The Covid Coup III

The Gaslighting in Austria Continues

As we continue the coverage of Austria’s descent into ever weirder territories, let’s briefly recapitulate what has happened: last week, the government first decided to arbitrarily place about a third of the population into house arrest (I refuse to use the ‘agit-prop’ term ‘lockdown’ for this, let’s call a spade a spade). As the days passed, more and more ‘Covid-19 cases’ were reported, hence by the end of the week, Austrian government officials, after much in-fighting, elected to go for a more comprehensive version of house arrest, this time for the entire population.

So, by the time the last week was over, mass protests erupted in otherwise, and traditionally so, sheep-ish Austrians. Curiously enough, it was the ‘far-right’ Freedom Party that called for the restoration of civil liberties, a comprehensive country-and-population-wide serology study (funny that no-one in power thought about that yet, right?), and an abrogation of all illegal and unconstitutional restrictions. Expectably, both the government and the other two left-of-centre (systemic) opposition parties, the Social Democrats and ‘New Austria’ (a libertarian faction, in the U.S. sense of the term ‘libertarian’) were more or less aligned the the government or, as was the case of the Social Democrats, wished for even harsher measures.

As an aside, as while commenters correctly pointed out that the approximately 70,000 protestors that convened in Vienna last weekend were a rather small number, do note the cruel irony of history: almost thirty years ago, in 1993, an NGO managed to convene the largest protest in Austrian post-1945 history, with some 250,000+ participants who took to the streets to protest Freedom Party-led ‘Austria First’ platforms and the ‘anti-immigrant’ policies espoused by the then-ruling government. Here’s state broadcaster ORF on this eight years ago (my emphasis):

‘On 23 January 1993, around 250,000 to 300,000 people demonstrated against xenophobia on Vienna’s Heldenplatz with the “Sea of Lights”.

Carrying candles and torches, they set a sign against xenophobia and intolerance under the motto ‘Humanity first’. The immediate cause was the [Freedom Party’s] petition for a referendum on foreigners (“Austria first”), but the demonstration was also directed against the asylum and immigration policy of the Grand Coalition [consisting of the Social Democrats and the (conservative) People’s Party, and I guess you didn’t see that coming].’

A Tale of Two Days of Protest in Vienna

As mentioned in the Covid Crackdown, the media narrative was already set in stone well before last Saturday. Here’s another telling example, this time from conservative-leaning tabloid OE24, dated 14 Nov. 2021, which mixed, really, any number of contexts:

‘Next Saturday, the Freedom Party plans to escalates with a huge Corona protest.

“All forms of resistance against the [government’s] Covid-19 fascism are now needed”, Kickl railed last week. The Covid-19 demonstration he announced will now take place next Saturday (20 November). The Vienna Police Directorate confirmed this announcement, which, by the way, had reported two further dates to the police as a precaution. In concrete terms, however, the final rally is to take place on 20 Nov. in the Prater near Rustenschacherallee [this is a popular open-air park].

Escalation. This brings back bad memories. Kickl’s tone is very similar to Donald Trump’s announcements before his supporters stormed the US Capitol at the beginning of the year. It was precisely in that location in the Prater, on 6 March of this year, that an anti-Covid-19 protest escalated after the end of the event in Vienna’s Schüttelstraße—just on the edge of the old Jewish quarter—took place: demonstrators stormed an insurance building. A security guard was seriously injured. All in all, there were two arrests, 3,000 (!) administrative and 60 criminal charges around the demonstration.’

Leaving aside the fact that the word ‘escalation’ is actually the journalist’s creation, and not Kickl’s, this says everything—and nothing at the same time. It is also beyond my cognitive abilities to see, clearly, the merit of aligning Kickl with Trump, especially as there is little, if any, evidence about this (which Glenn Greenwald has written about at length, e.g., here and here), but I surmise that facts and objective reality must not be allowed to trouble anyone’s peace of mind here.

Also, do set aside the fact that whatever transpired on 6 January 2021 in Washington D.C. was related to allegations of election fraud, not para-legal and questionable anit-Covid-19 measures; as the saying goes, these are quite different things, and here, too, I cannot see the comparison…I mean, other than the vilification of the only relevant politician who argues, mostly reasonably, against the Covid Coup.

Finally, let’s address the Anti-Semitism angle here, however briefly: yes, there once used to live Jews nearby, so would that make the protesters Anti-Semites by…association across time and space? Really, Günther Schröder, this is the point you’re making? If that’s, indeed, your ‘argument’ (a term that is used quite liberally here), do proof-read your text before publication, I daresay, for, as you write yourself, the ‘escalation’ took place ‘after the end of the event’.

So, in any case, from one writer to another, do decide on what you write before you write.

For more factual information about the event, we may turn to state broadcaster ORF, which had this to say about the protest on 6 March 2021 (my emphases):

‘Thousands of protestors attended a speech by Freedom Party chairman Herbert Kickl at the Jesuitenwiese in the Prater on Saturday during the anti-CoV demonstration. Until then, the demonstrators had marched through the city, during which there had been numerous citations.

In the Prater, the party chairman spoke of a government “mad with power”, he saw a division of society and “propaganda” in the media, and his listeners chanted the usual “fake news” [the German original is “Lügenpresse”, which corresponds to this English term] in response. The EU’s public health policy is a “power game of the same kind”, because “those up there want to dominate us”, Kickl let it be known, and also addressed Chancellor Sebastian Kurz’s visit to Israel on Thursday because of Covid-19 vaccines: There, he said, “health apartheid” reigns, and the country is currently one of “unfreedom”. Some anti-Semitic comments were then heard from the audience.

The demonstrators first met at the Karlskirche [right outside the inner city, i.e., c. 3km away from the incident the above tabloid mentioned], where t-shirts were distributed. The activities then shifted to the Ringstraße [Vienna’s main avenue, which circles the inner city, i.e., still about 1.5km away from the scene of the above incident], where there was an influx of further protestors who were brought in by busses. Police were also already in action, checking face masks and distance rules, which led to the first discussions with the protestors. Shortly before 2 p.m., the police took action at Maria-Theresien-Platz [some 4km away from the scene of the above incident] and broke up the gathering there, police spokeswoman Barbara Gass reported.’

Thus fortified with inaccuracies in media reporting, let alone the illogicality of laying the blame for the incident at the feet of a protest that had ended some 4km away from the scene and obviously well before the alleged incident had taken place, let us now turn to the events of last Saturday

The Vienna Rally and its Aftermath

According to RT, here’s what transpired on that Saturday in downtown Vienna:

‘The Austrian capital Vienna on Saturday saw the largest protest turnout since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. A total of 38,000 people took to the city streets to join a dozen demonstrations protesting government measures.

(…)

The protests came a day after the Austrian authorities ordered nationwide compulsory vaccination from February 1 and imposed a full lockdown, starting Monday. The massive procession that spanned over several kilometers marched along Vienna's central ring road. The city center was paralyzed for several hours as traffic was restricted.

(…)

Austria’s right-wing Freedom Party, whose members joined the rallies, put the number of protesters at 100,000. Some demonstrations were also attended by members of various far-right groups. The protests were generally peaceful but footage published by Ruptly video news agency showed several scuffles between the police and the demonstrators breaking out.

Law enforcement spoke of a total of five arrests. One incident saw a protester attempting to grab an officer's gun and take it from its holster. In another incident, the officers were pelted with bottles and fireworks and had to use pepper spray in response.’

Do read the rest of the piece, which also includes information on less non-violent protests elsewhere in Europe.

And here, I’d argue, is the most interesting part of last week’s developments. The day after the protests, there was a press conference, or media briefing, with the Austrian Minister of the Interior, Karl Nehammer, and the Deputy Police Chief of Vienna, Franz Eigner. Written by Colette M. Schmidt, the following excerpts are taken from her article, published on 21 Nov. 2021, in the self-identifying left-liberal daily Der Standard (my emphases):

‘Nehammer after Corona demo in Vienna: “A clearly radicalised mood”…400 charges, 12 of them under the Nazi Prohibition Act [National Socialism and its trappings are prohibited by law], six arrests. A demonstrator tried to blind a helicopter pilot.

After a week that “was one of the most demanding and extreme for police officers”, as… Nehammer emphasised,…the protest painted a picture that was already familiar from the past months…on the one hand, there were “concerned citizens” who reject the Corona measures, on the other hand, there were “right-wing extremist groups, well-known neo-Nazis and also again hooligans who are ready to use violence”.

That the demonstration was nevertheless relatively peaceful was thanks to police efforts, said the Interior Minister. They had acted with “proportionality and prudence”, although they had “perceived a clearly more heated atmosphere”.

This time, too, protestors were charged because of comparisons that trivialised the Holocaust, Nehammer continued. For example, demonstrators who pinned a yellow star on themselves in allusion to persecuted Jews, or the person who compared Chancellor Schallenberg to the concentration camp doctor and mass murderer Mengele, will be prosecuted.

Nehammer regretted that the “vast majority of the population must be dismayed” because they comply with the [anti-Covid-19] measures, while here “thousands march without taking care of themselves and others”. But the right of assembly applies so long as there is “no danger to participants”. Of course, this is “an unbelievable imposition, especially for vaccinated people”. The new measures and the lockdown were only necessary because many people did not get vaccinated.’

There’s a lot to unpack: do note, first, that the atmosphere is quite heated by now, but due to the disingenuous efforts of the police that ‘advised’ people from participating in these very same protests (see here), police managed to avoid major clashes.

Second, none of the assembled court stenographers masquerading as journalists actually asked the Interior Minister the following question: on what planet would a constitutional right, such as the freedoms of assembly and speech be conditional on ‘danger to participants’? I mean, if I get on top of a box in Hyde Park’s Speaker’s Corner, stumble, fall of said box, and strain my ankle, I’m quite an idiot; if I do hit a few listeners in the event and they are hurt, that’s quite unfortunate, yes; but what is a ‘danger to participants’ in terms of freedoms of assembly and speech? Would that include hurting your feelings, Mr Nehammer? (I need to stop here, because I’m getting all wet eyes from the mere act of thinking about Mr Snowflake Minister here, you will surely understand that.)

Third, why is a protest in a democratic republic (sic) ‘an unbelievable imposition’? I mean, this is just the kind of word salad that any kindergarten child will tell you doesn’t make any sense whatsoever, in particular in light of the rest of the phrase, ‘especially for vaccinated people’. I fail to understand this. I do read and speak German, and I believe I’ve a quite firm grasp of the matter at hand, including orthography and grammar, but this…I dunno. Why is people protesting, irrespective of their Covid-19-related ‘vaccination’ status, an ‘imposition’ to one subset of said people?

Let’s move on, then, to what Deputy Police Chief Eigner had to say (it’s similarly unbelievable, I can tell you that right away; again, my emphases):

‘Deputy police chief Eigner reacted to the criticism from many sides that such protests were allowed in the first place and emphasised: “There is nothing to allow here”. He said demonstrations could only be prohibited if public safety was endangered. Of the 25 demonstrations registered for Sunday, five were not allowed. However, not for “reasons of content” [i.e., freedom of speech], as Eigner said when asked by Der Standard, but because they had overlapped with the protected zones of other demonstrations. [Conventionally police tries to separate contemporary protests, hence this explanation.]

Eigner was satisfied with the police’s strategy of the “three Ds, de-escalation, taking action where necessary and dialogue with the protestors”. [Here, too, knowledge of German is helpful, for ‘3D’ rhymes with ‘3G’, i.e., the limitations imposed by Covid-19 Passports.]

Dialogue was also sought in advance with those who had registered the protests.

Police also tried to point out the obligation to wear masks and punished refusals, but the majority of participants did not wear them.’

Let’s interrupt the article here for a moment, for now the absurdities and contradictions are all-apparent: the police representative actually said that it’s not within the purview of law enforcement to prohibit, or ban, expressions of protest, let alone curtail the constitution freedoms of assembly and speech. Do note that his superior, Interior Minister Nehammer, stood next to Eigner when the Deputy Police Chief said that.

Note, further, the fact that Eigner admitted to police arbitrarily fining protestors over the (in my opinion absurd, illegal, and useless) requirement to wear a face diaper outside. Read this sentence again: ‘the majority of participants did not wear [masks]’. Just a day before the rally, new restrictions were issued by the Vienna City/State Government, which held (my emphasis) that

‘For gatherings of more than 25 people—regardless of whether they take place indoors or outdoors—and in night clubs, 2G+ will apply to participants/customers in future. This means that they must present a valid recovery or vaccination certificate and a negative PCR test result that is not older than 48 hours.’

Let’s leave aside the pertinent issue of indoor vs. outdoor meetings (apparently, Sars-Cov2 only ‘attacks’ people in groups of 25+ people), what the Deputy Police Chief admitted to is—law enforcement was incapable of doing its job, i.e., enforce the mask mandate. Now, I haven’t been at the protest (I don’t live in Vienna), but I see this as a very open admission of the reluctance, on part of the police, to force this issue. I’ll revisit this topic in my concluding thoughts below, here’s how the piece continues:

‘Time and again, the mood was “relatively close to breaking point”, [Eigner continued].

For example, an attempt was made to throw an initially unknown liquid in the face of a police officer, another was almost robbed of his service weapon and—what could have been a particularly disastrous outcome: a protestor tried to blind the pilot of one of the police helicopters flying above with a class three laser. “The helicopter could crash relatively quickly as a result of something like that”, Eigner said, perhaps even into the crowd.

The balance sheet of Saturday’s protest: 400 charges, 36 of them under criminal law, 12 of them under the Nazi Prohibition Act, plus six arrests and two police officers slightly injured. Eigner attributes the fact that there were not more charges to the de-escalation strategy.’

There’s another troubling segment on the potential participation of security service members (army, police) in the protests:

‘Whether parts of the Austrian Armed Forces, who had previously called for the demonstration…were actually among the demonstrators, is still being investigated, Eigner said. In any case, there were participants who pretended to be soldiers.

(…)

The bearers of an alleged police placard are also still investigated. In any case, they were not Austrian police officers, but perhaps German ones.’

In the end, Nehammer took over again, adding that ‘control pressure’ will be high in the coming weeks. The Interior Minister further underscored that ‘the lockdown that so many are now expected to last should also be efficient’:

‘In the past week alone, 150,000 [Covid-19 Passport] checks were carried out throughout Austria, with “intensive encounters with people living in Austria”, as Nehammer described it. On the one hand, the officers received “great support and a lot of encouragement” from parts of the population, while on the other, namely opponents of measures and vaccination, the mood had “clearly radicalized”. In Linz, a police car was doused with petrol and set on fire; the two young men who confessed and were caught are said to have even admitted that they intended to set fire to the police officers they had previously controlled. The rule of law will take care of them, Nehammer said.’

So far from Der Standard, for further particulars, we turn to the more detailed account by state broadcaster ORF, which quotes Nehammer as follows (my emphases):

‘Those who carried signs saying “freedom” and the red-white-red flag must be made aware, Nehammer concluded, that there was indeed a way to “real freedom”—the kind of freedom before the pandemic—where lockdowns would be no longer necessary. And this path was vaccination against the virus, which, incidentally, was not a question of political conviction. The only thing that matters is that the virus does not continue to dominate life, “does not continue to harass us”, the Interior Minister concluded: “It is in our hands”.’

I’ve now listened to the statement by Nehammer and transcribed it, for these partial quotes are problematic, too. The video is available at the above ORF link, the time stamp of the following paragraph is 09:10 (emphases in Italics are Nehammer’s, the bold ones are mine):

‘Ladies and gentlemen, yesterday, if you look at the images of the protests, you could very often see signs with the term “freedom”, and that what we should and can succeed in doing is to make it clear, in dialogue with those who carry these signs, that there is indeed a path to real freedom, namely to freedom where lockdowns are no longer necessary. A freedom that we enjoyed before the pandemic and that we perhaps valued far too little what a privilege it is to live in such freedom. Those who talk about this freedom at these demonstrations, who wave the red-white-red flag, we now have to convince them that the way to the real freedom that we all actually want together is—vaccination.

The question of vaccination is not one of partisan politics at all. The question of vaccination is a question of mutual responsibility, of using the opportunity to constrain the virus so that it does not continue to determine our lives, so that we do not have to go into the next lockdown, so that we do not place an excessive burden on the health personnel, on the people who work in care, who are now on duty in hospitals 24 hours a day in the ICUs, that we don’t have to leave our children at home, that we can go on with our business lives, that is the question why vaccination is necessary, why this is the chance that the virus doesn't continue to harass us and the corona virus determines what our freedom actually looks like.

It is in our collective hands. It is not an ideological question. It is a question of persuasion [sic], which cannot be done often enough, and which cannot be tried often enough, so that people who have not yet been vaccinated get vaccinated. For the freedom that we all deserve in this country, for a freedom in which there are no more restrictions because of the coronavirus.

I call bullshit on many levels. Where to start, Mr. Nehammer?

Freedom is not ‘a privilege’. Civil rights and freedoms are inalienable rights. Before you use such patently absurd words such as ‘privileges’, please go and study History.

There is not such thing as ‘real freedom’. It simply is. Or isn’t. ‘Real freedom’ is just about as ‘fake’ as the ‘new normal’ or, presumably, your kind of ‘reality’.

As to the mutual responsibility angle, well, *if* the vaccines would be sterilising and thus prevent transmission (both of which they don’t), that’s true. It merely would render completely, and utterly so, illogical the mad drive to ‘vaccinate’ everyone, for *if* these vaccines were both sterilising and preventing transmission, there’d be no need for the ‘vaccinated’ to ‘persuade’ (your word) anyone of the benefits.

I do find you bringing up health care workers particularly disingenuous and disgusting: for decades, consecutive Austrian governments (of which you, personally, were not a member of for the most part) did everything they could to ‘economise’ and ‘streamline’ health care. Here’s a suggestion: try higher wages and better working conditions to decrease the reliance on foreign professionals, for otherwise Austrians must continue to rely on special access to impoverished Romanians like in the first lockdown last year (when, just for context, there were special exemptions for health care workers from Romania who were allowed into the otherwise locked down country, on which see here). To plead for increased vaccine uptake by making that particular case, you soiled yourself intellectually and discredited yourself professionally. Do us all a favour, Mr. Nehammer, just go away.

Finally, I also object to your pestering of your fellow citizens about their personal choice with respect to what you falsely call ‘persuasion’. If you remove all options from someone, the last option isn’t a choice. ‘My body, my choice’ is the way to go, and if you fail to understand ‘no, thank you, but no’ as ‘no’, please explain to the audience your stance on other things, such as, say, ‘consensual intercourse’.

You see, that final aspect has an interesting implication: as Julian Assange lingers illegally in a British maximum security prison, what’s your take on this? He’s in Belmarsh, facing extradition to the US on trumped (no pun intended) up charges while literally almost everyone who might be able to do something about this is—silent.

One could hear a pin drop. Really. This isn’t hyperbole, this is reality, with no scare quotes, blinders, or propaganda bullshit.

Please, just shut up and go away.