 So, a lot of you will know him, he doesn't need much introduction, let's talk about Martin Haase or Mahan. So, now we're talking about the language of populists and make sure that this time you don't pay too much attention, don't learn this kind of language, because it's the populists. Ja, vielen Dank. Ich glaube, ich war das erste Mal ins Französisch übersetzt. Das ist schon was Besonderes. Also, ich kann auch Französisch, also die Sprache. So, this is nice, actually the first time I'm... My talk has been translated into French and I speak French myself, so I'm definitely going to listen to that. Later on, we're talking about the German language, though now here in particular, the language of populists. I'm going to show you some video clips, if there's something to be learned from that. Maybe you can also look at the journalists, really concentrating on their interview partners, watch what they're doing. There are some strange conversation situations, and so the way in which you ask questions, maybe even surprising questions will heal surprising answers. But first of all, let's talk about what is a populism. So, I'd like to start out with a clip just to give you an impression, but I will give a more abstract definition later on. But we get this first explanation here. My criticism is that you don't speak the truth about refugees. No, you don't speak the truth. Ever since this whole drama started, why are you here tonight? Because this is all bullshit. What exactly? What exactly? Germany is turning into an Islamic State, and the poor Christians who are dying down there, head off. If you know the Holy Quran, you would know that the Quran is horrible towards Christians. You do realise that a lot of refugees from Syria and Iraq, they're fleeing bombs, they're fleeing torture. Well, why are they fleeing? They should stay at home and rebuild their country. In war. Well, we used to have a war. Did we run away? We rebuilt our country, and we didn't go elsewhere and whined. So, you can see what this is about and how it works. The truth is a very important subject, and we're going to come back to that. It's about simple certainties that are being sold as truths. And it's about fear that is being mangled, dystopia. So, refugees, threats. And this is a very important point of populism in a very narrow sense. In a broader sense, you could say populism, yeah, political parties are always populist in some way. But we're talking about something more specific. It's about the simple certainties about fears and about simple solutions. This whole thing started with the Euro, when the common currency was introduced. These days it's more, you know, out with the refugees, and then we'd be fine. But that can't be right, can it? Because, you know, what would happen if we didn't have the Euro, we might have more problems? Lower taxes is another thing that people often want or Merkel has to go. And all will be well. But who would be next? Seehofer, who's even more conservative? Gabriel, the head of the Social Democrats? von der Leyen? Ja, okay. Das ist immer das Problem. Und, there are other problems. So, it's obvious that something always has to go. And there's always an exclamation mark somewhere. Something has to go, and then suddenly all will be well. But, of course, that's not how it works. Of course, what I want to speak about most is right-wing populism. And there are three criteria here. Right-wing populism is often about the right of the majority, right of the strongest, which is supposed to rule. Then people want a strong state. They want law and order. That's something that many parties, many right-wing parties have in common. They want to institute law and order. And then there's blame, blame that is being assigned to an unspecified minority, a despecified minority, sorry. Ausländer, die gleichgesetzt werden mit Flüchtlinge, natürlich sind sie genauso in der Flüchtlinge. Foreigners are supposed to be equal to refugees. They are equal to Muslims. And they are equal to Islamists. And they suddenly become equal to terrorists. So suddenly, I mean, of course, none of these things are equal. But at the end of the day, foreigners are the same thing as terrorists. There are some other variants of this. There is one variant of this, which is a libertarian variant. That's not about the right of the majority, but the right of the people, the strongest if you will. And they don't want a strong state. It's just about lowering taxes. How those are connected is not quite clear. And there are other despecified minorities. For instance, people who receive public benefits. So, someone from the Conservative Party told me earlier this year that public officials are to blame because they don't pay health insurance, which is weird, because I'm one of them and I do, but anyhow. And then there's left-wing populism, which is a bit of an odd name, because it's the right-wing, if you ask me. So, they claim also to have the right of the majority. They also want a strong state. Of course, it's obvious that there are few rich people and lots of not rich people, but if you ask them who these 1% or not 0.1% are. They always say that it's the rutschits and that's a bit bizarre. And of course, the financial system is supported by lots of people who have states and companies or who receive retirement money or pay to the retirement funds. And talking about speech, there is one important aspect that we've already been talking about. The tsunami of refugees. So, people have been speaking of a tsunami or an avalanche or a wave or a crisis. And the further you go down this list, the more hits you find on Google if you search for it. So, the refugee crisis has become the common term. And the hypothesis that I would like to put forth is that this is how the language of populists comes into, turns into common language. Because refugee crisis, so the common term might not be as crass and as much of a dysphemism as tsunami, but it's still something that dehumanizes a minority. And that depicts reality in a certain way, which ends up in claims such as this, people who feel foreign in their own country, which is of course a paradox, because your own country is the country in which you are not a foreigner. So, the definition of foreigner simply doesn't fit with this definition. But these paradoxes are something that always shows up and this is something you're going to see some, couple more times tonight. And there are some words that I've been, that I've called bent words, because they've been bent out of recognition. You cannot recognize them instantly. And it takes some thought to understand their something exceptional that is used in a right-wing context. The first of these is ethno-pluralism, which sounds great at first glance. What does it mean? It's, of course, used for a fighting term, if you will. And people claim that, yeah, of course we like pluralism, but all the ethnicities, they where they belong. So of course the Africans should stay in Africa. Another term that I didn't understand at first was Train-Station-Klappers, or Train-Station-Applauders. And it's not, it's the refugee-welcome-Klappers. It's people who welcome refugees who come to Germany. So there are some strong semantics that you don't understand, if you don't belong to that particular filter battle bubble. And then there are reinterpretations, where people take words and turn them into a different interpretation. They use a different interpretation of these words, where people are suddenly convinced by arguments, because they don't fully understand them. One of these is democracy. It's something you often hear, especially also in the videos that I'm going to show you. People ask for more democracy, and of course that's something that everybody would want. But if you look at it more closely, then people use certain lights of, you know, etymological, lights of hand. So it comes from demos, so we want them, the Greek demos, the sense of people. And these people turn this into, we are the people, and this turns into we want to rule. But of course democracy also means, to support minorities, to protect minorities. But this is something that this turns on its head, where, you know, which wants to institute a rule of the majority. They want to, they want to remove power from elites, but this is part of a democracy, where, you know, certain people are delegated to take responsibility for everyone. Another term is truth. What does truth mean? The truth is what the dictatorship of minorities und what the dictatorship of the opinion and the press with their lies tries to suppress. So it's as if, something that is being suppressed is, turns into truth simply because it is being suppressed, which is silly of course. So people want truth and they want freedom of speech als opposed to censorship, which is apparently to be found everywhere. So freedom of speech is being turned on its head, and it's being interpreted as protecting your own opinion. We're going to listen to this now. It's from the same TV show. Die Presse kann doch hier weg. The press can go and fuck off. And that gives him the right to push me. No, that's not okay. Well, that at least. But you're reporting. No, there's no need for you reporting, because you don't tell the truth. But if we don't report, then you're going to tell us that we're censoring you. But your reports aren't objective. So what are you missing? So please, that's just what I wanted to say. Oh well in that case. So what is truth? Not yours. But what's your truth? I don't even know what mine is. Listen to this. This is the truth. And not what our politicians are doing. They're politicians too. But they're not part of the government. So what is your truth again? Listen to this. I don't get it. Let's not do this. What could the solution look like? So obviously, well truth is that, which is being oppressed. So if it's censored, that is what must be the truth. So that's what is revealed here. Remember 1984, war is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. So you can say ignorance is strength. And that's also the subtitle of my next part, where you can also see semantic shifts or changes in meaning. So good-mensch, that just means a good person, but has been changed in its meaning. So if you look at the Google Trend Search here, the term has been in existence for a while, of course, as a political term. But in the recent years, you can really see the development in 2012 to 14. There's a real peak in 2014. So basically, the original idea was that this is a kind of naive idealistic person, le bonhomme in French, benevolence basically. But this has completely turned around. So now the good-menschen are the bad guys. So they've become, the good people have become spokespeople of the man of the bad guys. And to make things worse, they are using, well, the language, the politically correct language, another negative image. And also a battle cry just to make a statement and say, we are against this politically correct terminology, which is a political term in itself, of course. So I just looked through a few examples of this, for instance, Tolerance-Fascism, Language-Fascism. But the sad thing is, I just found no instances of Tolerance with the correct spelling. It was always with the double L, which is why I indicated it in brackets here. So a while ago a journalist asked me, how do you recognize fake news? And I replied, well, actually the typos and the grammar errors are quite a good indication, but of course the obverse doesn't necessarily. It doesn't work the other way around necessarily. So I don't want to bash people with spelling weakness and I have tendencies towards that myself. But I think you can observe that if you are not that strong a writer in terms of grammar, well, the thing to do is that to have at least another person look at it and usually there are correction mechanisms in place, at least in published texts. And if these errors go all the way through, you can, well, assume that it might be fake news. Another term, which has been turned into a very negative ideological term is gender and all related expressions gender mainstreaming, for example, which basically just means making gender as an issue visible in policy in public. But what we see here is that something very specific is also referenced here. Genderism, there are isms made out of this ideology and gender madness and even gender fascism. So this is the discourse environment. So, well, what do these people actually mean by fascism? Are they talking about one gender being repressed, discriminated against? No, we're talking about language. So, for instance, as gender mainstreaming supposes we can make differences in gender visible in language, in choices of pronouns, for example, and that even is, well, referred to as gender fascism. So, another interesting word. Strangely enough, early sexualisation is this expression. Strangely enough, sexualisation as such, as a standalone word, doesn't exist as much only in this combination. And again, the Google Trends, 2006, there was a discussion in Switzerland in the German speaking countries, but then 2011, you can see it's increasing and it was picked up from right-wing sides. This was all about, well, basically, education, sex ed at school. And this was the beginning of this discussion, people talking about children being sexualised too early on. But why are we talking about, well, making something sexual, but why early sexualisation? So, you're just alleging or dropping hints that there's something to do with, there's some stigma attached, something to do with pedophiles or kids being abused somehow. But no, the whole talk is just about sex ed in schools. So, Fölkisch, a very difficult term that suddenly reappeared in the discussion of the basis of this adjective as Fölk, the people, the population of a nation state. And it goes back to the German Enlightenment, Philosoph Fichte, 18th, 19th century und Fichte said that Fölkisch, the Deutsch, the word for Deutsch, German, he traces back to the old Germanic diota, which also means people. So, the Deutsch actually means the German, the adjective Deutsch, he claims, goes all the way back to the word for population. So, he claims that Fölkisch is actually synonymous with Deutsch, German. So, used synonymously with National, for instance, or pertaining to the German nation state. But, of course, in the 20th century this expression was, well, made another development. You can see here in the, around the First World War, or this was also used in the context, in an antisemitic sense, to mean explicitly, not Jewish, not Semitic. And, of course, you can see in the 1930s or 40s, well, the increased importance of this terminology in National-Socialism. So, 2016 looks quite similar, so you can see a similar peak in 2000, mid-2016, so you have a bit of discussion, something happened, and then there's a bit of debate around it, and then it just kind of peaters out and disappears from the discourse. Well, another related term where things develop differently, but you can also see the word folk in here in Umfolkung, so this means re-folking, re-peopeling an area, so geographically is the implied meaning. Well, I'll get to that, but what happens now is, in recent times, Umfolkung ist used as a terminology to replace the more generic terms for overpopulation. So, the whole idea of a populace and turning this into politics, into policy, of course goes back to international socialism, someone called Albert Brackmann, and there were, of course, suggestions to Germanize, to clear up a populace, basically, or actively make people move, that's what the Umfolkung refers to, people literally moving around to get back to where they apparently or allegedly belong. So, but what's new is that this discussion is being led again, that people moving here, the composition of the population changes and the spin is now that, in Germany and Austria, these shifts in population are happening, so suppose it, well, active move, but this victim role is very interesting in this Volk and repopulation context, and we'd like to hear some quotes here directly from Pigida. So, again, we are going to hear the truth from the interviewee, so... Well, what is it what you want? Well, people have to be enlightened, people have to be informed that we don't have a sovereign government that they're all under orders from Tel Aviv and Washington, and we're being governed by a Jewish lobby, that's not populism, that's fact, and the Democrats are financing the Democrats, but with what right is the population being switched around, being exchanged, even if we don't have the sovereignty and if even academics have to move from one internship to the next, that's all the economic lobby to blame. How many times shall I apply? Well, how is that to change? Well, look at what's coming from the people. I was defamed, I was criticized for saying you should catch all the refugees in the Mediterranean already, and you know what people said, they said, I was a Nazi, but the Australian government is already doing that all the time. Is anyone calling them Nazis? Is all Australia Nazi? And well, if someone comes here, we have to have a perspective, we don't have that perspective, but we don't have any space and we don't have any jobs. I have a look around, so 70, 80%, not even Germans. I don't have anything against other nations or cultures, but it's impossible that all the wars from the Islamic State are being fueled by the United States, and if you publish this interview, well, I'm really interested if you're going to keep your job. Thank you. So, finally the truth, now we know it. George Soros notably important to remember that he didn't support Trump and Soros actually didn't support, well, and his name isn't Jewish, etc., but so it's all a conspiracy. But what we're seeing here from this speaker is that he's trying to get behind something to get to the bottom of something. And so people do enjoy practicing a bit of etymology, going to the roots of words and right populists like to do this as well. So there's another expression, false etymology, and interestingly enough in German you say, that's a Folk, Folk. Etymology, so basically we have, the example we had before Folkisch is not exactly the adjective to Folk to people, so... And we have the story here with an sovereign nation of Germany. It's a well-known conspiracy theory, that Germany is not in fact a country, but an enterprise. And they have the strangest claims, like saying that for instance the ID card, der Personal ausweist, well, is called that way because we're all employees in the Germany business. So let's get to the bottom of this with somebody who qualifies as a populist at least in this instance. This is Seehofer, the head of the Bavarian Conservative Party. The readers of my blog Neuspräch.org know the solution already because accidentally I published the article before this talk. But we're going to see, we are convinced that this big historic task of integrating refugees into our country and that the popular support is not going to be available unless we cap the influx of refugees. Funding applause, apparently everybody agrees with him. Seehofer and Angela Merkel have always found a solution to everything. If this is going to be the motto of the coming weeks, then you'll be warmly invited back. I have to show you the rest of this. So they were talking about a cap, about an upper limit. And you hear this and you think, right-wing people think, Seehofer, he's trying to keep out refugees. He's trying to limit the influx of refugees and that might motivate them to vote for his party. But that's not exactly what he means. We published this on our blog on the 7th of December and then a week later, Seehofer explains what he means. But it's still not very obvious because it's been covered up with other things he says that are going to make headline news. But what he actually means becomes obvious. So it was not just the Chancellor and many people in your party said that there is not going to be a cap, but he said it has to become part of, you know, it has to become part of our government. Well, ever since I've been a politician, people have told me this is not going to happen. And then at the end of the day, it actually does happen. For more than a year, I've offered the federal government to send the various police people to patrol the borders und to be denied this all the time. But suddenly they asked us to actually do this. And this is going to happen in this instance as well. We are going to get to a cap. And this is a very important point for my party. And we guarantee the people that in case we're going to be part of the government, the people will be sure that this is going to become part of our policies. So, like, do you think this is going to be able to convince some of this? Well, yeah, we've had many, many instances of this, where the conservatives said, yeah, this is going to happen. And then it didn't happen, because it would have been unfair. And we need to make sure that this task, which concerns something that is going to happen, is going to keep, say, with us for many years, that we need to make sure that we can guarantee that our people that they're going to be safe. And this can be done by capping the influx of refugees. This is part of humanity, of integration. So about this cap, how can he say that? How can he guarantee these things? Well, he clearly stated in this interview, he said it's about capping immigration, which is not the same thing as refugees, because immigration is about integrating people and giving them German citizenship. And he wants to cap this, but that's not what this whole discussion is about. But this is what people here is something very different. The people who are in these right-wing circles, they're here, oh, good, no more refugees, this is great. But that's not what he was actually talking about. He wants to cap the influx of refugees, although he also proposes transit zones. But no, what he's talking about is immigration. But the people, right-wing people here, he wants to limit refugees. And of course, because of this, there's also no constitutional problem, because he's simply about immigration, not about refugees. So people hear something that he's not actually saying. And this is a bit concerning. Something else I've heard in a chat show and which shows that something went wrong is that multiculturalism has failed. But you can't put an article in front of it. It should be a noun, but it doesn't have an article. A bit like cyber. Cyber is similar to multiculturalism, because you can't put the multiculturalism in front of it. We need a category for these words. And I'm going to call them pseudo-nouns. That can't really be described as nouns and that makes it hard to know what they're supposed to mean. Another word, or another part of a word that I consider one of my words of the year, is critical, which apparently shows that populism is spreading, that populist ways of arguing are actually falling onto fertile ground. So this has been in very widely circulated German Newspapers. Words like critical of gays, critical of asylum, critical of immigration. It's easy to find if you Google for it. These are words you can actually find in our press. And of course they're wrong. There is such a thing as criticism of religion. It's something that people of practice who belong to that religion because they want to know what the true belief is. If you're critical of Islam, then you just reject Islam. You're not treating it critically. You're not thinking about it critically. Critical of asylum. That also doesn't mean that maybe they're not being treated or maybe the conditions in which they're treated aren't good. No, what you mean is that asylum is wrong. Criticism of homosexuality doesn't mean that certain aspects of homosexuality are better than others. No, it's simply hostility towards homosexuality or immigration, asylum or Islam. They don't call themselves hostile, they call themselves critical. This is very common language in the press. The same thing with concerned citizens or concerned parents, which is something that you can just, you know, read in the newspaper or here in the evening news and nobody questions it. Another interesting thing is that concerned citizens only appears in the male gender in German. So concerned parents are possibly hostile to homosexuals. And then there's of course post-fact or post-truth. And FIFA earlier asked me about some distinctions of these terms. Fake news might be neutral, but fake news like post-truth are, of course, weakened words, because fake news is not news, it's simply wrong information. It's simply propaganda, and post-truth is even worse, because it's essentially lies, but you don't call them lies, you call them post-truth. And there's an epistemological background to all of this, which is that there's a very important distinction between natural sciences and social sciences, because natural sciences wants to, while they use the terms antipak-Faktum und post-faktum about explanations that you can sometimes only have before, after the fact. about this weird debate of natural versus cultural and phenomenal Das kommt aus dem, wie Angela Merkel den Begriff beklärt hat. Angela Merkel würde das nach der Faktexplenierung wissen, weil sie Physik studiert hat. Also Post-Truth, ja, das ist in Deutschland verabschiedet, als Post-Factual. Post-Truth. Post-Truth. Im August 2016 kommt es zu einer Wiederaufnahme. Und dann gibt es eine Reappearance in September. 17. September. Und dann krebt es in Deutschland ein Post-Factual. Das ist noch mal sehr unsignifikant. Dann gibt es eine andere Post-Truth-Peak. Wenn Trump verabschiedet wird, dann reappt es nicht mehr. Und dann plötzlich, der Federal Chancellor sagt Post-Factual und alle Google es, und es gibt einen großen Peak und es wird im Jahr in Deutschland. Also es ist ziemlich objektiv, dass hier eine bestimmte Kondition übersteigt. Und es verpasst auch die Usage von Post-Truth. Diese sind nicht die deutschen Trends, sondern die weltweiten Trends. Also du erwartest Post-Truth zu Eklipsen, Post-Factual. Aber das ist nicht, was wir sehen. Post-Factual ist eigentlich Post-Truth. Also das Problem mit Post-Factual ist, dass es eben Dinge verharmlost und es minimisiert Dinge. Es softens Dinge. Es displays things that are wrong as simply Post-Factual and weakens them in that way. But it's a term that everybody uses it. And I've been hearing it even at this congress and it's, you know, you can, you read it all the time. Even though it's not really the right word to use. And I think where our political opponent is arming themselves, we shouldn't simply use their words. We should use stronger words. We should use Contrafactual or simply lies and this is something. This is a recommendation that I would like to make to you. So, on one hand we should question the Consents. If somebody comes up to you and wants to discuss with you. I had a panel talk that didn't go so well earlier this year. I don't recommend you to watch it. I sat on a podium. It was about queer politics and there was a right-wing politician who started, you know, an der einen Seite natürlich die Flüchtlinge in das queere Leben zerstören werden. Who told how refugees are going to destroy queer life and in order to protect queers you need to do something about the refugees. But he also said that early sexualizations is wrong. You don't have to teach children that there are different ways of living. So there was this double speak. He's hostile towards queers but he's also hostile towards immigrants and suddenly then in that instance he was pro queers design. You need to question what, you need to question the meaning behind it. When somebody says we're critical of immigration and they talk to them about it if they say the truth is being suppressed. Ask them what truth. I think there's a lot you can do here. There's a lot to gain and there's also a lot to gain in thinking about what you say. And this is not fascism. It's simply speaking in a more considerate way. Thank you. That's all I have to say. Oh, ihr kennt euch aus. Noch nicht rausrennen. Don't leave yet. We're not that quick. We're going to have a Q&A section. Who of you has questions? Does the internet have questions? Are there any questions coming in? Yes, we have questions coming in. Yeah, the internet is a bit slow. Micro. Micro. Is your ... ... ... BIO-Germann? In meinem Recherch ist mir der auch ... Ich stammeldegeleite passende ... Ich habe ihn dann nicht mehr ... Ich habe ihn dann nicht mehr ... Die Bio ist natürlich auch immer positiv besetzt. Bio ist ein sehr positiver Wort, für Beispiel, auch wenn es nicht wirklich einflühtig ist. Bio-Diesel. Aber in diesem Kontext, es bedeutet etwas anderes. Ortexanas, also das ist einfach, das ist einfach, das ist einfach, das ist einfach, das ist einfach, das ist einfach, das ist einfach, besser aus der Chile? microphone In meinem Korpo war es nur für diese Examinierung, weil ich nicht genau sicher bin, wo dieser Termin wirklich geht. Ich meine, ich schaue für Evidenz, ich schaue für die Indikationen der, wer diese Expressionen benutzt. Was ist das? Also ich habe die Intention von den traditionellen Medien, also nicht so sehr in den offiziellen Medien und Social Media, nicht genau in den standarden, größten Medien, aber ich dachte, ich war nicht zu klar auf die Semantik, und so habe ich einfach lefte. Ich kenne etwas von diesem. Ich habe es vor einigen Jahren gesehen. Die erste Person, die diese Sprache zu benutzen, war die politischen Semantik. Das ist all das. Ich schaue für diese. Ist es ein rhetorisches Pattern, das man benutzen kann, wenn man sitzt, mit Leuten, die sich immer sehr polemisch argumentieren, was ist das? Was ist das? Denen Sie, um ein Gespräch zu verzeihen? Oder um ein Gespräch zu verzeigen? Sie müssen einfach einfach leave. Was ist das? Das war das. Das ist das, was ich denke, die Bibel ist nicht, Well, there are limited options for communications, because if you want to exchange knowledge or communicate, you have to be talking about the same thing. So if one person says, well, if I say democracy, I mean this and that and the other person means something entirely different, I think, well, the solution is obviously you can't go away, but if you want to go there, I think it's important to ask very precisely and say, well, what is your truth? And if they said, well, not yours, and she asks again and said, well, what is it then? If something happens there, this is only an excerpt of course, but you can look at the entire clip on the internet. Well, just questioning and recapping and being exact. So, if then you get to the statement that the US is steering us and manipulating us, well, that's exactly the way to go. Einmal die Frage aus dem Internet, bitte. Das ist für die Internet. Die Internet hat several questions. The first of them is, are terms like post-factual or conspiracy theories, are they good for democracy, because they're an easy way to end the discussion, are they bad for democracy? Oh, it's me well. That is a difficult question. Also, ich denke, post-faktisch ist einfach wirklich ein gelogenes Wort. Post-factual in this sense, it's just something to avoid. Also, ich denke, du terminierst eine Diskussion purell, um ein Wort so zu benutzen, aber das ist ein euphemismus, ein euphemismus, und vielleicht sogar eine Möglichkeit, um die Diskussion in einem luftigen Weg zu halten. Ich verstehe deine Frage. In dem Sinne, wenn du sagen, das ist all Post-Truth, dann sagen sie, es ist all rubbish und wir haben nichts mehr zu reden, aber das betrifft, wie viel du investierst, wie viele Emotionen und Zeit. Do you want to make available for this? But the attention of certain speakers are something that are hard to assume and to just guess, do you guess work? So I think it's very important to know exactly what you're talking about and if in doubt you can just jump out of the debate. About the term post-factual, post-truth, it comes from an article in The Economist and it was about a certain style of politics. And the article claimed that truth is no longer important, it's simply about emotions. So is this about untruths or is it about new style of politics? Well yeah, this Economist article, yes it was about style of politics and also about this word post-factual, post-truth. But what I meant is the politics to be done or the style. I'm talking about the use of the word post-factual in the German sense. So there is a relation to fake news, although this is only first of all an adjective, a description of the political style, policies and emotions that have changed just in public discourse. But then, well, actually we're in the middle of populism already, that's what populism means, that you're doing politics with emotions. And that's what this new political style means, a populist style, working with emotions versus fact. That's what I had at the beginning, the simple truths, the simple easy convictions. Because that gives a sense of security or comfort. Well, I know I have my certainty. For instance, the high-rate, also allein seelisch machen, ist natürlich nicht die Lösung. Und das ist eben genau das Arbeiten mit Gesühlen, was man eigentlich nicht will. Independent income. This is something which I endorse, but the way it's talked about is, well, it's all going in the direction of fake news and how do you evaluate certain expressions, which you might as well call, live. Use terms like refugee crisis or refugee wave. I realized that the term refugee question has been cropping up more and more, which reminds me of the Jewish question, which was used by the Nazis. And the only thing I'm waiting for now is the final solution to the question, to the refugee question. Do you think that is going to happen? Ich muss mal nach den Kontexten von Flüchtlingsfrage suchen. I will look up the context of this phrase, Flüchtlings Frage of the refugee question, which is a question. But I do think even so, maybe the semantics isn't well as harsh, because just a question, just an issue is something which is a lot milder than maybe the crisis or the deluge. But of course that association is there because we know the Nazi terminology of the Jewish question. And I hadn't in fact noticed that, so thank you for that. Question from the Internet. What do you think is the reason behind the shift towards a more emotional discussion? The background is the strategy, of course. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough. These are people who, well, are going somewhere with this. This is of course individual party politicians who have their agenda. And our strategy is first and foremost provoking and getting a foot in the door, getting our little niche in this discourse. We have two sides. We have just getting topics into the media in a way to talk about phrases and issues. And also just the plain old provocation. Just saying, Furchish has to be a word we can use again. Make it great again. Hearing the criticism that public discourse is being prevented because people are using strong terms for other people that aren't very fitting. Also, people who are against marriage for everyone are being called homophobes or similar claims with racism, not homophobia. What do you think about this? Does this prevent discourse and how can I answer this if I don't agree? Das ist in der Tat eine schwierige Sache. Man, ich habe ja auch hier verträgt. Clearly a difficult question. Ich bin so etwas sagen wie ... I'm convinced that, well, people who, for instance, say I'm gay, critical. Of course I'm convinced that they might use another word, preferably. But it's a difficult question. So maybe it's worthwhile to look at who is the person talking there. Sometimes it's beneficial if you don't actually pick up that discourse and just make it clear. That's not the level I want to talk at. Or just ask an open question. What do you mean? What are you referring to? What do you mean by I reject marriage for everyone? And I am pro marriage only between man and woman. You can always look at what someone is saying. And maybe judge people. If people use a certain expression, they might be referring quite directly to the fact that they are against gay marriage, for instance. But to then say these people aren't gay, critical, I think this isn't accurate.