In Germany, the process of approving a law with an encouraging title is at an advanced stage: "Third Act for the protection of the population in the event of a national epidemic". Federal Minister of Health, Jens Spahn, defended it as an indispensable tool for safeguarding health: "bitter medicine is needed in the form of restrictions on civil liberties".
And, in fact, the rules contained therein provide for the compression, accordion – based on the circumstances and given the contingencies of the day to day – of a whole series of rights now classified as "inessential", that is negotiable, and therefore, if necessary, cancellable: inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, association, assembly, expression of thought, etc. All this, in the wake of that authentic demonic overturning of the golden rule of our tired democracies: everything that is not explicitly prohibited by the law is no longer allowed, but everything that the law does not expressly allow is prohibited.
On closer inspection, these are not very different rules from the "temporary" and "providential" Dpcm from which we are literally submerged in Italy. Only in Germany they are more organized and have carried on with their work. They know better than we do the intelligent use of the hierarchy of sources and they know that a law has more binding force, and is less easily contestable and amendable, than an "administrative" regulation. But we'll get there too, don't worry. And maybe we will even arrive at the overturning d'emblée of the first 54 articles of the Constitution. Why not? Ask it.
Why shouldn't it be possible in a world where the lock pick has finally been found to undermine the "liberal" system of sovereign systems? After all, it was unanimously and "pushed" decided (by the dominant mass-media matrix) that health comes before (and above) every other issue and every other value. There is nothing left that is not expendable on the altar of this new divinity: not even freedom, not even life.
From this point of view, it is not important to understand whether Covid-19 has been synthesized in a test tube, and therefore it is a criminal project (and not an unfortunate accident of nature). It is rather crucial to understand how the virus is used as an enzyme to overturn the cornerstones of our private and collective lives. Justifying the establishment of any (I repeat: any) measure of control, discipline, regimentation. So as to finally bring back to order a world that is too populated, too “crowded”, too chaotic.
Let's ask ourselves, then: if the various technical-scientific committees should one day – due to the resurgence of this virus, or due to the arrival of a new pathogen – establish that it is worth it, that it is "scientific" (and therefore , by definition, "necessary") to introduce further "restrictions", would the mass rebel? If they were proposed, just by way of example: the violation of the domestic hearth to extinguish an outbreak of contagion, or the imprisonment of dodgers in limited spaces, or the roundup of fake news speakers and their forced re-education? Would the "reforms" pass?
And how if they would pass, and would be hailed as a "bitter medicine" by health ministers around the world. The new German law, in fact, has a name ominously similar to the Nazi decree (of 1933) of the President of the Reich for the "protection of the people" and the state, following the fire of the Reichstag. Beware all those who have screamed, and continue to scream, against the danger of a return of the black and brown ghosts of the short century. They could be satisfied. But on the side they don't expect.
The article The "protection" of the German people – retrospective from 2020 to 1933 comes from ScenariEconomici.it .
This is a machine translation of a post published on Scenari Economici at the URL https://scenarieconomici.it/la-protezione-del-popolo-tedesco-retrospettiva-dal-2020-al-1933/ on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 10:50:40 +0000.