"Nervenkrieg" - Weichgekocht durch Propaganda

Der Sommer 1939 ist heiß in ganz Europa. Während sich tausende Deutsche im KdF-Urlaub vergnügen und die Stimmung in der Bevölkerung - wenigstens an der Oberfläche - entspannt ist, geht in anderen Teilen Europas die Angst um, besonders in Polen. Die Goebbelsche Propagandamaschinerie läuft schon monatelang auf Hochtouren. Das Thema: Danzig. Viele Polen bereiten sich schon auf den Krieg vor. Sie erwarten den Krieg. Und, getäuscht durch die staatseigene Propaganda, glauben viele, die Deutschen besiegen zu können, selbst nach dem Hitler-Stalin Pakt.

Ein Aspekt erfolgreicher Propaganda liegt in der schier endlosen Wiederholung eines Themas. Die Rezipienten werden weichgekocht, nicht unähnlich einer Gehirnwäsche. Schließlich erhoffen sie sich das anfangs noch Undenkbare/Untolerierbare. Heute wird man über Jahre hinweg mit Meldungen von (möglichen) Massenvernichtungswaffen (Irak, Iran) und über die "Gefahr des weltweiten Terrors" bombardiert, gestern war es die "freie Stadt Danzig": "Danzig ist deutsch ... war deutsch ... und wird deutsch bleiben". Zum Schluß sind alle bereit.

„Das Wichtigste war die nervöse Erwartung des Krieges, ja eigentlich nicht nur „Erwartung“, sondern die Sehnsucht nach dem Krieg. Man wollte, daß dieser kalte Krieg, der sich "Nervenkrieg" damals nannte, nun endlich vorbeigeht. Wir wurden gewarnt von klugen Leuten: „Ihr werdet Euch noch nach diesem „Nervenkrieg“ sehnen. Ihr werdet sehen, was da kommen wird.“ Die allgemeine Stimmung: „erregt“, „nervös“ und tief überzeugt waren alle: „Die Deutschen werden diesen Krieg verlieren.““ Marcel Reich-Ranicki, damals 19 Jahre alt in Polen (Teil 5/6, 06:47)

„The most important thing was the nervous anticipation of the war, well, actually not only „anticipation“ but the craving for the war. One had the desire that this cold war, which was called „war of nerves“ back then, finally would end. We were warned by smart people: „You will soon yearn for this war of nerves. You will see what will come there.“ The common mood: „excited“, „nervous“, and all were deeply convinced: „The Germans will loose this war.““ Marcel Reich-Ranicki in Poland, then 19 years old (Part 5/6, 06:47)

Der Sommer 1939 (alle 6 Teile auf http://www.dokus4.me)

Interviewpartner:  „Literaturpapst“ Marcel Reich-Ranicki, die Regisseure Andrzej Wajda und Mario Monicelli, die Psychoanalytikerin Margarete Mitscherlich-Nielsen, Schriftsteller Pavel Kohout, Madeleine Riffaud und Hans Keilson, der TV-Komiker Denis Norden, die russisch-deutsche Chemikerin Elena Strum und der Politiker und Historiker Wladyslaw Bartoszewski.

Cut - Copy & Paste Journalism

Did you ever wonder about the fact that the prices of mass media products increase much slower than most other consumer articles? Why is your daily newspaper so cheap and costs nearly the same during the years? It may well be because people are aware that it's not worth a penny.

Here is a recent example: French president Nicolas Sarkozy is currently under pressure because of the so-called 1994 Karachi-gate affair. Whether he had been involved in kickbacks paid to former French Prime Minister Balladur's presidential campaign or not does not matter here. It does not matter either if you like Sarkozy or not. It's about how Mass Media around the world sell you entertainment.

Last Friday evening in Lisbon, on the periphery of the last NATO summit, Sarkozy informally met with a circle of French journalists, microphones allegedly off. And this was the outcome presented yesterday by the world's news makers:

France's Sarkozy brands journalists 'pedophiles'

Sarkozy beschimpft Journalisten als "Pädophile"

Sarkozy beschimpft Journalisten als pädophil

„Es scheint, als seien Sie pädophil"

What happened? French Newspaper L'EXPRESS was the first, Monday 22, to report on how Sarkozy answered the Karachi-allegations:

„Une question précise lui a ensuite été posée sur son rôle spécifique à l'époque (ministre du Budget, puis porte-parole du candidat Balladur), après que Charles Millon eut évoqué l'existence de rétrocommissions. Et c'est là que les choses ont dégénéré, lorsque le président a ciblé, au second degré, le journaliste qui l'a interrogé: "Vous êtes un pédophile, j'en ai l'intime conviction, j'ai vu les services secrets mais je ne vous dirai pas lesquels, j'ai vu quelqu'un mais je ne vous dirai pas qui c'est, et c'était oral. Mais j'en ai l'intime conviction, vous êtes un pédophile!" En s'exprimant de la sorte, Nicolas Sarkozy voulait dénoncer ceux qui parlent sans preuve.“

Here's Sarkoz's quote in English, followed by an additional explaining statement by L'EXPRESS:

„You are a pedophile, I firmly believe that. I've seen the secret services but I won't tell you which ones. I saw someone but I won't say who it was, and it was all spoken. But I firmly believe you are a pedophile!" By expressing him in this way, Nicolas Sarkozy wanted to denounce those who speak without proof.

German

„Sie sind ein Pädophiler, ich bin davon innerlich überzeugt, ich habe die Geheimdienstinformationen darüber aber ich werde Ihnen nicht sagen welche, ich habe jemanden gesehen, aber ich werde Ihnen nicht sagen, wer es ist, und es war mündlich. Aber ich bin innerlich davon überzeugt, Sie sind ein Pädophiler.!“ In dem er sich auf diese Weise ausdrückte, wollte Nicolas Sarkozy jene denunzieren, die ohne Beweis sprechen.

It is immediately obvious that Sarkozy was using ironic speech in a counter-argument. Wednesday 24, online Liberation published the audio tape (click here) and a transcription (click here). It turns out that the meeting was actually a calm conversation, with Sarkozy speaking most of the time in a low voice, interrupted by some questions and laughters of the present journalists. Above quotation of L'EXPRESS turns out to be not verbatim correct but close to the intended meaning. The respective passage is included here (Sarkozy speaking):

«Vous comprenez, c’est incroyable, c’est incroyable. Et après, moi, je dois me justifier. Et votre confrère, très sympathique : "Il semblerait que vous ayez donné votre accord pour la création de deux sociétés luxembourgeoises." Mais il connaît pas le nom des sociétés, il ne sait pas si il y a un document qui me met en cause en quoi que ce soit, et moi je réponds… Ce qui ferait, si je parlais "on" : "Nicolas Sarkozy dément avoir donné son accord." Mais écoutez, on est dans un monde de fous, quand même. Il n’y en a pas un seul parmi vous qui croit que je vais organiser des commissions et des rétrocommissions sur des sous-marins au Pakistan, c’est incroyable et ça devient le premier sujet à la télévision. Et vous - j’ai rien du tout contre vous -, "il semblerait que vous soyez pédophile…" Qui me l’a dit ? "J’en ai l’intime conviction. Les services. De source orale. Pouvez-vous vous justifier ?" Et ça devient : "Non, je ne suis pas pédophile."

And this is how German online Spiegel pimps it:

"Und Sie? Ich habe nichts gegen Sie", schnauzte er. "Es scheint aber, als seien Sie pädophil. Wer mir das gesagt hat? Ich habe die innere Überzeugung (...) Können Sie sich rechtfertigen?"

Here's how the BBC does it (almost identical to the German version): 

"As for you, I have nothing at all against you. "[But] it would seem that you are a paedophile... How do I know? I am deeply convinced... Can you defend yourself?"

By leaving out „Les services. De source orale“ from the original, the whole meaning of the quote is changed significantly. The Neue Zürcher Zeitung, one of the most acknowledged news paper in the German speaking world does exactly the same. And they all seem to have pasted and copied from the AFP (Agence France Press). The same „journalistic“ method Cut-Copy&Paste is applied by practically the whole set of Anglo-Saxon infotainment, with few exceptions like the Washington Post, waiting until yesterday to join in the debate.

Hard Truth or Nonsense?

Less than one year ago, Oslo's prince of peace, Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama thanked the Nobel Peace Prize Committee by mentioning the concept of „necessary war“ five times in his lecture (English version, German translation here):

1. We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
2. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
3. So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths – that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly.
4. I – like any head of state – reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation.
5. Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war.

These five quotations, together with the paragraphs at the end of his speech, show that Obama's views on war are definitely unclear. He switches between a) War is necessary (like a stone to fall down with a certain speed under certain conditions – according to a natural law); b) War is sometimes morally justified (aka “there is just war”); c) War is sometimes legally justified; War is necessary (as a tool) to reach certain goals/fulfill certain tasks (such as “defending the country” is a task of the U.S. president defined in the constitution). However, the question of seriously preventing war is not an issue of today, but one for an indefinite future (not “in our lifetimes”). At the end of his speech he uses the „idealism“, „love“ and „hope“ of Gandhi and King as far-off goals, hard to reach but not impossible. This move leaves space enough to announce the U.S. hegemony status. For the time being we (the rest of the world) should be satisfied with accepting unilateral military/paramilitary actions performed by the only hegemonic superpower left. (Not to speak of accepting the U.S. as “standard bearer in the conduct of war” – an absolutely disgusting remark after what was leaking out about Iraq, Guantanamo and Afghanistan).

But why wait? Why wait with establishing international laws preventing wars, signed by every nation, including the U.S. (- the standard non-signer of hopeful international treaties)?

The speech on the official website of the Nobel Prize → click here.

The whole ceremony (1,5 hours) on the official website of the Nobel Prize → click here.

Mr. Obama's speech starts at 00:45:20. He (an alleged lover of Jazz) would probably agree that the best minutes of the ceremony consisted in the performance of bassist Esperanza Spaulding starting at 00:39:20, just before the speech ;-)

U.S. Citizens without vote/U.S. Bürger ohne Stimmrecht

How many U.S. citizens are lacking of voting rights?

This may appear as an odd question to stubborn and naive believers in the self-proclaimed status of the U.S. as main exporter of democracy, endlessly repeated by the Western mass-media. Fact is, more than 4 millions U.S. citizens are not entitled to vote, neither for the president, nor for a senator or representative in the U.S. Congress:

U.S. Commonwealth Territories	Population
Northern Mariana Islands	77 000 (2004)
Puerto Rico	3 941 459 (2007)
U.S. Virgin Islands	113 200 (2004)
American Samoa	65 000 (2005)
Guam	168 564 (2005)
TOTAL	4 365 223

data from Fischer Weltalmanach 2010

Puerto Rico has more inhabitants than almost half of the single 50 states and its residents pay practically all federal taxes (directly or indirectly). Nevertheless, since it is no U.S. state and only residents of a state are entitled to participate in elections, we may conclude that the U.S. conception of democracy does not even fulfill the most basic formal requirement.
--> Voting Rights in Puerto Rico