At first glance, everything looks as if nothing has ever been the same. Then when you take a closer look at what is happening in this war against a virus, everything is basically the same as it always is.
How one must see the war against the virus – as always: the state as a helper in times of need
The war starts by being told via the media by the highest political guard how to see the whole thing.
As usual, the politicians with their media present the whole thing with the virus, what their program of a war against the virus means, and above all how everybody has to see all these things.
And this is how:
It’s very important to ask the right questions and there are some questions which must not be asked, so they are taken out of circulation right from the start: First of all, there’s the question why all this shit with the virus actually exists.
This question must not be asked, otherwise you would immediately come across the politicians, their health department, and the business world, both of whom did not find the preventive production of a medicine sufficiently lucrative when the last virus disappeared and with the disappearance of the virus the guarantee of good business with the virus disappeared and the scientists who were on their way to develop a medicine were sent home because of it. On the other hand, this is nothing special either: even quite normally, when the disease curves of sick citizens rise, the values of the of the stocks of the pill industry rise. Health is a business and it is a good business because the state has put all its power to make it a good business.
The next question that must not be asked is why even a state – at least that is the case with the top states in the world – which is almost suffocating on its tax revenues and has money without end, why such a state does not put money into a clever health system that is also enough for emergencies, this question too was taken out of circulation right at the beginning of the whole thing, because the answer to this question does not put politicians and the economy in a good light either: The entire health system around the world has been set up in such a way that the biggest business can be done with the least investment, and that is why everything was closed down by politicians, which was done in order to save costs and to gear the entire health system towards this kind of profiteering. From the production of medicine which must be profitable, i.e. no more antibiotics, for example, to the closure of hospitals and departments which have cut all kinds of operations which do not produce any profit, always nicely coordinated between the manufacturers of medical products and the privatized hospitals, to the doctors involved in the dividends of both manufacturers and hospitals. Elsewhere they call this kind of mafia, here this network of charitable businessmen is called “our healthcare system”, which we now have to save in the interest of all of us.
That is why we have this health care system which, when it is no longer used for this purpose and is only used for ordinary virus treatments beyond the usual masses, groans and moans more than all patients, because it no longer does business and it is therefore this health care system which must be protected from the many patients from whose treatment nothing can be earned – a healthcare system which above all needs state care. Everyone knows what that looks like: see below.
Now, after every thought of how all this shit came about with the virus, after the non-existent medicine and the health care system that was not set up for this, after all these questions about it, all this could have something to do with politics and economics, which decide on everything and anything, but want nothing to do with anything, if something goes wrong, now that such thoughts have been put aside with the ban on raising them at all, now politics has thus prepared the way for itself to now present itself as a helper in need and as a war leader who can be stopped by nothing and no one, leading his subjects into battle with the necessary force.
The impression may be deceptive, but some politicians are under the impression that the declared war is also an opportunity to finally present themselves as leaders of their nations. There are possibilities of interpretation, to present oneself more as a helper or as a commander, more Merkel or more Trump.
It may be a favour of the hour for the state, which first got the citizens into this shit with its health policy and its care for an economically profitable health system, to now present the very state as a great helper of the citizens, and that too is actually, presenting the state as a helper, is quite normal. That is what they do with every problem that politicians present to citizens. The public authorities are always presenting themselves as helpers out of need, which almost always nobody but themselves has caused. Who else but the one who decides about everything and anything, but never wants to be responsible for any need. Sometimes the division of labour between business and politics helps, as with the unemployed, who only exist because politics, which has prepared all the regulations for the economy when work does not pay off, fires them without any problems in order to then provide them with money for the unemployed, from coffers which, incidentally, people pay for themselves as long as they have work, as if the state were doing this to help the unemployed in their misery. That is how it works everywhere. And in the same way, the treatment of sick people who have been caught by the virus is presented as help for those people, sick and healthy alike, who really got into this whole “war” against the virus with their health policy and lack of medicine.
And also to sell oneself as a dictatorial type, that is also among politicians, not a disgusting ploy of self-portrayal, but exactly what not only politicians think that this is what distinguishes a politician with leadership qualities. And indeed, such an appearance fits in with what this job is all about, not just now.
It is really true that states conquer the position to be both our helpers and our commanders. It is really true that the media lives on filling our heads with questions that it believes to be right and censors all questions that are inconvenient to it.
All of this does not explain the powerful effect that allows such strategies to work. It does not explain the disgust that the citizen feels when the right questions, the questions asked by Michael Kuhn´s text, are asked.
The unanimity of the media and the effective social support for tough policies – in times of virus and in other times – cannot be explained only by their effects, since, as very well noticed by the current paper, their effects are catastrophic.
The problem, then, maybe: when will the catastrophic effects of capitalist policies result in the liberation of thought, the liberation of the imagination of the victims of those policies, ending the politics-media censorship?
Well , my answer on why such strategies work, is this: the nation state together with the capitalist economy has made people existentially dependent, without accepting this way to exist no existence; this is the fundamental very practical blackmail with which people are forced to accept this and if they accept this, they bend down in front of the state and the business and their priorities to get this existence, which is the existence as the servants of the state and the capitalists for their priorities, including the sacrifices of this life as a servant.
And this I why my questions are no pleasant questions, at least for somebody, who decided to bend their lives under this rule of the state and the capitalist and who accepts the sacrifices. But this is the question raised by this ruled life, by the sacrifices and by the blackmail to accept this. And, they have the choice, to raise the question by and for themselves if they want to accept these living conditions or not.
One more comment about your notion „when will the catastrophic effects of capitalist policies result in the liberation of thought“ . This question is not only one but the most counterrevolutionary argument Foucault poisoned intellectuals like you with. This idea of a „liberation of thought“ implies that there is an oppression of thought. And do you know what for this entirely psychologically obsessed thinker this oppression of thought is? It is to distinguish between false and right knowledge. This the objectivity of knowledge is what is for him the oppression of knowledge and therefore he advocated the liberation of knowledge to through over board any knowledge and to replay it by the mysticism of subjectivity. This is, what finally justifies any knowledge, including the shit people are told by the state. The only way to overcome the knowledge they tell you how you should see things is to find out that and why it is not true – such as the statements of the media and the state arguing that the state is a helper when he imposes his agenda on people. Finding out that this not true, this the only way to – not liberate- no longer share the knowledge they want you to share. This is why I write all my shit, proving how and why all this knowledge which looks as if it has some plausibility, but that this is not true. The plausibility „the state helps „ gains its plausibility from this false conclusion people make: Because without him, I am a nothing. In other words, the conclude from the dependency of their entire existence that, because without the state they have nothing, that the state must then be a helper. To come to this conclusion you must accept the dependence of resulting from something else but the state. And this is their most fundamental error- all this leftist share when they make the capitalist responsible for this totalitarian dependence, though it is a joint dependence done by the state and the capitalist. Without the protection of private properties by the state there is nor capitalist, no private ownership of the means of the economy. The only good thing about Focault is, that he only poisoned the mind of intellectuals, nobody else fortunately reads that crap.
Blackmail is part of the answer. It is not all the answer. Why blackmail does not work with you? Is blackmail an innovation by capitalism? Many other non-modern societies know and use blackmail and depth before capitalism rules. Admitting capitalism is based on blackmail, at a new level, one must prove that this regime is impossible to destroy because people are not able to leave out the blackmail situation, we are in.
!. Please read what I wrote, may be it was not clear enough: I did not write it is blackmailing, blakcmailing is everwhere in this society, . Why do you make such meaningless abstractions, and this is not only here where yoiu do this, and by doing this, you eliminate not only here the specific nature of this society and end up in abstrations, always ending up in the mankinds nature, thus not only mystifying the most simple things and also ending up in the darkness of mankind and mankind’s history, leading us thus away from where we are today in this society reality: the point is how this state blackmail is made, it is about the blackmail of the subject that has the say in this society and there the point is what the baclkmail is about: It is the state created totality of dependence, this is the point: Without me you are nothing.
2. Choice: Yes there are many people who are not even given any choice, only those who the capitalits need for their buisinees they have a choice. This is why I am not adressing those people who are not even backmailed any more, because they are considered as usless rubbish. And the world populated with these people as you can see at all the millions of the so called migrants…again ste state view on these people!