1. Gaslight the People. 2. Lie About the Gaslighting. 3. If the People Catch On, Label them 'Right-Wing Extremists'. Austria in 2023, Where Mental Illness Masquerades as 'Journalism'
As usual, it's also (strategic) projection. Who is saying these things? People who are either turning things more into a world of historic people who they deem to be the model of "extreme right", or those following in goose step.
Of course there is projection. It's an almost classic move of totalitarians of all stripes and colours. 'Even' Hitler and the Nazis were pro-free speech as long as they were not in power; once they were, they denied free speech to all competitors.
Also the current crop of totalitarians doesn't need to goose-step or yell 'Sieg, Heil' (although, to be fair, they do utter the Ukrainian equivalent thereof ever so often). Having the 'politically correct' stance on the issue of the day is perfectly enough; best to wash down one's spice with a Ben & Jerry / Starbucks-tainted soy/vegan latte, or whatever.
One of the few good things with Sweden's tendency to only have one public truth at a time: anyone having a differing opinion to today's truth is used to being smeared and labelled "right-wing extremist".
I still grin when jewish comedian Aron Flam wrote a book about the Socialist Democratic party's deep and intimate collusion with the NSDAP, and was labelled (drum-roll) a nazi by some media.
See, that's been the go-to here since the early 1990s, when accusing someone of being "commie-lackey/USfascist-lackey" went out of fashion, to call someone - anyone - opposing whatever for being racist and if that doesn't work, nazi.
My advice is, go on the offence whenever accused. Don't ask for clarification, definition or anything like that. Instead, attack by saying "If opposing [detestable custom, religious mandate, ruinous expenditure, other publicly reviled thing] makes me racist, then I'll happily accept the accusation as long as I can try and stop [aforementioned] - why do you and your ilk always support [aforementioned]? Why do you hate [victims of aforementioned]? Are you [perpetrator of aforementioned]?"
Adapt the offensive model as needed within context and remember no conflict is won by accepting the enemy's definitions, by letting the enemy set the pace or by going on the defensive.
I'm not holding back, no worries, even though I get called virtually every name in the book (and then some); most recently, I've been called a 'Nazi' for not sharing my brother's opinion. C'est la vie, I suppose.
Also, I would further point to the power of making such statements in one's own name, as opposed to, for instance, that Twitter user who elects to post anonymously. It is these people who stand in the dark corners, not me. It takes a special kind of 'courage' to call others 'Nazis' or the like while remaining anonymous on the internet.
"This is going to make for an extremely unhappy hangover once Ms. Schmidt and her ilk return to reality."
Why do you think they will reach this destination? In my opinion, the 'journalists' at derStürmer seem to be following the Green/Red party agenda without question.
I can also remember the slogan "Testen, Testen, Testen!" which later turned into "Impfen, Impfen, Impfen!" that led to the insane discrimination of persons not willing to follow the all-encompassing propaganda promoted by the parties in charge and 'their" media. Obviously, none of this crap was scientifically justifiable, and if anyone dared to point this out, they were, as you mention in your article, labeled 'Nazis.'
Here's why I think this is inevitable: at some point in the future, there will be a different gov't, perhaps even a kind of 'regime change'. Once this happens, a lot of 'soul-searching' will occur, esp. by those changed gov't agencies that dole out 'grants', pay for 'advertisement', and the like; in other words: gov't funding streams will decrease, and then some of these 'journos' will 're-discover' their trade.
I'm not suggesting this will happen overnight, nor am I naive enough to believe this kind of 'reckoning' will come any time soon. But I remain convinced that it'll come--and as a case-in-point example, I'll offer you this nugget:
When the current gov't announced its new tax to finance the struggling state broadcaster ORF, none other than Der Standard fired 10 of their video content creator, citing, if memory serves, the impossibility of providing such 'news services' when faced with this kind of deep-pocketed 'power' of the state broadcaster.
A second example is the venerable Wiener Zeitung, which also functions as the gov't's official gazette (i.e., publishes new laws, directives, regulations, etc.). The content provided by the 'journos' over at the Wiener Zeitung was objectively so bad and/or worse that the paper existed 'only' due to (largely involuntary) gov't largesse for the afore-mentioned reason.
Yes, papers like Der Standard, Die Presse, Kurier, and Die Kronen-Zeitung, as well as the tabloids Heute or Österreich get a lot of revenue by selling advertisement space; imagine, if you will, prices for said advertisement space declining in lockstep with 'readership' (sic), which indicates, to me at least, that declining readership will inevitably translate into reduced income; the latter will, at some point, also become obvious to gov't funders, hence the inevitable downward spiral (which, truth be told, and given the captured stance of legacy media is, in my opinion, quite a virtuous cycle) that will result, in all likelihood, that papers like Der Standard, Die Presse, Kurier, and Die Kronen-Zeitung, as well as the tabloids Heute or Österreich will go the way of the Wiener Zeitung.
Personally, I think these papers, having shed loads of regular subscribers for decades (mainly thanks to the Internet), are mostly online-based 'papers' anyway, as any comparison of offline subscribers vs. online content consumers easily shows.
At some point, reality will bite, and once it does, journos like Colette Schmidt and her ilk will look like the hate-mongering morons that they are. But, as you well know, too, to learn about oneself is only the beginning of a life-long journey. And in this respect, journos like Colette Schmidt and her ilk haven't even begun thinking about bringing spare underpants for the ride.
Stephan, if I may, thank you for your elaborate reply!
I agree; It's possible some reckoning might happen in the future. Currently, the only chance of such a 'regime change' I can imagine would be an FPÖ led coalition after the next nationwide election.
Regarding the ORF, I suspect that the number of people who decided to unsubscribe from the GIS (I am one of them) was so large that the current regime was almost forced to switch to a tax-based financing system to keep the propaganda train running.
I also suspect derStürmer has gotten used to the quasi-state financing via ad buys and, to a smaller extent, via direct press subsidies. Unfortunately for them, this income stream which exploded in 2020 and remained high until 2023, seems to be withering.
Honestly, I had no idea the Wiener Zeitung ever had 'journos' writing 'articles.' I always thought they were only a state-'Kundmachungsorgan.'
The media stakeholders and I are well aware of the declining readership/consumers of the printed versions. This, in turn, led to a shift of their income streams from the old-school advertisers to the newer online ad income stream. Ultimately, I agree with your assessment that their fate will be similar to the Wiener Zeitung.
I love the line, "journos like Colette Schmidt and her ilk haven't even begun thinking about bringing spare underpants for the ride."
PS: I know that using 'derStürmer' instead of 'derStandard' as might read like an insane comparison. However, this likely stems from my past as a former regular reader of their printed and online publications and then coming to terms with reality over the last few years (since around 2012). The same applies to 'Der Spiegel', "dieses Scheissblatt!" ;)
Claudio, while I agree, in principle, with the FPÖ (and AfD) as the remaining partial alternatives here, let's not forget that--esp. the FPÖ--is not unitary force. It is a fairly conventional post-1945 party in a federal republic, i.e., the national leadership holds limited, if much, sway over the various state organisations. This is completely obvious for all parties, with perhaps the Greens a tad less so (as these pseudo-Bolsheviks are more centrally organised relative to the other parties). This is also what I hear from 'inside' the FPÖ, and as long as Mr. Kickl can't truly unit the party, I suspect that its partially corruptible machine politicians are subject to the same 'incentives' that bedevil the rest of the body politic (and that is a statement that also characterises, I'd argue, the rest of Europe).
As far as their chances to shape policy are concerned, and as much as the absence of a credible alternative pains me in principle (as well as in this particular instance in concretu), as long as there is no party that advocates for an immediate exit from the EU, the Euro, the WHO, and, possibly, also (at least most of) the UN, there is virtually no alternative. The AfD is talking about putting a German EU exit into their party platform come autumn, but the FPÖ isn't doing so.
As to the PS: the problem with these comparisons, as apt as they partially are, is that by invoking these comparisons, you're also feeding into 'their' narrative of their actually being 'Nazis everywhere'. Hence, I think it'd be better to avoid these.
I suspect the fact that there's no viable alternative other than the FPÖ might be 'part of the game'.
There are certainly 'substantial efforts to infiltrate and subvert the party', with the EU perhaps being chief among them: why wouldn't anyone or any party come out strongly vs. Brussels? Well, doing so means foregoing many, many 'perks'.
As usual, it's also (strategic) projection. Who is saying these things? People who are either turning things more into a world of historic people who they deem to be the model of "extreme right", or those following in goose step.
Of course there is projection. It's an almost classic move of totalitarians of all stripes and colours. 'Even' Hitler and the Nazis were pro-free speech as long as they were not in power; once they were, they denied free speech to all competitors.
Also the current crop of totalitarians doesn't need to goose-step or yell 'Sieg, Heil' (although, to be fair, they do utter the Ukrainian equivalent thereof ever so often). Having the 'politically correct' stance on the issue of the day is perfectly enough; best to wash down one's spice with a Ben & Jerry / Starbucks-tainted soy/vegan latte, or whatever.
One of the few good things with Sweden's tendency to only have one public truth at a time: anyone having a differing opinion to today's truth is used to being smeared and labelled "right-wing extremist".
I still grin when jewish comedian Aron Flam wrote a book about the Socialist Democratic party's deep and intimate collusion with the NSDAP, and was labelled (drum-roll) a nazi by some media.
See, that's been the go-to here since the early 1990s, when accusing someone of being "commie-lackey/USfascist-lackey" went out of fashion, to call someone - anyone - opposing whatever for being racist and if that doesn't work, nazi.
My advice is, go on the offence whenever accused. Don't ask for clarification, definition or anything like that. Instead, attack by saying "If opposing [detestable custom, religious mandate, ruinous expenditure, other publicly reviled thing] makes me racist, then I'll happily accept the accusation as long as I can try and stop [aforementioned] - why do you and your ilk always support [aforementioned]? Why do you hate [victims of aforementioned]? Are you [perpetrator of aforementioned]?"
Adapt the offensive model as needed within context and remember no conflict is won by accepting the enemy's definitions, by letting the enemy set the pace or by going on the defensive.
I'm not holding back, no worries, even though I get called virtually every name in the book (and then some); most recently, I've been called a 'Nazi' for not sharing my brother's opinion. C'est la vie, I suppose.
Also, I would further point to the power of making such statements in one's own name, as opposed to, for instance, that Twitter user who elects to post anonymously. It is these people who stand in the dark corners, not me. It takes a special kind of 'courage' to call others 'Nazis' or the like while remaining anonymous on the internet.
"This is going to make for an extremely unhappy hangover once Ms. Schmidt and her ilk return to reality."
Why do you think they will reach this destination? In my opinion, the 'journalists' at derStürmer seem to be following the Green/Red party agenda without question.
I can also remember the slogan "Testen, Testen, Testen!" which later turned into "Impfen, Impfen, Impfen!" that led to the insane discrimination of persons not willing to follow the all-encompassing propaganda promoted by the parties in charge and 'their" media. Obviously, none of this crap was scientifically justifiable, and if anyone dared to point this out, they were, as you mention in your article, labeled 'Nazis.'
Here's why I think this is inevitable: at some point in the future, there will be a different gov't, perhaps even a kind of 'regime change'. Once this happens, a lot of 'soul-searching' will occur, esp. by those changed gov't agencies that dole out 'grants', pay for 'advertisement', and the like; in other words: gov't funding streams will decrease, and then some of these 'journos' will 're-discover' their trade.
I'm not suggesting this will happen overnight, nor am I naive enough to believe this kind of 'reckoning' will come any time soon. But I remain convinced that it'll come--and as a case-in-point example, I'll offer you this nugget:
When the current gov't announced its new tax to finance the struggling state broadcaster ORF, none other than Der Standard fired 10 of their video content creator, citing, if memory serves, the impossibility of providing such 'news services' when faced with this kind of deep-pocketed 'power' of the state broadcaster.
A second example is the venerable Wiener Zeitung, which also functions as the gov't's official gazette (i.e., publishes new laws, directives, regulations, etc.). The content provided by the 'journos' over at the Wiener Zeitung was objectively so bad and/or worse that the paper existed 'only' due to (largely involuntary) gov't largesse for the afore-mentioned reason.
Yes, papers like Der Standard, Die Presse, Kurier, and Die Kronen-Zeitung, as well as the tabloids Heute or Österreich get a lot of revenue by selling advertisement space; imagine, if you will, prices for said advertisement space declining in lockstep with 'readership' (sic), which indicates, to me at least, that declining readership will inevitably translate into reduced income; the latter will, at some point, also become obvious to gov't funders, hence the inevitable downward spiral (which, truth be told, and given the captured stance of legacy media is, in my opinion, quite a virtuous cycle) that will result, in all likelihood, that papers like Der Standard, Die Presse, Kurier, and Die Kronen-Zeitung, as well as the tabloids Heute or Österreich will go the way of the Wiener Zeitung.
Personally, I think these papers, having shed loads of regular subscribers for decades (mainly thanks to the Internet), are mostly online-based 'papers' anyway, as any comparison of offline subscribers vs. online content consumers easily shows.
At some point, reality will bite, and once it does, journos like Colette Schmidt and her ilk will look like the hate-mongering morons that they are. But, as you well know, too, to learn about oneself is only the beginning of a life-long journey. And in this respect, journos like Colette Schmidt and her ilk haven't even begun thinking about bringing spare underpants for the ride.
Stephan, if I may, thank you for your elaborate reply!
I agree; It's possible some reckoning might happen in the future. Currently, the only chance of such a 'regime change' I can imagine would be an FPÖ led coalition after the next nationwide election.
Regarding the ORF, I suspect that the number of people who decided to unsubscribe from the GIS (I am one of them) was so large that the current regime was almost forced to switch to a tax-based financing system to keep the propaganda train running.
I also suspect derStürmer has gotten used to the quasi-state financing via ad buys and, to a smaller extent, via direct press subsidies. Unfortunately for them, this income stream which exploded in 2020 and remained high until 2023, seems to be withering.
Honestly, I had no idea the Wiener Zeitung ever had 'journos' writing 'articles.' I always thought they were only a state-'Kundmachungsorgan.'
The media stakeholders and I are well aware of the declining readership/consumers of the printed versions. This, in turn, led to a shift of their income streams from the old-school advertisers to the newer online ad income stream. Ultimately, I agree with your assessment that their fate will be similar to the Wiener Zeitung.
I love the line, "journos like Colette Schmidt and her ilk haven't even begun thinking about bringing spare underpants for the ride."
PS: I know that using 'derStürmer' instead of 'derStandard' as might read like an insane comparison. However, this likely stems from my past as a former regular reader of their printed and online publications and then coming to terms with reality over the last few years (since around 2012). The same applies to 'Der Spiegel', "dieses Scheissblatt!" ;)
Claudio, while I agree, in principle, with the FPÖ (and AfD) as the remaining partial alternatives here, let's not forget that--esp. the FPÖ--is not unitary force. It is a fairly conventional post-1945 party in a federal republic, i.e., the national leadership holds limited, if much, sway over the various state organisations. This is completely obvious for all parties, with perhaps the Greens a tad less so (as these pseudo-Bolsheviks are more centrally organised relative to the other parties). This is also what I hear from 'inside' the FPÖ, and as long as Mr. Kickl can't truly unit the party, I suspect that its partially corruptible machine politicians are subject to the same 'incentives' that bedevil the rest of the body politic (and that is a statement that also characterises, I'd argue, the rest of Europe).
As far as their chances to shape policy are concerned, and as much as the absence of a credible alternative pains me in principle (as well as in this particular instance in concretu), as long as there is no party that advocates for an immediate exit from the EU, the Euro, the WHO, and, possibly, also (at least most of) the UN, there is virtually no alternative. The AfD is talking about putting a German EU exit into their party platform come autumn, but the FPÖ isn't doing so.
As to the PS: the problem with these comparisons, as apt as they partially are, is that by invoking these comparisons, you're also feeding into 'their' narrative of their actually being 'Nazis everywhere'. Hence, I think it'd be better to avoid these.
Once again, I do agree with all points you made!
The biggest issue I see is that there is no viable alternative other than the FPÖ. Even though the problems you outlined should be recognized.
Additionally, I suspect there are substantial efforts to infiltrate and subvert the party.
Anyway, until now, I have never been able to bring myself actually to vote for this party. However, I might reach this point soon.
How about 'derHetzer'? Still too abhorrent?
I suspect the fact that there's no viable alternative other than the FPÖ might be 'part of the game'.
There are certainly 'substantial efforts to infiltrate and subvert the party', with the EU perhaps being chief among them: why wouldn't anyone or any party come out strongly vs. Brussels? Well, doing so means foregoing many, many 'perks'.