Putin lässt tausende Conchita-Wurst-Fans vom Roten Platz prügeln

… nachdem das US-Major Label Universal Music (Achtung: Exclusivvertrag mit der EBU!) wirbt, dass bereits 100 Millionen Russen mit dem Kauf einer Conchita-CD ihre Zustimmung zur „westlichen Toleranz“ signalisiert haben… So in etwa werden die nächsten Schlagzeilen um den Eurovision Song Contest in deutschen Medien klingen. Das vorherzusagen ist kein Kunststück mehr. 

Conchita Wurst hat 2014 den Eurovision Song Contest für Österreich gewonnen. Obwohl sich kaum jemand für diese Nummer interessierte, wurde Conchita bereits seit September 2013, u. a. mit Hilfe des amerikanischen Propagandasenders Radio Free Europe, künstlich als „umstritten“ vermarktet. Anlass der Umstrittenheit ist angeblich Conchitas Aussehen als Dragqueen. Die westliche Presse begründet die Popularität dieses Aussehens mit nicht überprüfbaren Rankings des ESC und buchstabiert dem Publikum den Erfolg als einen weltweiten Sieg der  T.o.l.e.r.a.n.z  vor. Allerdings eine eng gefasste Toleranz, denn dem Rest der Welt werden damit zugleich eigene moralische Standards abgesprochen. 

Mit Gays gegen Gazprom 
Warum dieser eingefädelte Zündstoff ausgerechnet mit Österreich in Zusammenhang gebracht wurde, ist genauso leicht erklärt: Nach langen Verhandlungen unterzeichnete Österreich Ende Juni 2014 einen Vertrag mit Gazprom bezgl. des russischen Pipeline-Projektes South-Stream. An Russlands Wirtschaftserfolg drehen die USA durch. Es wird Druck ausgeübt auf solche Länder, die am South-Stream-Projekt beteiligt sind. Allein schon die Erfahrung mit dem ESC in Baku 2012 (auch ein potenzieller Gaslieferant Europas) lässt befürchten, dass auch diesmal über das Täuschungsmanöver der bunten Eurovision die Öffentlichkeit wieder auf die falsche Fährte geführt wird.

Das Drehbuch ist bekannt 
Um Russlands wirtschaftliche Beziehungen zu zerstören, muss Russland diskreditiert und isoliert werden. 
Um von den Wirtschafts- und Militärinteressen abzulenken, werden künstliche Anlässe geschaffen. Diese künstlichen Anlässe werden um abstrakte Begriffe geformt, die in unserer Gesellschaft ein hohes Ansehen haben, z. B. Spaß und Toleranz. 
Und damit wird ein Betroffenheitswahn ausgelöst. Die Initiatoren werden sich und ihre „Conchita-Fans“ als harmlose Opfer der bösen Russen inszenieren. 
Zu dieser Inszenierung gehört neben Desinformation die Einschüchterung, die Polarisierung und der Zwang zur Positionierung durch die Medien. Der Konformitätsdruck, der über namenlose Pressebeiträge an den NDR und in die „schwulen Eurovisionsvereine“durchgereicht wird, wächst beständig. 

Im Westen ist es nicht „wurst“, wer wen liebt
Auf RiaNovosti wurde mitgeteilt, dass der Hype um Conchita Wurst auf November verschoben wurde. Das macht "Conchita-Fans" in Amerika nervös, wie ein Newsweek-Artikel belegt. Ja, richtig gelesen: Das amerikanische Magazin Newsweek.

Ein bisschen Polemik zum Schluss: Ich schlage vor, Conchita präsentiert das neue Album im russischen Tschetschenien oder Dagestan. In Muttis Abendkleid und Perücke und mit Bart aus Kaffeesatz kann er/sie bei der Gelegenheit dort zugleich die Homo-Ehe einfordern. In der Hoffnung darauf, dass der böse Putin dann auf jeden Fall gezwungen ist, unvereinbare Weltanschauungen, Moralvorstellungen, Traditionen, Sitten, Gebräuche, Gruppen und Geschmäcker wieder auseinander zu dividieren. An diesem inszenierten Chaos kann sich dann die deutsche Journaille hochziehen und Russlands Ausschluss aus der Eurovision fordern.


:::

2011 - ESC-Fan Anders Behring Breivik: I hope Germany wins

On 22.07.2011 in Norway a double terrorist attack occurred. In the government quarter of Norway's capital a bomb exploded and short time later an attack was committed at a youth camp on the island of Utoya. A total of 77 people were killed. The assassin was the Christian fundamentalist and neo-fascist Anders Behring Breivik. 

A few hours before the final of Eurovision Song Contest in Germany 
Breivik wrote the following phrases in his manifesto: "Saturday May 14 - Day 13: It's the final Eurovision today I just love eurovision ... :-) It's a lot of crap music but I think, it's a great show all in all. I've seen all the semi-finals and will take the time of to watch it later today, online. My country has a crap, politically correct contribution as always .... ... 

I hope Germany wins
A few hours later it is not Germany, that does win the ESC but Azerbaijan. For Norway the 25 year-old Kenyan Stella Mwangi started and for Germany Europe saw for a 2nd time Lena Meyer-Landrut. 

With this quote Breivik outed himself as a prominent fan of the Eurovision Song Contest and as a fan of German Lena Meyer-Landrut. These statements indicate that there is an interconnection between ESC and an active but covered neo-fascism. In media, Breivik is labeled as a loner, in his mind he is not, he represents whole networks on the internet. A year after the attack, for example, the network Politically Incorrect has published his speech, in which Breivik once again justified his act of murder with referring to the ESC. Norwegian participants are called as “asylum seekers with Tatar background" and their popularity prove the "mental illness", “cultural obsessions” and “cultural self-contempt” of our societies and the need of immediate medical treatment. 

This case shows how the mix of deception with apparently innocent events (ESC, Olympic) and the label of “Pro-America, Pro-Israel" (PI, no German will dare to criticize them) with artificial scenarios and totalitarian fun campaigns à la Lena can easily get out of control. But this possible cause-and-effect-relationship and its dangers are concealed by media and politics. No one has professionally questioned what EBU and the German “Lenastheniker” (supporter in broadcast, politics, business, church and fanclubs called themselves Lenastheniker) “do so well" that neo-fascists feel attracted. What is aim and purpose of the whole Lena-crap? Only 1 German scientist, Ralf Steckert, has pointed out that with the German Lena-Schland-campaign nothing was "natural" or "amazing". 

Media and politics only evoke skepticism against the "evil Internet" and demand more control of domestic intelligence and secret services. After all information about NSU and NSA I think that's complicated. In a democracy I would prefer control of an enlightened and critical society. 

So I am still alone with my thoughts and questions 
No star or fan can make responsible for all fans. But in my opinion one should sharply distinguish from terrorism. To hush up this fan and his brothers in mind is unprofessional and can be misunderstood as consensus. 

Besides: What if Breivik had preferred Russia's or Azerbaijan's victory? German media, ESC-fans or German blogger Stefan Niggemeier would not have been silent. As they every year record any discrepancy in Russia or in other non-Nato-countries they would have certainly accused these countries (especially Putin) of murderous music campaigns and demanded collective punishment and exclusion from ESC. But in case of Germany they are ignorant and innocent.

And last not least: The fact that not even the Jewish community in Germany takes offense when a murderous racism is distributed under the label of "pro-Israeli" irritates me beyond measure.


:::

Voting arrangements of Eurovision Song Contest on the test - moral challenge and intellectual defeat

I. Introduction
II. Televoting
III. The Jury

Just before Eurovision Song Contest 2014 the Reference Group of the EBU announced “tighter voting practices”. They threatened non-Nato-countries with blocking and collective punishment - but then fell victims to their own strict rules. Jurors from Georgia and Azerbaijan demonstrated the deficiency of ESC-rules by presenting bizarre voting procedures. 

Immediately everyone screamed “fraud”. But then they hesitated with serving the sentence of blocking. Until now they seem to be content to declare the votes of the Georgian jurors invalid. German blogger Stefan Niggemeier even has additionally found out that the same should apply to his hated Azerbaijan. If I understand correctly, the judges in both countries have only awarded with 12, 10 and 8 points, the distributions of remaining points 8 – 0 were similar or just the same with all 10 jurors. 

The fact is that the set of rules at ESC cannot be used as a guidance either for the production nor for the evaluation of artistic performances. One could thus use the ESC-rules to rate a petting zoo or an exhibition of weapons. On the one hand the rules are only strict about a certain behavior concerning completing the "lottery tickets". To be precise: "Jurors have to confirm to vote independently". Beyond that Sweden had 2013 introduced an additional requirement: "Each jury member shall rank ALL songs which have been performend in the show." This rule only manipulates the ranking, but has nothing to do with evaluation, since no one will be able to justify, why his song number 18 did not become 23 or why number 20 isn’t become 19 and so on… 

Considering these two points Georgia and Azerbaijan voted professionally and in some ways even compliant. For their 3 best entries each juror will surely find a justification and concerning the other songs it is sufficient if they have run "indepentently" from each other to the copier. That their results now "appear as if ..." is indeed not their fault, but the problem of disabled rules. Who guarantees that the other countries and jurors have not throwing dice? And diced rankings are not more "fair" or "professional" than copied rankings. 

With the rules of ESC our world is reduced to the measure of a very modest imagination. Simple rankings from 0 to about 40 replace language and as arguments only serve points, optics and keywords. This is ok. But instead of concieving the ESC as a non serious game some members of EBU apply the rules of ESC as a Sharia. Terms are unleashed such as rigor, transparency, rule tightening, punishment, voting fraud, political voting, diaspora voting, vote buying, infractions, xenophobia, homophobia, rogue states and so on. This polarizes and builds up prejudices. At the same time these words pretend the need for experts and their superiority. But it is too bad if the attacked countries break the rules and invite:

"Block us, please!"
And that is exactly what Georgia and Azerbaijan have done, whether with or without intent. In any case, it works like a tit-for-tat response and exposes the hypocrisy of the whole voting procedures and its moralizers. 

Doesn’t German blogger Niggemeier know that these votings are irrational and that they are without value regarding music and assessment of music? Does an intellectuel blogger really feel clever when he compares lottery tickets of different countries? I cannot believe. In addition, he should have confined himself to Georgia. That he at every opportunity try to attack Azerbaijan, leads to the conclusion that his interest for the ESC and for music is only feigned. 

Consequently EBU, NDR, Niggemeier and fans should have demand to block Georgia and Azerbaijan with the same tenacity with which they glorify the strict rules. But they do not. Obviously their popularity depends only on creating images of enemies. Precisely in this sense they every year provoke and denunciate non-NATO countries. With the exclusion of these countries, however, they would saw off the branch on which they have made themselves comfortable since 2008.


::: 

Break the rules and fool Europe with Conchita Wurst

One of the numerous Nonames who is created exclusively for the Eurovision Song Contest and who has become known only via the Eurovision Song Contest is the fictional character Conchita Wurst. Now the function of this figure is clear: Diversionary tactic. The victory is supposed to represent the West as modern, democratic, fair and transparent, at the same time it is tried to attack Russia as an old-fashioned dictatorship - with gay propaganda. 

Let's take a look behind the funny gay facade of ESC 
According Norwegian, Swedish and Romanian news some music label plan to boycott the next Eurovision Song Contest 2015. With these foreign reports I rely on google-translate but nevertheless I will try to reproduce what had happened: 

Since 2004 Universal Music has the sole right to publish the compilation for ESC. So music acts which are under contract with another label are at a disadvantage. From the date of publication (April / May) they lose legitimate revenue. Now the EBU plans to sign an exclusive contract with Universal Music which awarded Universal the entire rights to the songs. Thus, the other labels even lose their revenue by streaming and donwloads BEFORE and AFTER release of the compilation. 

In Norway, Sweden and Finland the pre-selections are an important part of the domestic music market. Sony, Warner and DaWorks (the label of this year's representative for Romania) point out that it makes no sense for them to participate in the pre-selections under these circumstances. I'm assuming that this repression is the purpose of the contract between EBU and Universal. 

Until now I have not found an explanation by the EBU. Jon Ola Sand (Chairman of the Reference Group of EBU) as always rambles of "brand" and has patronizingly suggested that the EBU invests a lot of money in the contest and provides a platform to unknown "Nonames". I would be curious to know who makes such decisions, who legitimizes these people and in whose interests they act. Instead of that Jon Ola Sand refers to the "Nonames". In this context, it is probably not surprising that it is a popular and professional musician from Romania / Norway, who has already participated 2 times in ESC, who published this defect of an unserious contract with Universal: Ovi (Ovidiu Cernăuţeanu). 

The "brand" of the Eurovision Song Contest is just misnomer 
It has neither to do with Europe nor with music, and absolutely nothing with a fair contest. In back rooms completed exclusive contracts with only 1 US company breaks the rules of democracy, transparency, fairness and competition. European public and musicians are deprived of their rights and responsibilities. The only thing that still refers to Europe is that the ESC is co-financed by European fees and taxpayers and hosted by European countries for a lot of money. 

All this only for the benefit of a single U.S. company?


:::

Voting arrangements of Eurovision Song Contest on the test - The Jury

Part I - Introduction 

Part II - Televoting 

Most of the rules for the 59th edition of ESC are dedicated to the juries. The slogan of “transparancy” in media refers primarily to the jury. But what about transparancy in the rules? The more detailed description of the rules refer to a "Green Document", which is withheld from the reader: 

1.3.1 "Each national jury shall vote in accordance with the instructions included in the so-called "Green Document" and 

1.3.2 "The National juries shall watch the live transmission of the second Dress Rehearsals and proceed to vote in accordance with the EBU's instructions in the so-called "Green Document”. 

In 1.3.3 duties of the jurors are described, let me summarize: The jury votes at the dress rehearsal one day in advance. They have to confirm that they comply with the rules and vote independently. In each participating country the results of 5 jurors must calculate with a computer under supervision of a notary jury chairman, then write on a piece of paper and fax to "the Pan-European Televoting-Partner". Chairman of jury and notaries must be kept available during the show to be able to answer questions in case of any discrepancy. 

In 1.3.1 it is announced who can be a member of the jury: "Radio DJ, artist, composer, author of lyrics or music producer." In contrast to the composition of the Reference Group the EBU wants to balance "in terms of gender, age and background." (6 years we were fooled with a jury of amateurs and now they thought about their composition?) However, this means that no music editors as in earlier times, no music journalists, no musicologists or music bloggers are expected. These jury members are depend on music industry, they are likely to be close to a music label, so they have to evaluate either their colleagues or their competitors. 

The names of jury members have to be published weeks before the contest. Also their results will be presented on a homepage after the show. If they depend on a music label they may tend to self-censorship. At any case with this regulation it is not clear how to judge independently and freely. 

I would simply like to point out that we are talking about an international music competition with different participating countries. Therefore the rules should offer a few criteria that are committed to the different "European" traditions and music markets. It should present a few guidelines that represent a challenge for singers, composers and authors. The framework has nothing like that. It is obvious that the use of the jury is to purely statistical purposes. While the audience calls for no more than 1 to 3 favorite songs the jury must bring ALL songs in a hierarchy. With 40 relatively uniform pop music pieces this is nonsense. Nobody will be able to judge why his place 23 has not become place 18 and so on. It is interesting that after all this year the professional juries of 2 countries already ridiculed this task. 

The jurors are only required to a special behaviour, but referring to evaluation of songs they can do what they want. Without any frame it is unpossible to make their evaluation understandable. For precisely this reason the Reference Group is free, too, to suggest an abuse. 

Unter paragraph 1.3.3 the jury is terrified: "If it does appear that votes are casted only in the intent to abuse the voting system or false to the final results or have not been under taken in accordance with the Green Document, the EBU [and partners] reserve the right to remove examined votes for allocating the ranks”. 2014 EBU again tightened measures for the jury AND televoter: “If voting irregularities are detected before, during or after the contest in favour of any represented country, the Reference Group will automatically initiate procedures which carry a penalty of exclusion of the respective participating broadcaster from the contest for a maximum of three consecutive years. Just as football clubs are in principle accountable for the behaviour of their fans, we will hold – on a case-by-case basis – participating broadcasters accountable and make them responsible to prevent voting irregularities in favour of their entry," said Dr Frank Dieter Freiling, chairman of the Reference Group. 

At first the rules have nothing to do with a music competition. Moreover the Reference Group of EBU seems to see themselve as a kind of Western Eurovision Policy. To me the rules seem a legitimacy for economical and political abuse.


Next:
Rules of Eurovision Song Contest - moral challenge and intellectual defeat


:::