from Markus Langemann
In the past, I have often met people who are and have been obviously discredited, criticized and sometimes even vilified in the media.
The noblest task of journalism can be to approach such personalities, to ask them for an interview. Unbiased and open. People who have not already earned themselves a seat on the well-known talk shows, only to be questioned by journalistic actors with their own attitude, but in a seemingly provocative manner; people who think differently than the supposed reality of mass thinking created by the media.
Journalism is different from political activism. This sentence may irritate future generations.
Journalism means asking questions and not arguing. Journalism means not agitating. It's called activism or political education.
Especially in the institutions for which you pay fees, you often find yourself in closed thinking cells. With employed editorial enforcement officers. Interview guests are reprimanded, bullied or even canceled by political talk show hosts.
The culture of journalistic curiosity has given way to the dictates of quotas. Talk shows are filled according to riot and ratings potential and not according to insight potential.
If knowledge is inadvertently revealed that contradicts the editorial idea and attitude, the programs in question may be removed from the media library.
Viewers are generally considered to be dumber than the program makers. They see themselves as program makers and less as journalists. And I know what I'm talking about with this judgment.
This behavior is arrogant and not intelligent. It has transformed us into a society in which we have forgotten how to endure and tolerate contradiction.
I am delighted that you are here.
My offer to you is: I ask people on your behalf. Sometimes I do this well, sometimes not so well - depending on the form of the day - but I promise you that I will always endeavor to enable us, i.e. you and me, to gain true and maximum knowledge.
I want to remain curious and not argue with my interlocutors, even if I sometimes think I know better. But I see myself as a publicist, not a philosopher, not a politician or activist.
This may seem unusual to you because you have been told what to think by most of the country's media in recent years. And it ultimately made you unfree if you fell for the comfortably preconceived ideas.
Thinking is exhausting; especially thinking for yourself. But if you are told what to think about what, what you should think about what, because others see it that way too, then it is not only extremely comfortable, but you also have the feeling of belonging to a group and not being an outsider. As social beings, people want to belong.
Before you become one of those whose freedom of thought is taken away, here is some food for your cerebral cortex. You can listen to and watch an exclusive interview with Donald Trump's former communications director, Jason Miller.
Miller accompanied Trump through the first and second election campaigns and is still in contact with Donald Trump once or twice a week, so he is very close to him.
Miller is now the CEO of the new social media platform GETTR, which is preparing to stand up to the censorship-happy platforms Twitter and Facebook.
That's an exciting reason to talk to Jason. I reached him last week in his home office in New York.
And communication professional that he is, he also had his GETTR wall rolled out behind him, sat down in front of the camera and then answered my questions.
We talked about GETTR, America, freedom of expression in the world and, of course, Donald Trump. The answers from this man with his special American view of our world are quite something.
You see and hear a man that hardly any public broadcaster would ask for an interview because he addresses what would not get through the editorial conferences there.
English 
German 
Spanish
24 Responses
Dear Mr. Linsner,
I share your pessimism in many areas.
As far as compulsory vaccination is concerned, however, I am a little more confident. Why? Simply because the state may be able to force us to be vaccinated or believe it can force us. But it cannot also oblige us to sign a voluntary waiver of liability. This fact has hardly been discussed publicly, if at all. If many of us consistently demand the liability conditions that must undoubtedly underlie a forced vaccination, the players, and in particular the pharmaceutical companies, will quickly lose interest in this instrument. It is certainly far more interesting economically to force vaccination of 80% with a large waiver of liability than 90....95% with full liability. This is all the more true as I know from my personal experience that the side effects can be far more severe than is officially acknowledged.
Geben Sie nicht auf! Wir sind mehr kritische Geister als Sie glauben: die WELT berichtete kürzlich, dass nahezu jeder vierte Bundesbürger „daran glaubt, dass Deutschland auf dem Weg in eine Diktatur ist“ oder dass „46% glauben, man könne in Deutschland seine Meinung nicht mehr frei äußern“ (s. https://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/plus236706639/Politikverdrossenheit-Wenn-Corona-Politik-zum-Unsicherheitsfaktor-wird.html).
Best regards
Roland Aßmann
Dear Dr. Aßmann,
danke für die informativen Worte. Nur müssten nach meinem Verständnis die Staatsakteure dies auch wissen und ziehen es, wie in Österreich, dennoch durch. Aber natürlich haben Sie Recht, unterschreiben würde ich natürlich nichts. Mir würde allerdings schon der Umstand das Leben vermiesen, wenn „1G“ zum Standard werden würde und ich dann, wie bisher, dauerhaft draußen bleiben dürfte. Nun ja, man wird sehen.
Best regards.
Unsere Gesellschaft ist falsch abgebogen und es wird schwer werden, sie wieder auf einen freiheitlich-demokratischen Weg zurückzuführen. Wenn niemand weniger als die WELT darüber berichtet, dass nahezu jeder vierte Bundesbürger „daran glaubt, dass Deutschland auf dem Weg in eine Diktatur ist“ oder dass „46% glauben, man könne in Deutschland seine Meinung nicht mehr frei äußern“, wäre dies in normalen Zeiten Anlass, dass sich die politisch verantwortlichen Demokraten wochenlang in ein Kloster zurückziehen und darüber nachdenken, was sie falsch gemacht haben, von einigen Extremisten in Amt und Würden, denen nichts Besseres einfällt, als ihre Mitmenschen als Covidioten oder …..-Leugner abzustempeln, vielleicht einmal abgesehen (s. https://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/plus236706639/Politikverdrossenheit-Wenn-Corona-Politik-zum-Unsicherheitsfaktor-wird.html).
However, the WELT report also shows that we are far more critical spirits than we ourselves believe. Not only can we defend our freedom, we must defend it with courage and confidence. This includes using all channels (including GETTR?) to express our opinions freely and, perhaps even more importantly, campaigning for a free press and media landscape. Every household pays almost 20 euros per month to enable independent and wide-ranging reporting and thus political education. In reality, we are financing a few overpaid and limited ÖRR courtiers with a penchant for ecodictatorship that destroys nature and the landscape, as well as daily murder and manslaughter. We will not be able to preserve our democracy if we do not change this. We should demand from politicians that an increasing proportion of this sum is not distributed by a media council, but by the personal preferences of fee-payers across a far broader spectrum of press and media products. No democracy can exist in the long term without a securely financed press and media landscape that is oriented towards performance and truthfulness and works in an investigative manner. For a more in-depth look at the current desolate state of the fourth estate in the state, I can only recommend this well-founded inside view by a long-standing journalist (see https://gewerkschaftsforum.de/dramatische-verrottung-ein-offener-abschiedsbrief-an-den-vorstand-des-deutschen-journalistenverbands-und-dessen-gefolge/), which incidentally coincides with my personal experience.
Jason Miller explains that GETTR is much freer and more independent than other platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and others. The argument for GETTR's raison d'être is to create a "politically safe space". This is a value proposition, a fixed star. The other platforms also started with these values, but then took a wrong turn because they have incredible assets - mainly for financial reasons.
He goes on to describe that GETTR is currently being financed by two private investment companies and that they want to go public in the future. In other words, the laws of the capital market must be obeyed. On the stock exchange, returns are the top priority.
At this point, I would have liked to see critical questions about how GETTR intends to ensure that it does not take a "wrong turn" like the other platforms, which, in its view, have taken a wrong turn for financial reasons! An unresolved contradiction.
Trump, with whom Miller maintains a regular professional relationship and who himself was personally severely affected by the censorship of the established platform, apparently does not want to participate in GETTR and is not represented there. Trump did not opt for GETTR due to an even more attractive offer. This should also have been asked: is it primarily about freedom of expression or financial interests?
Miller also emphasized that GETTR should be a global and not just an American platform, which is also underlined by the integrated translation function. How can and should the confidentiality of users be protected against government action? As an American company, American laws such as the Patriot Act, FISA orders or national security letters must be complied with - even if parts of the company are located "abroad". In some cases, the company is not even allowed to report publicly when these laws are applied. This can become a serious problem for authors of articles critical of the government. Unfortunately, this was not addressed in the interview.
I believe that GETTR's claim will not be fully realized.
Viele spannende berechtigte Fragen. Die Widersprüche sehe ich jedoch nicht in jedem Fall. Beispiel Trump. Ich bin sehr froh, dass Trump nicht zu den „Hauptförderern“ von GETTR gehört. Egal, wie man zum ehemaligen Präsidenten steht – in den deutschen Medien würde GETTR das Etikett der „Trump-Plattform“ bekommen.
Sie stellen die Frage, die ich mir auch stelle. Gehts um Meinungsfreiheit oder finanzielle Interessen? Schließt denn das eine das andere aus? Es ist eine Marktlücke zu sagen „Hier gibt es endlich wieder eine Plattform, wo nicht zensiert wird.“ Meinungsfreiheit zu „verkaufen“ kann also ein lukratives Geschäftsmodell sein.
Letztendlich kommt man zum Punkt, den Sie auch ansprechen. Wie sehr darf der Staat regulierend eingreifen? Der Staat/die Gesetzgebung scheinen die einzigen „natürlichen Feinde“ der bisherigen Monopolisten google, Facebook und Co zu sein. Das sehe ich differenziert. Ich glaube etwa, dass sich eine Nancy Faeser maßlos überschätzt, wenn Sie öffentlich mit dem Gedanken spielt, Portale wie Telegram per Fingerstreich zu verbieten. Das geht nicht so einfach und die Begründungen halte ich für lächerlich. „Hate speech“ ist eigentlich kein juristischer Begriff. Das ist absolut schwammig. Herr Langemann hat ja einen Screenshot veröffentlicht, der angeblich bedenklich war. Der Kommentar war in meinen Augen absolut harmlos. Auch die Faeser-Logik halte ich für lächerlich. Wollen Sie Papier verbieten, weil leider auch rechtsradikale Zeitungen gedruckt werden?
Ein Punkt wird leider so gut wie nie thematisiert. Youtubes/Googles Mutterkonzern Alphabet Inc., auch Facebook usw, haben seit Jahren milliardenschwer in den Bereich „health care“, in den Gesundheitsmarkt investiert, haben Anteile an großen Pharmafirmen, besitzen sie teilweise ganz. Die haben alle ein mächtiges Eigen-Interesse daran, dass nicht kritisch über die Pharmalobby oder konkret über Impfstoffe, diskutiert wird. Das geschieht also nicht nur auf staatlichen Druck. Sollte GETTR richtig wachsen und sich übermorgen zu 30 Prozent an Biontech beteiligen – dann wird es spannend, wie meinungsfrei es dort abgeht.
In my opinion, the exchange of ideas so far has unfortunately only been on the surface and has dealt with symptoms instead of tackling the core of the issue of freedom of expression and protection of property for all people. There is certainly no need for further discussion about states and their power. States are the only ones with a monopoly on coercion and violence and thus the power to exercise coercion and violence against people. Corporations do not have this power. No corporation may force people to consume/purchase its products by means of the threat and use of force. Capital and power are two completely different things. State actors, on the other hand, can use their monopoly of power as a monopolist of force and violence to conclude contracts with corporations in which they privilege and subsidize corporations, order, promote and buy their products and restrict or even completely prohibit others by law - of course always at the expense and cost of taxpayers and consumers. The state and its actors can and have always been tempted to be used by individuals, groups of people and entrepreneurs as a means to an end in order to achieve their own goals, which once again disproves the state as a supposed protector of rights, property and security, because it clearly shows that people always and everywhere act and it is stupid and naive to believe that giving people such serious power as a monopolist of coercion and force would not lead to any abuse of power.
The motives of media platforms or any other entrepreneur would be completely irrelevant as long as every entrepreneur and consumer lived and acted in a free social and economic order in which the right to protection of private property was equally guaranteed for everyone and every attack on other people's property was equally prohibited and punishable (private law society). Unfortunately, we do not find this anywhere in the world, but a world of states that sometimes more and sometimes less oppress people as monopolists of force and violence, that control, regulate, steer and corrupt the market and trample on people's property rights, squeezing, bullying, subjugating and harassing them wherever and however they can and want. The core issue to be tackled would therefore be the construct of the state as we know it and not the market and its players, who are all entrepreneurs as well as all consumers.
Who finances whom, what values they represent, what ideas they have and what goals they pursue is completely irrelevant - as long as every person is allowed to defend their own property and other property acquired by peaceful means from any attack and every aggressor who causes physical damage to people is forced to accept personal liability with their own resources. Whether that is attacks on private data or any other physical property - attack is and remains attack and any physical damage caused by it is and remains physical damage with a damaging party and an injured party.
Entrepreneurs must always and everywhere focus on people's needs. If they succeed in doing this well, they make profits; if they do not, they suffer losses. Ethically just profits are always those that have been achieved without deception, coercion or violence. As free entrepreneurs, media platforms are free to decide what they want to allow or reject on their platforms, and I honestly don't see any problem with that. If customers do not agree with the terms of the contract, they have the option of switching to another platform.
The only thing that is and should be relevant are attacks and aggressive attacks on other people's property where the aggressor causes physical damage to an injured party. If the same law applied to everyone, every injured party would have the right and the possibility of self-defense and of calling a neutral body when damage occurs in order to determine the injuring party and, if there is clear evidence, to receive compensation. However, since we live under a state construct as a monopolist of law and force with ultimate decision-making power over all cases of conflict, including all those in which the state and its actors are themselves involved, there is neither the right to protect and defend the private property of citizens, nor the same right for all (see public law is above private law), nor are there independent arbitrators for cases of conflict, which is why nepotism, corruption, coercion, violence, crime, etc. are becoming increasingly serious. This is why nepotism, corruption, coercion, violence, crime, etc. are taking on ever more serious proportions - since we are always and everywhere dealing with people who are not free from faults, weaknesses, errors, etc.
It is also not the pharmaceutical companies, media providers, Coca-Cocla manufacturers, Amazon or any other entrepreneur who could or should force people to consume their products or services under the threat and use of force, but the power of the state actors who can create laws and then unleash their powers on the slaves for execution - all democratically elected, legally legitimized and without personal liability of the state actors (see taxes, levies, GEZ, contracts with Biontech&Pfizer, wind turbine industry, EU, WHO, UN, NATO, etc.). etc.).
The core of all problems is the state as we know it. But hardly anyone dares to address, discuss and honestly analyze it!
What a pity.
G. Schmidt
Over the years after the Second World War, we were taught not to talk about politics and the church. Hardly any citizen knows that we are not sovereign. Unfortunately, objective political education is not taught in schools etc. I could go on and on. That's the intention. And nobody has questioned it. That's why it could come to this. We were only taught not to question. It's all about believing. And believing is not knowing. The excuse that I didn't know is no longer valid. Everything has been controlled like this for decades. Stress and no time to put children in the care of the state (kindergarten). We were taught all this. If we first think about it and write it down, we can access this page. And if we can agree on an understandable form of language, then I think many people will understand it better and they won't be excluded. Because language is also a form of exclusion.
B.P
The best,
What people like you are showing the world, dear Mr. Langemann and team, like many other fellow human beings who act freely, peacefully, independently, self-determinedly, on their own responsibility and with personal liability, is the demonstration and example of the only true peace project for all people in the entire world: a capitalist social and economic order. Free people, free markets and voluntary cooperation, with which all people are better off and recognize each other as useful, which creates peace.
Umso mehr der Markt be- und eingeschränkt wird durch Gesetze, Regulierungen, Ge- und Verbote und umso mehr damit automatisch die Freiheit der Menschen ein- und beschränkt wird, welche „der Markt“ sind, jeder Einzelne, individuell und den Menschen freiwillige Kooperationen mit Mitmenschen untersagt oder erschwert werden, umso mehr suchen die Menschen Wege, den Zwängen zu entgehen.
Because they feel and see that coercion and violence only cause harm to the vast majority of people, prevent innovation, further development, progress, prosperity and thus prosperity and consume and destroy more and more old substance and thus produce suffering and misery.
Since all people always act, and always in a profit-oriented manner, to improve their current life situation or at least to prevent it from deteriorating, more and more free and independent media platforms, such as yours, automatically emerge alongside the means of coercion and violence through the use of the coercive monopolist state, and in all other areas of people's lives, innovative forces are also emerging that are looking for ways out of servitude and into freedom and voluntary cooperation with fellow human beings.
Because people know from experience (they see the ehtical injustice of making profits from people who do not rely on voluntary cooperation, but on coercion and violence, through the actions of the state and its agents, including the people who use the state as a means) and also as social, adaptive individuals, all empathic people sense that coercion and violence are wrong and should therefore always be rejected as a means of achieving personal goals and satisfying personal needs.
Developments towards more freedom, which is inseparable from personal responsibility and absolute respect for other people's property, are increasingly breaking ground worldwide and offer a unique opportunity for us humans. It is therefore important not only to thank all entrepreneurs and associations of people who live freedom, peace, self-determination and personal responsibility and are committed to this for their outstanding work, but also to support them according to their own means and possibilities. The goal of freedom and the search for new ways that make peaceful coexistence possible and can guarantee it in the long term unites all independent and free entrepreneurs, their employees and fellow human beings who turn to them through financial support, subscriptions, product and service purchases, media dissemination, etc.
I would therefore like to take this opportunity to thank you very much for your outstanding and professional work and your support for the freedom of all people in the areas of information, exchange and expression of opinion.
Best regards
G. Schmidt
dear simone,
i am always amazed at the wealth of your contributions.
they stimulate a lot and encourage inner exchange...at least for me there is a lot going on.
yes, and that brings us to the topic...inside and out.
i am resisting the fact that this topic is beginning to take over and fill me.
surely you know this ... the glass is half empty...the glass is half full,,
the "glass half full" view is also my way of going through life.
In recent times, I have repeatedly succeeded in facing up to the demands of the times authentically and peacefully.
i am a mother of six and have had to experience time and again in my life that it takes a strong philosophy of life to be at peace with yourself and, last but not least, to be honest and genuine with your children.
thank you for your contributions, dear mrs. schmidt, and also to all the others who confidently think, share and write here.
tilda
Hello dear Tilda,
I am very pleased that my thoughts are of positive value to you.
Feel warmly embraced and hugged from mother to mother in very challenging times.
Kind regards
Gudrun
ps. of course i meant dear gudrun in my speech...
Thank you Mr. Langemann for your professional media work!
Many people are fed up with this opinion journalism from the mainstream media, which has been steadily growing in recent years, because it is an insulting paternalism for those who would like to think for themselves.
A return to free and independent journalism is more urgently needed than ever.
Thanks again and good luck!
Hello: I see it exactly the same way, I have worked professionally worldwide, but what is happening here in the FRG at the moment from our political caste,
which is corrupt to the core, is no longer possible at all.
The Basic Law no longer applies; the measure of all things is now called the Infection Protection Act, which is unbelievable.
Remain steadfast in spite of everything.
Yours sincerely, Volker Schmeer
„Ein intelligenter Mensch hat auf jede Antwort eine Frage. Ein dummer Mensch hat auf jede Frage eine Antwort.“
Stolen and found to be good. These sentences can be wonderfully applied to the question of how journalism should be. I found Mr. Langemann's introductory words particularly valuable. They were explanatory and not lecturing. They also resonated with humility. Constantly questioning yourself is exhausting. But it is the mark of a good journalist.
„Die nobelste Aufgabe von Journalismus kann es sein, sich solchen [umstrittenen] Persönlichkeiten zu nähern, sie zum Gespräch zu bitten.“ Das sehe ich genauso. Die Realität ist leider das komplette Gegenteil. Ein Virologe, der nicht auf Drosten-Linie liegt? Ein Klimaforscher, der nicht den Untergang der Welt prophezeit und sich kritisch zur Energiewende äußert? Ein Mensch, der sich kritisch zum Genderwahn und zu Diversität äußert? Alles, bloß das nicht. Leider.
Zum Thema Richtlinien/Netiquette nur: Leider bedeutet „Richtlinien“ seit März 2020 (nicht nur für youtube, Twitter, facebook und Co), gefälligst die „richtige Linie“ zu vertreten. Dann darf die Meinung gerne auch pöbelnd und aggressiv vorgetragen werden. Sollten Sie allerdings Maßnahmen- und impfkritisch sein, werden Sie ratzfatz „abgeräumt“. Diese persönliche Erfahrung habe ich bereits im März 2020 im online-Forum meiner regionalen Tageszeitung machen dürfen.
Ich kannte Jason Miller bisher nicht und bin zwiespältig. Steht da ein „Freiheitskämpfer“ vor mir, der gegen Zensur und Cancel Culture antritt? Oder steht da ein Medienprofi vor mir, der sein eigenes Produkt GETTR äußerst geschickt verkauft? Vielleicht ja beides. Ich kann nicht in den Kopf von Herrn Miller gucken. Rein intuitiv bin ich skeptisch. Seine Antworten begannen etwas zu oft mit „Eine ausgezeichnete Frage, Markus“. Der Meinung war ich zwar auch, aber ich würde das niemals sagen. Am wertvollsten waren für mich die neuen Informationen – wie etwa die Vorgänge in Brasilien. Danke für das Interview.
Dear Mr. Löcke,
das mit dem „Abräumen“ Impf-Kritischer, und seien sie noch so kompetent, hat ja z.B. in Österreich schon hervorragend funktioniert. Daher für uns: No hope…..
Dear Mr. Linsner,
Things that give me hope:
1) In Austria, the constitutional court seems to function even better than in Germany. Even though compulsory vaccination was decided by parliament, in my opinion the last word has not yet been spoken in Austria.
Boris Palmer hat in einer Talkshow vor einiger Zeit sinngemäß folgendes gesagt: Sollten „wir“ mit einer Impfpflicht eine Impf-Quote von 98 Prozent unter Erwachsenen erreichen, sei es ihm wurscht, ob diese Impfpflicht im Nachhinein medizinisch richtig und verfassungsgemäß sei. Da denke er „pragmatisch“. Um die restlichen 2 Prozent werde man sich „kümmern“. Was genau er mit „kümmern“ meinte, ließ er offen. Dass diese skandalösen Aussagen nicht stärker kritisiert wurden, macht mich fassungslos. Das wird aber passieren, wenn solche Gedanken in die Tat umgesetzt werden. Daran glaube ich einfach.
2) How practicable is what has already been decided in Austria and will unfortunately be decided in Germany? What do the decision-makers want to do if millions of adults remain steadfast and do not want to pay? Lafontaine once addressed this point. Imprisonment for so many citizens, 99 percent of whom have never been guilty of anything in their lives?
3.) Mitte März (ab 16.3.) greift die bereits beschlossene Impfpflicht für Pflegekräfte erst richtig in Deutschland. Viele Krankenhäuser, Praxen und zumindest einige mutige Funktionäre schlagen bereits jetzt die Hände über den Kopf zusammen. Das wird noch richtig „knallen“ und den politisch Verantwortlichen vor die Füße fallen.
4) The media framing is working less and less every day. Even in small towns and larger villages, people are taking to the streets. Many citizens are now seeing with their own eyes that this is simply not true, that there are radicals and right-wingers on the streets, but people like you and me. Even what happens in the world cannot be hushed up and questioned in the long term, such as the truck convoy in Canada. There are already imitators of this action worldwide, including in Germany.
4) Drosten, Wieler, Lauterbach and co. seem to be getting more nervous and aggressive by the day. Drosten's unscientific, flowery comparisons of everything from steaks to cars are becoming increasingly bizarre. At the same time, his tweeting biting reflexes increase with every form of criticism.
5.) Selbst größte Hardliner wie Söder „entdecken“ auf einmal ihre verständnisvolle, tolerante Seite für Kritiker. Kanzler Scholz ist bemerkenwert still. Warum? Für mich sind das politische Anzeichen für Angst. Man will schließlich am Ende des Tages auf der „richtigen Seite“ stehen. Irgendwann, so zumindest meine beschlagene Glaskugel, wird die Schuldfrage gestellt. Und dann werden Politik, Medien und Wissenschaft gegenseitig mit dem Finger auf sich zeigen. All die, die sich gerade in einer unheilvollen Allianz gegenseitig schützen, werden dann in Deckung gehen und die Schuld beim anderen suchen.
„Die Hoffnung ist ein viel größeres Stimulans des Lebens als irgendein Glück.“ Nietzsche? Egal. Geben Sie nicht die Hoffnung auf, Herr Linsner.
Dear Mr. Löcke,
Ihre Worte rufen bei mir fast Tränen der Rührung hervor. Danke dafür. Gestern habe ich mit einer befreundeten Dame gesprochen, Chefarztgattin und früher Intensiv-Schwester. Sie ist guter Hoffnung, dass sich im Laufe dieses Jahres alles zum Guten wenden wird. Allein, ich glaube einfach nicht mehr daran. Früh morgens sehe ich in unserer Licht- und winddurchflutenden Straße schon einsame Menschen mit FFP 2 spazieren gehen, im Supermarkt (ab Montag plötzlich FFP-2 „Pflicht“), eine junge Mutter mit Kleinstkind im Korb. Das Kind mit FFP-2 vorm Näschen. Der Nachbar kommt mit FFP 2 aus dem Haus und steigt allein ins Auto. Eine Klinik bei uns wirbt dafür, jetzt pro Woche 750 Kinder zwischen 5 und 11 impfen zu können. Seit gestern überall in der Stadt neue Schilder in mehreren Sprachen: Impfen ist Party, Impfen ist Familie, Impfen ist Klub, Impfen ist Theater, Impfen ist Du-Wir-Gesellschaft usw. Meine Hoffnung ist auf dem Nullpunkt, ohne Zweckpessimismus verbreiten zu wollen. Ich bereite mich schon darauf vor, „Buße“ tun zu müssen, weil ich die Entscheidung über meinen Körper wahren werde. Sie müssen allerdings meine Pension pfänden, freiwillig zahle ich nicht.
Best regards.
Dear Mr. Linsner,
I share your pessimism in many areas.
As far as compulsory vaccination is concerned, however, I am a little more confident. Why? Simply because the state may be able to force us to be vaccinated or believe it can force us. But it cannot also oblige us to sign a voluntary waiver of liability. This fact has hardly been discussed publicly, if at all. If many of us consistently demand the liability conditions that must undoubtedly underlie a forced vaccination, the players, and in particular the pharmaceutical companies, will quickly lose interest in this instrument. It is certainly far more interesting economically to force vaccination of 80% with a large waiver of liability than 90....95% with full liability. This is all the more true as I know from my personal experience that the side effects can be far more severe than is officially acknowledged.
Don't give up! We are more than you think:
Niemand weniger als die WELT berichtet, dass nahezu jeder vierte Bundesbürger „daran glaubt, dass Deutschland auf dem Weg in eine Diktatur ist“ oder dass „46% glauben, man könne in Deutschland seine Meinung nicht mehr frei äußern“ (s. https://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/plus236706639/Politikverdrossenheit-Wenn-Corona-Politik-zum-Unsicherheitsfaktor-wird.html).
Best regards
R. Aßmann
Gibt es nichts hinzu zufügen.Danke für diesen Kommentar.“KLasse“
Remain steadfast.
Hinter diesem Beitrag steht Trump, der ja von verschiedenen Plattformen, wie z.B. Twitter, wegen seiner „Gefährlichkeit“ verbannt wurde.
After being ridiculed by Obama at a party in front of a large audience, he vowed to run against the man and become president himself. Which he succeeded in doing. The result is well known.
And now he and his strategist are planning to set up their own communication platform to compete with the established platforms and show them what's what.
To me, this interview is nothing more than an attempt to promote this new platform. That's legitimate, but this Trump world is not mine. And I will not support his vengeful endeavor, no matter how chalk-eatingly enticingly it is proclaimed.
Thank you very much for this excellent explanation of journalism and its actual tasks! The differentiated distinction between editing and program design and their currently ever-increasing intertwining is very clear & meaningful - even if you think you see it that way anyway....
Das Interview finde ich auch prima; es zeigt auch, wie oben schon kommentiert, Nuancen zwischen Journalismus und „PR“- Tendenzen – die Bildung der eigenen Meinung bleibt den Zuhörern überlassen.
Thank you very much! - I will probably also include the text in media lessons at school, if that's okay.
WOW! What a firework display of professionally managed communication on both sides! Over time, however, I got the feeling that the questions on the one side were asked in a professional journalistic manner and that the answers were the result of an absolutely professional PR strategy.
When it comes to positive self-presentation and selling, we have always been able to learn a lot from the Americans.
As I listen to Miller, he says that the Gettr user counter is racing through the roof in real time and has already reached dizzying heights in record time. According to Miller, this can be explained by the fact that Facebook, Twitter etc. have abandoned their actual mission - the censorship-free exchange of opinions (...).
Help me - perhaps the question also arises for you: if he was responsible for the Trump election campaign, then also for the then - let's say questionable - actions on Facebook (?).
I think it is incredibly important to listen to people like this and I would like to thank you once again, Mr. Langemann, for giving this person a platform. Developing media skills is more important than ever. It looks like Gettr will also become part of the new media world. He has absolutely lofty goals, I'll give him that. But so did the predecessor networks. And of course it's all about big money, which is nothing reprehensible at first. But we can see from examples such as WhatsApp that we are suddenly becoming very transparent in our intimate data traffic and exchanges. And even though many of us recognize this, we continue to use it anyway because it is so infinitely convenient.
This is who we are - Gettr's new target group.
It's nice that there are ways out of the media monoculture, thanks for the information. The current censorship in the social media clearly violates our constitution, yet there are only cautious reactions in parliaments, governments and courts. It should be clear to everyone that there can be no functioning formation of opinion in a democracy if censorship is tolerated.
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859), an early French political scientist, wrote in the 1930s about the grassroots democratic structures of the townships in the states on the east coast of the USA. Our brilliant history teacher Glagau led us to the Abitur in 1980 in the upper school, and it was he who made the young American democracy the subject. He talked about how, in the 1970s, there was resistance from store owners to displaying the American Declaration of Independence in their shop windows; they thought it was too radical, they didn't recognize it as such because the text wasn't captioned accordingly.
What was worth a bloody, years-long fight for freedom two hundred years earlier was buried in the consciousness of the Vietnam War era and still is today. Even in Europe.
I've been asking myself for some time, what kind of society is it in which a presidential election can ultimately only be contested with a campaign budget of hundreds of millions of dollars, where only septuagenarians are left to vote - out of a population of over three hundred million? Is there no one else?
If you look at the latest news from Ottawa, there is a return to the old values of 1776, the American Declaration of Independence, which also inspired the French Revolution. I was deeply moved by the speech given by the woman at the front, she is calling for nothing other than what was already formulated in 1776, freedom and the right to the "pursuit of happiness". And so the circle closes.
Thank you for this interesting interview