At the Counterjihad Zurich meeting earlier this month, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff led a workshop about the suppression of free speech and the control of public opinion in Europe. The essay below is adapted from her opening remarks, which were based on her personal experience as a member of the Wiener Akademikerbund.
The Founding of a Tyranny of Opinion
and the Case of the Wiener Akademikerbund
by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
Tyranny is introduced into modern European countries at three levels:
|1.||Through a system interweaving of all areas of life with the political sector|
Banks are no longer private enterprises; former politicians conduct business on their behalf. Agencies of the European Union are heavily involved in fiscal and financial decision-making. The EU dictates the rhythm of transactions.
Key industries are not part of the private sector, except according to stock corporation law. After 1989, neo-Socialism led to an economy that works for the sole benefit of politicians and the existing political structure.
|c.||The interposition of quasi-governmental organs at all levels. Various mediating agencies — pressure groups, government agencies, lobby groups, and various NGOs, for example — act between the social and economic subsystems. All of them are financially aided by the EU, the chambers of commerce, and national and international establishments supported and financed by EU and the ministries.|
|2.||Through the universality of personal dependency of the individual|
– – – – – – – – –
People become an intrinsic part of networks; see #1. Only within such networks can one make a living. This circumstance is taken advantage of with the help of blackmail.
For example, a member of the Wiener Akademikerbund (WAB), a father of six, works in the Austrian National Bank, putting pressure on him to resign from WAB board. If he doesn’t, he will lose his job.
The same thing is happening in the media and the schools — those who are considered multipliers among opinion makers and members of are in the educational establishment. They perform both active and passive roles: they are forced to accept opinions which aren’t theirs, and they are asked to promote and propagate the spurious ideas and interpretations derived from politically correct multiculturalism.
The financial crisis. The deteriorating economic situation is strangling the financial circumstances of all player, leaving no room for maneuver. People are no longer “citizens”.
The result? a proletarianization of citizens, as a consequence of socialist politics.
|3.||Through the formal or informal control of active behavior by the state|
The judiciary rules against attitudes, beliefs, political ideology, and personal convictions. Examples include hate speech laws, Verbotsgesetz (The Verbotsgesetz 1947 [Prohibition Act 1947] abbreviated VerbotsG, is an Austrian constitutional law, which banned the Nazi Party and provided the legal framework for the process of denazification in Austria, as well as aiming to suppress any potential revival of Nazism. The law was amended in 1992 to prohibit denying or grossly minimizing the Holocaust or other Nazi war crimes.), and laws that prohibit discrimination against any minority
The tyranny of the politically correct. We are no longer allowed to use certain words. A multicultural version of Newspeak has arisen, and a change in the language has created a different state of awareness in the general public. The process of forming of neologisms as required by Multiculturalism is known as “word-smithing”, and whoever controls language controls politics.
The last few decades have seen a transition from the brutal Communist dictatorships of the 20th century to the universal — seemingly “soft” — control of the state of awareness of the general public. It is as if we stepped from George Orwell’s 1984 with its mere physical threats (i.e. jail, torture, or death) to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, under which we will experience forced reprogramming of our minds. We are unknowingly subjected to an adjustment of our understanding and our judgment of what is good and what is bad, leading to the political universalization of the Stockholm Syndrome.
The accusation of being a “fascist” and the politics of guilt. Disagreeable political positions are systematically branded as and connected with fantasies of fascism. For example, the European Commission for Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) of the Council of Europe combats racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and intolerance, including Islamophobia.
This leads to a step-by-step expansion of taboo zones in both politics and society. From Islamophobia we move on to homophobia, to family politics, to security policy. Criticizing current family politics, i.e. that the family must include of a mother and a father, and not a mother and mother, is discriminatory — and thus fascist — according to the elite’s definition. As a result, politics is reduced to codes and symbolism.
The public is taught mental reservations which filter the political decision-making process. For instance, if WAB were not a “cesspool” (that is, a source of unacceptable opinions), the filtering process would have been successful. However, through its position paper, WAB suddenly entered public discourse and is thus dangerous to the opinion tyrants. Hence, a “cesspool”.
The question is no longer whether a political measure is made in the interests of the of the people. Instead, there is a shift of what is allowed to be said. Acceptable speech is restricted to that which is all but religiously accepted.
For example, a question was directed at the Vienna police chief: “Is there a breakdown of criminal activity with regard to youth with a migration background?” Answer: “I am appalled at this across-the-board condemnation of foreigners!” All the questioner wanted was a statistical breakdown!
The chief’s assertion: “We need those migrants. There are immense economic advantages to immigration.”
Studies, evidence, facts, and clear thinking are considered irrelevant. Only multicultural ideology matters. The tyranny of opinion is complete.