Der SPIEGEL Gaslights and Demeans the Farmers' Protest
This is hardly new, but together with Mr. Habeck's disdain, it displays the establishment's view of 'the people' (read: 'deplorables')
As we continue the coverage of the Farmers’ protests in Germany, the establishment rallies to each other’s defence (although that’ll be funny to watch as most journos didn’t serve in the military, and neither did Mr. Habeck).
As always, translations, emphases, and bottom lines mine.
Der Spiegel, one of the most cheerleading voices (for sale to the highest bidder), published a slanderous editorial written by (?) Martin Knobbe on 8 Jan. 2023:
Farmers must decide—do they want to strengthen or damage democracy?
Protest is essential for a vibrant democracy, but it can also damage it. Farmers’ actions will determine where the country and its political system will be at the end of this week.
Intermission: The Best Op-Eds Bill Gates Could Buy
This is about as bad and ill-informed as was to be expected from one of the bigger sell-outs in the media business—just look for ‘Der Spiegel’ and ‘Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’ and ‘learn’ that, beginning in October 2021 and running for 41 months, the former received US$2.9m from the latter. Would you furthermore care to ‘guess’ what of Der Spiegel’s coverage is to be affected?
Purpose
To report on social divides around the world and to convey an understanding of how to overcome them
Now, if that factoid still ‘baffles’ you, perhaps you’d like to ‘learn’ that ‘cooperation’ between the Gates Foundation and Der Spiegel actually predates the WHO-declared, so-called ‘Pandemic™’, albeit by a mere couple of months.
As ‘reported’ on 10 April 2019,
SPIEGEL ONLINE is launching a new global project today: Under the title ‘Global Society’, specially assigned reporters from Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe will report on injustices in a globalised world, socio-political challenges and sustainable development…
The project is long-term and will be supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for three years; the editorial content is created [sic] without any influence from the foundation. Major European media such as The Guardian and El PaÃs have set up similar sections on their news pages with ‘Global Development’ and ‘Planeta Futuro’ with the support of the foundation [if, at this point in time, you start wondering why legacy media is virtually identical, perhaps it’s the corrupting influence of Mr. Gates and his ilk?].
In recent years, SPIEGEL ONLINE has already implemented two projects with the European Journalism Center (EJC) and the support of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation: the ‘Expedition ÜberMorgen’ [lit. ‘Expedition to the Day after Tomorrow’] about global sustainability goals and the journalistic project ‘The New Arrivals’ as part of this several award-winning multimedia reports on the topics of migration and flight have been created.
If, at this point, you’re wondering about the European Journalism Center is
is an independent Dutch non-profit based in the city of Maastricht, The Netherlands. Our purpose is to support, strengthen and develop journalism and media in the council of Europe [emphases in the original].
We are a Centre for communities, knowledge and collaboration with partners and funders and we believe that reimagining journalism is key.
Curiously, almost all statements read like absolutely boilerplate blablabla (from their ‘about’ page):
In our vision, the essence of journalism is to provide people with reliable, trustworthy and verified information so they can make the best possible decisions about their lives, communities, governments, and societies. Journalism plays a key role in defending freedom of expression, making governments and societies function better and enabling strong democracies. We need to stand for and defend press freedom and the free flow of information in a time when evidence-based reporting is under pressure [I also heard that they are in favour of free hugs /sarcasm].
Our mission is to strengthen the resilience of European journalism and progressive media by connecting journalists and media to new ideas, nurturing communities, making available a wide range of unique experiences, providing grants and skills development, and producing resources and training affordable or for free. Our aim is that every journalist and news organisation shall benefit from an EJC programme or initiative [what could go wrong…?]
EJC embraces innovation and positive changes within the industry and is optimistic about the many exciting developments taking place across the media landscape in regards to new business models, new formats and technology. We aspire to be an essential resource and provide future insights so it can help journalism and media to innovate and flourish. We believe that reimagining journalism is key [because the ‘old’, adversarial kind of journalism is…’bad’?].
We connect and inspire people and communities through experiences, events and channels. We financially support and fund storytelling and innovation through grants and fellowships and we improve skills through training & resources. We actively engage and communicate about programmes, results (successes as well as failures) and outputs and the best practices in journalism and our work.
Our values: Collaborative yet Independent , innovative and inclusive.
As ridiculous and painful as this was, we’re not really closer to figuring out who funds them. Thankfully, EJC provides a few ‘hints’ about its backers:
Back to Der Spiegel’s Editorial
With that issue out of the way, we may now return to the Spiegel editorial by Mr. Knobbe:
If farmers are demonstrating all over Germany from today, that is their right, even if one can question the proportionality: why don't the farmers honour the fact that the federal government will continue to pay a large part of the subsidies that it wanted to abolish? Does the gradual dismantling of a privilege in a highly subsidised industry justify blocking roads and paralysing areas of land? Certainly not. And yet: the right to express one's opinion, even loud, loud, exaggerated ones, is part of the foundation of democracy—as long as the democratic rules are respected.
Sure, why shouldn’t the hard-pressed farmers thank the hand that feeds them (with their own taxpayer funds)?
Let’s not forget that the proximate reason for the protest—a budget ‘crisis’ that led to the cuts now decided by the government did not fall from the sky. It is the direct consequence of the riders introduced by then-Finance Minister Scholz (yes, the current chancellor) during the coalition negotiations at the end of 2021. Mr. Scholz did so as this was the only way that the funds could be raised required by the very expensive compromises agreed-upon by the current coalition gov’t. These shenanigans were declared unconstitutional by Germany’s Constitutional Court at the end of 2023, which then led the gov’t to decide to raise the ‘required’ funds elsewhere: and this ‘elsewhere’ happen to be the farmers and the poorest people in Germany whose social security benefits are to be cut.
In other words: this entire situation was brought about by the gov’t’s only incompetence and staunch refusal to bear the responsibility of its own actions.
This audacity alone would have led to mass protests in most other countries (e.g., France) of the world, but apparently the Germans are extremely docile and ready to endure hardships at the hands of their (ahem) government.
Habeck Blames Everyone But His Own Gov’t
Wait, there’s of course ‘more’, much more, in fact. Take, e.g., the little speech read by Economy Minister Habeck (Greens) yesterday (see here), in which he also mentioned the following:
The pressure to save, which the Constitutional Court's ruling has led to, is there. We had to save large sums of billions on an ad hoc basis. We have taken on this task and restructured the budget. There was a finished draft before the verdict that stipulated otherwise. But it is a fact that the CDU sued with the aim of saving billions. And that's how the verdict came out. The consequence is that savings are made.
This is quite something to behold: For Mr. Habeck is blaming the CDU because it sued the government for its blatantly illegal budget tricks. A bit of background here is in order: we’re talking about 60b euros that were originally earmarked for whatever related to Covid spending, but since the WHO-declared, so-called ‘Pandemic™’ is no more (as in: the state of emergency has been abrogated), these 60b euros are no longer ‘there’ (fun fact: they never really were, it’s all debt, but whatever at this point).
Go ahead, re-read the above paragraph: the ones to blame aren’t the federal gov’t (those who broke the law, which is why the Constitutional Court ruled against them) but those who brought the charges. It’s a classic perpetrator-victim inversion, and at this point, I think Mr. Habeck, who used to author children’s books before he became Economy (!) Minister, should go back to that. On second thought, I’m unsure if the books he wrote are actually suitable for children. See also this:
Of course, no pathological liar, such as Mr. Habeck, could state anything without pointing fingers at the ‘evil Rooskies’, too. For whatever reason, it’s Mr. Putin who’s to blame for Germany’s woes:
Social media campaigns, some of which are paid for by Putin, in which people present themselves as victims in order to justify violence against people and things. Political programs that advocate overthrow or even repopulation and always blame others.
At this point, I’m quite envious of the literary-philosophical genius (I’m being sarcastic here, by the way) who’s currently serving as Vice President in the US.
For in reality, the problems Mr. Habeck is alluding to were caused, primarily, by himself and the federal gov’t. If memory serves, it is the gov’t that’s primarily responsible for what goes on, which I, a child of the 1980s, actually learned in civics class. Mr. Habeck isn’t that much older than I am, and he, too, grew up in a German-speaking, middle-class environment. Perhaps his mind isn’t as sharp as it used to be, for if I take him at his word, it seems that he’s forgotten much, if not most, of what he once learned. Therefore, he resorts to fairy tales (lies), behaves like a spoiled brat who never grew up, and blames everyone else for his own failures.
Is there a different way to spell ‘pathetic’?
If anyone blames everyone else for all the problems they have caused, it is Habeck and the federal government. And if I remember correctly, the government is responsible for what happens in a country. I actually learned that at school. And since Habeck is only two years older than me and grew up just five kilometers from my home, I'm sure he learned that too. But he has forgotten that again, so for him Putin, the CDU, the tooth fairy and who knows who else are to blame for the problems in Germany.
Coda (Bottom Lines)
Before this becomes overly long and winding, let’s wrap this up for time being.
So, let’s return to the above-mentioned Spiegel piece to figure out what really scares the German establishment:
The quiet increase in sympathy for the AfD, the secret joy of some people over the riot on the ferry, are currently the greatest threat to democracy. The political system will no longer be able to defend itself against its decomposition if the decomposers occupy the first key positions in it. With 37% in the polls in Saxony, the AfD is getting closer and closer to this moment.
So, what really scares the living hell out of these people is—the notion that the voters are preferring ‘other’ parties over their own preferences.
The absurdity of this position hasn’t been lost on anyone, and because it’s very well formulated, here’s what independent journalist Thomas Röper of the Anti-Spiegel.ru website, had to say about this:
The correct question must be, what has the government done to drive people to the AfD in such large numbers? These people are not AfD voters out of conviction, but rather they see the AfD as the only party that offers an alternative to the government's policies. Whether that's actually the case remains to be seen, but that's how people see it.
At this point, we could also ponder the sustained strong polling of Donald Trump in the US. Why, of why, would ‘the people’ vote for him?
So the problem is not the AfD and the problem is not people who now want to vote for the AfD, the problem is the government, which is making such policies that are so against the people that they are turning to the only party which promises a different policy.
Nuff said.
There’s but one other issue that Mr. Röper brings up, which begs consideration:
Ultimately, the CDU is not an alternative because it agrees with the government on the most important points. The points of contention between the established parties are not disputes about direction, but rather just discussions about how radically the neoliberal and transatlantic agenda that the established parties unanimously want should be implemented.
Another way of saying this would be: mainstream parties and politicking broke ‘democracy’, hence the need for substantial reform.