A few years ago, a Polish acquaintance told me that she regretted the days of the communist dictatorship in at least one respect: during that period, there was certainly a constant risk of persecution, defamation and arrest, but the line between right and wrong, between decency and baseness, between courage and cowardice, in short between those who could be counted on and those who, in case of doubt, were willingly or allegedly "by necessity" on the other side, was much clearer than it is now.
The other side
Those days are back. Even before the covid “pandemic”, an unsuspected division of society was brewing between those who remained loyal to the power of political correctness and consequently stood in solidarity with the political, media and academic establishment, and those who understood or at least sensed that this system would sooner or later drag our entire civilisation into the abyss and that it was high time to develop an alternative. World state or European culture, globalism or localism, transhumanism or protection of life, materialism or transcendence, collectivism or humanism: the grey areas were becoming increasingly blurred - and the “pandemic” took this dichotomy to a new level. Indeed, the inseparable link between lockdown, compulsory vaccination and the exclusion of anti-vaxers on the one side and the classic ideological arsenal of the left on the other (transhumanism, planned economy, Great Reset, Green Deal, mass surveillance, "anti-fascist" struggle) has created a deadly spiral which, in its claim to total power, can no longer be grasped by the intellectual instruments of the classic rule of law. When a single media-political complex dominates all the structures of state and society, and is willing and able to suspend even the most basic fundamental rights, then it is of no real importance whether the decisions leading to this situation have been confirmed by the various political institutions in compliance with the "separation of powers": would it be "fair play" if a player strictly adhered to the rules, but used rigged cards?
Being part of the mainstream
Understanding the full extent of the threat to our political freedoms and bodily integrity does not seem to be for everyone. Many people, even and especially in conservative circles, still cling to the idea that in a state formally respecting the "rule of law", every political decision must necessarily be legitimate. And even those who for years have assiduously criticised every decision of their government from immigration and climate policy through inflation, the dismantling of democracy, public debt and educational failure to EU centralisation and infrastructural decay, suddenly trust the same political caste with childlike faith - as if this increasingly bizarre assemblage of opportunistic parliamentarians, politicised judges, semi-qualified ministers and self-righteous journalists had once again become the elite of elderly statesmen and critical journalists the older among us still have known. Alongside this miscalculation, in which wishful thinking replaces realism and through which the shocking extent of the mainstream media's domination of society becomes apparent as never before, we are increasingly seeing the reappearance of that good old opportunism without which no authoritarian government would be possible. Of course, this opportunism is not a new phenomenon in recent years, especially in Angela Merkel's Germany, but it is now spreading to social strata that have previously refused to accept it, either willingly or for circumstantial reasons. For many former political opponents, it seems that the covid crisis has become the long-awaited ticket back into the circle of well-meaning citizens by demonstrating their pandemic “responsibility”, and the intensity of the need to be part of the mainstream can be measured by the degree of willingness to persecute opponents of compulsory vaccination.
Distorted values
Alongside the naïve and the opportunistic, we finally find the sadists. For yes, the increasing hysteria in the exclusion, stigmatisation and punishment of the non-vaccinated, and the lack of consequences with which the media and politicians seem prepared to discuss the most surreal sanctions, bring out in many citizens the worst traits of character, which until now were repressed not by decency, but at least by the absence of external stimulus. The fact that today, for the first time since the end of totalitarianism, a clearly defined population group is once again targeted as an object of hatred and disgust, and that its oppression is not only tolerated by politics, the media, the economy and even the Church, but even stylised as a moral duty, is awakening the worst instincts in some citizens, and it is to be feared that the current measures are only the beginning of a dangerous spiral, at the end of which the much-vaunted “European values” will once again be declared morally bankrupt. But the more the Western “community of values”, supposedly “enlightened” and based on the “rule of law”, becomes absurd and loses the last vestiges of its moral legitimacy to the temptation of power, the more the character of those who evade this grip and are ready to accept the worst consequences on behalf of their convictions, principles and faith becomes apparent. This is not a question of "pro-vaccine" versus "anti-vaccine" - each person must make that choice in their own conscience. Rather, it is about the difference between those who abuse an emergency situation to increase their own power, or who take pleasure in seeing others oppressed and in siding with power, and those who, for various reasons, continue to stand up for decency, freedom, moderation and individual autonomy, whether for themselves or for others. Those who, in the name of these ideals, are prepared to give up their circle of friends, their job, their social recognition, often even their family ties and their home, show a strength of character which, in the pre-pandemic era, was often buried under a multitude of superficialities. It is not so much the actual content of these convictions that matters, but rather the determination to trust one's inner compass rather than the concentrated pressure of the environment. These are people with whom one may not always agree, but at least people who can and should be respected and trusted as human beings, and it is hardly surprising that it is precisely they who are increasingly ruthlessly excluded by the current system. To have highlighted the existence of such people in an age that seems to belong entirely to Nietzsche's “last man” could perhaps one day prove to be the hidden and unexpected gift of the pandemic. Separating the wheat from the chaff in the midst of an unprecedented collectivisation - what could be more valuable?
