Evoking a totalitarian upheaval, a swing toward dictatorship, or recalling the dark hours of our history provokes storms of indignation among the well-meaning, while passing laws that massively violate constitutional rights or introduce segregation forbidden by the legal system and ethically abhorrent leaves them perplexed.
More Violent Measures
Behind this, no doubt, lies a suppressed guilty conscience about having gone down such problematic roads as have been forced upon us over the past 18 months. How many times do we have to remind ourselves that Sweden, Texas, the Netherlands and now England have renounced all anti-freedom measures without even the slightest negative consequences?
How can we continue to claim that these increasingly violent and severe measures are necessary when we have the evidence under our noses that they are not? “Eyes Wide Shut” seems to be the right answer.
The discomfort of facing things, combined with the cost (political, but also psychological) of realizing that we have been on the wrong track for a year and a half and have created an economic and social catastrophe for nothing, affects the possibility of our leaders becoming aware of the situation. The same applies to the media (which has been marketing rather than informing in this matter) and to the scientists who have supported a science distorted by conflicts of interest, turning a blind eye to the avalanche of falsifications that has buried the science worthy of the name.
This debate is currently impossible because the elites of doom are so nervous. Mauro Poggia, the Minister of Health of the Canton of Geneva, even invoked the memory of his parents, heroic resistance fighters under Mussolini in Italy, to deny that we are dealing with a totalitarian evolution and to suppress those who consider themselves resistance fighters.
I sincerely and fully join the tribute he paid to his parents. The courage and self-sacrifice of these righteous people during the dark years of fascism are infinitely admirable and must serve as an inescapable reference. It is difficult to see, however, how invoking this memory is likely to deny the present development, which the minister in question, as one of the most zealous in Switzerland, wants to push ever further.
Let him start by acknowledging the Swedish, Dutch or Texan examples (states whose results are far from being worse than those of the canton where he is in charge) that have no intention of introducing a health passport, and we will get to the point. Before that, we will note with regret that he and his colleagues remain trapped in a pernicious rut that leads to more and more authoritarianism and useless coercive measures, more and more violations of fundamental freedoms and, in reality, more and more health and social damage.
This reality of “soft totalitarianism,” as Michel Maffesoli called it in his 1978 dissertation, is a reality in which we find ourselves. The elegant oxymoron “soft” has now become a heavy euphemism. “Masked” would perhaps be more appropriate (and also trendier), because it is indeed a totalitarianism with a hidden face, denied by the right-thinking groups that nevertheless claim to have values that should spur them to resistance.
Unless, unfortunately, the bitter phrase of Léo Ferré that “the left has always been the waiting room of fascism” is true. When one sees forty-one French socialist deputies calling for compulsory vaccination (in reality, a genetic experiment), it is hard to escape this conclusion.
Can any civilized person imagine seeing another person forcibly vaccinated against his will, thrown to the ground by soldiers or policemen if necessary? And to those who see in this description another impertinent assertion on my part, we might open their eyes to the fact that this situation currently exists in French prisons, where mutinies are apparently already occurring in the face of the shameful vaccination requirement imposed on inmates.
I know how much this reference makes people cry out, but the famous “Nuremberg Code” (which really has no legal value except that it had a major influence on subsequent international conventions) was created precisely as a result of Nazi medical abuses along these lines. There comes a time when we simply must slide down the slope. And this for a medical experiment with an uncertain risk profile that is in principle forbidden to the general public.
The Hippocratic Oath?
In short, transgressions are accumulating that illustrate what Professor Maffesoli has been pointing out for several decades: the moral, political and spiritual bankruptcy of the power elites (that media-political caste that “has the power to say or do anything”) for whom none of the inalienable foundations of our civilization seems to be more than an old-fashioned, perhaps picturesque, but above all obsolete junk.
The Hippocratic oath? Enslaved by the prescriptions of methodologists paid by the pharmaceutical industry.
The precautionary principle regarding experimental treatment? Lost in the flood of Big Pharma’s promotional announcements, becoming scientific truth as soon as they reach the ears of government.
Habeas Corpus has for centuries forbidden the authorities (the master) from disposing of the bodies of his subjects? An “ethical gimmick from another time,” according to the triumphant Scientocracy.
The Oviedo Convention (whose full name is “Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine, known as the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine”)? An idealistic dream from the 1970s.
Even the Constitution has been trampled on in France by a “Council of Wise Men” whose chairman happens to be the father of the French CEO of the consulting firm responsible for marketing the vaccination campaign in France. This president has not even seen fit to recuse himself (“come on!”). This law, which also dates back to ancient times and was mandatory for conflicts of interest, is now as outdated as bowler hats and bicycle handlebar mustaches for men. Viz zde.
In short, to help the “Eyes Wide Shutters” see things clearly, I publish here the first part of a new light on the paranoid and totalitarian puff that has gripped our social systems. The second part will present the views of a psychologist-psychotherapist and a physician-psychiatrist on this reality.
So let’s start with a first bouquet of lofty reflections: first, a lucid, sad and beautiful interview entitled The thought that we will live normally again is a fraud by Michel Rosenzweig, a philosopher and psychoanalyst often quoted in this blog. “The atmosphere is becoming breathless,” he points out – and you have to be of the “normal” left or right not to notice!
Another important reference is, of course, Ariane Bilheran, PhD in psychopathology, specialist in paranoid delusions in their individual and collective manifestations, and expert in court cases. In two series of articles entitled Psychologie du totalitarisme and Chroniques du totalitarisme, published both in Antipresse and on her blog, she dissects ongoing events in a virtuoso but less than reassuring manner.
It is also worth mentioning the hearing of Prof. Mattias Desmet, who teaches clinical psychology at the University of Geneva, as part of the work of the committee chaired by German jurist Reiner Fuellmich. He teaches clinical psychology at Ghent University in Belgium and specializes in mass education typical of totalitarian regimes. His analysis of the current situation should encourage those who hesitate to break free from denial, as it illuminates the reality of this “collective hypnosis” set up and apparently skillfully maintained by the powerful interests that profit from it. The hearing will be held in English, with a translation in French with subtitles in the video below: