« Andrei Markovits: How Biased German Media Feed the Cycle of Anti-Americanism | Main | Dear readers: I have said what I came to say and I wish you all the best »


Deleted. We accept constructive criticism - not ugly attacks on our character. Frankly - this is our blog - and we have the right and the license to publish what we want when we want. If your reaction is to attack us and question our existence - you are frankly welcome to leave and not come back. And by the way - despite the attacks of frustrated critics like you - we are not going anywhere for a very long time. Just so you know to stop holding your breath. ---Ray

What's a frustrated neocon? Isn't that sort of like a double negative, since neocons were originally frustrated liberals?

First, I don´t like the word mainstream media, nanny media describes it better. Do they really represent the mainstream of history, or do they just happen to be the biggest players at this point in time?

Then, the issue of the American media isn´t entirely offtopic, since the German media largely absorb their Iraq narrative. There may be a few small exceptions (junge Welt is leaning towards Pyongyang), but overall Der Spiegel follows the trend set by the New York Times, and Deutsche Welle follows the tendency of ABC News.

I think Vietnam is the keyword in all this. This was at the chronological epicentre of the cold war (1945-1967-1989) when the Arab-Israeli conflict took its current form (the campaign for a Palestinian state on Israeli territory). Germany had its own galvanising event in that year (the shooting of Benno Ohnesorg by police at protests against the visiting leader of Persia), and for the West as whole it was a turning point with respect to gay rights, but from the POV of the ideological left all these events will always be behind the smokescreen of Vietnam.

As one American leftist once explained to me somewhere on the net: We expected they would introduce the draft and this would bring about the revolution, but when things went differently we had to seize the little opportunities instead. Now the left owns the academia, the nanny media and the culture industry, but they are stuck in their time bubble and seem to have lost any touch with the original purpose for which they have been pursuing all this, hostility is all that is left.

Although I think an open letter is a useless format, you are making a good move bringing the US media into the discussion, It provides important context. It may help us see what is peculiar to Germany and what is just common Leftist bias. You should expand to French and English media the same way for the same reason.

Anyway you seem to be having lean pickings lately so broading your inflow sources will help.

Thanks a bunch, Ray! Good job! Keep rolling!

FranzisM, Hehe, the Pyongyang thingi is funny. Well, junge welt is a StaSi outlet. Anyway, socialists on both sides of the aisle are still dreaming of global governance. And yes, one shouldn't underestimate those mentally ill morons.

Sagredo, Open letters are always good and there's nothing wrong with it.

This blog seems to be turning into just a place for frustrated neocons to air their opinions.

Is neocon a bad word to you? I am basically just a hick. But I am so stupid I see right and wrong without a lot of highly thought out intelligence. In other words, I am too stupid to know if I am a neocon or not. I think the German MSM uses that word as a code word for jew. I think in the US it is a code word for conservative people that have clear definitions of right and wrong.
What ABC did was wrong. Period, case closed. That is a fact just as plain as the light of day. If you do not see that it is wrong, then you are not a neocon, or a hick, but someone that probably thinks they are the smartest person in the room. You are better than the rest of us hicks. This entry by Ray is extremely appropriate to this blog. It is a metaphor of the entire war coverage by the left biased MSM of every country. As the biggest hick of all Rush Liumbaugh says, the liberals and the MSM are invested in defeat. They want nothing but defeat for President Bush and the USA. The conservative USA that is. They would be happy as could be if the libs were in control, which is their goal.....

@ all,

Frankly - this problem of media bias and lack of context is one that should trouble you regardless of political persuasion.

German Voice - Oskar Lafontaine of Die Linke said that it was the only medium reporting the truth on Iraq. You can see a fault line here between those who directly embrace tyranny, and those who identify with the free world but have issues with it due to which they gravitate towards tyranny.

And I don´t think global governance is socialist nonsense. Extending tyranny that governs most nation states to the free world is. Extending freedom to the rest of the world is not. The current situation, where the planet is partly this way, partly that way is not sustainable. E.g. you can see this from what President Bush just said about Israel:

"Immediately after President Abbas expelled Hamas from the Palestinian government, the United States lifted financial restrictions on the Palestinian Authority that we had imposed. ... Arab states have a pivotal role to play, as well. They should show strong support for President Abbas's government and reject the violent extremism of Hamas."

In other words, Bush is appeasing the Fatah terrorists to persuade the Al-Saud to stop appeasing the Hamas terrorists. He seems to think that if something happened to the Al-Saud, the West would suffer bigger problems from it than the Al-Saud itself. The Al-Saud is scared like hell (this is why they appease Hamas in the first place) but seems to believe they could ride the West until the end of days. The entire time this has been going on it got worse, and the risks increased. It´s a Gordian knot and the tighter it drawn the harder Israel is strangled.

If global governance can defuse this situation, I´m all for it.

1) The video can be seen at


2) There is an IMHO interesting discussion about it at


3) Ray D, how would You describe the situation in Iraq? As a left-wingers (admittedly only by the standards of this board) I would be interested in understanding Your right-wing perception of reality over there.

Tropby, here´s some reporting that might help to answer your questions - Michael Yon: Experience with a roadside bomb, Experience as an embedded journalist 2 3 4.

Not that it really matters, but just for clarification, my earlier comment about neocons was in reference to the following statement from kennon (which has subsequently been deleted):

"This blog seems to be turning into just a place for frustrated neocons to air their opinions."

I forgot to include the quote the first time.

RayD: this problem of media bias and lack of context is one that should trouble you regardless of political persuasion.

I couldn't agree more. In a perfect world this would be true.

In this world, the Left enjoys the support it gets from the media. If the media supported the Right, I highly doubt that the Right would turn down the support.

Inspite of this, it is deeply dishonest to pretend that the media is balanced and neutral. DMK just posted another interview with a mainstream journalist, Ruediger Lentz of Deutsche Welle, who had no difficulties accepting the idea of anti-Americanism in the (German) media.

Still, there are countless characters who look you candidly in the eyes and proclaim that the media is impartial and that only a deluded neo-con would claim otherwise. Those are the people I will never understand, so blinded by ideologoy that the most obvious fact will be ignored or rationalized if it doesn't fit the ideological template.

So many people have given up their common sense and replaced it with ideology. Both leftists and rightists do this, but the quasi-religious fervor of so many on the Left is quite unique. It's more than obvious that the leftists are the true believers, who live their ideology day in and day out, while the rightists are more like the people who go to church only Sundays and the rest of the week they do as they please. I would always choose the latter group, not because their voodoo is the best, but simply because it's the one most grounded in reality.

Yeah, I'm a frustrated (German) neocon. With what am I frustrated in regard to Iraq?

- With the MSM, American as well as German (which often only parrots the former). Their left-wing bias is so obvious, it's almost laughable. The international left wants to see America fail, the American Democrats want to see Bush fail. That's the reason why the media was against his ideas and will always be and why they do their best to portray all efforts in the most negative way. They need the American people to perceive the Iraq strategy as "quagmire" (which it - still - isn't). Only then will the Democratic anti-war stance gain enough support to ensure their victory in '08.

- With the Bush administration. Liberating Iraq was a noble thing. Their strategy however was flawed from the beginning. Only recently have they begun to listen to their military commanders and have adopted a strategy that may correct the consequences of the last years's mistakes. but they still refuse to deal with foreign countries who support and sponsor the terror in Iraq. And: They do a very bad PR, at home and abroad.

- With the Iraqis and their government. They do not nearly enough to make the most of their chances.

- With me and other supporters of the war. We obviously didn't consider enough the Arabic culture and the Islamistic influence. Both have proven to be serious hindrances for progress in freedom and democracy. We also underestimated the meddling of Iran and other islamic countries who fear the spread of freedom and therefore do their best to destroy the Iraqi's future.

- With old Europe. Not supporting the liberation for various (selfish) reasons was one thing. Not supporting the efforts to make the best of it now that it happenend is like stabbing the Iraqis in the back. One can't possibly claim to care for their civilians and on the other hand want to deliver them to the Islamistic barbarians who would take control of the country once the "occupants" leave.

- With (parts of) the American people. They should also know that leaving the Iraqis alone would be a repeat of the horrible mistake made in regard to Vietnam. But now the stakes are even higher. And: In times where everyone should have access to the internet, there is really no excuse to blindly believe the MSM's reporting. Things in Iraq as well as in America (economy) are going better than, at least according to the MSM's polls, many people seem to believe.

Mir, once again you have amazed me with your ability to go straight to the most important points.

Especially the part about the Americans who want to pull out, having never learned the REAL lessons of Vietnam and Cambodia. As soon as dates certain for pullout were published, the insurgents in those countries pulled back and started behaving as if they had what they wanted... "See? The treaty is working!"

But as soon as the pullout happened in Vietnam, the insurgents rushed in and murdered nearly a million Vietnamese.

Same thing in Cambodia. The insurgents laid low, and as soon as the pullout happened, they rushed in, but this time killing nearly three million Cambodians. Pol Pot ordered anyone with an education killed in order to completely purge "western" influence from Cambodia. This means that someone who so much as wore glasses was murdered, because the Khmer Rouge were ignorant enough to think that weak vision was caused by too much reading, and not by genetic causes.

My message to those of us in the US who want a "date certain" for a pullout... "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me THREE times, and I'm a complete moron."

But there's much more at stake than making the left look like the complete morons they are on this subject. The enemy will slaughter the people in Iraq and probably make Pol Pot's hooligans look downright reasonable.

And how do I know that will happen? Al Qaeda themselves and others involved in the trouble in Iraq have SAID they are following the Vietnam/Cambodia pattern... that you win a war with the US by making the fighting so controversial that it causes doubts in the US, so that the main battles are fought in Washington instead of the battlefield.

I, for one, am taking their word for that claim. And the leftists in the US are helping them via their desire to bring back their youth and their "Golden Years" protesting Vietnam and their desire to make Bush look "wrong" just for political advantage.

Pullout would be disasterous in more ways than one!

It's worse than that. Even if one doesn't care at all about the Iraqi people (and most of the so-called "peace activists" don't), these problems remain, should the US leave Iraq too soon:

- The rich oil reserves would fall in the hands of Islamic extremists. The result would be even worse than the terrorist safe haven the Taliban had created in Afghanistan.

- Iran, who is probably the biggest state sponsor of terror in Iraq, would gain a big victory. Without American troops on the other side of that border and with a discouraged American people, they would have even less to fear while further developing their nuclear weapons program.

- The US would lose influence in the region and around the world. Enemies would be emboldened, allies would lose trust and respect.

- The American people would most certainly suffer a loss of confidence, which would probably lead to a more isolationistic policy - not good for nations around the globe that rely on the role of the US as the "world's police officer".

- The idea of preemptive intervention would ultimately be seen as "failed" and "impossible" - although the survival of Western civilisation as we know it may depend on our ability to pursue that strategy in the future (although not necessarily with the nation building part).

So the leftist strategy or surrogate thereof is before it can get better it must get worse.

The interesting question in this where did the left get that idea?

Vietnam is not the answer, it only relocates the question. Where did they take it from back then?

This view comes from Germany from the time before America intervened into WWI. The first world war was a war of rivalling empires in which there was no right side, and the only hope for the common man was that before he was getting killed himself the various imperialists would destroy each other until all forces of destruction were squandered. Of course this was a quite desperate outlook, but what else was available at that point in history?

Somebody should tell the grumpy left that their very own idol of that time, Rosa Luxemburg, lacking any knowledge of the Zimmermann telegram, called Americas decision to enter into WWI "one of the most successful jokes in world history."

I think we have a fault line there, represented by then American president Woodrow Wilson. The left can either think of the world as a slaughterhouse of rivalling empires, and then that´s what it will be, or as a place to be made safe for democracy. There´s no daylight between these two choices.

"Well - the bottom line is this - I'm done with mainstream media. It is time to permanently shut them off and tune them out as far as I'm concerned"

I would not go that far occasionaly they are useful for keywords to do searches on the net for what really happens ;-)

Of course the US media doesn't show pictures of lined up and face down insurgents. They didn't sign photo waivers!

The Geneva Conventions only apply to the enemy.

FranzisM: 'If global governance can defuse this situation, I´m all for it.'

Come on, it's ridiculous to believe that the world can be ruled by a single government. That's never going to happen and just a socialist dream.

German Voice - A whole lot of things which were said never to happen have actually happened.

The ridiculousness lies in imagining world government as a larger scale version of national government. This is indeed as ridiculous as stone age people imagining the future as a larger scale version of their caves. Or Romans fantasising of supersized galleys.

We are in the middle of a global war which has already rendered the idea of a world order of a multitude of independent entities pointless. The halcyon days pre-9/11 when it was believed that the nations were playing by the same rules were the socialist dream.

Is this war ever going to end? I dare not say that´s never going to happen. But I do say it requires attacking the enemy on their own ideological ground.

Mike - The enemy is mocking the Hague Convention, as in this recent suicide bomber graduation ceremony which among other countries named Germany as a target:

"Instead of applause, the recruits waved white flags, a Taliban symbol." (01:15)


Well, the European Union is such a socialist dream of global governance - ruled by a single government. Just read the EU-Constitution. But do it carefully before making further assumptions.

Who has ever believed that all countries would play by the same rules? In a free world, there's no room for such ideas and all countries have the right to govern themselves.

Global war? Are you referring to the war on terrorism or the war between socialism and the free world? Well, the war on terrorism will last some decades and the latter some centuries. In other words, business as usual.

German Voice - The EU in its current form is an attempt to build a higher level of government from a bureaucratic consensus of existing governments (multilateralism). Yet the right way is that existing governments only can consent which powers they leave to a higher level, and this new government is then to be built from scratch through popular debate and vote (federalism). In 1848, multilateralism won over federalism, and it may happen again.

I got a copy of the d´Estaing draft here, but I could not finish reading it, it serves well as a flower press, that´s all it is good for.

The idea that nations are to pursue their respective interests by following the same rules is at the heart of all peace treaties that ever existed.

The war between tyranny and the free world is one - since Saddam put the Shahada on the flag of Iraq the secular socialist dictatorships are becoming satellites of the Islamic tyrannies. And terrorist organisations such as Hamas or Fatah or HizbAllah also are welfare organisations in the worst sense of the word, that is indulgence trade to those from whom they receive development aid, and purchase of loyalty from those to whom they distribute alms.

Do you really expect this to go on for decades and centuries? I have seen many prognoses that a number of governments may acquire weapons of mass destruction in a much shorter timespan.

Franzis, everyone is mocking the conventions, except the people who aren't covered by them when they are captured. I personally would rather use Gen. Sherman's standards during the March to the sea. The Southern troops were mining the roads to inhibit the march and Sherman released one of the prisoners with a message to the opposing commander. To wit: I will begin to use the southern prisoners to clear the roads if this is not stopped, and he had them begin before the messenger left. The mining stopped immediately.

In this media age the release of a messenger could be saved.

Although the American Civil War is the best historical model for the GWOT, this parallel does not explain the role of the media.

E.g. the 2000 election. A single candidate uniting the votes for Gore and Nader would have won, but their stances on the Palestinian intifada were diametrically opposed - Gore was at least nominally on the side of Israel, Nader took the side of Arafat. As in 1860, the harbinger of the war split the vote and brought a Republican into the White House. Yet the media narrative is that the successful candidate somehow stole the election or something.

Something must be done rather sooner than later to peel off this Iron Burqa from Western civilisation. So many nominally free individuals are slaves to the media, since their narrative is designed to be addictive to the intellectually lazy. The interesting question in all this is what action can the White House take that could impossibly be spun into the nanny media narrative, however hard they would try? What move can shatter leftism from within?

Main Sewer Media. Is that better?

The comments to this entry are closed.


The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

April 2023

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
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