"I can't get my freedoms back, they were given to me by the Basic Law."
The renowned legal scholar Prof. Dr. Martin Schwab formulates his analysis of the state of our constitutional state in a detailed interview. The professor at Bielefeld University gives refreshingly concrete, blunt and clear answers, such as
"Sometimes you get the feeling that all state power no longer comes from the people, but from virologists."
This bold clarity is almost irritating. Especially for those people in our society who have been socialized via the old media and who have not yet embraced the paradigm shift - also with regard to information procurement and processing, which now requires personal initiative.
Nowadays, more than ever, information is a debt to be collected. The "TV On" button on the remote control is often the worst of all possible solutions.
Clear statements and clear attitudes, especially in new media, especially when these platforms are independent, therefore have at least an edgy, often provocative effect on these milieus and are often met with disgusting rejection.
Precisely because such positions are rarely published boldly, powerfully and prominently in the old media, whose credibility has now been severely eroded.
These old but still prominent media channels form a homogeneous unit with the followers of entertainment junkies and sofa democrats that they have conditioned over decades.
These TV zombies live in a strange symbiosis with ratings dominatrixes such as Sandra, Maybrit and Anne. They live out their lives in a sound bubble, sedated by Seinfeld sitcoms and Gundula Gause's "Good Night" readings in the evening, as described by the American media scientist Neil Postman in 1985:
"The problem with television is not that it presents us with entertaining topics, the problem is that it presents every topic as entertainment."
Clarity is irritating or is perceived as a real disruptive signal. In this media reality, the edgy critic at best gets his place Nuhr [sic] as a court jester, i.e. as a satirist or comedian at Barth level.
He is fooling around in the TV monkey enclosure with online users to snort popcorn, which is not conducive to a true social discourse.
The adherence to a now outdated world view of information procurement is therefore largely a question of education in dealing with media content. The future reappraisal of the corona complex will reveal the extent of the failings in schools. The question looms large:
"How could a communication society manage without media studies?"
With communication scientist Prof. Dr. Michael Meyen from the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich, I have an enlightening Conversation on the subject of the media.
In this sense, the interview you see here on this page is a continuation of our efforts to give you an unagitated and as neutral as possible insight into our legal system. There is no such thing as true neutrality. But it is a value in itself to strive for it.
I get into the ring.
(ML)
Thank you for your Support of independent journalism in Germany.
English 
German 
Spanish
23 Responses
After listening to the interview, I have regained some hope. We need more people who think so "liberally" and "defend" all our rights so vehemently and with so much expertise. But I believe "we" are becoming more! This is also thanks to your tireless efforts, Mr. Langemann. All is not lost as long as there are people like you and professors / scientists like Prof. Dr. Schwab. Thank you very much!
Are the circumstances being turned upside down? No, if at least the head played a role in the current circumstances.....
The method of sowing discord is an age-old one. ....The trumpeting of supposed scientific findings, which are being cast and cemented into law at ever shorter intervals, is the new normal.
No one with a reasonably intact mental constitution can actually stand it. And yet so many are actively participating in the prevailing madness, the rampant mass hysteria....What to do? Think! Think for yourself!
And don't forget: the categorization of people based on biological criteria (vaccination, testing, etc.) is FASCISM.
And no, I am not in favor of the current inflationary use of this term....
I don't know what it means....
I don't know what it means that I'm so sad
and not the Rhine, the Ahr or the Moselle come to mind.
They don't rest in their bed anyway and stubbornly leave the predetermined course,
They show their strength to those in power and accept the suffering of the people.
I don't know what it means that I'm so thoughtful
and not the philosophers, the poets and thinkers come to mind.
After all, what use is all their wisdom to me if it is now to remain untouched?
I'm not allowed to question anything anymore, but my head is so full of questions.
I don't know what it means that I just want to get out of here.
But no planet, country or island comes to mind now.
I can feel the change around me and how it is rushing towards everything,
and I would like to be there, but without lies, without compulsion and haste.
I don't know what it means that everyone is supposed to be an enemy now,
kept at a distance, with skepticism and mistrust, full of fear and resentment.
But man only remains man if he seeks the right path
and whoever prevents this by force - he is not a human being, let him be accursed!
Ulla Krawczyk
Yes, that's how it is...
Something that has been on my mind for years and makes me sad:
Literature is not taught at school AT ALL. And in the library, all the world's poetry is a thin shelf. Have the books (e.g. Friedrich von Logau) ALREADY been burned? No, just thrown in the garbage can.
What are the consequences...?
Just don't [just] be sad...
Thinking [is exhausting]!...
Dear Ms. Krawczyk,
This is a very touching poem that sums up so clearly what we have all been suffering for the past year and a half.
May a wonderful follow-up poem in the not too distant future mark our liberation from this suffering and a new social path.
A thousand thanks!
A wonderful poem Ms. Krawczyk.
Congratulations
I have been writing articles on my website fortunanetz-aktuell and books about this disastrous policy for 16 years.
Your poem hits my mood.
VG. Heiner Hannappel
Very beautiful from the heart, this river
he takes you with him. Thank you !!!
An excellent interview with Prof. Schwab about our ailing legal system.
Thank you for alternatives!!! Foundations for your own education!
A disturbing interview.
When even a law professor doubts whether the Federal Republic of Germany is still a constitutional state worthy of the name, when a media scientist no longer sees the dependence of the public service media, when only scientists sympathetic to the government are listened to, when energy policy increasingly follows wishes instead of realities, when our natural landscapes are being transformed across the board into an ugly, noisy, bird- and insect-killing industrial area, when our roofs become dangerous solar glare mirrors and yet blackouts threaten at ever shorter intervals, when teachers increasingly teach ideology and simplifications instead of knowledge and understanding of the complexity of our world, when bridges and infrastructure suffer, when city centers become deserted, when people are to be forced into unloved mobility, when people are locked up at home, when there are once again people of two classes, when demonstrations that are not acceptable to the government are banned, when people commit suicide out of despair at the wanton destruction of their existence, when state finances run out of money, when many people can no longer afford housing, electricity and soon mobility, when quite a few of the wealthy consider emigrating, when local Afghan forces are being abandoned in a shabby manner, when the Bundeswehr can barely get a helicopter in the air, when our politicians, unlike China, cannot find a sensible way of dealing with the African continent and when symbolic actions replace real solutions and aid for the countries of origin, Germany and, last but not least, the migrants themselves, or when they are forced to flee to the dangerous Mediterranean. If people are tempted to flee to the dangerous Mediterranean and the even more dangerous Sahara, then the era of the most overrated Chancellor since the founding of the Federal Republic of Germany will come to an end.
Just as the name Riester is inextricably linked to the fraternization of financial science and politics to the detriment of pensioners, and the name Hartz stands for an unspeakable misguided development of the welfare state, the name Merkel will one day be synonymous with the seemingly unstoppable decline of our country and our society. However, the resulting mood of change threatens to end in an accelerated pace in the wrong direction. Merkel has triggered a slide in our political system that seems almost unstoppable and will probably cause us to hit rock bottom in the not too distant future. The FDP's lack of courage in not having put up a real alternative to the unelectable trio of candidates for chancellor in Lindner is bitter revenge for our country, but fits into the sad overall picture. It is not enough for a democracy in the long term if the voters only have the choice between a colorful, idiotic unity policy and the blue-painted policy of essentially brown-colored idiots.
P.S.: Chancellor candidate Laschet is not unelectable because of his person, even if he is not exactly a popular figure, he is unelectable because he does not manage to distance himself sufficiently from the totalitarian airs and graces of his party friends Merkel, Söder and Spahn (or in the case of Söder, rather party enemies?). In order to gain votes in the liberal camp, he would have to make it clear how he wants to stop the undesirable developments of the Merkel era, i.e. an increasing slide into a socialist planned economy, including restricted freedom of opinion and freedom of movement, and return to a liberal-democratic society based on the Basic Law and the once exemplary social market economy. We have already moved a long way away from both. He would also have to make it clear how he intends to stop the other undesirable developments of the past legislative periods. But so far, apart from a green-tinged copy, there has been little or nothing. At least not enough to make his claim to be Chancellor clear. Chancellor candidate Scholz is not electable because he is nothing but an insecure and malleable door opener for hardcore socialists à la Esken and Borjans who despise freedom and the market economy. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a country in which such contrite and narrow-minded people with sympathies for a left-wing criminal milieu set the course. And then there is the candidate Baerbock. Anyone who still considers her qualified for the most important office in the state hopefully bears no responsibility in this country. We might as well draw lots for the Federal Chancellor among all German citizens who are passively eligible to vote. The probability that the choice will fall on a more qualified and sensible citizen seems to me to be quite high.
Even though more and more poor souls have drowned in the Mediterranean, it has not yet been renamed the Mediterranean. Sorry for the Freudian typo.
No, I am not sending this to "my" MPs, because it is their sworn duty to feel committed to the rule of law! If they don't, their representative actions are negligent.
I regard this as a duty to inform or a duty to acquire knowledge in order to fulfill your task appropriately!
"I'm stepping into the ring" - Markus Langemann says to himself at the end of the opening credits of this great interview.
Yes - even with such a "legal science giant", you first have to be as equal an interviewer as possible to be able to ask the questions at this high level.
So also great respect for the "challenger".
As far as the "Champ" is concerned: with a Prof. Schwab with decision-making power FOR real democracy, the liberal and just, even rightful world would be in order here!
But the power is in the wrong hands, fatally wrong hands. From the government to the supreme judiciary, in both together even, as a harmful, law-damaging fraternization of politics and justice.
An exciting interview from start to finish. A pioneering interview in terms of the questions and open answers. Prof. Martin Schwab puts his heart and mind into giving the listener comprehensible answers. I feel a little more confident again. There is really nothing more to say.
I don't quite share the idea that it would be much better if individual media outlets openly took a position and didn't even try to report neutrally or objectively.
Sure, an open visor would be a significant improvement.
However, reporting would still be biased, facts would be selected one-sidedly and arguments from the opposing side would not be presented at all or would be presented in a distorted way. In other words, hardly any different to what is unfortunately already happening more and more often. And we would still be forced to try to get a broader picture of the situation ourselves, which can be very difficult in most complex issues.
The fact that everyone only informs themselves where they can assume that they will only receive information that is in line with their own views would be reinforced. This is precisely why public service media, which live up to their original claim and strive for broad information and a fair and objective presentation of arguments, are so important.
It is a utopia and has always been a farce that public service media strive for objective reporting. There can be no objective reporting, as the media are always dependent on financial backers and there is always an influential board of directors, whether public or private, who pursue their own personal interests.
It would simply be important for the majority of media consumers to understand this and therefore inform themselves comprehensively and not just one-sidedly. This unconditional trust in the competence and neutrality of the mainstream media is problematic. And the lack of willingness to think for themselves instead of accepting the "information" presented by the media as the only possible truth.
"This bold clarity is almost irritating. Especially for those people in our society who were socialized via the old media and who are not yet on board with the paradigm shift - also with regard to obtaining and processing information through their own initiative, which is now necessary.
Now more than ever, information is a debt to be collected. The "TV On" button on the remote control is often the worst of all possible solutions."
Yes, that's exactly how I experience it myself. I openly admit that I was also socialized via the old media. Fortunately, I've managed to change my paradigm since 2020, not least because of this forum here. Thank you for that! Unfortunately, I still experience this "old media faith" in many people, some of whom are very old. Along the lines of: Yes, haven't you seen the news and what's coming?
my heartfelt THANK YOU to all those involved who have made this work possible
"Quota dominas"? Wonderful! Thank you, once again, Mr. Langemann!
"Quota dominas"? Wonderful! Thank you, once again, Mr. Langemann!
Professor Schwab was always an anchor for me in this crisis. His comments were competent, factual, emphatic and humane, and he always declared his own opinion as such. I had this "disturbing feeling" after the Frontal report, in which you could still hear Dr. Wodarg's level-headed words. What followed was a censorship of opinion across the board, which nobody around me seemed to notice. Gradually, a horror scenario revealed itself to me in which the judiciary and executive had lost any democratic basis. The Corona Committee, Club der klaren Worte, Rubikon, KenFm and many good journalists like Boris Reitschuster give us hope that tolerance, diversity of opinion, basic rights for all and empathy can be restored and that this division into vaccinated and unvaccinated will soon be a thing of the past, from which the citizens who believe in the government and corona supporters had to learn once again that all people are worth the same and that basic rights do not have to be earned, because they belong to all of us.
A very pleasant interview with top-class content. The GEZ cardboard noses prefer to leave the field to their candidates. What I experienced here was a dance. A substantive interview. When leaving the topic, they were nevertheless completely confident and ready for an insertion, including names and content. Insistent when things were unclear. Surprising the interviewee several times.
Some new information on the supposed rule of law, as well as on the nature of man.
It's good that something like this still exists (the interview, not so much the person).
Thank you very much