith, which usually goes in favor of the one who is the supposedly good shepherd of my flock, because otherwise everything I've been allowed to trust so far would collapse, which would be very difficult to deal with psychologically because it would simply have to be described as absolutely "crazy". Even if it makes my head hurt, I personally now doubt the ability of our shepherds to lead and protect the flock wisely and well.
The happy private individual who abandons the citizen forgets that it was the citizen who once fought for private happiness in blood and can only guarantee it if the private individual wants to remain a citizen and continue to work for communal freedom and order.
In a democracy in which, according to the constitution, every citizen has an equal share in power, the emerging need to protect the non-empowered population from the arbitrariness and abuse of public power is a clear sign that public participation (political participation) is in a poor state.
The right response to a mere abuse of power is reform or a replacement of the government, which may only result from demonstrative pressure from the population.
Many of the theses put forward by Prof. Dr. Michael Esfeld are quite familiar to consumers of sites such as "Club der klaren Worte".
Unfortunately, I don't have any suggestions for solutions.
How was Prof. Dr. Michael Esfeld's statement received or even implemented at the Leopoldina?
What have the attempts at contradiction by critical scientists, artists, journalists and ordinary citizens achieved so far, apart from being pulverized like wrecking balls?
Personally, I am increasingly reaching a point of obvious powerlessness.
Dear Mr. Püchner,
We are also powerless because we citizens from the middle of society, who are in the middle of a successful professional life or looking back on it, do not unite and actively take action against all these machinations. We should all be aware that any government that pursues such endeavors as the current government must be aware that at some point the time will come when it no longer meets the requirements of a democracy or a free and democratic social order. Then there are only two options: Resignation or the transition to autocracy or dictatorship. In this context, statements by Horst Seehofer must also be critically examined. We should all be aware of this, especially as we live in a country that has produced two dictatorships in the last century, i.e. a right-wing and a left-wing dictatorship, and people we all know started their political careers in key positions in the left-wing dictatorship.
The press and media are almost completely ignoring a crucial question in this context: When does this government or this society intend to give unvaccinated people back the human dignity and civil liberties enshrined in the Basic Law?
A 2nd amendment would suffice, and stands precisely for the fact that the citizens of the USA do not have to tolerate tyranny.
The enshrinement of the right to resist in Article 20(4) of the Basic Law is too general and is made more difficult by the attribution of
The political constitutional bodies virtually prevent the resistance from taking an extremist stance.
I admit it: the party dictatorship has won. Mainly because of the ever-decreasing intellectual
The efficiency of citizens who do not realize where the cart is heading.
Hello Mr. Aßmann,
My answer to your last question is: not at all. The desire to get something back that in principle cannot be taken away from anyone suggests that the legitimization must come "from above". But I think that's a paradox. Change must come from the people themselves. Any resistance is welcome. In a one-to-one encounter, you wouldn't wait for the person who has locked you up and is convinced that they have done the right thing to hand you the key to freedom. This can only be done by someone who has placed themselves at the service of this "authority". Someone you wouldn't have expected: the ordinary key-keeper. I think the ordinary people, i.e. those of us who are not decision-makers in politics or business and don't have millions in our bank accounts.
Greetings to you.
Dear Dr. Aßmann,
I agree with you that there should be a merger of the middle class.
However, this raises the practical question of who can organize this and, above all, who I will reach in the end.
And even obvious coalitions, such as the demonstration in Berlin in August, are not perceived as such by many citizens due to current reporting.
Researching different positions yourself is enormously time-consuming and is therefore not done by many people.
If surveys are to be believed, 2/3 of Germans who are able to work have not suffered any financial losses during the coronavirus period.
"The little bit of mask-wearing isn't that bad, and neither is the fact that I can only take a limited vacation once or twice a year. And if I want to eat well, I'll just order it!"
I think these are also reasons for the inactivity of many.
I was able to consciously experience the "Wende". There was a union of citizens, organized by the churches. A dictatorship was abolished.
Nevertheless, I had to realize that there have only been marginal changes among those "in power".
That's why I'm not the only one who is disillusioned about this.
Dear Mr. Püchner, I'm sure the readers on this platform often feel the same way. I have a book tip for you (153 pages): "Who, if not Bill/WIR?" By Sven Böttcher. I've just finished reading it in no time at all and have felt a little reassured for a long time. On the one hand, because it recognizes, names and substantiates connections and, on the other, because it outlines an alternative concept that is anything but perfect, but leaves room for the human being within us.
Moin,
I can only agree with your comment!
I am now stunned by what is going on here and in the world.
I feel like I'm in a bad movie, in which it is tested how quickly you can panic people and restrict their rights...
I can subscribe to the appreciation of the commentators here as far as the content of the article is concerned. Beyond that, however, I have a few points of criticism.
"Another example is states in the USA, such as Florida and California, which are comparable due to their warm climate and coastal location. Since September 2020, the governor of Florida has been following the science, namely the science that has always been used to successfully combat pandemics of a comparable magnitude medically."
I wonder what is meant by the phrase "successfully combated medically". What is meant? Vaccinations? Surely not. Then the author must mean something else, but what?
"Open societies have always successfully combated them through spontaneous behavioral adaptation and purely medical means. This knowledge of efficient pandemic control was thrown overboard in spring 2020 and the experts who advocated the proven medical strategy with general hygiene recommendations and targeted protection of people at risk were defamed."
"The aim was to replace the medical strategy with a political strategy" - this is where I get confused again... Does a government create medical strategies? Probably not. That's not what it's there for, as I understand it. Nor is it authorized to do so. I don't think politicians should come up with any health strategies at all.
Again, the phrase "purely medical means" - I think that the author is leaving the field in which he is well versed. You can't blame anyone, because the history of conventional medicine is usually celebrated as a success story and hardly anyone scratches its surface. I think the indirect appreciation here went to Dr. Wodarg, for example.
Personally, I am closer to the statements of Dr. Köhnlein, who is a practising doctor and is very cautious with his criticism, which, if you listen more closely and do some research, has a lot to offer: Overmedicalization, too high dosages, wrong medication.
"Of course, these deaths will only occur in the future, worldwide and in a socially unequal manner: They primarily affect underprivileged social classes and developing countries, mainly due to the regression in health care and poverty reduction in these countries."
With regard to the words "regression in healthcare" - what do you think he means by that? Isn't that a prejudice of us moderns, that "non-developed countries" have worse healing methods? How do we know that? The really innovative researchers have been working for several decades to acquire the healing methods that were previously unknown to us and to show or tell us about them before they are in danger of being lost. Conventional medicine often does not deserve its good reputation. If you want to dig a little deeper, I recommend reading this article by Eleanora I. McBean, Ph.D., N.D.: "Swine Flu Expose" - perhaps starting with "Chapter 2 The Spanish Influenza Epidemic of 1918 was caused by vaccinations": http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sf.html - it opens your eyes in many ways and shows clear parallels to today. Not much has changed since the 1970s or even before.
The term "poverty reduction" in this context is too superficial for me. How many hundreds of years has the rich West been fighting poverty in OTHER countries? It's probably more like the first part of this paragraph suggests: the West is enriching itself with the non-developed countries and creating the image of backward (agrarian) societies, which we then have to help with our "education". An arrogant remnant from colonial times, I suspect.
Greetings to all thinkers and skeptics
Thank you for your thoughts. Nice review.
Speaking of the "success story of conventional medicine". Fifty years ago, a certain Richard Nixon declared the "war on cancer". The aim was to significantly reduce mortality, find cures and eradicate cancer altogether. Since then, countless billions have been invested in conventional medical research and therapy, and even more has been earned. Other approaches and solutions outside of surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and the like are ridiculed and fought against. Theoretically, of course, you as a patient have a free choice of therapy, but the health insurance companies do not usually pay for it, even if other methods are far cheaper.
If you only follow the traditional media and read pharmacists' journals, you get the feeling that "groundbreaking successes" in cancer treatment are being achieved year after year. But there really aren't any, unless you consider the fact that the average age of cancer deaths has risen slightly over the decades to be a huge success.
Off topic? Perhaps. Nixon: "Let us make this goal a total national commitment. America has long been the richest nation in the world. Now is the time for us to become the healthiest country ...". Maybe not off topic after all. This health pathos reminds me strongly of today's "war on virus". It's just my personal opinion that Nixon, like the people in charge today, wasn't really concerned with health.
Your comment was instructive and extremely interesting for me. Thank you very much, Mrs. Reglin.
Thank you, Mr. Löcke, for this additional information and the criticism. Yes, the much-cited "groundbreaking successes" are also just empty words. Everything seems right in order to avoid becoming ill. The more you try to avoid it, the worse it will hit you, I think. "Prevention" has become the buzzword of recent decades. A paradox, in my opinion. No, it's not off topic. When you mix ideologies with health issues, the result is always something terrible. Just setting the goal of becoming the "healthiest country in the world" smacks of megalomania.
Greetings to you.
On Gunnar Kaiser's channel on YouTube you can find a video in which Gunnar Kaiser interviews Mr. Esfeld. This might answer some of your questions. It is about the same topic and is very detailed.
Thank you, Simone M. I had already seen this interview before I commented here. However, it is the text that I have scrutinized a bit here and I was referring to the wording of "purely medicinal means" etc. Do you disagree with my criticism? If not, can you elaborate?
Many thanks and best regards
...razor-sharp, philosophical analysis...I am shocked that this comes from the pen of a member of the Leopoldina - the body that is (bought?) to advise the government. What intention is being disclosed? What is the government's position on such a critical analysis?
Michael Esfeld writes:
"This is why it is totalitarianism: the entire society, including the lives of families and individuals, is geared towards the realization of the alleged absolute good, without any limits being set by human dignity and fundamental rights."
This quote applies to all totalitarian systems. In this sense, capitalism is also "totalitarian". However, capitalism is not about the realization of a noble goal, a "highest good", but simply about the end in itself of "increasing value" (money).
The author's Marx-bashing is therefore incorrect. Because the core of Marx's social critique is more relevant than ever. Read correctly, Marx opens people's eyes to how they become slaves to their own actions in bourgeois society. Social conditions appear to people as constraints and natural characteristics of things. In his two short writings "Marx's Image of Man" and "Beyond the Chains of Illusion", Erich Fromm has aptly summarized this "esoteric Marx" (according to Robert Kurz).
This strand of Marx's theory, which is also pursued by the critics of value, must be taken up again. However, this will not be easy. If the mere mention of Marx's name causes many people to gasp and develop defensive reflexes, anyone can easily imagine what happens in the media when a political force that is to be taken halfway seriously tries to build a political program on Marx's ideas.
Not to mention the disputes on the political left about the "true" interpretation of Marx's ideas. But without a fundamental critique of the foundations of bourgeois society (the society that came into being with capitalism), a social transformation into a free, future-oriented, socially just, peaceful and ecologically sustainable society will not succeed. As long as society is organized in a commodity-like manner with "goods", "value", "money" and "wage labour", the process of barbarization and destruction of this world will continue.
And turned people into soulless robots. Obedient, fed up and controlled by others. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the EU's fact-checking program "Soma" (https://www.disinfobservatory.org/) is called, like the pacification drug in "Brave New World"?
Dear Mr. Zeller, there is a lot in your commentary that makes you think. People from contemporary history, such as Marx, are often simply removed from their time and then transferred to the present day in a distorted image and presented in this way. Who knows whether Marx would not have been a member of a value-conservative movement in view of today's "fun society" and in awareness of the all-encompassing daily infiltration. He certainly had the free spirit to do so. But your final sentence sums it up: "And turned people into soulless robots. Obedient, fed up and controlled by others. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the EU's fact-checking program "Soma" (https://www.disinfobservatory.org/) is called, like the pacification drug in Brave New World?" I fear, indeed I see every day, that you are unfortunately right.
In this context, I also recommend the work by Erich Fromm: "To have or to be", in which he explained at the time that a society would have to change fundamentally in order to shift values from "having" to "being". Even back then, I thought this was desirable, but equally illusory. It seems to be no different today. I believe that ultimately only the highest authority (and by that I don't mean political or any other kind of "elite") can and will bring about the real change. But since we all don't know when and how this will happen, it could also be that this "authority" will perhaps also make use of events like the current one, without us realizing it of course.
Just a thought experiment...
Very substantial article. Unfortunately, due to a lack of intelligence and/or a lack of interest in their inability to engage in open self-reflection, the masses will not be able and/or willing to stand up to the established elites in the near future. The pendulum is clearly swinging in the direction of lack of freedom - unfortunately.
You have hit the nail on the head Elmar Gaschet, and I find it all the more strange, almost incomprehensible, as it was already possible from February/March 2020 with relatively little research effort to recognize plenty of inconsistencies in the statements of the political protagonists. Unfortunately, it obviously didn't reach many people ...
Many thanks for this excellent contribution!
Fear was, is and will remain in the future - an excellent instrument for controlling the masses, an instrument for abusing power!
My question for understanding the text: How is "the rise of invisible capital" to be understood?
The capital that you cannot "see". Therefore invisible.
In the balance sheet = hidden reserves or reserves
Here = followers, your personal data, software, brand value, etc.
Greetings
M.L.
OK, thank you.
First-class words to describe current affairs and the zeitgeist. Anyone who considers the censorship orgies and hostility in social media to be normal can hardly be helped with a few trend-setting sentences.
Disputes are also noticeable in the restricted private sphere, at work - if there is one - and when shopping. The mood is charged wherever you look. Many in Hartz4deluxe (short-time work), unemployment, Hartz and the entrepreneurs who are still working are at their pain threshold. Then there are those without a livelihood, breadless art in many guises without support. Tempers quickly boil over for virtually nothing.
Times when you should be sitting on packed suitcases again. But where to? The madness spans the globe.
On the subject of global madness, we would also recommend reading the rather old book by Eckardt Tolle, "A New Earth". It also contains a very good description of "global madness".
How similar things are.
To Tanzania ..., there are already some ....
Thank you for this intelligent contribution. What I would give to listen to a Michael Esfeld and not the philosopher of state Richard David Precht. He said about the lockdown policy: "Merkel and Söder had the right political instinct."
What is the common denominator between coronavirus, climate protection and war? Fear and fear propaganda. Fear of something that would be concrete, tangible, palpable, immediately perceptible for everyone in the present? No. These are abstract fears, potential dangers, usually in the future. The practical thing is that you can never completely disprove a potential threat. And yet you can sell it as a fact and discredit any doubters.
Wars, alias peace missions, are justified with a terrorist threat. Almost 20 years later, 9/11 is still NATO's self-authorization to invade another country in order to "secure the peace". It is also used to justify state surveillance and restrictions on freedom. There could be another September 11 at any moment. That's why all this is necessary. And Putin first. At some point, we have to stop Putin before he ... actually, what?
Climate protection? We have to save the planet, otherwise the sea level will rise by exactly 3.4 cm by 2121. According to studies. Global warming and the rise in C02 will wipe us all out. Far-reaching changes must be made to achieve this and yes, climate lockdowns are of course also conceivable. And yes, it goes without saying that climate protection urgently needs to be enshrined in the constitution. If necessary, Germany will save the planet on its own. Someone has to lead the way.
Covid? Masks, measures, lockdowns, vaccinations are necessary. Otherwise we would have had 500,000 more deaths long ago. And our healthcare system would have collapsed and will if we let up now. According to studies. And because we have to save the economy, we are paralyzing it.
We must implement the 2030 Agenda, the "transformation of our world" (original title), the 17 sustainability goals. Paradise on earth, achievable in 15 years. Why didn't we think of this sooner? As in any contract, however, you should pay attention to the small print and the "how". Michael Esfeld does just that.
"State philosopher" Richard David Precht, the pseudo-intellectual mastermind, has abandoned self-reflection and reflection and thus discredited himself. Nobody needs the parrot.
Hello Mr. Löcke !
You put it in a nutshell: we are living in a century of fear. Fear of climate change, fear of terrorism, and now fear of a virus. Fear (or fear-mongering) is a wonderful way to get the (less critical and less open-minded) population to take actions that they don't actually want themselves (who wants to wear masks all the time and be prevented from going to the movies/pubs/concerts).
The frightening thing is that - as many commentators in this forum have already pointed out - nobody uses their common sense any more and
questioned all these measures. Everyone is just desperate to get back the little freedoms (see above) that they are normally entitled to anyway.
The whole thing is unbelievable!
An excellent contribution that outlines the current situation we find ourselves in with razor-sharp clarity. However, corona only acts as a burning glass or catalyst to make visible everything that has already developed and taken root in the state and society over the last two decades - possibly even longer. And the self-proclaimed elites know perfectly how to use this opportunity, which will not return so quickly, for their own purposes to install a new totalitarianism. The fact that Europe in particular has been chosen as the epicenter of the p(l)andemic certainly has historical reasons and will ultimately lead to a lasting weakening of this continent. However, it is to be feared that the course has already been set and that the path taken is irreversible.
Not without a certain intellectual pretension, it is shown that we are now facing or at a crossroads: open society with dignity for every single person OR dictatorship with the subjugation of most people to satisfy the desires of the elite. Understanding this and playing a part in setting the course definitely requires us to put aside any fears we may have. Because one thing seems certain: the comfortable life of self-evident freedom of recent decades is over. Personal commitment to freedom is now required OR the next tyranny in the name of viruses or climate will follow the earlier tyrannies in the name of the classless society and the Aryan race. As a former forced inmate of the GDR, I have decades of experience with the difficulties of personal commitment against tyranny. Younger people and Westerners now have to learn something new.
Very good.
This contribution has a high intellectual level, so that a commentary by amateurs must naturally fall short of this.
All totalitarian endeavors presuppose first and foremost the impossibility of one's own error. In addition, one imagines oneself to be very close to the delusion of being quasi legitimized by the Lord's order, the end justifies the means. As a result, discussion (not questioning) seems harmful. Those who disagree and want to discuss are consequently opponents of the common good. To exaggerate, they are enemies of the people.
The good intentions of many actors are then misused to install a new feudalism. The birthright of the nobility was already replaced by membership of the nomenklatura under real socialism. A power vacuum does not last, if the people give up their status as sovereign, then this status will be taken over by others, no question. This process did not begin last spring, only most of us did not notice it or did not consider it crucial. Short-term solutions aside, state education to become a subject must be undermined by a liberal education system. My baby boomer generation was lucky enough to experience this at grammar school, but those days are long gone. Just as a suggestion: perhaps we should all invest the unpaid church tax in such projects. That would significantly strengthen our civil society. The change has to come from us, because we are the sovereign, aren't we?
Your last sentence should probably be kept in mind for those who still believe in the MSM........, but I fear that many are still too well off to understand that