Davids Medienkritik

America as a Nightmare

It took us a while to get the English version of Aspen Berlin institute Jeffrey Gedmin's article "America as a nightmare" in the German daily "Welt" ("Amerika als Alptraum"). Even though the piece was already published on March 1, 2006, my uninformed guess is that all of what Mr. Gedmin wrote is still true early April.

Don't you think so?

AMERICA AS A NIGHTMARE
What German High School Students Learn
By Jeffrey Gedmin

In a recent talk with high school students I was astounded what passion these young people have for the fate of Al Qaeda detainees in Guantanomo. I told them I would close the bloody thing. Still, they huffed and puffed. Der Spiegel froths at the mouth over this stuff (see last week’s cover story, "Amerikas Schande--Folter im Namen der Freiheit") (Link to Medienkritik's critique). With some 500 detainees, I figure the EU’s 25 member states could offer to take 20 Al Qaeda fighters a piece. I am not holding my breath. I recall a senior Schroeder official saying at a private dinner that his government was happy not to have to deal with the problem. Of course, even if we closed Guantanomo today, I doubt whether it would end the obsession with America’s faults, real and perceived. Let’s face it. Bad America news sells. I looked at headlines on U.S. stories in the Berlin Tagesspiegel over a recent three month period. Not a very scientific method, admittedly, but still I found a pretty good tilt: 38 negative headlines, 13 neutral and one positive one. I marvel each time I meet someone who has a balanced opinion of the United States.

I met another group of high schoolers, whose teacher asked whether the U.S. invaded Iraq so the Pentagon could test new weapons. A reader sent me the anti-American Hiroshima poem her young daughter was required to learn in school. A friend tells me of his dismay when he and his wife learned that their daughter’s English grammar lesson included sentences like, “America has many prisons.” It sounds like the Michael Moore version of life in America has taken hold in the German educational system.

I asked a school teacher friend whether he finds any of this exceptional. He hit me with a wave of additional examples. In reference to the 2000 elections, a 10th grade Berlin text book asks, how can a “developed nation like the United States fail to hold an election with a fair, democratic result?” Students get no explanation of America’s Electoral College system; or the fact that the Florida vote was later certified as fair by independent organizations. Berlin 10th graders also play a game called “the New American Dream Career.” No matter how you play, you lose. Join a rock band and you get hooked on drugs. Struggle with alcoholism, you end up with a Mcjob. Get sick, you end up bankrupt. Is the game “just meant to make people laugh,” the authors ask, “or does it have a message? Are career chances for young people in Germany similar or totally different?”

In Lower Saxony students who take advanced English are required to read “The Tortilla Curtain” by T.C. Boyle. In Boyle’s story, an illegal immigrant couple is injured, robbed and raped. They live the American nightmare. Here the text book authors ask students to discuss the difference “between slaves and illegal immigrants” in the United States today. You thought America was a melting pot? Another text book enlightens students that “the land of unlimited opportunities began to limit itself” long ago.

It would be wrong to suggest that nothing positive about the U.S. turns up in these texts. My teacher friend sends me one text, which notes that Americans “value independence, self-reliance and persistence.” Lo and behold, these are the same virtues, students learn, that lead to Americans’ “lack of cooperation, poor social development, selfishness and violence.” I hope to hear this week from anybody who can assure me that these are just silly, unfortunate exceptions. (emphasis added)

Medienkritik Gets Results: Helles Koepfchen Removes 9/11 Conspiracy Link

(By Ray D.)

Last week, Davids Medienkritik reported on a dubious German news site for children named "Helles Koepfchen" or "bright little head." One particularly troubling aspect of the site was a link provided on its "USA nation page" entitled "20 Lessons from September 11." The "20 lessons" provided by "Helles Koepfchen" as a resource for German children consisted of a litany of extremist conspiracy theories on the September 11 attacks.

We are now happy to report that "Helles Koepfchen" has removed its link to this lunatic-fringe site. Apparently, the pressure brought to bear by Davids Medienkritik and other blogs - including Politically Incorrect, No Pasaran and Achse des Guten - had a significant impact on the site's operators. We would like to thank those sites and everyone else who wrote articles, letters and emails on this.

Helles Koepchen Continues to Provide Biased Material on America to German Kids

Of course the overall tone of the site hasn't changed at all. A major theme of HK's reporting on the United States is that George W. Bush and other Republicans are to blame for everything wrong in America and the world. Now that is just what we call "fair and balanced news Germany-style."

One article that we discovered on the site is entitled, "Are Elections in America Democratic?" In order to give our readers a sampling of the sort of "news" provided to German kids by "Helles Koepfchen" on the United States, we decided to translate the entire piece:

"Are Elections in America Democratic?

The USA fondly sees itself as the "motherland of democracy." The Americans believe that through their elections system and their constitution that they live in a particularly free and secure state. They are convinced that the people decide who is to become president or governor.

Most of the people in the USA even hold their system for so good that they want to introduce it into all nations of the world.

But unfortunately there are a number of gaps in the American election system.

• Problem 1: Only the Majority Counts

In the USA there is a majority vote law. That means that in every state, the person who gets the most votes wins. When, for example, candidate 1 receives 2 million votes and candidate 2 receives 1.9 million votes, then candidate 1 wins. He then receives all of the votes of the state. That can lead to pretty unjust election results.
Here's an example:

	Candidate 1	Candidate 2
Location 1	2.0 Mil. Votes	1.9 Mil. Votes
Location 2	2.0 Mil. Votes	1.9 Mil. Votes
Location 3	0.1 Mil. Votes	1.9 Mil. Votes

According to American election law, candidate 1 won two states, candidate 2 just one. And candidate 1 is therefore the election winner.
That appears very unfair to us, because in our example candidate 1 was only voted for by 4.1 mil. people whereas candidate 2 was voted for by 5.7 mil. people.

During the last Presidential election that is exactly what happened: Although the Democratic candidate Al Gore received more votes than George W. Bush, he (Bush) was the winner. The majority of Americans also found that to be okay after the election.

• Problem 2: Not Everyone may Vote

In the USA there is no residency bureau (Einwohnermeldeamt). No one therefore knows exactly where who lives. That makes the elections in the USA really difficult. Because who should go and vote where? And how does one ensure that a person does not vote twice in different states? The American solution is voting lists, in which one must allow oneself to be entered. Most people who have already voted are automatically on the list. However many Indians and blacks are sometimes forgotten. In order to ensure that one can in fact vote on election day, people must allow themselves to be registered in their home city. Whoever doesn't go to the effort - or doesn't have the time may not vote in the end. But how do the local communities know that someone really lives there? There is no personal ID card - and few Americans have a passport. In order to prove ones identity, one needs a tax number or a driver's license.

• Problem 3: Electronic Voting

The elections in the USA do not run the same everywhere. In most states you have to make a cross on a paper ballot. The ballots are then counted. The results can also be checked over again. In some states there are also election computers this time. A large financial supporter of George W. Bush delivered them. The voters submit their votes there with the push of a button and the computer program takes note of the vote. At the end the computer immediately gives the results. Unfortunately there is no printout and no chance to check whether every vote was counted. A few hackers have since proven that it is very easy to trick the election computer. For that reason both parties have filed lawsuits against the election results before the election.

• Problem 4: The Power of Money

In the USA one can only become president if one can spend a great deal of money on one's election campaign. Because in a large, wide country one must be able to visit many people and win over their votes. For that reason all presidential candidates in the USA receive a great deal of money in donations from many large firms. Later the presidents show favor to the interests of the firms who have donated money to them. No president can therefore make policy against the will of the large banks, the oil industry and the weapons industry. Because at the very latest he would have no money to run for the next election. The question presents itself whether the president is in fact the true representative of the people who voted for him or the firms who donated to him.

• Problem 5: The Power of Television

In the USA the people watch a great deal of television. They therefore read fewer newspapers and books than we do here. A president in the USA must therefore come across well on television to be elected. In the process American voters pay attention to entirely different things than we do. So their president must be honest and likable above all. His family should be in order and he should be a good Christian. Confident appearance is more important than arguments or solutions to problems. There have been elections in which a candidate lost because he sweated too much in a televised debate with a competitor. It is indeed unusual when the better and more capable candidate doesn't win, but instead he who has a better television presence. But the people have the right to vote that way.

Problem 1. Naturally "Helles Koepfchen" fails to mention to the kids that many Americans were "okay" with a candidate winning the electoral vote despite losing the popular vote precisely because the electoral system is clearly provided for by the very document which defines American democracy: The US Constitution. Furthermore, the electoral system has functioned as a key component of American democracy for far longer than Germany has even been a democracy. If the people who run "Helles Koepfchen" really knew anything about US history, they would know that 2000 was not the first time a presidential candidate won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote. Back in 1888 (when Germany was still an absolutist monarchy - but not yet a genocidal fascist dictatorship) incumbent Grover Cleveland was defeated by challenger Benjamin Harrison despite Cleveland's advantage in the popular vote. The American democratic system functioned in accordance with the Constitution in 1888 and again in 2000.

Problem 2: Indians and blacks are forgotten? That must explain how Condoleeza Rice got to be where she is today while the German government (that paragon of democratic virtue) remains remarkably free of minorities. But who are we to criticize? This is a highly interesting analysis coming from someone who lives in a country where flagrant discrimination is regularly practiced against minorities in housing and where the police actively racially profile when they are conducting controls of individuals at the local bahnhof. Incidentally, many states do provide ID cards to those who request them in the United States, but why should we let a little thing like facts interrupt our little tirade against American democracy?

Problem 3: The computer company is a big financial supporter of Bush. Hint...hint kids.

Problem 4: Of course no one in German politics has ever been influenced by financial contributions or moneyed interests before. Bad America! And no US president has ever made or can ever make policy against the will of big banks, oil companies or the weapons industry!

Problem 5: Riiiight. The stupid slobs in America just watch too much television to know what is right for them. And of course in Germany, television has no impact on the people's selection of its leaders. In Germany, people select problem solvers like Gerhard Schroeder to lead them to great things and his media presence had absolutely nothing to do with their choice. And hey kids, things like sweat and image also have nothing to do with German politics since Germans are so clearly superior to the American friends.

Needless to say, we will continue to keep a close eye on these educators propagandists. Stay tuned...

Endnote: Here is the contact information for "Helles Koepfchen": Editor-in-Chief Ingo Fischer: ingo@helles-koepfchen.de, Business Director Andreas Fischer: andreas@helles-koepfchen.de.

UPDATE (February 11): Helles Koepchen has since placed the link to the "20 lessons" site back on its USA page. This time, however, the link is clearly labelled under the heading "conspiracy theories."

German Children's Site "Helles Koepfchen" Indoctrinates Kids, Threatens Critics

(By Ray D.)

It is a long and unfortunate practice in Germany: The political indoctrination of those who have yet to form a mature picture of the world. We at Medienkritik have already reported on a few particularly shameful instances of indoctrination from state-sponsored children's programs like "Lilipuz." But sadly, there are other groups, including a website named "Helles Koepfchen" or "bright little head", that push their political views on Germany's kids in the conveniently prepackaged form of "child-friendly" news. (Update: Quite appropriately, "Helles Koepfchen" in November 2005 received the "Erfurter Netcode" award for particularly successful internet based education for children and youths. The "Erfurter Netcode" is sponsored by the government of the state of Thuringia, the protestant church and others.)

One good example is an article "Helles Koepfchen" published on President Bush entitled, "Unbeloved President of a Beloved Land." Here the kids learn that German kids should be thankful to America for the "end of Nazi rule, democracy, rap music, fast food and Coca-Cola", but that America is an "inconsiderate superpower." They write:

"Inconsiderate Superpower

When Germany has so much to thank the USA for - how is it then that so many Germans can't stand the leader of the United States? The answer is simple: It has to do with George W. Bush's politics, that many people see as very inconsiderate. Because he allowed the entire world feel that the USA is the only remaining superpower on earth after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

The previous President of the USA, Bill Clinton, also had a lot of power. But, unlike his successor, he did not show it so openly. Clinton wanted to solve the problems of the world together with as many nations as possible.

George W. Bush, by contrast, really didn't care whether other nations agreed with his policies or not. He simply did what he wanted. In any case, he is the most powerful man in the world, and no one can do anything against his decisions. And he knows that too. That showed itself with great clarity during the Iraq War.

Violation of International Law

Actually, only the most important committee of the United Nations, "the UN Security Council", can allow the attack on a nation. When the Security Council, however, does not grant permission and a nation still attacks another nation - then that is a violation on the part of the attacker against international law. And that is exactly what George W. Bush did in the Iraq war. Except for a few exceptions, all nations were upset by Bush's arbitrary and inconsiderate action."

So according to this neutral and objective site for the kids, no one can do anything about President Bush's decisions. I guess the people at "Helles Koepchen" are a little bit too dim to understand the fundamentals of American democracy. Every four years, the American people are given quite a lot of power to decide on their President's decisions. And if "no one can do anything against" Bush's decisions, how come he hasn't passed his Social Security reform package yet? Guess "Helles Koepchen" has also never heard of the United States Congress, the three branches of government or checks and balances.

And if Bush "didn't care whether other nations agreed with his policies", why did the United States ever go to the UN prior to the Iraq War? The irony here is that Bill Clinton, the site's paragon of multilateral diplomacy, also went to war without UN permission in the Balkans...with German assistance! That's right! If we follow the logic put forth by "Helles Koepfchen", then Germany was also in violation of international law when it became militarily involved in the former Yugoslavia. Wonder if the site has informed the kids that their own nation and leaders were just as "arbitrary" and "inconsiderate" as mean old President Bush?

Not surprisingly, the article goes on a rant about torture and Kyoto. In another article entitled "Austrians don't want 'Arnie' anymore", "Helles Koepfchen" also derides Governor Schwarzenegger for the Tookie Williams execution. In other words, the site's reporting on the United States is essentially a gallery of left-wing propaganda neatly spliced together for the little indoctrinees. And it gets much worse...

Helles Koepfchen: Recommended Links for the USA

Another fabulous feature of "Helles Koepfchen" is the site's lexicon of nations. Definitely a great source of information for growing minds. Here is the nation page for the USA. At first glance it appears rather harmless: You have your basic nation information and a list of recommended links. But one of the links recommended is really quite extraordinary. It's called: "20 Lessons from September 11." Here's a translation of a few excerpts:

"The WTC Conspiracy LIII

The anniversary of the events is nearing, time to summarize, what we learned in the first school year "WTC-Conspiracy."

1) We learned that the "war on terrorism" from Bush & Co. does not serve the purposes of capturing those responsible for 9/11, but instead an ongoing campaign for the establishment of a global Pax Americana, if necessary through violence.

2) We learned that Bush & Co. were allegedly totally surprised by the attacks, but were already able to name the 19 hijackers and their mastermind Bin Laden a day later. To this day no evidence admissable in a courtroom has been found to back this claim and the true identity of those behind the attacks remains in the dark now as then. (...)

7) We learned that the big media are outstanding at fulfilling their democratic duty as independent, investigative powers when it comes to major criminal acts such as sex with an intern or the private use of bonus miles by politicians - but when acceptable sins like the terror attacks on 9/11 happen, they all immediately let things be and degenerate into a pure propaganda bordello.

8) We learned that it was made possible to elevate a perfectly clean conspiracy theory ("it was Osama!") through constant repetition on all channels with the ringing tone of absolute, unquestionable truth, the basis upon which wars are led to this day."

This is just a small sample folks. There are 16 more lessons that sound just as loony. The entire list is a litany of insane conspiracy theories. And this is the sort of reading material that "Helles Koepfchen" recommends to Germany's bright little citizens of tomorrow. This just gives me such a warm feeling about future transatlantic relations...

Helles Koepfchen Attempting to Intimidate Critical Bloggers?

We initially learned of "Helles Koepfchen" from two of our partner sites, Politically Incorrect and Achse des Guten. Last week, Stefan of PI published a particularly critical piece (in German) on the children's site and soon received an angry and insulting email from Helles Koepfchen Editor-in-Chief Ingo Fischer threatening him with legal action for allegedly misusing images and logos from the site without permission. Not long thereafter, Stefan received a letter from the site's Business Director Andreas Fischer (a relation to Ingo?) demanding money and threatening to fine him 5,000 EUROS per day for every day he left their logo on his site. Below is a copy of the letter: 

And this is how Ingo Fischer concluded his first email to Stefan:

"It is regrettable that you obviously lack the journalistic talent necessary to work as an editor at a real publication. But luckily you do reach the other members of your social fringe group with your online blog.

With Friendly Greetings, Ingo Fischer"

Wow. The Fischers sound like such nice guys. Just the sort of people you want running a website for your kids. Not heavy-handed or vindictive in the least...

In a strange way though, Ingo Fischer is right. Stefan doesn't have what it takes to work in the world of German journalism: He doesn't hate George W. Bush. He doesn't loathe the United States. He isn't a biased left-wing lock-stepper. He doesn't believe big-government is the solution to all the world's problems. He would never link to "20 Lessons from September 11" on a site for kids and he would never attempt to intimidate political opponents with threatening letters and emails. He just doesn't have it! He must be part of some "social fringe group" and out of the German "mainstream"...

Note: Here is the contact information for "Helles Koepfchen": Editor-in-Chief Ingo Fischer: ingo@helles-koepfchen.de, Business Director Andreas Fischer: andreas@helles-koepfchen.de .
Just in case you want to let the cultural minister of the state of Thuringia, Jens Goebel, know of your excitement about the "Erfurter Netcode" award for "Helles Koepfchen", this is his e-mail address. Goebel is member of the conservative CDU.

Update: Erik of No Pasaran has also weighed-in on the issue. Here is his take.

Germany's Lilipuz: Indoctrinating Tomorrow's Little America Haters Today

(By Ray Drake)

One of the most sinister media programs in Germany is one aimed at an audience too young to differentiate bias and think critically about the political messages directed at it. In this case we are talking here about "Lilipuz", a radio news program broadcast daily for children at 2:05 PM Berlin time and sponsored by WDR 5 (West German Broadcasting, Channel 5), a public radio channel funded by German taxpayers via the German government. Just a glance at the "Lilipuz" program's homepage is a lesson in and of itself:

Question for German Kids: "Why is Sex Called Sex? The Answer is on Heart Radio."

And while the kids aren't busily learning the ins-and-outs of sex on Lilipuz, they are being indoctrinated and trained to be Germany's bright new generation of future anti-Americans. Here is the translated text of a recent "Lilipuz" radio broadcast (listen to the broadcast in the original German):

Americans at a Loss

Certainly you can still remember the terrible pictures from the Iraq war. Led by the USA and England, several states attacked Iraq. They justified that primarily with the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and threatened others. Today we know, that that is not true. And why are we reporting about it today? Barbara Paeffgen:

"The Iraq War is indeed over. But there is still no peace. One repeatedly hears of attacks, kidnappings, injuries and deaths.

The land and its people are totally agitated and simply find no way to keep peace. And the American and English troops find themselves in the middle. They are supposed to ensure justice and order, however many Iraqis don't want them in their land."

In America the people are also slowly getting angry. Many want to pull the American troops out of Iraq. Why won't they do that?

"The American government under President George Bush doesn't know at all how it will get out of Iraq. It is totally at a loss. That is why President Bush is talking up the situation in Iraq (putting makeup on a pig).

The American Defense Minister Donald Rumsfeld doesn't even want to talk about insurgents anymore and wants that nothing more negative is written about the American military.

Critics hold that for the totally wrong direction because it does nothing to change the situation."

What critics are they talking about exactly? They obviously missed the fact that the vast majority of Iraq's states are, in fact, largely peaceful and stable and that the lack of peace is limited to the central Sunni sector of the nation. The broadcast also totally failed to mention any of the positive things happening in Iraq. What about the new roads, schools, businesses, newspapers, hospitals and power plants? What about the elections and constitution? What about the increasing prosperity in much of Iraq? What about the declining infant mortality rates? Is there some law against reporting on positive things happening in Iraq in the German media? It would certainly seem so...

And President Bush certainly did not sound as if he were "at a loss" with regard to the Iraq situation in his speech to the Naval Academy this week. Here are a few excerpts from the President's speech:

"As we fight the enemy in Iraq, every man and woman who volunteers to defend our nation deserves an unwavering commitment to the mission -- and a clear strategy for victory. A clear strategy begins with a clear understanding of the enemy we face. The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists. The rejectionists are by far the largest group. These are ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, who miss the privileged status they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and they reject an Iraq in which they are no longer the dominant group. (...)

To achieve victory over such enemies, we are pursuing a comprehensive strategy in Iraq. Americans should have a clear understanding of this strategy -- how we look at the war, how we see the enemy, how we define victory, and what we're doing to achieve it. So today, we're releasing a document called the "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq." This is an unclassified version of the strategy we've been pursuing in Iraq, and it is posted on the White House website -- whitehouse.gov. I urge all Americans to read it.

Some are calling for a deadline for withdrawal. Many advocating an artificial timetable for withdrawing our troops are sincere -- but I believe they're sincerely wrong. Pulling our troops out before they've achieved their purpose is not a plan for victory. As Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman said recently, setting an artificial timetable would "discourage our troops because it seems to be heading for the door. It will encourage the terrorists, it will confuse the Iraqi people."

Senator Lieberman is right. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a message across the world that America is a weak and an unreliable ally. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a signal to our enemies -- that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run and abandon its friends. And setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would vindicate the terrorists' tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder -- and invite new attacks on America. To all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge: America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your Commander-in-Chief. (Applause.)

Media Double Standards: Ignoring Lieberman while Lauding Murtha

And of course the German media has widely ignored the positive statements made by Senator Joe Lieberman (D) on Iraq while trumpeting the negative, defeatist statements of Representative John Murtha. This is because Lieberman's remarks violently contradict the prevailing ideology in German media and politics while Murtha's confirm them. The same is largely true of the American media. Murtha's statements have been headline news for days while Lieberman's statements on the successful progress in Iraq are largely sidestepped by the "mainstream" media. If German media had an ounce of credibility (which they don't) they would give just as much play to Lieberman's remarks (which they won't). In any case, here are some of the things the Senator from Connecticut wrote on Iraq:

"I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.

Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress. (...)

None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.

The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

The leaders of America's military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, have a clear and compelling vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy, security and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend their political progress against those 10,000 terrorists who would take it from them.

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week."

Senator Lieberman clearly demonstrated a high degree of intellectual and moral courage in writing the above, especially considering how members of his own party are likely to react. The intellectually dishonest ideologues who run much of the German media are certain to largely ignore Lieberman's comments because they represent a threat and contradiction to everything they have been reporting to the German people on Iraq for the past three years.

Peace the Lilipuz Way

So how would "Lilipuz" have dealt with Iraq? Of course not attacking would have meant more of the same sort of "peace" that prevailed under Saddam Hussein for over two decades (but of course WDR doesn't want to inconvenience the children with that information because it doesn't fit into the anti-American, anti-England indoctrination program):

 

Saddam's Victims: "Peace" the Lilipuz Way

And just like their predecessors, elements of today's German state-run media recognize how important the hearts and minds of German youth really are. Americans, along with Brits and Israelis, can only view this sinister and shameless form of German media indoctrination with a sense of foreboding and dismay for the future. Perhaps the most upsetting aspect of all this is that the German government (and not some insignificant private entity) is sponsoring these profoundly biased programs.

You can contact the staff of "Lilipuz" here. Be sure to fill in your first name and email address on the left-hand side before composing your message in the box provided. To send, click "Abschicken".

(Here's more on anti-American youth manipulation in Germany. Scroll down page.)

Update: Check out this outstanding montage put together by Moonbattery and based on this piece.

Update #2: Erik of No Pasaran writes us that French kids receive a "much healthier and objective view" of Uncle Sam.

(You may want to cast your vote in this competition for the "Best European Blog" (Non UK)).

Manipulating German Youths / Manipulierung der Jugend in Deutschland

(Deutsche Version am Ende des Beitrags)

In this blog we have time and again pointed out how German young people are being manipulated by anti-American educational material. We are thus introducing an internet-based guide for teachers with clear anti-American and anti-Israeli leanings. The actual goal of the educational materials is naturally to influence young people.

“Schools on the Net” is an initiative of the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research along with the Deutsche Telekom AG (primary owner of the Deutsche Telekom: the Federal Republic of Germany). So it is not only completely taxpayer-funded - it is an initiative completely under the control of the German government.

Quote:

“Schools on the Net” wants to support teachers in their work with the new media through concrete online help. That is why there are various internet services and platforms from “Schools on the Net”.

"Teachers-Online" is a current online service for those who teach. Here “Schools on the Net” introduces a portal with service offers for lesson preparation and practice that are wide in scope, individually customized and school and subject specific. Centrally featured on Teachers-Online are the new media as well as the presentation of strategies for meaningful use within the lesson.

And here is an example of the “presentation of strategies for meaningful use within the lesson”:

The struggle for order in post-war Iraq

The war is won. The peace is not. To stabilize the situation in Iraq, the US is now bringing the UN into the game. However, they also don’t want to give up their own power and authority. …

Soldiers of the occupational force are dying daily in attacks by Iraqi resistance fighters or in military actions. … That wears away at the nerves of the American citizens, because up to now the government has always repeated that the war would be over quickly and that the number of victims would be limited. …

The American President had to admit in his speech to the nation on 7 September 2003 that he would need another 87 billion US Dollars from Congress for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is
significantly more money than the Congress has approved for the war up to now. …In the face of the new financial demands, massive criticism hailed down from all sides. Even Republicans were appalled and spoke with pointed and direct words to the President. In order to distribute the weight onto several shoulders, the US President brought the United Nations, who he consistently excluded until now, back into the game,. …

Because it now seems as if the USA can no longer afford its involvement, the United Nations should indeed contribute its part to the stabilization and rebuilding of Iraq after all.

“Teachers Online” offers its tried interpretations not only for the Iraq War, but also for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

A provocative walk along the temple mount in Jerusalem by the right-wing Israeli oppositional leader unleashed a wave of violence: The temple mount with the Al-Aqsa Mosque is holy to Moslems. Sharon wanted to make clear through his walk that the holy shrine is under Israeli authority. When Israeli security forces shot at Arab demonstrators, a bloody “spiral of violence” was set into motion: the Al-Aqsa-Intifada. …

So Sharon (right-wing: doesn't that say it all?) is the guilty party: He provoked through a visit(!) of the historical Jewish temple mount. And then the Israeli security forces started to shoot out of the blue – that is finally the long sought-after starting point of the “spiral of violence.” It is the supreme right of the Palestinians to violently protest against "provocative" temple visits of Jews. And of course it also plays absolutely no role that the Temple Mount is the most holy site to Jews (and the third-holiest of the Moslems).

What began with stone-throwing turned into a wave of Molotov cocktails, auto bombs and suicide-bombings. Every Palestinian attack was answered by the Israelis with an attack on Palestinian settlements. The homes of Palestinian suicide-bombers are, for example, systematically destroyed by the Israeli army. During the Intifada, Hundreds of people have been killed on both sides since 2000. …

What is withheld – as so often in portrayals in the German media: The Israeli army attacks the assassins and their terrorist surroundings (and not "Palestinian settlements"); the Palestinian assassins, on the other hand, consciously murder civilians.

…Although the PLO boss has distanced himself from the attacks, they continued. Because numerous violent groups have long since become independent and distanced themselves from Arafat, for example the radical Islamic organization Hamas. …

Arafat – we knew it all along – is innocent. The critique from the ranks of Palestinian politicians that hold Arafat responsible for the development: Unnoticed.

In December 2003, a new suggestion surprisingly became a part of the discussion in the form of the Geneva peace initiative. The plan was worked out by Palestinian and Israeli politicians in a private initiative with no official state support.

In any case the initiative shows that after decades of violence, and in a situation with nearly no way out, that there really is hope and that the conflict, which has held the entire world in suspense, could one day be defused.

The illusions of a few leftist do-gooders without political influence naturally have to be mentioned as a sign of hope. And oh yeah, Arafat is for it.

What is particularly outrageous about these materials is the refined, “soft” manipulation. Naturally the authors are striving for a clear anti-American and anti-Israeli influence in their materials – in the interest of their own success they avoid, however, crass or easily noticeable manipulation.

One almost misses the directness of propaganda-lies out of the old GDR (the former communist East Germany.) The 100% election result of Saddam also somehow seems more honest…

(Translation by Ray Drake)

A Spoonful of Antiamericanism for German Kids / Ein Löffelchen Anti-Amerikanismus für deutsche Kinder

(English translation at end of post)

Man kann mit der anti-amerikanischen Manipulation nicht früh genug beginnen, sagt sich das ZDF.

Deshalb bietet der Mainzer Sender im Internet eine Nachrichten-Seite für die Kleinen an ("logo!"), auf der im kindgerechten Plauderton die angeblichen Fehler der USA im Irak-Krieg erläutert werden. Für Außenstehende ist es nicht einfach, die Manipulations-Mechanismen des ZDF aufzudecken, zumal die entsprechenden Dokumente natürlich nur mühsam über das Internet zu recherchieren sind.

Beispiel:

Erfundene Beweise

"Es war der 28. Januar 2003 als der amerikanische Präsident George W. Bush das amerikanische Volk auf einen Krieg vorbereitete. In seiner Rede an die amerikanische Nation sagte er, es gebe Beweise, dass der irakische Staatschef Saddam Hussein Material für verbotene Waffen gekauft habe. Wegen dieser Beweise sei der Irak nun eine Bedrohung für andere Länder.

Also schickte Bush seine Soldaten in den Irak um Krieg zu führen und um Saddam Hussein zu entmachten. Die angeblichen Beweise, mit denen der amerikanische Präsident sein Volk überzeugt hatte, sollten von Agenten sein, die den Irak und seine Waffengeschäfte ausspioniert hatten. Überprüfen konnte man die Agentenbeweise nicht, und im Irak wurden bis zum Juli 2003 keine verbotenen Waffen gefunden. Also zweifeln viele - auch Politiker - an den angeblichen Beweisen.

Am 12. Juli 2003 musste Präsident Bush dann auch tatsächlich zugeben, dass die Beweise für verbotene, irakische Waffen nur erfunden waren. Genauer gesagt hat der Chef des amerikanischen Geheimdienstes CIA, George Tenet, zugegeben, dass seine Agenten es waren, die einen Fehler gemacht hatten.

„Kriegslüge“ schreiben seitdem viele Zeitungen, denn Präsident Bush und seine Agenten sollen die Geschichte mit den Beweisen nur erfunden haben, um Krieg gegen den Irak zu führen. Bushs Gegner sind der Meinung, dass ein Präsident sein Volk nicht anlügen darf und auch viele seiner Anhänger sind jetzt enttäuscht von Bush und seiner Art, Politik zu machen."

Tatsächlich hatte Präsident Bush in seiner Rede vom 28.1.03 eine ganze Reihe von Gründen für einen kriegerischen Konflikt mit dem Irak genannt - der Hinweis, daß (in Afrika) "Saddam Hussein Material für verbotene Waffen" gekauft habe, war nur einer der Gründe. Als Hauptgrund nennt er die sich über 12 Jahre erstreckende Weigerung Saddams, den Verpflichtungen zur Kooperation mit den Waffeninspektoren nachzukommen. Nach der Erfahrung des 11.9.01 ist Bush nicht bereit, das Risiko eines von Saddam unterstützten Terror-Angriffs hinzunehmen. Das Eingeständnis eines Fehlers durch Tenet am 12.7.03 bezog sich nur auf das Afrika-Zitat, nicht generell auf die verbotene Beschaffung von Waffen.

Das ZDF hat die wesentlichen Punkte der Rede von Bush nicht etwa in kindgerechte Portionen zerteilt, sondern sie verschwiegen und stattdessen eine bewußt verzerrte Darstellung zur Irreführung und Manipulation von Kindern geliefert. Die ZDF-Schlußfolgerungen sind nackte Polemik, pure anti-amerikanische Ideologie, präsentiert unter dem scheinheiligen Deckmantel der zusammenfassenden Aufbereitung für kindliche Gemüter.

Kampagnenjournalistische Standardprogramm ist das Zitieren von "viele(n) Zeitungen", die angeblich eine "Kriegslüge" anprangern, von den "Gegnern", die der Meinung seien, "dass ein Präsident sein Volk nicht anlügen darf", und von den enttäuschten "Anhängern" von Bush. Hier will das ZDF diffamierende Vokabeln in die Wahrnehmung von Kindern einschleusen, ohne selbst die Verantwortung für ihre Anwendung zu übernehmen. Man berichtet ja schließlich nur und produziert nicht selbst Meinung. Oder?

Übrigens: "Das ZDF ist sich seit jeher der besonderen Verantwortung und Verpflichtung des öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunks im Jugendschutz bewusst."

Jugendschutzbeauftragter des ZDF ist Dr. Gunnar Krone, E-Mail: krone.g@zdf.de.

Hier ist noch ein weiteres Beispiel für die Anti-Amerikanisierung deutscher Kinder.

(For English translation click "Continue")

Anti-Amerikanisierung deutscher Kinder (1) / Anti-Americanizing German Children (1)

Deutsche Version am Ende des Beitrags / German version at end of post

Certainly the most disgusting form of anti-Americanism in the German media is the manipulation of children. At the same time, it is the most promising method for the successful establishment of a lasting anti-Americanism in Germany.

The radio program "LILIPUZ," which is transmitted daily at 2:05 P.M. on WDR 5, brought a program on March 14, 2003 that presented the children listening with a close-up and completely one-sided view of the rottenness of the USA:

"USA violates human rights

The USA is still searching for those responsible for the terror attacks of the 11th of September. ... Up to now the USA has arrested many people because they believe that they belong to this (Al-Qaeda) organization. People who are dedicated to human rights are criticizing the way the USA is handling these prisoners ... US soldiers and the American intelligence service ... arrested numerous suspects who likely belonged to the Al-Qaeda terror organization. The prisoners should tell as much as they can about Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. But since most of them won't do it voluntarily, they are mistreated, beaten and even tortured. And: they have no chance to consult with an attorney.

Human rights organizations like Amnesty International find it terrible that the US government decides on its own when human rights should be upheld and when not. The way the USA is currently treating the alleged Al-Qaeda members is a violation of international law. Even if they say, that they only want to prevent further terrorist attacks."

The following sticks in children's' minds: the USA is torturing and beating prisoners. That's a violation of the law, but the Americans don't care about it.

On the 24th of March an "expert" on international law is quoted:

"Again today many people took to the streets to protest the Iraq War. And many national leaders of numerous countries think that it is wrong that the USA attacked Iraq. They think: The USA through this action violated the rules that almost all states have agreed upon with one another - so-called international law. Dietrich Murswiek is a professor of state and international law at the University Freiburg. I asked him: And did the USA really fail to follow these rules? "No, the USA violated them. America is not under attack at the moment. Saddam Hussein may be an evil dictator who has committed bad crimes and who also violated a number of Security Council resolutions, but that alone does not suffice to justify a war. The second justification for war is also not at hand. There is no authorization from the Security Council for the United States."

Of course the program completely fails to include the opinions of other experts on international law who viewed the Iraq War as justified.

On April 7, 2003, LILIPUZ suggests to the children that the USA wanted to push through its own interests without consideration for the rest of the world.:

"It appears as if the Americans also want to determine how things go after the war by themselves. Most European politicians see it differently. They think the United Nations should provide for democracy and oversee the rebuilding of Iraq. Because they speak for nearly all the nations of the world - the USA will probably try to push through just their own interests."

On April 11, 2003 LILIPUZ tells the children of "chaos" in Iraq, that it - following the logic of the program - did not exist under Saddam's "government."

"Chaos in Iraq

Chaos rules in Iraq. The old government is gone, but a new one does not yet exist. That means: At the moment no one is there to tell the people of Iraq what they are allowed to do and what is forbidden. That is why the people are simply doing what they want. They loot the offices of businesses or buildings of the previous Iraqi government and take everything with them that they can find: Chairs, televisions, refrigerators. The people even rob hospitals and steal ambulances or cases of medicine.

The Americans must see to it that order prevails in Iraq."

What "order" does LILIPUZ really want to see restored? The order of mass-graves and the terror regime of Saddam Hussein?

In Germany the Nazis and most recently the SED (former ruling Communist party in East Germany) thought it right to use media manipulation of children for the purpose of indoctrinating them with propaganda. The WDR places itself, with its one-sided, biased and manipulative reporting on its children's radio program in the same ugly tradition.

The WDR is a publicly owned organization, which, according to its information about itself seeks to "promote international understanding." A radio commission watches over the program to make sure it is following established rules and norms.

The director of WDR is Fritz Pleitgen, who was the America-correspondent at the ARD and reported - mostly negative things - from the USA.

We will continue to keep a close eye on the anti-American manipulation of children by the German media.

Translation by Ray Drake