There seems to be a narrative going around in some churches and religious communities that says, directly or indirectly, that we would not need to protect ourselves with masks and vaccines because God would save us. Any measure to protect yourself from the pandemic is thus construed as a sign of a lack of faith.
This is a rather peculiar distortion of religious belief. God does not instruct us to follow a belief in magic, but to utilize our talents given to us at birth, to develop them, and to make them work for us and others. Amongst our talents are our ability to conduct science and develop technologies for protecting us against all the dangers surrounding us. We should have faith, surely, but it must not be blind to our own capacities. If we are made in our creator’s image, then we are made in the expectation that we have the tools available to help ourselves in critical situations. What parent would raise a child that would not be able to eventually survive without constant parental supervision?
Furthermore, it is not for us to assume the nature of God, to make a mental image of God, to know God, and to presume to know how divine help may look like. To believe that we could know the unknowable is faith without humility; it is hubris, not faith.
Humility teaches us that we need to respect the world we live in, and to be aware of both its dangers and promises. Faith teaches us that we are born with the tools to overcome such challenges, and not that we should be waiting for some sort of comic-book-style intervention by a deus ex machina. We have the tools to fight the pandemic, and we should use them.
A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help.
Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, “Jump in, I can save you.”
The stranded fellow shouted back, “No, it’s OK, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me.”
So the rowboat went on.
Then a motorboat came by. “The fellow in the motorboat shouted, “Jump in, I can save you.”
To this the stranded man said, “No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.”
So the motorboat went on.
Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, “Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety.”
To this the stranded man again replied, “No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.”
So the helicopter reluctantly flew away.
Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, “I had faith in you but you didn’t save me, you let me drown. I don’t understand why!”
To this God replied, “I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?”
Some of the criticism – if you can call it that – put forth by those believing that the Coronavirus pandemic would not be so dangerous, that you could certainly go without the vaccine, that you should stop wearing the mask, that you should stop avoiding unnecessary contact – is that those who do follow those scientifically advised procedures would just be “afraid.” “Don’t be afraid”- “Don’t promote fear” – “learn to live with the virus.”
I do want to live, but we can avoid living with a virus we could certainly seriously push back if everybody followed serious scientific advice. Certainly, we will eventually have to learn to “live with” the virus, but not before having done whatever we can to protect everyone.
Also, since when do we shun people who are afraid of something dangerous – and is such a line not preposterous coming from those claiming – against all serious evidence – that the vaccines would be dangerous, masks would be dangerous, and other nonsense?
I agree with people who respect the virus for what it is: a dangerous pathogen that is not done with us yet, and that should be given as little space to evolve into more dangerous variants, and we can use the tools at our disposal safely. This is not fear, it is carefulness. We care about a disease that even in its so-called mild or moderate form can lead to long-term effects that can be debilitating in both adults and some children. We care even about those who don’t realize they should protect themselves.
Sometimes, I hear people saying, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”, chuckling, implying that they should not be, and that such a demand would be ludicrous. They certainly don’t know their Bible. It is Cain, after having slain Abel, when asked by God where his brother would be, is responding as such, in a way implying that he – the murderer – would not be his brother’s keeper.
But we should be our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers. I must be expected to care about not getting sick myself, I can – and should – also be expected to care about others not getting sick, even if they are misguided in their conviction that sees measures fighting the pandemic as allegedly less dangerous than the pandemic themselves.
This is not fear, it is care. With a hint of frustration, which I am certainly aware of. Maybe we can all be frustrated together, albeit about different things…
It is seductive to think that we can go back to normal anytime soon.
At least within the so-called “Western” World, we have safe and functioning vaccines, masks, abilities to work remotely for many of us, and to distance physically. There should be no debate as to how to proceed, and yet, it is not so.
We knew early on that this would get worse. Sure, some – not all – pathogens seem to get weaker with time, but that is not true for all, and such a description is already overly simplified. Pathogens do not think, they do not decide to survive. They procreate, and wherever we provide them with a fertile ground, they will do so. Given enough selection pressure, those pathogens that can procreate without destroying us will survive only because we let them. Right now, we are giving them ample room to circulate, so no, we will see variants arise that will be progressively more aggressive – because we allow them to do that.
We are all tired. We are all sick of this, even if we haven’t gotten physically sick from it. But we all want this to end.
It’s not up to magical thinking to make it so. Vaccinate, wear masks, distance, isolate – globally. Sorry, no better news here. If this does not end soon, it’s due to those who choose to be careless – and to not care for others. Some people cannot follow this prescription, and those who can need to make sure that they are protected as well. Is that so difficult?
As far as I know, I have not been infected with the novel Coronavirus. I have been sheltering in place as much as possible, have been distancing myself physically, maintaining a sanitizing regime, wearing masks, getting doubly vaccinated, maintaining safety precautions even now, listening to the advice and latest scientific debate and not just to some statements by politically mandated officials. The virus is real, so are its variants, and vaccines help but are not perfect. It is not over.
Even as I have not been infected – and I would be very surprised if I have given my precautions – I somehow feel as if I had something like “long Covid.” In my case, it cannot probably be medical, it is probably psychological. Lack of inspiration, motivation, difficult sleep, nightmares, and an overall sense of dread have made this a difficult time.
But this is not about me; I don’t like to draw attention to personal matters typically. I’m not trying to whine or complain, but to maybe validate your feelings in case you are experiencing something similar. I am noticing this in others, whether it is necessarily verbalized.
Additionally, I have witnessed friends of mine who have moved into political radicalization, virus relativization or denial, anti-vaccine and conspiracy theories, and an overall anti-democratic, anti-scientific extremist spectrum with affinities to right-wing extremist positions. This is especially troubling, but again, not limited to myself.
This crisis is affecting us on a multitude of levels, and we need to give us all some leeway, some grace, some sense of understanding that this is affecting us psychologically and socially much more than we would care to admit.
These are not easy times, let’s just admit it and be gracious to each other.
The resistance to the pandemic abatement has revealed the strength of a very popular narrative: The story of the lone hero, in this case, the lone renegate scientist who knows something that nobody else knows, that shows that everyone else is wrong, and that there is a different reality waiting to be discovered underneath what you still think is real.
There are several of these types out there. Some claim the pandemic would not be dangerous at all, that there all kinds of Coronaviruses, and this one would not be more dangerous. Others claim that somehow magically, the virus would become less dangerous over time (sure, evolution may point to such a possible pathway, but it is not guaranteed – or have AIDS, the Plague, Measles, Ebola, or Smallpox have become cuddly harmless pets in the meantime? I don’t think so…). Again others claim that the vaccines would be uniquely dangerous, and that everyone else – the pharmaceutical industry, politics, journalists, the vaccinated, are all in on the conspiracy.
Only the lone, renegate scientist can help us here?
This is called romanticism. In today’s newly romantic era, the romantic hero is typically a comic book character, or somewhere on a spaceship far, far in either the past or future.
Romantic narration – not unrelated to psychotic narration (Flor and Kneis 2007) is a category of fiction, not reality. Let us not mix methodologies!
How does reality work, how does science work?
Be careful of arrogant geniuses that tell you that what they are saying would stand against the orthodoxy of established opinion. If anyone even claims this, they know nothing about science, about the scientific method and process. They must not be taken seriously, for they know not what they are doing.
Science is collaborative, it is always conducted within an established methodology and community. That’s why scientific or academic writing is so hard! You need to have evidence, you need to tie you work into the long line of researchers before you, you need to open yourself up to ruthless (let me repeat: ruthless!) criticism, so that once your ideas pass muster, everyone can accept your contributions as legitimate.
The romantic hero cries into the wilderness like a mental patient.
The scientific researcher willingly endures science bootcamp for all his academic life with rewards few and far between, and academic versions of drill and persistent criticism making all of us, hopefully, better.
If you read something by someone saying “What you are hearing from me stands at odds with the entire scientific/medical/political establishment,…” – simply stop reading. It will not be worth listening to. Ever.
Why do people feel the need to posture as if the pandemic was over? What’s with the “no masks” pretension, with excluding and mocking people who still want to be careful? What’s with the denial of science? We know this is an evolving situation, that the vaccines don’t protect fully, that may still allow you to spread Covid – should we not protect all those who still need protection?
If you are vaccinated against Covid-19, you may be safer now from serious illness and death, with the caveat that virus mutations may still bring some uncertainty. Many vaccines seem mostly safe and effective, and adverse reactions are statistically not relevant, as far as we know now.
But for many, vaccination does not seem to be an option. There can be a variety of reasons, and even though it would be desirable that eventually, everyone gets vaccinated, it simply won’t happen. We cannot demand it of everyone, apparently, and we cannot – and should not – mark people with signs that they are vaccinated or not.
This means, even if you are (probably) safe, others around you may not be.
What has been true about mask wearing from the beginning is that they do not just protect you yourself, but others around you also. That means until there is herd immunity, the scientific thing to do, the kind thing to do, is to keep wearing the mask everywhere where distance cannot be maintained, and where we cannot be certain that everyone around us is vaccinated.
Thus if you see me out in public in the near future, I will still be wearing a mask, whether formally required or not. It’s not just about me. It’s about others as well.
When the pandemic hit the world, it unleashed more than just a deadly virus. It has put us all in a crucible. Nature has been testing our ability to be political animals, forcing our societies and our politics to make impossible decisions. Who shall we protect? Am I my fellow citizen’s keeper? How much economic and social pain can we tolerate while defending us against a virus? If this spiky microorganism could speak, it might very well want to quote Shelley’s Ozymandias and say “Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair.”
Desperation is political dynamite. It has the ability to creep into every crevice of society, poison minds and souls, and even to tear everything asunder. There is a reason politics seems at a loss sometimes. We are still racing through the night, the outlines of the path becoming clearer only to threaten to be obscured again. We have been playing this deadly game for over a year now, and it is not over till it is over.
The only guidance system we have is science. It is an imperfect system, but it is the only one that works. Its imperfection lies in the availability of data which influences the analysis of the problem and the creation of solutions. Science yields tentative answers, which eventually may form a theory, but everything is always under revision depending on new facts. This is a politician’s nightmare, and it is not intuitive for how human beings think. There is a reason that the systematic pursuit of science is an invention in itself that took millennia to take hold. Yet the fight against superstition and anti-science is never won, and it has become more difficult during the pandemic.
Science works in the collective mode, not in the heroic narrative of the lone voice in the wilderness. For there to be a situation in which established scientific view is so solidly mistaken, during a global emergency, is peculiar. As Carl Sagan has frequently said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” The scientific consensus, based on the available data, is clear: the pandemic is real, the threat is real, and the approved vaccines work safely. The extraordinary position here is not the denier perspective, but the scientific consensus.
Yet it is the heroic mode, the tale of the hero fighting against the forces of darkness, that appears most seductive to human beings. There seem to be only a small number of medical, legal or scientific experts (typically in fields other than virology or epidemiology) that disagree with the established view about these matters. They have taken on the mantle of the hero that can fight against the medical crisis by denying its existence and by pointing to a wholly different threat.
We all have seen that our personal relationships have been put under tremendous stress. One of my closest friends has become a Covid denier. They have always been more interested in esotericism, astrology and popular psychology than in science or academic thinking. Their children and they themselves suffered from the lockdown, and this suffering led them down the path laid out to them by the algorithm of popular social media platforms.
There is an element of real pain here that is exploited by these platforms. People indeed feel crushed both by the pandemic and the measures taken to curb it. We are irrational beings much more than we would care to admit. Fear of the virus may lead to denying its existence. Lack of understanding of science may lead people to be suspicious of experts changing their minds when facts change. overall. Both Donald Trump and Boris Johnson were famous for dismissing experts and won elections on this very bias. We can all see politicians being frequently helpless in the face of the pandemic. People need someone to tell them that it will all be ok. If desperate enough, people will turn to false prophets. History is full of such stories, and it should teach us humility. Our system has indeed failed all those who now are moving to turn away from it, it has failed them in matters of education, civic engagement, and the recognition of everyone’s individual dignity. We are figuratively throwing people to the wolves, and down the rabbit hole.
The rabbit hole is electronic nowadays, and it is powerful. The alternative world view unfolding to the initiated speaks of a pandemic planned in a global cooperation of politicians, scientists, entrepreneurs and the typical cast of allegedly diabolical characters. The sinister purpose remains unclear but overall follows the well-worn paths of typical antisemitic conspiracy lore. The more you enter this world, the more you are inundated by it, and the more you connect to the similarly initiated few that are the only ones able to see the light and to prepare for a post-“plandemic” future. The pandemic, of course, does not exist as the established media want us to believe, but instead there is talk that a “Great Reset” is on the way to allegedly subjugate all of humanity.
At first I was confused about this. What could possibly be the motivation behind the denial of the existence or threat level of the pandemic, or the safety of the vaccines?
The answer is emerging more and more. The Coronavirus Pandemic is used by populists to attack democracy itself.
We see some of this happening currently in the United States. With the Republican party and the conservative movement in disarray, there are some voices echoing conspiratorial notes. Outside the United States, the picture becomes more clear. In Germany, for instance, a new alliance between discontented voters who would formerly identify with the established parties either of the left, center or the right, now are coalescing into the New Right. Leading players of the so-called “Querdenker” movement (“critical” or “lateral” thinkers) ally themselves with sovereign citizens, with esoterically or anthroposophically influenced groups, with old and new authoritarians.
Their demands are clear: sweep away the old system, which includes all politicians, all established media, all scientists and all academics and all their supporters. Establish a new, allegedly truly democratic movement and govern through the direct will of the people determined by the assumed wisdom of crowds. Trust the natural healing powers of the human body, and let nature run its course. Reject “globalists” – a smear word created to distort the legitimate critique of neoliberal globalization and turn it into an antisemitically tinged libel of the United Nations, free-traders and multinationalists – and bring back the nation state. Seek alliance with Russia, as Putin has taken his country down that path already.
This sounds very familiar. It has a name, only its clothes are slightly recycled. If we let it fester, if we do not find clear answers, the national socialist movement is already growing, hiding behind – as it used to – a romantic fixation with nature, with esotericism, with anti-science and populist authoritarianism claiming to be democratic.
Like Shelley’s Ozymandias, the Coronavirus will eventually be defeated, managed, return to memory, with the possibility of return. The political virus that we deemed to have overcome is still lingering. As Berthold Brecht has said, “the womb is fertile still from whence this crawled.”
As we are seeing more official confirmations of sightings of Unidentified Flying Objects, we may need to consider the possible impact of what such revelations may eventually mean.
At this point, all we are being told is that the origin of these objects is allegedly unknown. We are seeing videos that were formerly classified, and we get to hear from witnesses who may well sound believable and official. Something seems to be out there that we have not been told about before.
In all likelihood, these objects may well have a terrestrial origin. Some rather earthly power may be in possession of highly advanced technology, and they are either showing off their skills or being observed when testing their vehicles. It all may also be a very elaborate hoax or optical illusion. It may well be birds photographed very cleverly. It may just as well be very agile weather balloons…
If these are of terrestrial origin, the would be human-made. The technology is astounding. The flight patterns seem to indicate that the G-Forces operating on them are so extreme that either somebody has invented inertial dampeners (to borrow a Star Trek term) or they are operated remotely or by some form of robots. In all cases, that is quite some flying. Some sightings from decades ago may have been of early models of current technology. Maybe what we are seeing are test flights of secret technology. The origin would probably be American, Chinese, Russian, or an alliance of nations. That may be unsettling enough, but at least within familiar territory.
We may well find out that all the alleged revelations are just a clever publicity scheme to demonstrate the technological superiority of whatever nation has developed them. I personally think that this is the most likely scenario.
Nevertheless, I also believe that we should also consider the implications of an extraterrestrial origin, or even a combination of extraterrestrial and human technology. I may have watched too much Stargate: SG-1 / Atlantis / Universe or The X-Files to entertain such a notion. It could also be that such shows were meant to prepare us to think the previously impossible. Admittedly, Norad has a door labeled “Stargate Command” – even though it is just a broom closet.
But are we really so unimaginative to admit to us the possibility of the existence of extraterrestrial life? Certainly, we now know that evolution is a powerful force throughout the universe, that there are more planets or moons or asteroids that could possibly support life than we had even thought possible before. Life may just be something that is extraordinarily ordinary in our universe.
Would such a universe look like Star Trek, where alien and human life somehow evolved in a similar timeframe? Had Earth been able to develop spaceflight earlier, we would have been in a completely different situation for instance. Our own history shows fits and spurs, and with things just having been a little bit different, we may have been on the moon thousands of years ago – or dinosaurs could have done it millions of years ago.
How could it possibly be realistic that our existence coincides with that of spacefaring aliens? We could assume that in the Vastness of the universe, due to a quasi infinite diversity in infinite combinations even a low probability of the coexistence of life at a similar stage of development means that it is possible – all it takes out of the 100 thousand million stars in the Milky Way, one thousand million has planets supporting life, and out of these, one million has had intelligent life, and of those about 100 have life at the same technological stage. These numbers (except the first) are completely fictitious, but illustrate the evolutionary principle. A more scientific approach is delivered by the Drake equation and similar estimates.
All we know is that we don’t know much about this, but from what we know, our ignorance can be limited and the very possibility of extraterrestrial life needs to be taken into consideration.
The other question is whether we will be able to meet them. Our own technological knowledge certainly – or at least as far as we know publicly – for now precludes us from seeking them out on our own. If there is extraterrestrial life though, it is very likely that if it is technologically possible to traverse large distances, the aforementioned evolutionary principles almost dictate that there may very well be someone out there that could indeed reach us.
Can we speculate on their intentions? Assuming they are somehow like life on Earth, we should perhaps be a bit apprehensive. If they are somehow like us human beings, our apprehension should be on alert. We cannot be naïve in assuming that technological development is directly proportional to moral or ethical development. Our own history has certainly not always shown that. Warnings about contact with aliens are a staple of science fiction. The War of the Worlds was successful for a reason, it spoke to rather realistic fears. Some scientists have warned against seeking out extraterrestrial life, especially Stephen Hawking: “Meeting an advanced civilization could be like Native Americans encountering Columbus. That didn’t turn out so well.”
Such pessimism might be correct. For all we know, an invasion fleet is well on its way after some scouting ships have done their job already. We can always imagine the worst possible scenario. We probably need to, and need to prepare for such an eventuality.
Nevertheless, I would dare to be a bit more optimistic, for two reasons. If UFOs are evidence of the presence of extraterrestrials observing us, they have been doing quite some observing for quite some while. If that is what is happening, it seems to be of scientific interest. A cautious opening and declassifying of materials by US authorities also does not really speak to knowledge of impending doom.
Yet even if we are at a moment in time that could lead to peaceful first contact, the ramifications for human societies would be immense. Are we prepared for such an expansion of our worldview? Are we prepared to extend our abilities to be welcoming to others also to beings that may be more different from us than each other? We have proven time and again that xenophobia is a constant in human societies. We are seeing such behavior again increased during the Coronavirus Pandemic.
Just imagine what extraterrestrials would know about us already. They will have watched our movies, our television stations, seen our news, learned about our history and our politics. Have we really become more peaceful after World War II? Steven Pinker maintains that this is the case, but some disagree, especially more recently. As much as I would like to agree with Pinker, as much as I would like to be hopeful, as a historian, I am cautious in my judgement.
There may well be a reason that extraterrestrials could be watching us. If they are, it stands to reason that they would just as well remain cautious about contacting us. They might certainly be right in their apprehension.
Maybe the question needs to be reframed. Rather than to only ask whether we are prepared for extraterrestrial life, we should wonder, is extraterrestrial life prepared for us?
We are conditioned to think in political categories of “right” versus “left”, with an underappreciated center in between. This model has become deeply entrenched in political thinking, no matter how simplistic it actually is.
Politically, “left” and “right” derive from seating arrangements of pro- versus anti-monarchist forces in the National Assembly during the French Revolution, but the principle, of course, goes deeper.
First, this understanding of power is based on thinking in a strict dichotomy, in a way of thinking believing in either-or propositions, in adversarial style, in a simplistic for-and-against way of conceptualizing every single issue, or even a worldview.
Second, it typically includes gradations, especially in systems that have more than two political parties (or rather, whose election system is not based on winner-takes all, which seems to cause the two-party system – CGP Grey has some great videos explaining voting systems). The more diversified the parties become, the more there may an entire panoply of parties. Some parties may be directly in the center, others center-left, others center-right, others moderate left or right, others extreme left or right, whatever “right” or “left” may mean at the time. Traditionally, “right” suggests establishment, “left” suggest reform or revolution.
(Fun fact: whoever you consider to be a “sinister force” in politics depends on your knowledge of Italian: “La sinistra” is the left. But if you think of old clips of Jon Stewart’s Daily Show depicting Dick Cheney as Darth Vader, the music may have sounded sinister, but the implication certainly was not that Cheney was a leftie. But I digress.)
Third, we now have a problem on the extremes. There are both right-wing and left-wing versions of extremism that are no friends of democracy and its values and institutions. Some models – for instance the “horseshoe theory” – point to similarities amongst both extremisms. There may still be something that separates them (it’s not a closed circle in that model), but they look rather similar.
Is that even a helpful distinction? There were moments in recent history where surprising thought alliances appeared. Agreement with or resistance to allowing stem cell research was and is still an issue finding support along strange ideological lines (Greens + Conservatives), but they deviate when it comes to the issue of abortion (Conservatives). Globalization critique used to be left-wing and has now also found equivalents on the right, albeit sometimes with a different tone. Support of Israel used to be a stalwart issue on the left, and now finds it, at least rhetorically, on the right, though not in the outright Nazi parties, I would assume (though once you find out about Jewish Neonazis, you have seen everything).
Personally, I have never found the left-right paradigm useful. It is too simplistic, and I am not much in favor of party loyalty. You support who you support based on issues and personnel, but even that is dicey as party programs oftentimes don’t mean much. But my voting record has always been mixed, and so it shall be. I prefer to be flexible, depending on what I see on the table (or rather, on the ballot).
Politics is a game played by politicians, and to assume them to follow clear philosophical principles which sustain their ideology is a bit of a stretch, in my view. A good politician does what works, and chooses the respective ideology as they see fit. A bad one makes reality bend to their ideological blinders and either doesn’t get anything done at all, or won’t succeed in the long-run. A strict reality-orientation though will eventually banish all ideology, and so it should be. That does not mean that ideology is useless, but if it is at the point of becoming dogma, it needs to be seriously questioned.
But especially with regards to new developments during the Coronavirus crisis, we can see that anti-democratic extremism arises from a new background that might formerly have been described as “left” or “right”. Things are becoming confusing very fast, and I would suggest that rather to use tired old labels, to stick to the actual issues.
I have thus began to work on a tentative list of extremist thought that still uses coded language but appeals to extremist and anti-democratic thought. There is certainly no assumption of completeness, but it may be helpful to shed some light on some of these here.
Versions of the following key statements always occur on the extreme fringes, especially now in parties catering to Covid Deniers or the New Right:
Insistence on Freedom as an absolute value: All democratic parties value freedom, but it is not the only value in a democratic society, nor is it always easy to define. My own freedom has limits if it severely limits the freedom of others, for instance.
Insistence on Sovereignty as something absolute: A democratic country recognizes that its people are the sovereign, and they send representatives into political office. Government actions thus always have to align with popular will, which is in turn measured through elections and other democratic processes. The sovereignty of a country is thus an extension of the sovereignty of its citizens. It is in the interest of the citizens to exert this sovereignty in a way that benefits the people as a whole. Given constant change, the concept of the sovereignty of a country needs to adapt. If it is to the benefit of the country to enhance free trade and cooperation with other countries, traditional concepts of sovereignty (closed borders, own currency, own military) may actually limit the sovereignty of its citizens.
Insistence on Patriotism as identical to nationalism: Healthy patriotism is a positionality towards your own country in which you see yourself in service to the benefit of all its people, to its wellbeing, to its future. Like sovereignty, this may well include honoring international and supranational treaties, cooperation and connections. Patriotism should always be a positive position (supporting your own country and its allies) and not define itself in the negative (against other countries).
Insistence on a static National Identity: National identity is complex, historically grown, and always changing. Multiculturalism is the historical norm; mono-ethnic states almost always the result of ethnic cleansing or forced assimilation. Immigration is a constant historical presence, and while it is always important to integrate immigrants successfully into your society, this integration needs to be limited to the adherence of laws and common standards, and cannot mean the rejection of all cultural traditions (as long as they are not in conflict with sensible laws of the new country).
The claim to represent the true majority, the “base” or the “forgotten people:” There are no citizens “first class” or “second class.” The insinuation that some of the people in the country are not really representative of it and must be silenced in favor of an assumed “silent majority” has always been an excuse used by dictatorships to shut out undesired populations.
The elites are all corrupt: Corruption is a mainstay of all societies, sadly, and it needs to be fought. But the insinuation that all so-called elites would be corrupt is a typical strawman argument typically used to delegitimize all democratically elected officials of a country, as well to discredit teachers, professors, scientists, doctors, lawyers, and whoever else may have enjoyed higher education. It also is used to dismiss any possible legitimacy to the claim personal wealth or influence. This is another typical tactic of demagogues.
There are secret powers directing our fates: In a highly networked world, it is completely normal that ideas flow from person to person, from country to country. The almost infinite interplay of institutions and people from around the globe is what constitutes civilization and society itself. Some of these influences are transparent, some are not. This is normal. Conspiracies typically do not work out, and if they do so, only on a small scale. People talk, have divergent interests, and governments change. Nothing will stay secret forever. It is virtually impossible that in a global context, there could be organizations of people thinking in complete lockstep. The insinuation that there could be secret powers that control our politics is simply ridiculous. It is another strategy to delegitimize democratic governments.
These secret powers form a hidden international network: This accusation has been used to demonize populations that due to their diasporic spread and their minority status – frequently a result of discrimination – can be found in many countries and had to struggle to adapt to the majority culture while still maintaining traces of their own. This accusation is a core component of Anti-Semitism, but also of any xenophobia against immigrant groups, and has been leveled against Jews, Muslims and Catholics (under the assumption that religious beliefs systematically would pit them against their countries of immigration), or any sizable ethnic minority.
You cannot speak freely anymore, there is an official dictate of opinion (“Meinungsdiktatur” in German): Free speech is a core component of any democratic society. It must be seen as absolute. Without it, democracy cannot survive. However, speech always means counter-speech, and if you want to participate in the national discourse, you will also need to appreciate critique and debate. Should that critique be too excessive and endanger your employment or even your life, that is of course something that cannot be tolerated in society. This point mixes legitimate critique of cancel culture with a naïve and illegitimate expectation to be allowed to say whatever you like without critical counter-speech. This point is also frequently mentioned to insinuate that we are living in a dictatorship in which drastic speech codes are enforced. Sometimes this critique is also used in order to defend speech that some might consider deliberately insulting, demeaning and hateful.
You cannot trust the established media / the press is lying / all news we don’t like are fake news: If you have built your world view on believing that the world is controlled by powerful forces outside democratic control, then the purveyors of information that are trusted by the established system cannot be trusted. What is typically agreed upon as real becomes fake, what is believed to be reliable becomes suspicious, and the media that transport that which everyone else believes to be true needs to be seen as fake. It is no coincidence that the primary vehicle for disinformation and alternative reality in the United States is called “Infowars.” Facts need to be countered with alternative facts, truth becomes lies, and journalists are seen as the enemy. Fear of an Orwellian system leads to the creation of an Orwellian counter-reality in which doubt is celebrated as patriotic only if it criticizes the other side, never your own.
Reality itself is not what you think it is. We know better and can educate (red-pill) you about the truth. You basically believe in The Matrix, and need to see the truth. Only we can tell you. This is Brainwashing 101.
From there, it is all down the rabbit hole. To be continued.