A former left-wing German draws hope from the Freedom Convoy
Essay by Oliver Hirsch - 27 June 2022
I hate to admit it, but the past two years have left me with massive collateral damage. I am not afraid of the virus but of the totalitarian change in society. Decades of work in the public health sector and research in this field have given me an informed empirical point of view that is fundamentally different from what we here in Germany are being told non-stop by governments and the mainstream media. Therefore, I was immediately enthusiastic about the initiative of the Canadian truckers to gather a convoy to the capital in Ottawa to rally for the lifting of the coercive measures in connection with Corona.
Due to the time difference, I followed the reporting of various Youtubers until late at night in February 2022 and was able to form my own opinion. In the mainstream media, there was talk of chaos, violent protests, attacks on public soup kitchens, gatherings of right-wing extremists and other nasty things. I saw none of this in the hour-long livestreams from different locations around the city. The atmosphere was positive, peaceful, the city was kept clean by the protesters, free food was given out, there was an atmosphere similar to Woodstock. In one of the livestreams, young people said that ten minutes at the protest was enough to feel full of positive energy again. They had almost given up hope. Watching the livestreams also gave me hope again and encouraged me to be on the right side of history. Seeing the positive attitude of the people was very touching. They demanded nothing but self-determination and individual freedom, which should actually be self-evident in a democracy. Instead, the word "freedom" was labelled by the media as a code word for extreme right-wing white supremacists. Sometimes I have the impression that the mainstream no longer even realises its own absurdity.
I was all the more dismayed that the peaceful protests were broken up violently, with brute force such as equestrian squads sent into the peaceful protesters. Watching this live, I could not believe that this could be possible in a supposedly free country like Canada. Brutality towards peaceful protesters has unfortunately become the order of the day here in Germany as well, as far as demonstrations against the Corona measures are concerned. It doesn't bother the government and the police authorities when this is officially criticised by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture.
I was shocked about the dissolution of the protests in Ottawa and about the fact that even today the organisers are given a hard time. I learned that Tamara Lich continues to be banned from social media and from meeting other convoy organisers according to her bail conditions. This is not worthy of a supposedly open democratic society. In solidarity, I have placed a Canadian flag with a "Freedom Convoy" sign and a mourning pile on the fence in front of our house. There have been no open reactions to this so far. Below, I will explain why the days of the Freedom Convoy in February 2022 were so important for me and why I still follow the freedom marches in Canada via livestreams.
The situation in Germany is becoming more and more absurd and more and more detached from scientific evidence, although the government and its close-knit scientists in their groupthink claim exactly the opposite, without, however, being able to provide conclusive evidence for it. In psychology, this is called projection. One side accuses the other of being anti-scientific, fascist, and wanting to abolish democracy, although their own actions show exactly these characteristics. Professor Mattias Desmet of Ghent University in Belgium calls this "mass formation." He deliberately avoids the term mass psychosis because psychosis is a clinical term and there is no such diagnosis in any diagnostic scheme. However, the apparent impossibility of arguing against the prevailing narrative with empirical findings brings to mind a psychotic event that is equally not amenable to rational argumentation. On the other hand, I see the danger of mutual pathologization, since it is a strategy of totalitarian states to psychiatrize opponents. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, for example, recommended that critics of the Corona measures see a psychologist. It is ironic that I am one myself.
The absurdity of the measures really seems to know no bounds anymore. Germany was even in first place in the Stringency Index, which assesses the severity of corona measures worldwide (https://web.archive.org/web/20220110103413/https://ourworldindata.org/covid-stringency-index). I would never have thought it possible that in the storied „land of poets and thinkers“ such absurd things as mandatory testing of kindergarten children three times per week from the age of one (https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/eine-woche-testpflicht-in-kitas-erfahrungsbericht-vom-untermain), mandatory vaccination in health care services, vaccination of children who have no risk for the disease, vaccination or recovered status with a negative test („2G+“) for restaurants, arbitrary shortening of recovered status from 6 to 3 months, etc. would ever be possible. Philosopher Sebastian Ostritsch describes access procedures for post-secondary education on Twitter: "At my university, card readers have been installed in front of the event rooms. They are used to check the 3G status of the students. The lecturers are assigned the supervisor role. An external company has been contracted to do spot checks. I think this is a dystopian nightmare." (translated from https://twitter.com/vernunftrausch/status/1449468419309510675).
There is a paralyzing, dystopian atmosphere in this country, while the Federal President proclaims that we live in the best Germany ever, but at the same time divides society through his statements. In the city where I was born, we were able to observe the excesses of the 2G regulation in the city center just before Christmas. People lined up outside stores to "scan" their way in with apps. Stores have erected barriers that are only moved aside once 2G eligibility has been successfully checked. Why does all this remind me of reading "1984" back in English class? Fittingly, in August 2020, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research published, among other things, a future scenario starting in 2030, which discusses the application of a social credit system in Germany like the one in China (https://www.vorausschau.de/vorausschau/de/home/home_node.html). We are really starting to run out of conspiracy theories. In families, dealing with Corona is becoming a matter of faith. Even our family is partially divided, an orderly communication seems no longer possible. The advantage is to have met many new, interesting people. Parallel societies are forming.
The way the media deal with the Corona situation in Germany causes me great horror. The term "zombie journalism," as coined by Marcus Klöckner in his book of the same name, sums it up quite appropriately in my opinion. Can it really still be called „journalism“ when journalists have been labeling any criticism of the Corona measures as "gobbledygook," politically far-right and anti-Semitic for almost two years? This could better be characterized as an absence of journalism. Complete contradictions are submitted at intervals of a few sentences and this is presented to the public as completely conclusive. What frightens me about this, however, is that this onesidedness is now no longer considered unusual by the majority in Germany. It is astonishing that in other countries, journalism that is critical of the government is still possible, for example at the British news channel GB News. There, critical discussion is possible in the sense that masks are not effective, that the predictions of the modelers were completely wrong and that they should be held accountable for the fact that lockdowns have done more harm than good. Journalists in Germany, on the other hand, apparently go to anti-Corona demonstrations with their minds made up beforehand, only to "report" on "Nazi marches" and far too low numbers of participants. The media applaud when anti-Corona demonstrations are banned but the respective counter-demonstrations are allowed. I am appalled that such a thing is possible in this country and, as a psychological expert, I clearly recognize elements of propaganda and brainwashing in the daily media presence.
Politicians and journalists are constantly talking about making it "uncomfortable" for the unvaccinated. Why, actually? Because they are exercising a democratic right in a free society? Shouldn't we make it "uncomfortable" for those who make such anti-democratic statements and should know that there is no evidence for these claims? One of the peaks of bad taste was undoubtedly a column in the magazine SPIEGEL, which, as is well known, has received millions in payments from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in recent years. There, people arguing against the wearing of masks were portrayed as potential murderers (https://www.spiegel.de/kultur/corona-pandemie-brief-an-die-schutzmaskenverweigerer-a-5069f101-74aa-4dae-89a6-9aea9e5331da). The fact that there are randomized studies, both in the past in the context of influenza and currently in COVID-19, showing that mask-wearing in public spaces has no meaningful effect on these diseases is, of course, ignored because it does not fit the agitational concept. The massive intervention of mask-wearing is downplayed as completely harmless. Even with this intervention, which in Germany is called a "shield against the pandemic," researchers should ask why it then drives up the incidence numbers so favored by politicians anyway.
No serious cost-benefit weighing has ever been done for mask mandates. On the contrary, there is clear evidence of massive potential harm from regular mask wearing (https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/8/4344, Altmetric score: https://mdpi.altmetric.com/details/104452467#score). This is just one example of a long list of denied scientific discourse in Germany about key interventions and parameters in the context of the current corona situation. Politicians have unilaterally committed themselves to certain scientific views and presented these to the population as "the science", which is wrong in terms of scientific theory, because "the science" does not exist, since science is permanently in flux and there is no medical intervention that is suitable for all people.
Recent absurdity peaks included the arbitrary shortening of the convalescent status in Germany quasi over night by the Robert Koch Institute from 6 to 3 months, whereby the respective certificates were/are valid only after a waiting period of one month, thus this status was/is valid only 5 months and/or 2 months, as well as the headless acting proclamation of the vaccination obligation in Austria, which has since been scrapped. The fact that compulsory vaccination for the whole adult population was also discussed in the German parliament was, in my view, the absolute low point for our democratic society.
I have been critical of the official approach since I read an article by Prof. John Ioannidis at the end of March 2020, in which he wrote that the approach to COVID-19 could turn into an evidence fiasco due to insufficient data. I subsequently published several scientific articles on the subject of Corona and several essays on related subjects under my name. It was always important to me to mark these with my name and not to appear as an anonymous author, because I think that the time of anonymity on the part of the critics should be over. I can quite understand that by signing with the own name disadvantages have to be accepted, which does not speak for the current scientific discourse and the state of our society. Otherwise, how explain that my highly esteemed colleague Prof. Dr. Andreas Sönnichsen recently lost his professorship for General Practice/Family Medicine at MedUni Vienna due to his corona-critical positions? (Corona-critical professor fired from MedUni Vienna - Austria | heute.at) I strongly condemn this and as co-author of a recent critical publication together with Andreas Sönnichsen, there is not a single word I would take back. Another esteemed colleague, Prof. Dr. Dr. Christian Schubert from the University of Innsbruck, also breached several taboos on 08.01.2022 at a rally in Innsbruck by clearly speaking out against the non-evidence-based measures. I admire his courage to do this in front of such a large public.
Both colleagues have emphasized that they never imagined they would ever speak at events of a right-wing conservative party like the Austrian FPÖ, but the so-called "do-gooder" parties from the left-green spectrum are now forcing experimental medical treatment on people without appropriate evidence. I, too, have tended to stay politically in this left-green spectrum, was a member of the peace movement in the 1980s against the armament on both sides of the military blocs, and even then got to feel what it means to take an uncomfortable position. When the views of the peace movement in the 1980s and the policies of the Soviet Union developed in a similar direction, it was concluded that the pacifists had allied themselves with the Soviet Union. Thus, all pacifists would have allied with the Soviet Union. Similarities with the current situation are certainly purely coincidental.
The statements made by the German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier at a roundtable discussion on "Hatred and Violence in Times of Pandemic - Experiences and Reactions" at Bellevue Palace on January 24, 2022, should probably be regarded as historically unique. There, he referred to those who make their protest against the government's Corona measures clear as part of the Monday walks as "enemies of the state" and in a dehumanizing manner as "all the rest." The current Chancellor Olaf Scholz has claimed that there is no division within German society. It is merely a loud, radical minority, he said (https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/scholz-farbe-bekennen-103.html). Instead, every Monday alone, several hundred thousand people are protesting against the government's Corona measures. There is permanent uncertainty in the country, nothing can be planned anymore, the government is driving by sight. One must constantly fear that one will be denounced if one does not follow the government's epidemiologically questionable, non-evidence-based rules. It is obvious that these rules and regulations have a purely political basis. There is a constant emphasis on the lack of alternatives to the government's decisions, although even when compared to other countries, it is clear that they come from politicians who take a one-sided view of the issue to the exclusion of other empirically based viewpoints.
In 1985, I had a key experience that is a decisive impetus for my actions today. My paternal grandmother told me about her experiences in World War II. She lived in a small village that was close to a metalworking plant where Russian forced laborers were exploited. In the evening a group managed to get out of their camp into the village, because they were hungry. They were standing in front of my grandmother's house. They just stood there, not begging. My grandmother was a Christian, she was not a resistance fighter, but the worst village Nazi lived only two houses away and could watch the scene. She told me that you simply must not treat people like that. Together with her eldest daughter she went out to the forced laborers and everyone got a piece of bread and a slice of ham, although this was strictly forbidden. While doing so, she observed the people closely. There was one man who did not look like a worker at all. His hands were so fine, she saw, when she gave him the bread, and he wore round glasses. He must have been an artist or a musician. My grandmother also played the harmonium.
When the war was over, the forced laborers went through the village and looted the houses. They also passed by my grandmother's house. The man with glasses held the others back, spoke something in Russian that my grandma did not understand, then they went on. My grandmother's house was the only one spared. Then she gave me the message that you can't talk your way out of it, that you always have a choice within your possibilities and if it should happen again that this country takes a turn towards totalitarianism, that I too should do what I can. At the end of October 2020, I was at her grave again after long years and asked her for advice. I never thought that such a time would actually arrive. After I left the cemetery, the thoughts "Don't be afraid" suddenly popped into my head. Thank you, Grandma, for being with me. My father -- her son -- died in March 2022. He was also critical about the situation in Germany, which reminded him of the experiences he made as a child born in 1936. He called the media coverage „propaganda“ and refused to take the vaccine.
Where all this will end, I am not able to say. In any case, I will continue to call for a pluralistic evidence-based discussion, the abolition of all corona measures since they had no such evidence base except for a focused protection approach for vulnerable groups, and a return to full compliance with the Constitution, as well as writing against what I see as a one-sided, non-data-based approach. If this should lead to personal disadvantages in a supposedly free democratic order, as some colleagues have already experienced, then it shows me that there are apparently no substantial counter-arguments for such an evidence-based discussion. Then it must be so, because they can do it. I, however, dear grandma, did what I could do.
Prof. Dr. rer. nat. habil. Oliver Hirsch is a professor of business psychology with a focus on data analysis and statistics, research methods, and biopsychology at a university of applied sciences.
A significant part of this article is based on a previous publication in the cultural magazine „Särö“ in Finland: Saksan epätieteellinen koronastrategia - Verkko-Särö (sarolehti.net).