I didn't take part!

A few days ago I published an article on Facebook about the Corona measures that went through the roof. Since then, acquaintances, friends, fans and relatives have been contacting me to either tell me how brave they think it is or how disappointed they are in me. It's not the first time that a text from me has caused a stir. Throughout the entire Corona crisis, I felt it was my duty to comment on this, but in a moderate and, above all, differentiated tone. For this I received a lot of praise from different quarters, but also a lot of criticism.
Even though you might think it was tricky to do this given my position at a public broadcaster, I never once thought about not doing it. Because it was important to me to position myself in this time of uncertainty, aggression and anger, not in order to take his side or act as a resistance fighter, but because I felt the need not only to orient myself, but also to give orientation to the people who read my texts.

Excerpt from my Facebook post from November 2021:

"What we are currently experiencing is nothing other than the helpless way politics is dealing with a pandemic, the end of which is not in sight as long as we keep relying on supposed ultimate solutions instead of a constant adjustment of the measures, measured against them The goals we have and the dangers we want to avoid.
Numbers only seem to play a minor role and the power that is given to the same commentators and broadcasters is so great that a further aggravation and escalation of the situation can hardly be avoided. Because even the mantra-like repeated narratives no longer work. At first it was the "pandemic of the unvaccinated", then there was talk of a "vanishingly small minority of right-wing radical esoterics in the East" who took to the streets because they were stubborn and dissatisfied with the system anyway, now people simply keep quiet about it Every day there are more and more people taking their protest to the streets, while the methods of silencing them are becoming more and more authoritarian."

For this text I was later banned from YouTube and restricted by Facebook for allegedly spreading medical misinformation

At the same time, we recorded the Schröder and Somuncu podcast every week, in which the topic of Corona came up again and again. From the beginning it was clear that my position was neither one-sided on the side of the government nor was it fundamentally against the government. Florian and I tried, as far as possible, to look at the crisis from different perspectives and we certainly weren't consistently consistent and certainly not omniscient.

Many others felt the same way as we did. Over the course of the crisis, our views have changed and some things have turned into the opposite. I think there were only a few who were able to foresee where the journey was going from the start and yet in the last few months there has been increasing aggression from those who claim to have done everything right. It is impossible to estimate exactly where this energy comes from and who is spreading it, but it is becoming increasingly clear what it stands for and why it is so important. Because a certain group of people seems to bask in the feeling that, in their critical commitment, they have waged a kind of freedom struggle against the injustice of those above. And at the same time you attack those who, in your eyes, were followers and took part and who you consider and brand as collaborators, even under false pretenses.

In my case too, as absurd as it seems, especially based on the previous description, this is happening more and more often and I think I have recognized a motive in it. It seems to be a tactic in certain circles to make the indiscriminate claim that someone is an agent of a system in order to use this revelation to manifest and justify their own stance. These claims usually come from sympathizers from extreme right-wing or left-wing circles, who then explain why they can no longer go along with the liberal political views of the alleged traitor. It is a creeping radicalization that makes dialogue impossible because the verdict has already been made. Being an opponent of vaccination or exposing a proponent is a feeder to revolutionary sentiment because it shows that this system and its supporters are corrupt and unteachable they have always been on the side of reason. In reality, however, it is a vindictive hunt and a lynching mentality channeled into it, which is based on symbolic and unverifiable claims and examples. This is where the dangerous intersection lies between the two political camps.

In my case, the trigger was a video from a YouTuber who took an excerpt from our podcast and edited it together so that it looked as if I had advocated compulsory partial vaccination. I say many things before and after the excerpt that diametrically contradict this.

Excerpt from Schroeder & Somuncu dated

I:
"I also think that the questions are piling up and there are no answers and it is a colorful bouquet of different measures, like in Baden-Württemberg 2G, which in my opinion makes no sense. Firstly, because you then ask yourself what is the difference between a twice vaccinated person who takes a test that has to be negative and a vaccinated person who takes the same test that has to be negative. And there are other measures that no longer have anything to do with what we currently perceive as the current situation, because what you say is correct, we don't yet know enough about Omicron to implement this strategy, which is the case here is pursued rudimentarily and then rejected again, to be taken as the only correct one."

The criticism of the measures is clearly visible. And it cannot be ignored in the future either.

"The fact is that there are problems with the implementation of compulsory vaccination in Austria, as well as in Germany. Before vaccinations are compulsory, there must be a register and introducing this register is not easy in Austria either and, even if there is, it will certainly end up in front of the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany too, because it will There are numerous lawsuits against compulsory vaccination."

So here I am arguing clearly against compulsory vaccination and justifying it, among other things, by saying that it cannot be carried out legally at all.

"And in fact, we were always promised different rescue routes - we don't have to reopen everything now - but there was a lot of talk about the effectiveness of the vaccines, and there was also a lot of revision and even those on the front line were in favor of it Those responsible for selling and explaining this effectiveness to people have often had to revise themselves. This includes the head of Stiko, and this also includes Karl Lauterbach. This also includes Christian Drosten and many others. So what I mean by realism now is not supporting people's doubts and going out on the streets and taking their side, but at least taking them seriously and giving them better explanations than the ones that have since been given or no longer be given, because it is no longer about explanation. I have the feeling that at the moment it's just a power struggle between those in power and a large majority of those who think they've done it right and a small minority of those who think they've done it more right and that can't be based on wisdom The final conclusion is that we are now irreconcilable and waiting for the other person to give in and do what we ask of them, but rather we have to find practical and fair solutions that apply to everyone and you just said there is none Pressure or no pressure, or whatever you called it. Of course there is pressure. You just mentioned it yourself, in Austria. High, drastic penalties of EUR3,000 up to prison, so apart from that, how do you want to implement that? Do you want to jail the people who won't get vaccinated now? Do you want to put them in prison by the dozen, by the thousands?"

And further

"We have a considerable potential of people, however many there may be, who refuse or are dissatisfied or want a different path and I believe there are other solutions, I have said this many times, such as in Switzerland, where there is a tax that unvaccinated people have to pay, such as allowing people to cover the costs they cause themselves. There are other ways than this compulsory vaccination!"

These are just a few passages from which my attitude becomes very clear. This makes the claim that I was in favor of compulsory vaccination and massively insulted unvaccinated people all the more perfidious. I have always made it clear throughout the entire Corona crisis that I don't know which measures are the right ones either. But I also made it clear that I don't agree with everything and, above all, that I see compulsory vaccination as a serious encroachment on people's freedom and therefore do not think it is feasible. The fact that I did not become a swearer or allow myself to be drawn to the side in order to be used for other political propaganda is perhaps a thorn in the side of those who today like to surf on the surfboard of alleged resistance in order to demonstrate their bad intentions to hide.

So an interview with Dietrich Brüggemann, the director and initiator of the "Allesdichtmachen" campaign, comes up again and again, in which I allegedly paraded and attacked him badly. Brüggemann had the opportunity to defend himself against all of my admittedly critical questions and to explain them. Instead, he stammered helplessly and later made himself a victim, acting as if he had been the target of a set-up game. To this day he has not mentioned that the reason for his invitation to my show was a subtle threat he made against us to hire a lawyer and that we then wanted to give him the opportunity to explain himself on our show. The fact that this was possible on the public broadcaster speaks against the claim that one is not allowed to express one's opinion freely today. However, the fact that despite expressing one's opinion freely, one is obliged to explain oneself and at least explain plausibly why one does and does things, is something that even the fairy tale of unfair treatment cannot take away.

At
Florian Schröder Serdar Somuncu Radio One
Factual errors in "Schröder & Somuncu" #25

Ladies and Gentlemen

The podcast "Schröder & Somuncu", episode 25 from April 27th, is about the #allesdichtmachen campaign and it's also about me. First of all, I am happy about the attempt to look at the excitement surrounding the campaign with a critical distance. Unfortunately, it's stuck at the trying stage because you obviously haven't really looked into the matter itself. The claim that all the actors involved are well-earning TV stars is not true. A look at the list of names would have been enough to find out.
Things really get problematic at minute 16. That's where it says literally about me: "It seems that no one has any longer understood the fact that he has long been active in a milieu that is not just on the edge of lateral thinking or on the edge of conspiracy mysticism, but is right in the middle of it all researched."
All I can say is: direct hit. Apparently no one has researched it. At least I don't know where you would get it from. The Berlin "Tagesspiegel" made similar claims a few days later and made such a catastrophic mistake in tone and content that it triggered a medium-sized earthquake there. I am in contact with the editorial team, they are extremely contrite, there will be a review.
The fact that you make such unsubstantiated claims does not reflect well on you. I don't feel like dealing with something like this with lawyers, but it would be possible. You are making a statement of fact that has no evidence to back it up, is clearly false and clearly defamatory. So we are moving into the area of defamation. But instead of coming straight to the boss, I always prefer to talk to the people themselves first. I also initially offered to talk to the Tagesspiegel (and that was then rejected with an arrogance that is now falling on the editor-in-chief's feet with force). The big mistake you are making here is the forced conflation of fundamental criticism of Germany's Corona policy with conspiracy idiocy. They obviously cannot imagine that the former is entirely possible without the latter. I would very much like to talk to you about this, and you could then use this opportunity to show me where I am supposed to have made "conspiracy mystical" statements or apologize for this claim. And we should also discuss an unclear fighting term like "lateral thinking".
I look forward to your answer. Best regards
Dietrich Brüggemann

I then invited Dietrich Brüggemann to my show. Here are some excerpts from it.

First an excerpt from the film: "Shut everything down"

"So let the police state off its leash and drive the cart into the wall at high speed. Only then will we ultimately have exciting stories to tell, let's be honest, we need them. I mean, after 75 years of peace, we in Germany have long since run out of stories and we need new ones."

"I was constantly afraid for a year. But this fear is now subsiding. And that scares me. I want to be more afraid again. Because without fear, I am afraid. That's why I appeal to our government: Make us more afraid. The people in the country need this fear now. Dear government, don't leave us alone in this situation. It's so important now that we all have enough fear."

Back to the conversation

I:
"That could have all been from Atilla Hildmann, right? Police state, 75 years, you're referring to the Nazi era."

Brüggemann:
"But Angela Merkel said that herself..."

I:
"She said this is the worst crisis since the Second World War...she didn't say we are in a dictatorship."

Brüggemann:
"That is not what I said!"

I:
"Well, you allude to it, you say: for 75 years, so what exactly are you referring to? Despite it. That could have been by Atilla Hildmann, right?

Brüggemann:
"I have no idea, because all I know about Attila Hilfmann is... that he was once a vegan chef and then... with Corona, he completely... slid away in a direction where he wants to install himself as Reich Chancellor . Now lives in Turkey and rages against everything and everyone on Telegram, so.."

I:
"You don't know what Attila Hildmann said? You say you're dealing with Corona and don't know what Attila Hildmann said. That we live in a police state..."

Brüggemann:
"He spews a lot of trash. What this police state thing. So..now some basic information about all of these things.."

I:
"Is that what you actually say or a role?"

Brüggemann:
"Of course, that's exactly what I was trying to get at. That's...actually, people all speak in roles. And if I, if I make a film that is fictional or comes across as a kind of commercial, then the question is, especially with a clear satirical one that is clearly recognizable, whether it is actually really meant that way This is completely upside down, is it extremely exaggerated, does he really mean that? What is actually the question being asked here? And that..."

I:
"Then why does he say his name first? Why does he say I'm Jan Josef Liefers? Why do you say I am Dietrich Brüggemann. Or do you speak ironically as a private person?

Brüggemann:
"Because that's exactly the thing we're satirizing, the... er, well-placed testimonial that always brings things like this to the population is these social spots, we all know them, they are somehow or also...uh...such faces have the same status as names. So Uschi Glas advertises vaccinations and... er... the best-known testimonial in the social spot is a topic that you know, so to speak, and we satirized this form, that's right."
(...)
I:
"I agree exactly with you on some things. We talk about the way we criticize and whether that is the best way."

I:
"Let's talk about discourse. Let's talk about the situation we are in right now. Everything boils up quickly. I, for example, found people's reaction (meaning to the action) totally exaggerated and I also thought it was very unfair. I also found the conclusion, um, that this is an attack, a cynical attack on the situation in the intensive care units, totally over the top and I can understand that you are saying, hey, I don't have to take responsibility here for things that have to do with the project, actually have nothing to do with what I did. Is there a way to do it differently or do you think that was exactly the right way?"

So even though I make it clear that I agree with him on some things, I continue to question the meaning of his confusing actions and criticize the ambiguity of his criticism. There can be no question of a trap or unfair treatment. And you certainly don't recognize a maneuver initiated by invisible clients to demonstrate it.

Elsewhere, Brüggemann gets entangled in contradictions. About his appearance on Twitter he claims:

Brüggemann:
"We just have to get out of there. We need an exodus from these platforms. That's the most important thing... I was never big on Twitter."
(Note: Brüggemann now has around 26 thousand followers and 4155 posts)

I:
"But then why are you still on Twitter?"

Brüggemann:
"Yes, I was there, I never did anything there and now since #seal everything I suddenly have a few followers and I think I'll post something now, but I'm.."

I:
"1089 Tweets Digga, 1089 Teeets.."

Brüggemann:
"Exactly.."

I:
"Have you ever seen my profile? I only have one tweet."

Brüggemann:
"Yeah, be careful. My first five years on Twitter was set up so that everything I post on Facebook somehow gets across to Twitter. At some point I put it on display, somehow 1000 or 700 of these tweets come from...yeah...so you can actually count them actively, I think it's bad too, um, well...that, that's part of the discourse. ."

I:
"Huh? I never tweeted? So May 18th: Dietrich Brüggemann "He who makes fun of the state of emergency is sovereign," in quotation marks.

Brüggemann:
"Yes, exactly, since #everythingdichtmachen, I still have a few followers and tweet from time to time and take a look at it now, but in principle, I don't act there either, even if you don't believe me, I don't read them Comments. I'm writing there..."

I:
"You respond to comments. There are threads where you reply to comments"

Brüggemann:
"Yes, that happens every now and then"

I:
" Do not lie. That's a lie. Digga. You constantly respond to comments. You have long conversations."

Brüggemann:
"No, I did that on Facebook for a while."

I:
"Would you like me to read to you?"

Brüggemann:
"You can do it. That was an exception. Others are stuck in a completely different one, so you don't have to read me my own tweets, I know what I'm doing."

I:
"But then don't say you're not active and don't answer, you answer a lot."

Brüggemann:
"Yes, no, not a lot, but a little. Sorry. So.."

I:
"Are you pissed right now?"

Brüggemann
"Yes, because I don't think it's okay right now."

I
"You don't think it's okay that I'm telling you.."

Brüggemann
"What's wrong.."

I:
"Yes, you're saying something that's not true. I can see it in front of me, the page is open. The viewers.,Listeners can watch this. How many tweets you have sent in the last few days alone and how often you have replied."

Brüggemann
"Yes, in the last few days I have often tweeted something and replied from time to time, but I still don't interact with it nearly as much as many others and I still think it's a problem and will soon be out of there. ."

Brüggemann talked his head off and his statements were not only contradictory, but they were lies. Nonetheless. To this day I am haunted by these strange accusations, which obviously fit the pattern of those who suspect there is a big conspiracy behind everything. And of course I am also asked to apologize. Even Brüggemann is so convinced of his performance that in another letter, inspired by the approval of his fans, he jovially offered me another visit to my radio show, to which I replied as follows.

"Hello Dietrich, thank you very much for your letter. I think the perception we both have of our conversation is very different. I asked you critical questions to which you answered more or less honestly. My criticism was not about the intention, but about the nature of your action. Nothing has changed to this day. It's a shame if you perceived it differently, but it can't be changed. If the opportunity for a conversation arises, I would be happy to come back. Otherwise, I wish you all the best. Best regards!"

I sometimes get annoyed that I can't resolve what really happened behind the scenes and I've long thought that I couldn't care less what was made of it. But now such stories take on a life of their own so quickly that at some point they become a truth and appear again and again, as if you had committed a crime because you didn't do or say what others expected of you.
On the other hand, I believe that anyone who knows my programs, which are numerous, can understand what is true and what is not about these allegations.
It is a characteristic of the discussions of our time that they often lead to accusations and suspicions and the judgments are formed more quickly than the knowledge of the background that one would have to consider in order to weigh up between right and wrong. And even then, some things remain a matter of opinion. In this case, however, it is not only devious and deliberate, but it is a strategy behind which there is an ideological drive to want to discredit the other person until his strength to defend himself against it and to make it credible that the accusations are unjustified disappears are.

I have never claimed to be a hero, just as I don't want to be accused of being a follower or a henchman. Nevertheless, I would like to emphasize once again that I have never lost my faith in democracy in this country. Even in the worst Corona times, when incredible things happened, my conclusion was not that we live in a dictatorship, but that it was always possible to express one's opinion freely, even if it meant facing a lot of resistance had to take. The fact that certain circles are now using this narrative to push their own political agenda and cover up their failures is a further step in the development of the last few years. Scandalization has become a common means of concealing the true intention behind the noise. Namely, to assert yourself and your views as the ultimate and to act as if you were a visionary thinker and revolutionary in the fight against an invisible dictatorship. But this is where the energy that right-wingers need today comes from in order to portray themselves as victims and hide their perpetrators behind a facade of an apparent fight for justice. Many people can't see through this and simply take this random statement and declare it to be true. When it multiplies so often that you can no longer contradict it, it ends up in the comment columns again and again and becomes a label that you carry around with you for a certain amount of time. It only helps to resist and persevere and trust that one day intelligence will triumph over stupidity and people will make the effort to question things instead of believing them unconditionally.

Addendum: At the end of the evening in November 2022, my boyfriend and I finally reconciled. We have come to the conclusion that there is no point in suspecting others; it is always better to talk to each other, listen to each other and ask questions instead of accusing and judging ignorantly.

05/08/24
©Serdar Somuncu
Current program "Seelenheil" now downloadable in Shop
*Serdar Somuncu is an actor and director