This isn't the reason why I am not that active in this sub-forum currently.
The first associations people will have is: political discussions online are not productive. Nobody changes their opinion, extremists take part of discussions, the debate gets heated, you become emotional just to shout at your political opponent.
But I am referring to something different. I think what we discuss on here feels often like a smoke bomb. Media, veto players und institutions already predetermine the topics we discuss in our daily life. Media outlets don't manipulate readers to have a certain opinion. There is no real brainwashing at least this is backed by empirical research in media studies in Western countries. (I am not sure whether that's fully accurate in all examples though...). It is more like media determines which topics people think about.
I have the feeling like everything we discuss on here is brought to the table media. Moreover, new media doesn't really function as balancing mechanism for legacy media. Such an idea was wishful thinking. It more seems like to me that new media reinforces in many instances (not all) the asymmetry of how topics are approached. Maybe the reason for that is that there are underlying incentive structures of how social platforms work and the self-interests of owners seems evident. At the same time complaining about it is totally different to changing one's own behavior. Though, there are also good reasons why people are locked-in into these media ecosystems. For example if you want to have first hand information about an event that just happened. You will read a lot of bs and that's part of the game and part of the problem. And media education doesn't make you immune to that. No matter how clever you consider yourself.
I am a frequent reader of the NZZ. It is a very conservative Swiss newspaper that is part of the culture war. The qualitative standards some articles have is very high. Some have low academic standards. However, you consume a worldview that is often very biased. I am a leftwinger and I try to understand where the talking points discussed on TV, on the internet, literature come from. And I have the feeling the NZZ is more of a subworker/stooge of right-wing thinktanks, universities, right-wing elites and big institutions. The goal is to shift the overton window more and more right-wing and I have to admit they are very successful with that. They play their cards way better than most leftwing players in the game. You can probably compare the NZZ to Unherd. I once read the wikipedia article of Unherd and it was founded by a right-wing political activist and a hedge found manager. The agenda is slightly different to the one of the NZZ: The NZZ draws a line when it comes to talking points in favor Russia and one-sided pro-Trump. The NZZ is nuanced articles that also correct the presented narrative this newspaper usually spreads. As a whole though it is clear what this outlet is doing. It wants to normalize the AfD as government party in Germany and agitate against leftwing elites.
I am not sure how common the term Metapolitik or "metapolitics" is in the US. But it comes to my mind when I think about the agenda of right-wingers. I will take the German wikipedia article and use a translator to make my point.
Metapolitics (derived from the Greek *meta*—meaning "after," "behind," or "beyond"—and "politics") is a term from political theory used in the analysis of politics. It focuses not on the practical implementation of policy, but rather on its theoretical foundations, independent of any specific state system.The term is rarely used in its original sense. Since the early 2000s, various individuals and groups have developed their own distinct interpretations of metapolitics. The term's use by the "New Right" is particularly prominent in this regard; here, metapolitics refers to the goal of achieving cultural hegemony—akin to a "culture war"—in order to pave the way for profound political change.
The Concept of the New RightFollowing a discourse analysis of right-wing intellectual media—specifically *Junge Freiheit*—conducted by the Duisburg Institute for Language and Social Research (DISS), New Right theorists such as Alain de Benoist use the term "metapolitics" to describe—within the framework of a strategy of "culture war" and a "cultural revolution from the Right"—the "production of an inter-discourse claiming to provide guidelines for nothing less than the 'meaning of life'." Drawing on Armin Mohler's notion that "spirit rules the world," a form of "Gramscianism" spiritualized by the Right is articulated here. According to Charles Champetier and Alain de Benoist, history "may well evolve from human will and action, yet this will and action always manifest themselves within the framework of a specific set of attitudes, beliefs, and concepts that give them meaning and steer them." According to de Benoist, the New Right (or the *Nouvelle Droite* in France) seeks to renew these concepts—in the form of "ideas" or myths such as "people" and "nation" for the "collective consciousness"—and to "restore meaning to life at the highest level through new syntheses," while offering a "coherent worldview [...] through a cross-connecting mode of thought." Roger Griffin views this as a tendency "to transform fascism into a purely metapolitical form." Similarly, the concept presented by Karlheinz Weißmann in the journal *Criticón*—associated with *Junge Freiheit*—of "occupying fields in the pre-political space" in order to "let information and a sense of life seep through an entire capillary system" is regarded by the DISS as a metapolitical strategy for "achieving cultural hegemony." According to Weißmann, *Junge Freiheit* offers a subcultural avenue for this, and "only a subculture guarantees the long-term realization of one's own objectives."
I sometimes have the feeling most political debates you see in media or on here are just theater. A fight of whose narratives sound the best. Real debates that should be taken seriously involve empirical data, statistics and an analysis of primary sources though. And I don't really see that this is a thing that happens on here a lot. And I probably contribute to the problem. I think most discussions in politics are about narratives, what sounds plausible, which team you are on, it has become part of one's identity online and admitting one's own faults feels like a personal failure and an attack on one's self-image. Part of that is probably that there are many bad actors online and in the media that want to take advantage of vulnerability. The media is fed by institutions, politicians, corporations, thinktanks. They offer a stage for political actors. Though, the debate is often curtailed from talking points that should not be discussed. It is very rare that newspapers address the biases of their audience if you consume the own publication and how massive consumption of newsmedia can make you disconnected from reality. You often hear that from online media that criticizes old media and vice versa. Though, the underlying problems of how media consumption in general distorts your perception is far less talked about. Then media also tries capure science to prove their point. Even though, many findings in science express uncertainty, contextual variables and underlying conditions far more nuanced. At the same it is also true that there is slop in scientific publications, conflicts of interests, biased in science itself like silo thinking and so on.
The talking points are set by a some powerful people that tickle their agenda down through the institutions, media, thinktanks. One problem the solution is not cynicism. Cynicism how I often perceive in discussions with American has something soothing. It gives you the feeling of seeing through that charade and being able to intellectualize the corruption. However, I think cynicism is responsible for debates that focus on scapegoats that actually distract from the powerful people who steer the agenda. Cynicism gives you the illusion of control. And it gives you the feeling to be superior to most other political commentators that don't see through. Psychologically cynicism is very pervasive and tempting. Especially, if one doesn't have hope for a better future. But accelerationists use such feeling to make the future far worse than you could ever imagine it. The solution is not to give in. The solutions had to be offered by the left. Leftwing utopias that are still achievable and that invoke the urgency of reforms. I am a pessimist in this. But this also has a strategical component. And to be honest I cannot offer you now a comprhensive solutions to all these problems in 5 sentences of this thread or whatever. My feeling is it has to become way worse until people finally realize of what is happening. But I am not sure whether it will be too late then...
The irony of this post is probably it is part of a narrative. And I am ciriticizing the clash of narratives with this post. And I don't deliver sources for my claims and had to be more concrete with examples. However, I don't really see a benefit in writing political thesis on here that is grounded empirical research. This would cost way too much time and effort. But it might be a reason why I talk less about politics on here. I have the feeling we often don't debate a bigger picture on here and get lost in media stories, and personalities of single individuals. A better version of this text would probably also be a lot more nuanced but noone pays me for that. And it would be a lot of work.
The first associations people will have is: political discussions online are not productive. Nobody changes their opinion, extremists take part of discussions, the debate gets heated, you become emotional just to shout at your political opponent.
But I am referring to something different. I think what we discuss on here feels often like a smoke bomb. Media, veto players und institutions already predetermine the topics we discuss in our daily life. Media outlets don't manipulate readers to have a certain opinion. There is no real brainwashing at least this is backed by empirical research in media studies in Western countries. (I am not sure whether that's fully accurate in all examples though...). It is more like media determines which topics people think about.
I have the feeling like everything we discuss on here is brought to the table media. Moreover, new media doesn't really function as balancing mechanism for legacy media. Such an idea was wishful thinking. It more seems like to me that new media reinforces in many instances (not all) the asymmetry of how topics are approached. Maybe the reason for that is that there are underlying incentive structures of how social platforms work and the self-interests of owners seems evident. At the same time complaining about it is totally different to changing one's own behavior. Though, there are also good reasons why people are locked-in into these media ecosystems. For example if you want to have first hand information about an event that just happened. You will read a lot of bs and that's part of the game and part of the problem. And media education doesn't make you immune to that. No matter how clever you consider yourself.
I am a frequent reader of the NZZ. It is a very conservative Swiss newspaper that is part of the culture war. The qualitative standards some articles have is very high. Some have low academic standards. However, you consume a worldview that is often very biased. I am a leftwinger and I try to understand where the talking points discussed on TV, on the internet, literature come from. And I have the feeling the NZZ is more of a subworker/stooge of right-wing thinktanks, universities, right-wing elites and big institutions. The goal is to shift the overton window more and more right-wing and I have to admit they are very successful with that. They play their cards way better than most leftwing players in the game. You can probably compare the NZZ to Unherd. I once read the wikipedia article of Unherd and it was founded by a right-wing political activist and a hedge found manager. The agenda is slightly different to the one of the NZZ: The NZZ draws a line when it comes to talking points in favor Russia and one-sided pro-Trump. The NZZ is nuanced articles that also correct the presented narrative this newspaper usually spreads. As a whole though it is clear what this outlet is doing. It wants to normalize the AfD as government party in Germany and agitate against leftwing elites.
I am not sure how common the term Metapolitik or "metapolitics" is in the US. But it comes to my mind when I think about the agenda of right-wingers. I will take the German wikipedia article and use a translator to make my point.
Metapolitics (derived from the Greek *meta*—meaning "after," "behind," or "beyond"—and "politics") is a term from political theory used in the analysis of politics. It focuses not on the practical implementation of policy, but rather on its theoretical foundations, independent of any specific state system.The term is rarely used in its original sense. Since the early 2000s, various individuals and groups have developed their own distinct interpretations of metapolitics. The term's use by the "New Right" is particularly prominent in this regard; here, metapolitics refers to the goal of achieving cultural hegemony—akin to a "culture war"—in order to pave the way for profound political change.
The Concept of the New RightFollowing a discourse analysis of right-wing intellectual media—specifically *Junge Freiheit*—conducted by the Duisburg Institute for Language and Social Research (DISS), New Right theorists such as Alain de Benoist use the term "metapolitics" to describe—within the framework of a strategy of "culture war" and a "cultural revolution from the Right"—the "production of an inter-discourse claiming to provide guidelines for nothing less than the 'meaning of life'." Drawing on Armin Mohler's notion that "spirit rules the world," a form of "Gramscianism" spiritualized by the Right is articulated here. According to Charles Champetier and Alain de Benoist, history "may well evolve from human will and action, yet this will and action always manifest themselves within the framework of a specific set of attitudes, beliefs, and concepts that give them meaning and steer them." According to de Benoist, the New Right (or the *Nouvelle Droite* in France) seeks to renew these concepts—in the form of "ideas" or myths such as "people" and "nation" for the "collective consciousness"—and to "restore meaning to life at the highest level through new syntheses," while offering a "coherent worldview [...] through a cross-connecting mode of thought." Roger Griffin views this as a tendency "to transform fascism into a purely metapolitical form." Similarly, the concept presented by Karlheinz Weißmann in the journal *Criticón*—associated with *Junge Freiheit*—of "occupying fields in the pre-political space" in order to "let information and a sense of life seep through an entire capillary system" is regarded by the DISS as a metapolitical strategy for "achieving cultural hegemony." According to Weißmann, *Junge Freiheit* offers a subcultural avenue for this, and "only a subculture guarantees the long-term realization of one's own objectives."
I sometimes have the feeling most political debates you see in media or on here are just theater. A fight of whose narratives sound the best. Real debates that should be taken seriously involve empirical data, statistics and an analysis of primary sources though. And I don't really see that this is a thing that happens on here a lot. And I probably contribute to the problem. I think most discussions in politics are about narratives, what sounds plausible, which team you are on, it has become part of one's identity online and admitting one's own faults feels like a personal failure and an attack on one's self-image. Part of that is probably that there are many bad actors online and in the media that want to take advantage of vulnerability. The media is fed by institutions, politicians, corporations, thinktanks. They offer a stage for political actors. Though, the debate is often curtailed from talking points that should not be discussed. It is very rare that newspapers address the biases of their audience if you consume the own publication and how massive consumption of newsmedia can make you disconnected from reality. You often hear that from online media that criticizes old media and vice versa. Though, the underlying problems of how media consumption in general distorts your perception is far less talked about. Then media also tries capure science to prove their point. Even though, many findings in science express uncertainty, contextual variables and underlying conditions far more nuanced. At the same it is also true that there is slop in scientific publications, conflicts of interests, biased in science itself like silo thinking and so on.
The talking points are set by a some powerful people that tickle their agenda down through the institutions, media, thinktanks. One problem the solution is not cynicism. Cynicism how I often perceive in discussions with American has something soothing. It gives you the feeling of seeing through that charade and being able to intellectualize the corruption. However, I think cynicism is responsible for debates that focus on scapegoats that actually distract from the powerful people who steer the agenda. Cynicism gives you the illusion of control. And it gives you the feeling to be superior to most other political commentators that don't see through. Psychologically cynicism is very pervasive and tempting. Especially, if one doesn't have hope for a better future. But accelerationists use such feeling to make the future far worse than you could ever imagine it. The solution is not to give in. The solutions had to be offered by the left. Leftwing utopias that are still achievable and that invoke the urgency of reforms. I am a pessimist in this. But this also has a strategical component. And to be honest I cannot offer you now a comprhensive solutions to all these problems in 5 sentences of this thread or whatever. My feeling is it has to become way worse until people finally realize of what is happening. But I am not sure whether it will be too late then...
The irony of this post is probably it is part of a narrative. And I am ciriticizing the clash of narratives with this post. And I don't deliver sources for my claims and had to be more concrete with examples. However, I don't really see a benefit in writing political thesis on here that is grounded empirical research. This would cost way too much time and effort. But it might be a reason why I talk less about politics on here. I have the feeling we often don't debate a bigger picture on here and get lost in media stories, and personalities of single individuals. A better version of this text would probably also be a lot more nuanced but noone pays me for that. And it would be a lot of work.
