Reality « post » Covid

State of the struggles (2)*

For almost three years, in terms of political awareness and the constitution of new social bonds, we have witnessed something quite exceptional, which gives hope about the possibilities of real change in society(1). The Covid event has indeed played, in spite of itself, a role of political lever allowing an awareness that was made concomitantly to the destruction of certain myths that were essential to a lasting voluntary enslavement. 

The main myths that allowed and still allow us to maintain our model of society are :

  • The state is there to do us good;
  • The purpose of the media is to inform us; 
  • Allopathic medicine(2) is at the service of people’s health and well-being; 
  • Educational institutions train citizens;
  • Governments and multinationals want to be « green », concerned about the biosphere.

If it is certain that nothing will be the same as before, it is no less certain that those who benefited most from these collective illusions will do everything possible to perpetuate the mass submission that these illusions ensured. Covid-19 was an experiment on a planetary scale, the tools that were useful for its implementation will be, and are already, recycled to be applied to other fields, such as the  » fight against global warming « . Klaus Schwab, mentor of governments (Macron, Trudeau, De Croo, etc.), has explained it well in his various books-agendas, including the famous Covid-19: the great reset(3).

The social division

The beginning of the Covid-19 event in March 2020 stunned individuals, creating two groups that became more distinct with time: those who from the beginning, or afterwards, were not anchored to the official discourse, and the others, who accepted the injection — and sometimes that of their children, and obeyed without resistance to governmental injunctions, justifying them personally if necessary. For the latter, the more time passes, the greater the risk of never admitting to the manipulation they have undergone(4) — one can also think that the time put to realize the spectacle that constituted Covid-19 is inversely proportional to the degree of conscience of the individual before this period (that is to say: the more he was with the knowledge of the world, the more quickly he dropped out of the official narrative of Covid, and vice versa).

For the first group, all the illusions listed above that were still blinding the subject did not collapse at the same time, but being intrinsically linked, like dominoes, the fall of one could only lead to that of the others. But these illusions fulfilled a role for the subject — as for the symptoms in neurosis -, assuring him a certain balance, precarious but necessary to life in society. This has not been without effect: their disappearance causes a form of imbalance in the person which can, roughly speaking, take two forms:

  • A personal disillusionment, which can manifest itself by depressive symptoms due to the collapse of a world, of this violent exit of the « Truman show », accentuated by a feeling of impotence;
  • a partial or complete change of life, anchored on the revealed certainty that the person was previously an active participant in the evil that must now be fought.

The awakening was brutal, which explains why some people still get lost in the labyrinth of the new found consciousness and go to pick here and there in all the available information, not always being able to distinguish the wheat from the chaff, the perfect caricature being the one who will reject all « official » information and will acquiesce to the rest without checking (internet being also at this level a form of infinite reference of disinformation). Critical thinking is built over time.

The fact remains that Covid acted as a federator, a relational ferment that brought all those who disagreed with each other into agreement. The « end » of the Covid narrative revealed differences among people, galvanized as they were by the struggle against Covid omnipresence (and omnipotence). This is a good thing, as has been said, but it is also what marks the fragility of the construction. Because once the « great evil » Covid-19 has been removed from the media and political life (overnight, from the beginning of the war in Ukraine), people find themselves among themselves facing their differences. The focus on the Covid had indeed partially obscured who they were, and who they were not; they now discover that the other is sometimes different from what they thought, often idealized. The relegation of the C‑19 to the background of our lives, in addition to seeing a certain number of resistant people disappear, has thus brought to light conflicts and caused depressive passages that the overactivity had put on hold. This return of individual suffering has also been marked by an intellectual cacophony, where the flow of « new » information (new to the individual), creates a global confusion, making it go from 9/11 to gender ideology, stopping at man on the moon and the power of finance, without explaining — and sometimes understanding — each of these points too well.

We thus discover that the other was not only a being reduced to fight against the same thing as us — the Covid-19 Event -, that it is different, a third. And it is precisely this otherness, this difference, which tries to be denied today, the State wanting to reduce us to monads interchangeable at will, and modifiable to the liking of individual desires. All in agreement, all together.

What to do then? Realize that change will only be possible if everyone accepts to lose something. That all this will not be done without debate, without disagreement, without struggle, because as Slobodan Despot says in an interview to be published in the next Kairos(5),  » consensus is a foretaste of the peace of the cemeteries . However, we prefer to focus on what brings us together rather than on what can separate us. 

Those who want to impose their world on us want us to divide ourselves, to waste our time in quarrels that take us away from the most important thing, they also want us to be sad, good« consumer » subjects. 

Let’s not give them this gift. 

*This article is the second in a series on the state of the struggles. Find the first one here:

Notes et références
  1. Pas de ce changement dans la continuité comme évoquait Pierre Bourdieu, ou changer pour ne rien changer.
  2. Allopathie : « Par opposition à homéopathie) : Médecine classique, qui a recours à des médicaments qui ont l’effet contraire de la maladie à traiter » (Déf. Antidote).
  4. Le paradoxe étant que celui qui est le plus apte à reconnaitre qu’il a été manipulé est celui qui est aussi le moins manipulable.
  5. Le 16 février en librairie.

Espace membre

Member area