REFLECTION - After once again descending into the tweeting depths of the internet - why, I always attract the wrong friends there - I have recovered for a while. Not only from corona, which has really shut me down in recent weeks, but also from Twitter. People wish each other dead there. They try to settle their case by defaming, insulting, saying that the other person is stupid, calling each other 'stupid wimps', 'stupid sheep', 'retarded wimps', 'dirty schwabists', they avoid the issues raised, repeat beliefs without refuting counterarguments and use all the deceptive techniques that make a sensible exchange of ideas impossible.
They hate each other from the bottom of their hearts, the people who disagree about vaccination. As a skeptic, I mainly experience the grab-the-wappies approach, but I see the same angry uninformedness in my own camp. Do I know better then? I can reassure you: absolutely. So I know what I'm talking about.
Everyone is sure of their business
These certainties from both sides remind me of what the atmosphere must be like in totalitarian states, where there are of course also supporters and opponents of a regime, and what it must have been like in the thirties. Even then, there were diametrically opposed visions of a better world with all the promises that entailed, standing up for an ideology, biting the bullet together, making sacrifices for a stronger future, coming out of a crisis. Resistance to innovation versus investing in technological innovation, being open to better structures, making sacrifices for innovation. Strengthening society, together we can get it done. And at the same time people who didn't want all that and saw society going in the wrong direction. Chaos of opinions. Who was right and who was wrong then? Nobody knew that yet, everyone thought he was right. That is no different now than it was then.
Let wel, en dat kan ik niet genoeg benadrukken: het gaat niet over onderdrukte bevolkingsgroepen die worden vergeleken, het gaat juist om "de anderen" die een bepaalde groep beschuldigen. Het gaat ook over pre-1940; de latere onvoorstelbare wreedheden zijn uiteraard door niets of niemand te rechtvaardigen maar die waren toen nog in geen velden of wegen te bekennen. De goedwillende bevolking van ons 'neutrale' polderlandje had er in de jaren '30 nog geen enkel benul van dat ze in de opmaat zaten naar de verschrikkingen die zouden volgen. Niemand zag dat, de vroege tegenstanders (heette dat al Verzet?) ook niet, die moeten zich druk hebben gemaakt over andere dingen die ze zagen gebeuren in de samenleving, niet over genocide en miljoenen doden. Intellectuelen bedachten pas later de Endlösung. Geen zinnig mens zal zich nu toch scharen achter... Hoewel: als je zo'n Gerard Spong hears About what he has just read in the newspaper, he would also like to go far and easily step over certain boundaries, on his way to the full-vax Valhalla. You don't have to be Aryan (lucky for Spong) nor non-Jewish for that, but simply: vaccinated, that's enough. Then it's all allowed, including what they did then: pointing the finger at the culprits, pushing for exclusion, demonizing, breaking into physical integrity, making debate impossible, it's moral panic (Ewald Engelen puts it at De Balie great).
1+1=2
This sentiment is not new. It was already apparent in April 2021, when the Volkskrant published a cartoon of Maurice de Hond. Soon after, they expressed regret: it was explicit not bedoeld als verwijzing naar de cartoons over manipulatieve Joden uit de jaren 30/40. Daar hadden ze helemaal niet eens aan gedacht. OK, maar maakt dat het dan goed? Of mag je elke tegenstander op een valse, manipulatieve wijze afbeelden, zolang het maar niet tegen Joden is gericht of naar WOII verwijst want daar hebben we een actieve herinnering aan? Maar misschien wel tegen Palestijnen? Of tegen wetenschappelijke dissidenten? Als dat allemaal mag, wat was er dan vanuit het perspectief van de jaren dertiger eigenlijk zo verschrikkelijk mis met die prent tegen Joden? Ze wisten toen nog niks van een genocide dus "dat mag je daar helemaal niet mee vergelijken".
Maybe it only matters in retrospect, when you know who won the battle. If the war had not happened, according to de Volkskrant it would have been fine to support the government narrative in this way. That state of affairs should make you think about what goes on in such an editorial office.
In fact, it is now even more disturbing: the thought patterns show similarities, the character assassination and demonization is no less. They are the same propaganda techniques, unintentionally leading to identical expressions. Everything is allowed, except referring to WWII because that leads to indignant horror. People think just as exclusively as in the 1930s, are just as filled with their own right and that is why the same propaganda nonsense comes out that fills the newspapers, from front-line soldiers to anti-Semitic cartoons. Even without any prior knowledge or intentional reference, it is purely spontaneous creativity, with the best intentions. 1+1=2.
Only time will tell who is wrong and who is right in this controversy. This was not yet clear in the 1930s, although it is almost incomprehensible with today's knowledge. Even then it was not good versus evil, there were different views on what was best for society. Mass psychologists, logicians, argumentation theorists and statisticians should look for characteristics to recognize Right and Wrong, even before the outcome of the battle is known. I wonder if anyone could conduct such a study without bias.
The utopia of the Third Reich will have been promised and therefore convincing for large parts of the population. You can now see how that goes. People blindly support something if it suits their stall, just look at the large groups of people who blindly follow anti-vax fake news and come up with their own narrative. That's not OK, but fortunately there is not the power behind it of respected quality media that, like the trusted vaccines, stand on the shoulders of a reputation that was carefully built up in the past but has now been completely demolished.
NSB member or resistance fighter?
I wonder if I will turn out to be one of those who tried to push dangerous ideas. Maybe I will soon be driven around in a cage with wappies (so to speak) and I will still have thwarted the full-vax utopia, which means that we can continue to live in peace and without disease because we all take a harmless six-monthly injection. But when I see how unvaccinated people are portrayed as the antisocial culprits of the most important bottlenecks, the murderers of people for whom no ICU place is available, then I fear that I may be in the wrong corner. If that full-vax ideal ever comes about, the question becomes: how do you deal with idiots like me? I think you lock them up and condemn them. Virusvaria provides sufficient incriminating evidence. You give such a person an injection - or perhaps the doctors will find a more efficient solution that puts an end to the resistance.
Can we at least maintain some dignity, some respect? I immediately admit that I have not always succeeded in that on my insignificant blog. But when it really counts. What should happen to our opponents if it turns out that they are wrong? How do we give them a dignified existence within our own vision? Would the other side also please think about this? Try to understand where your opponents are coming from. Don't harbor a personal grudge against doctor friends who (still) want to vaccinate everyone. Open your ears to dissident scientists. They may not know any better, but should you blame them personally? Can you abstract yourself as you expect from your opponent? The moment your approach becomes disrespectful or you infringe on other people's fundamental rights, then you are Wrong. But yes, that's how I see it. Spong, for example, sees it differently. Time will tell...
Enfin, genoeg gemijmerd. Later vandaag weer een artikel met een statistische grondslag. Dat is dan mijn eigen 1+1=2.
