« From One Atheist to Another: An Essay on Richard Dawkins | Main | SPIEGEL ONLINE: America Willing to "Accept Nuclear Catastrophe" in Europe »


There is a point where it makes no more sense to believe in dialog...At this point, it is time to end the debate from your own side as well (it has already ended since long from the other side).

I agree Alex N. I had "debates" like this in the past where I personally would come only with common knowledge, CNN/NYT sanctioned arguments only to realize after many hours that none of those arguments was deemed worth considering by the other person, if it went against his preconceived ideas.
You do this one time, two times, ten, fifty, hundreds of times, until enough is enough. Since I am not the UN, my tolerance for ill intended interlocutors is limited.

You know, often I get the feeling that people I talk to do consider arguments. However, 15 minutes of "Tagesschau" and everything was for naught. After all, they are wise and professional journalists, they have "experts", they surely must know best? If we can't overcome this wrong trust in the (objectivity of the) MSM, it probably will not possible to win people back to thinking for themselves. The only alternative would be to change the MSM, but I honestly don't see that in the foreseeable future.

Via Rantburg:

'Europe is increasingly fading away'

The rest of the world will not wait for Europe while it bickers over institutional reform and external policy issues, says Joschka Fischer, ex-German foreign minister, warning that the risk of it becoming a "playground" for upcoming super powers grows by the day.

Tempered by his time in the US where politicians are already looking to China and India as the next powers to be, the former politician-turned-Princeton-professor has a very sober view of the European Union's position in the world as it dusts itself off from recent 50th birthday celebrations.

"Here in the United States, I hear 'who is Europe, where is Europe?' They are looking for China and for India. Europe is increasingly fading away beyond the horizon in the Atlantic," Mr Fischer tells EUobserver in an interview.

"This is a development which is definitely accelerating, so when you talk with the [US] political elite, the weaker Europe is, the less interest you will find."

Relating a recent incident where a former Indian foreign minister came to lecture at Princeton and said that the 21st century will see three superpowers – India, China and the US – Mr Fischer said "I was sitting there and I thought, 'why the hell is nobody in Europe realising what is going on!'"...


How the mighty have fallen........he forsook Germany for the almighty US $?????

Sandy P, this is the same Joschka Fischer who was helping Schroeder to destroy relations with the US? I thought that he was happy with the way things turned out.

Is he running for some type of office?

Reading the article it sure seems like he is still drinking that Kool Aid.

It just does not taste as good as it once did.

He has a plan to prevent this. It is based on common and collective wisdom. I guess he has forgotten the french.

I strongly doubt that Fischer has seen the light, but it sounds like he's seen at least some glimmer. I don't know if I can judge by those words alone, but he might have lost some of the typical EU-bureucrat arrogance.

Leaving the EU "power" centers, getting out in the real world and watching the EU from a distance is a very powerful reality check. Even if Fischer awakens completely, he will be just another outside observer who watches the EU and asks himself "what are they thinking?". The EU-train is moving and nothing will stop it from going forward on the current course.

If we can't overcome this wrong trust in the (objectivity of the) MSM, it probably will not possible to win people back to thinking for themselves.

That's correct. There is an almost religious-like trust in the MSM and it's very hard to escape it.

The only alternative would be to change the MSM, but I honestly don't see that in the foreseeable future.

The only significant change can only come from within, IMO, and I dream of a time when journalists themselves will be fed up with the current ossified thinking of their guild and open the flood gates of diversified opinions. In the meantime, places like DMK can keep assaulting the MSM fortress of narrow thinking.

I found this excerpt from the article interesting:

"Anti-Americanism is the wonder drug of German politics. If no one believes what you're saying, take a swing at the Yanks and you'll be shooting your way back up to the top of the opinion polls in no time."

The Swedish foreign minister recently criticized Castro. The Swedish left was in a dither - they suggested that if he wanted to criticize Castro he must ALSO crtitcize the US (Guantanamo). Then he criticized Iran and the same dither ensued.

It seems that you are only allowed to formally criticize an "opressed" nation (i.e. one that the left thinks is the underdog),if you also criticize the US. Doesn't matter the nature of your criticism - you can always work in an anti-US jab somehow. Fair and balanced, you see.

Anti-Americanism is an ersatz religion. Global Warming is the liturgy.

Germans think they understand what they did to bring about the Great Wars of the 20th century, eg 'nationalism'. But they are oblivious as to how an 'ism' led them down that homicidal road.

Media propaganda coupled with a willing suspension of belief.

Yes, belief.

When Hitler said he was going to annihilate European Jewry, they didn't believe he was speaking literally. Kristallnacht was attributed to misguided thugs, not Reich policy. They blamed nothing on Hitler except their defeat for which the ordinary German could not possibly bear any responsibility.

This is happening again with a different 'other' - altho' criticism of U.S. support for the Zionist entity does make it a handy-dandy two-fer. The idea that had it not been for the Holocaust, there would probably be no Israel is an irony that escapes them.

Germany sings the same tune with different lyrics.

Mir - If you seriously think about media investment, why not try AM talk radio? The Mittelwelle is nearly unpopulated in Germany, and if you have ever wondered why the receivers still serve that band, it is because it is well populated in the U.S.A. The visible picture is not of central importance, as long as you get the story right you can still get the picture from a garbled source.

Hector - The bierzelt´n´lederhosen (or cowboys´n´indians) clichee is the kind of perception that will make it best through the flüsterpost. If the clueless are all parroting each other, the most easily imagineable clichee will prevail, and if alcohol is in the game, even more so.

As to Karl Marx, I am serious. Of course back in the blut´n´eisen days, when attempts to install the first transatlantic cable were still failing, Anglosphere meant something different than in the modern internet age. But read for yourself and see whether this European dissident is siding with the South or with the North. They really had to brush out some interesting details in their image of the godfather of their evil empire. For an American counterpart to this pocket of thought in the German ideology, I can point you to Lee Harris.

Sandy P - The taxi driver of Princeton can easily play the alarmist when legacy elements from his government are still are actively sabotaging German human rights policy - e.g. regarding Sudan:

GENEVA (March 30, 2007) - The U.N. Human Rights Council expressed concern over the situation in Darfur on Friday, but stopped short of criticizing Sudan's government. The compromise resolution passed by consensus without a vote after Germany agreed to remove any mention of holding Khartoum responsible for the "armed attacks on civilian population and humanitarian workers, widespread destruction of villages, and continued and widespread violence."

This was worth a hug from the Bashir regime:

Germany’s ambassador to the UN, Michael Steiner, speaking on behalf of the EU, called the decision a success for the EU, for Africa, and for the new Human Rights Council. "We hope very much that this will be also a success for the people in Darfur," he added.

Yes, it´s the same creep who stepped into a bowl of Caviar in the early days of OEF. Thank you Yoschka! =:-/

Europeans are like they that confused if one is being kind. They cannot tell good from evil, right from wrong, success from failure.

Yet if they all agree it is somehow a victory.

No wonder they are in a state of decline.

joe - You may want to have a look at the Kleine Anfrage and the Antwort der Bundesregierung about Michael Steiner.

This man has been trying to sell himself as Gaddafi´s attorney already at the Bush-Schröder meeting Mar 29, 2001 in Washington. It is reasonable to assume that any political decision he is making with regard to Africa is being made to please the Sgt. Pepper without the Lonely Hearts Club Band.

Maybe Michael Steiner is a Karl May fan. His boss, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, is said to be a Lawrence of Arabia fan.

The irony(?) is he's in Princeton, supposedly surrounded by like-minded people who admire Europe and he's still hearing this.

Well I just have to keep reminding myself these are our allies.


Why do you have to remind yourself? At the moment, it doesn't look like it. Hopefully, we will be real allies again in the future, but currently the outlook is not very good.

I've read Marx's views on the American Civil War but would classify him as an "interested observer from afar", not a "reliable source." To be a reliable source, one must have firsthand knowledge of the subject - something which does not apply to a person reading newspapers in London. In this way, Marx was much like Karl May - someone whom Germans considered a reliable source when in fact they were just passing along second and third-hand information (through their own lens).


Because Berlin says you are and because Washington pretents you are. Then I look beyond the words and get very confused by your actions.

Also because the US unfortunately remains part of NATO.

Hector07 - If you wish Marx worked like a blogger - observing, quoting, factchecking. Who is more reliable in the current war, the agency journalist embedded with the Mujahideen, or the blogger from afar who might not even know the weather in the warzone?

I see you are a dogmatist to the last. Nice try but the fact remains that someone with firsthand knowledge of something qualifies as a "reliable source", whether you agree with them or not. At the same time, someone reading newspapers an ocean away can be an informed observer, but not a reliable source (much less an original source) - unless you play fast and loose with facts and/or don't know the difference. In English, there is a difference.

Hector07 - You´re right. What I was thinking was "eine zuverlässige Quelle", and "reliable" is not the primary synonym that the dictionary is suggesting for that. What I was trying to express with that word is that I think I am right to base my decision which side of that war earns my benefit of the doubt on this contemporary compatriot.

The comments to this entry are closed.


The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

June 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30