The following exchanged followed an article about the representation of the US gun law debate in German magazine SPIEGEL online (SpOn).
I wonder why leftist media like SpOn always have to lie so extremely? They are “professionals” supposedly and they have all the relevant information and also a lot of time, because unlike us they do not do it in their free time; it’s their job, maybe even their calling.
One could make a left-wing case out of the data: limitations in weapon law would likely reduce school massacres and shootings in general. But then they have to write that as well, instead of their stupid lies.
So why are they doing that? I think it is because there is no free media market in Germany and thus no relevant competition from the other camp. Therefore, they can spread their garbage so massively. There is no corrective. The reader can only turn away with horror and in droves, at best. There is no more that they could do.
This was also apparent in the Fukushima reporting when German politicians and the affiliated MSM spoke of tens of thousands of dead caused by nuclear power. Of course, this was fertile ground.
[This is intercepted by another exchange with a third user that is unrelated. American Viewer continues:]
Policy failure is also no longer pointed out.
For more than 18 years, the MSM have killed every criticism of Merkel, with the “argument” that she is criticized only because she is a woman.
It is the other way round: The MSM have put Merkel under protection for 18 years, because she is a woman. A man with the same utmost incapability of Merkel, her charisma and this persuasiveness of a scarecrow would not have survived a single term.
You can see that in the Brexit reporting, as well. One could hardly behave worse than May and Merkel. There is utmost chaos, for years already, but the MSM compete in their praise for May and Merkel. THIS IS COMPLETE MADNESS!
I do not know if the subjection under Merkel has anything to do with gender. The aspect that she acts so aggressively does (I think that women are more authoritarian). But this submissiveness and kicking down would have happened with anyone who tricks conservatives into a twisted socialism.
The MSM do not submit to Merkel, they are colluding with her. They do not criticize her.
And if you read through the MSM articles on these topics, hardly any author omits cues that her womanhood plays a role.
It’s similar with Theresa May: Link to a ZEIT article
Feminism always pretends to be progressive, but in reality it only divides the world into male and female, and then judges purely by gender.
I see it as a submission, a psychological one. These circles have neither balls nor backbones. They do not even have to be intimidated, but they cave. Although I believe that Merkel is intimidating behind the scenes.
I once read a puff piece about Defence Secretary Ursula von der Leyen, which mentioned how meek and subumissive she suddenly becomes near the Chancellor. Merkel probably has only people around her who can be blackmailed and then “talks plain text” as journalists like to call it. I bet [newly elected party leader of Merkel’s party CDU] AKK was only brought to Berlin to look for dirt more closely. Merkel is from the GDR! I even think that it is still conceivable that she gets a Fukushima [note: The previous energy policy was reversed in its wake.] and will theatrically mutter a “do not cry for me, Argentina,” before she then inevitably will have to stand as a Chancellorship candidate again. But she will probably just blackmail enough people to protect “her legacy” and her reputation.
I also saw this article. I cannot even take [its writer Jochen] Bittner seriously as a man. This is such a power whore.
You are totally right that Merkel is a brutal power politician, I think so, too. But [late Chancellor Helmut] Kohl and others were the same.
The difference is that Kohl was hated by the leftist media, but Merkel is loved and defended to the ninth, no matter what she does. So why is that?
It could be the left-wing slant, but I think, that would usually never be enough for the leftist media. They usually say: all well and good, but you are not lefty enough. They want more and more and more.
They do not do that under Merkel. They look relatively satisfied, and I think that’s because she’s a woman. And if you read through the articles, the journalists even voluntarily (or involuntarily) write that this is exactly the reason.
See Bittner and Co.
Angela Merkel controlled the media right from the start. I had once read an article, shortly after her inauguration, that during her oath of office [head of publisher Bertelsmann] Liz Mohn, [head of publisher Springer] Frieda Springer and [most influential TV host] Sabine Christiansen sat side by side on the visitor tribune. Before her election, Merkel met again and again with [independent feminist publisher] Alice Schwarzer. Unfortunately, I cannot find the article anymore. In any case, Schwarzer is the only one that is deviating a bit.
The fact that so many women sit at the power nodes of communication has something to do with left’s strategy. Hardly any characteristic decides more strongly whether one elects the left or the right than the gender, and women in communication femininize the electorate in favor of the left.
In any case, you’re right about the fact that being a woman is keeping men from attacking them. That’s independent of ideology. I notice that in our time the conservative heroes are often gay men like David Berger, Milo or Douglas Murray. They have no inhibition to attack women and their brains are still quite masculine. So they attack directly instead of ruining others on a personal level. That’s more reason for the gay community to keep its members under cult-like control. Gays are a problem for the big ambitions.
The problem with Merkel is that she’s really smart. I know that no one wants to admit it in his anger, but it is so. Everything she does is incredibly rational. She can now settle down as a saint, send comments here and there from the off against her successor to keep him/her in line, and retire into a gold-adorned villa.
She simply understands the principle of power aggregation. I do not even know why that is hardly discussed. Or, unfortunately, I might. It is because the media thinks that this were normal.
Just as all media have been aligned, so are all the public institutions and associations. In Germany you need a lobby. The elites are so used to the fact that only the representatives have to be sedated that one can not deal with protests or Islam anymore. Therefore, a German Islam pope is wanted who keeps his group in check. Now the East Germans are seen as evil, but there are groups that are competing for old already sedated representatives. They will anoint an East Germany commissioner. Or an institute for East Germany. Something is in the making.
The mass immigration was a crazy, cunning coup to align churches, NGOs, corporations, unions and greens. Hardly anyone would have thought that it were possible for all of them to work together for a common interest and against an inflated image of an enemy [note: the right].
The whole thing, of course, follows the concept of medieval guilds. Still caught up in this thinking, Karl Marx developed the model of the Soviet Republic. And it is this soviet republic that we see in Germany at all levels (for example broadcasting councils).
We see the emphasis on the allegedly happy-making femininity everywhere anyway. If Merkel were a man and if she had aggregated her power to the same extend, she would be called a feminist because of the great, strong women in her cabinet. As a man, she would have embraced being a feminist already.
And Jochen Bittner is so corrupt that he would claim everything somebody wants from him. It is ridiculous. He squats in all meetings of any lobby circles and licks every spittle. Such people rise really high in Germany. He also knows that the whole “men are garbage” oaths become completely meaningless when his clique has position to fill and he is seen as the right “representative”.
Once you have understood the matter of the German guild and councils culture, you also understand why they claim that the right would not understand “representative democracy”. They do not mean “no taxation without representation” and temporarily elected representatives of a constituency, but: “You have a dachshund. We included the chairman of the Dachshund Association. So shut up!”
The original conversation was had in German. I ran it through a translator and cleaned it up to make it more comprehensible. Please, excuse remaining grammar gaffs.