Parallell universe moment on state-owned NRK radio this morning. First John Pilger, interviewed in connection with receiving the Sofie-price in Oslo yesterday, talking about how the American thousand year empire would soon meet a full stop, just like some other unnamed 20th century empire that only lasted 12 years. A veiled comparison with the Third Reich. Ominous and clever! Then there was Robert Fisk, in the very next interview, talking at a free speech institute in Oslo yesterday, complaining of how the British press had cowardly allowed itself to be scared out of Baghdad by government fearmongering. In his recollection of events, it was the British and US governments that told ridiculous stories of how the battle of Baghdad would be bloody and dangerous, all in an attempt to scare out impartial witnesses.

Pilger, Fisk, Moore - it is true. There is nothing original about Norwegian anti-Americanism, no particular grievances we hold against the Americans, no Norwegian perspective at all. It is all imported from the outside, from the global and Anglosphere-centered anti-Americanism movement. The irony seems lost on the cultural anti-imperialists.

As an American (Norwegian-American) who has invested a lot of time on Norway, I have been disturbed and befuddled by the anti-Americanism that I see in Norway. And have spent some time pondering the phenomenon. It is indeed hard to understand. As you say, Bjørn, America has done nothing to Norway that would explain the hostility toward America that is frequently on display in Norway. Quite the contrary — we assisted Norway during and after WW2.

The only theory that I have to explain this hostility to America is the one that Torbjørn Knutsen offered in his book. You quoted him a couple days ago:

"In Norway, commentators fall back on several different discourses. But whenever the US is concerned, Norwegian observers set their course after the usual stars of the Vietnam war. [..] To these commentators, it is tempting to remind of two things: The Vietnam war ended in 1975. And the Cold War ended in 1990. This is getting to be a long time ago. Isn't it time to abandon the old conspiratorial theories of 30 and 40 years ago? Shouldn't one now retire the old geopolitical models from the time when major political events were often reflexes of the super powers' own conspiracy theories? [..]"

I believe that anti-Americanism blossomed in Norway in the late 60's in reaction to the war in Vietnam. We saw the same reaction here in the States. The difference was only this — that American hostility to the war and to the administrations that waged that war did not, for most Americans, morph into hatred of America and Americans. That war did definitely turn many of us into skeptics, but I think that most of us continued to love the country. Another difference, I think, has to do with a European predilection for programmatic thinking. It seems to me that Continentals are more attracted than are folks in the English-speaking countries to philosophical systems. That is why Marxism took better hold in Europe than in the English-speaking countries, I believe.

Ideologies like Marxism and the mix of anti-imperialism and Islam that is islamic fundamentalism offer their adherents world views that are a solace to those who are willing to accept the ideology's premises. Armed with the tools for critical thinking that an ideology seems to provide, one can explain just about anything that happens. Or rather, one can shoehorn new data culled from newspapers or TV into ready-made explanations. If, for instance, one accepts the premise that America is a rapacious imperialist power bent on conquering the world, then one can interpret every move that America makes in that light and never be fooled. If America has invaded Iraq, then it must be in order to acquire resources or to subjugate the populace of that country or to lay the groundwork for its next imperialist move, etc.

Knowing the truth is difficult and requires that one be honest with oneself. One has got to renounce biases, cherished stereotypes of our heroes and enemies, pet theories. One has got to be willing to admit that he was wrong about this or that person, country, institution, or policy and has got to be willing to adjust one's ideas accordingly. One has got to try to be objective. The problem with ideologies — and I think that is what Norway's anti-Americanism is — is that they require us to accept and adhere to certain premises that are posited as eternally true. There is no room for evolution in our thinking. It takes us a long time then to realize and admit that we were wrong about Stalin or Mao or the U.S.

- Gill

Allow me if I may to repost something written by Dale Amon over at Libertarian Samizdata. This was written last Fall, way before the war. I found it then stunningly insightful. That opinion now has doubled. Pardon the length, as i have saved the words, but not a link. Here it is.....

Ending the pin down

I have seen many good ideas put forth about why taking on Iraq is a good strategy, and how different approaches to the other members of the "axis of evil" are appropriate. I think there is something more profound happening in the Bush administration, a policy change whose outlines are now appearing and whose scope is breathtaking in its sweep.

*** Prior to 9/11, Bush was considered an isolationist. There were worries about America disengaging from the rest of the world. Folks, that is exactly where the endgame of the current global strategy is leading. President Bush and his advisors are cutting the Gordian knots which tie the US into permanent global deployment. ***

We've got large numbers of troops pinned down in the Middle East. Steven den Beste has already shown how the conquest of Iraq removes the reason for basing large numbers of forces in the Middle East. Troops can be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Kuwait, Turkey and god knows where else. Remove Saddam and there is suddenly no need for it. True, it will take some years to get Iraq Inc up and running the way we got Japan Inc going 50 years ago, but it will happen.

With Iran moving towards liberalization; with Iraq a capitalist democracy and with the Russians building a huge new oil terminal in Murmansk for sales to America, we not only get cheap oil... we undermine the very tool which allows Saudi's to support billion dollar terrorist movements.

And then there are the Cold War leftovers in Europe... Another commentator I've read recently - where I unfortunately do not recall - (It was the Financial Times) has suggested Rumsfeld wants to return the US to its' classical military stance: a sea power. Maritime powers do not need large numbers of troops permanently based around the world. They only need ports for repair and refueling.

Where else are we pinned down? Korea... 37,000 Americans in harms way on that hellish armistice line. It is a no-man's land of a half century year old war that has never ended. Rumsfeld's latest move in Korea is telling. US troops are to be pulled back. They will no longer be the Korean's border canary.

In each area where there are large permanent American troop deployments, we see disengagement. It might take a war in at least one case to get us extricated. We are getting extricated nonetheless.

There is even a bonus prize. The UN is about to self-destruct. Put it all together and project ten years into the future. We see an America with a powerful naval and air force; with relatively few soldiers based outside the nation. An America looking out for its' own interests and finally rid of most of the "entangling alliances" brought about by World War II and its' aftermath.

*** We're at the start not of Empire, but of the return to Fortress America... with a global reach via naval and air capacity to handle anyone who comes to our shores looking for trouble. ***

---

Back to me. Since this was written, we have in fact now begun withdrawing from both Saudi and S. Korea. Iran is heating up, and North Korea is melting down. The Pentagon is SERIOUSLY looking hard at our European deployments, and the explosions in the Middle East might (MIGHT) be because the militants on both sides see a Palestinian state as imminent, a catastrophe for the nutjobs on both sides. Mr. Bush has told all of us that a Pal State is imminent, I presume he has told them as well.

Bottom line.... that is the status of Mr. Pilger's "Reich". (By the way, f___ you for that Pilger, you scum sucking asswipe. Drop dead... tomorrow, so I can break out my chilled champaigne). An America rid of these "entangling alliances". Yeah, that's an empire. Biggest point being... will Mr Pilger, the Norwegian and Euro anti-American brigades, the UN and other assorted fellow travellers... will you guys be READY to step up to the plate? READY to go into the Congo et al with more than stern looks? READY to face a world where your economic well-being cannot exist without your security, which YOU will now be responsible for, 100%? Are you.... READY?

Better be, bucko, better be. 'Cause ya know what? It's been sixty-five years that the US has stood down fascism, brown and red, on your behalf, and protected your right to speak your gibberish. We've done our part for King and World. Now it's your turn.

Are you READY?

Better be.

Some very good points here... I agree completely with both Gill and Andrew

As a native born Norwegian who fled the socialist horrors of Norway in the early nineties, I am not suprised at all by the grotesque hatred of Bush and the US in Norway and other European countries.

Seriously, who wants to live in a country that takes Michael Moore seriously and applauds Robert Fisk, and thinks Hillary Clinton is the second coming of Christ?

Not me...

Excellent posts above. My point will be short: the reason Europeans think the way they do is because they have been propagandized and conditioned by European media and educational establishments that are controlled to a fascist degree by the left in general. Period. Pour garbage into human brains, don't allow any other influences, sources, or impressions (and I'm not talking about the small percentage who SEEK OUT other influences and sources of information for themselves, but they are always such a small percentage they don't effect the overall strategy too much) and you will get garbage back out.

The left learned about and implemented back in 1917-18 the 'long strategy' and effectiveness of killing or controlling their opponents by taking over media and educational institutions. (Hillary Clinton has even quoted this strategy in public - I mention just to point out how commonplace and 'embedded' this strategy has become - during her husband's administration. In so many words if you can 'get at' the children you can 'own' the future.)

In America there seems to be some built-in defenses against this strategy to moderate it just enough (Christianity for one), but things can even get to the European level of garbage in, garbage out at times, such as the 8 years of the Clinton(s) administration.

It must really bite you that the recentment against the American behaviour around the world in Norway, a nation of well-educated people with access to a wealth of information these days, is so strong. Trying to put the blame on failed socialist thoughtsystems is about as easy and convenient as the American reasoning for going to war lately. Contrary to the American public, Norwegians actually do get several views on matters - and are able to make educated decisions. And that we don't condone the behaviour exibited should be taken into consideration - instead of seen as an attack. But then, everything is an attack these days, isn't it?

As previously noted:

"Armed with the tools for critical thinking that an ideology seems to provide, one can explain just about anything that happens"

... I'm sure you have a good answer ready up your sleeve...

LRF - Well, I'm wearing a short sleeve shirt, but I'll take a crack....

Start with - "Contrary to the American public, Norwegians actually do get several views on matters - and are able to make educated decisions."

I'll Go ahead and grant you that both sides of the Atlantic griping are prepared to make blanket assumptions about the other that fit their ideologies, and then foolishly act on them. Both sides. That being said.... "Contrary to the American public"....

And exactly what do you base your assertion that Americans do not get "several views on matters". Who has suffered in any way from speaking out, EXCEPT to have others excercise THEIR rights by simply responding to them. (A new concept to the Left, I grant you.) Who? Please give specific examples that you might demonstrate that YOU are not doing exactly what I speak of. Are you under the impression that Democrats and others are not criticizing the President, or at very least asking many of the same questions we hear overseas? Legitimate questions about the role of oil, of Israel, of casualities, etc? We ARE asking the questions. I know people in Europe are. As we are here. But we have have been ANSWERING the questions. And DEMONSTRATING with FACTS how time and time again, accusations hurled against the President fall to the ground when confronted with facts.

Oil? Turns out looting of oil fields exceeded that of museums, and far more money will go to Iraqi citizens now instead of palaces numbers 31, 32, and 33. Oops. Never mind. Israel? Yep, as soon as war starts, Israel will start massacring Palestinians. Oops. Never mind. Bush is doing Sharon's bidding? Now many Likud members despise Bush because of his roadmap and calls for Palestinian state. Oops. Never mind. A hundred thousand civilians will die? Yep, more than that did die.... at the hands of Saddam Hussein. Oops. Never mind. The Iraqis will happily and faithfully to fight for Saddam and his foul progeny? Oops. Never mind. The war will be a Stalingrad, the sandstorms will destroy the US Army. Oops. Naver mind. The Arab street will explode? Oops. Never mind. The UN CAN solve this problem, or Korea, or Kosovo, or the Congo, or Zimbabwe? Oops. Never mind.

Environmental science will back up the assumtions of the Kyoto Treaty? Oops. Never mind. The Russians will start a Cold War if we back out of ABM after a mere 30 years? Oops. Never mind. The ICC will go after Mugabe, Castro, Kim Jong Il, Arafat, Quadafi, and other categorcally non-representative violent dictators long before any Americans would have cause to worry? Right. Oops. Never mind.

And lastly, of course... Bush is a stone idiot. Oops. Never mind, he's Dr. Evil in the flesh, a Machiavellian evil genuis of the highest order. Oops....

All this is true, and what do we get? "Contrary to the American public"... WE (in Europe) are not at all ignorant of any facts, or ideologically blinded. Oh, no of course not.

Just one question. In the past year, the US had an extremely vibrant, dynamic, and thorough debate about the merits and downsides of the Iraq war. Did you? Or was pretty much everyone singoing from the same songsheet?

So just who here are making the educated decisions?

Not bad coming from a short sleeve shirt.

What Andrew X said.

I would just add: the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ...

(I know there are atheists and other similar types here that share my political view of the world, so I realize I am writing that for myself, yet I just wanted to make that European guy's head explode...)

LRF — I'm familiar with your point of view and with the sarcasm. Get off your high horse for a moment and try seriously to understand a few things. You may indeed be one of the folks that I have criticized for failing to think for themselves. You make a few assumptions that I think you should reconsider.

You wrote: "Trying to put the blame on failed socialist thoughtsystems is about as easy and convenient as the American reasoning for going to war lately."

I used Marxism as a familiar example of a popular ideology. The ideology to which many in Norway (and elsewhere in Western Europe) have succumbed today is something a bit different, I think, but still a program that rallies the faithful round shared hatred of a Great Satan. The premise is American culpability. Adherents to the faith must accept this basic tenet — namely, that America (and Americans) are bent on world domination and the destruction of all that is good (including the natural environment). Having accepted this premise, it is no longer necessary or possible to think about American motivation for the things that country does. All that is necessary is to assume the worst. That is the ideology to which I referred.

You wrote: "Contrary to the American public, Norwegians actually do get several views on matters."

Well, jeg har bodd i Norge, og selv om det er nå noen år siden, jeg tviler på det du sier. I read the Norwegian online papers, and I have to disagree with you here. No, I do not think that Norwegians get a variety of views. And Norwegians are, consequently, not well informed if they let their own media mold their perceptions of the world. I have to say that Scandinavia is well know for its uniformity of opinion, and folks like Bjørn Stærk here are regrettably rare. As for the integrity or standards of Norwegian journalism — well, I have a quite low opinion of that. The fact that the Norwegian media continue to rely on reports and analysis from al-Jazira and other questionable sources must be attributed, I fear, to their desire to find support, however questionable, for their own preformed judgments.

As for the information that Americans get from their media — I wonder how you would know what information we get from our media. Every major city in America has dozens of broadcast radio and TV stations. The interpretations of daily news that are available from these free media cover a wide spectrum — from marxist and leftist conspiratorial to far-right insanity. I know that it is popular in Europe to say that Americans do not have access to a variety of news sources and are brainwashed. You need to put that notion aside. That idea is an example of how misinformed many in Norway indeed appear to be.

You wrote: "And that we don't condone the behaviour exibited should be taken into consideration - instead of seen as an attack."

Everyone is entitled to his opinion, and a reasonable argument will usually get the consideration that it deserves. When I dismiss much of the criticism of America that I see in Aftenposten and Dagbladet, at nrk.no or in the various debate pages associated with those web sites, then it is because it is often apparent to me that the correspondents are biased. They are anti-American. By anti-American, I do not mean merely opposed to American policy. By anti-American, I mean hostile to America, prejudiced and unwilling to give America a fair hearing in the court of opinion. If, for instance, one compares Aftenposten's report of an incident involving America with an American report of the same incident, one notices that Aftenposten omits certain crucial facts or construes them in a peculiar fashion. If one compares Norwegian and American accounts of the same incident, and does this for some time, a pattern emerges. It becomes clear that the Norwegian media are picking and choosing and presenting the news in order to encourage a jaundiced view of America.

You wrote: "But then, everything is an attack these days, isn't it?"

You will have to explain what you mean by this bit of sarcasm. I know that many in Norway are saying these days that Americans are paranoid — that Iraq, for example, was no threat to America. This may be the allegation that you are alluding to here. Those who accuse us of being paranoid underestimate the threat that terrorism represents. Or worse, share the terrorist's hatred of America.

Here's what I would ask of you. Forget for a moment that America is supposed to be the Great Satan. Try to put your biases, dine fordommer, aside and look again at the world. I maintain that every day is new. Yesterday's truths, yesterday's assumptions, may not be valid today. You must be prepared, every day, to reconsider what you think is true.

- Gill

LRF: I don't buy ct's theory of a leftist media conspiracy going back to 1917, but what you're saying about access to views is not true. I've followed the coverage of the war on terror on both sides of the Atlantic, in the American (and international) press, and in the Norwegian. There are two striking differences. The first, obviously, is that the American media is, on average, positive to the war on terror, slants it in positive terms. The Norwegian media slants it in negative terms. This is to be expected, and is not by itself a sign of unhealthy conformity. (Which slant is the right one is another matter.)

The second difference is in the _range_ of opinions available, the standard deviation from the norm. From what I can tell, Americans have been exposed to a wider range of opinions than Norwegians. The New York Times, for instance, slanted its coverage rather heavily against the war on Iraq. And don't forget that many of the anti-American intellectuals and academics we pay attention to in Norway, like Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore, are Americans themselves, and are usually known to politically interested Americans. (Stupid White Men is a bestseller in the US.) Anti-Americanism, (or a highly critical focus on the US, if you like), is a legacy of the 60's counterculture, which had its center in the US, and has had a lasting effect on parts of American society - like academia, NGO's and sections of the press.

There's no comparable pro-American media presence in Norway, (even though the press acts as if there were). So while there's been a clear pro-war slant in the American media, I'm willing to bet that politically interested Americans have heard more anti-war arguments than politically interested Norwegians have heard pro-war arguments. I'll also hazard a guess that Americans, who have their focus on the threat of Islamic terrorism, have learned more about the history and beliefs of Islam and Muslim countries in the last 18 months than Norwegians, who have had their focus instead on the illusory threat of American imperialism. Assuming for a moment that what they've learned is actually true, who is more qualified to judge the right way to fight a war on terrorism, someone who's studied the recent history of the Middle East, or someone who has studied American Cold War politics?

As I've said before, the sad truth about the Norwegian media is that the world's largest superpower just went to war - and most people here didn't have any clue why they did it.

Hatred of Israel has to do with *Old Testament*.

Hatred of America has to do with *New Testament*.

The common denominator: the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

This hatred is what makes people say up is down and black is white when they justify their hatred of America.

This is why people - the left in general in America and Europe - 'overlook' or ignore the most obvious evil and refuse to condemn the most obvious evil (Islamo-fascism, terror, communist genocide, etc.) so that they can keep their first love and their main focus which is their pursuit of maintaining their hatred of God.

NRK (Norwegian TV) has published an commentary that criticizes the pro-war bias of news sources utilized by the Norwegian media during the war. The article is in Norwegian, and the link is here:

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/kommentar/2815534.html

The article says that, as a result of the pro-war bias in news sources, "avvikende syn druknet i krigspropagandaen." Translated: "dissenting viewpoints drowned in the war propaganda."

Well, I thought that the Norwegian media did an admirable job throughout that period in sustaining their critical bias. But I wonder about this use of the word "propaganda". A person's viewpoint is not propaganda just because it is pro-war. Not unless that person is somehow associated with the government that prosecutes the war. To accuse the American media of spewing propaganda is to deny the independent status of the American media. Is that what NRK's commentator intends when he say that American reporting is propaganda?

Elsewhere in the article, the commentator laments, "41 prosent av Dagsrevyens navngitte kilder (hvis vi holder NRKs egne reportere utenfor) var amerikanske eller britiske, og bare én av dem – en BBC-journalist – kunne kalles nøytral. Resten var uten unntak talerør for krig enten de var ministre, generaler eller menige soldater."

Translated: "Forty-one percent of The Daily Review's named sources were American or British, and just one of them — a BBC journalist — can be called neutral. The rest were without exception spokesmen for the war — whether they were ministers, generals, or ordinary soldiers."

The commentator means that American and British news sources are unreliable.

Which sources does the commentator believe are reliable? His answer is there: "For det er klart at det er hos de krigførendes dissentere vi ofte finner de best informerte kildene - selvsagt ved siden av kilder i Irak og resten av den arabiske verden."

Translated: "For it is clear that it is the best informed sources are often the dissenters in the warring nations — besides, of course, sources in Iraq and the rest of the Arab world."

I don't think that I need to comment on that rather remarkable opinion.

The commentator seems to suggest that it is the media's job to give the public what it wants. If the public opposes the war, then the media should do so as well: "I Irak-krigen var det på forhånd et flertall i mange land mot krigen, men det var aldri noe i nærheten av et flertall som hadde sympati – eller tiltro – til Saddam Husseins side. Dermed fikke nødvendigvis nyhetsdekningen i for eksempel Dagsrevyen et alvorlig problem, for den måtte få en slagside i favør av amerikanerne og britene. De var kildene for informasjon og bilder."

Translated: "During the Iraq War, a majority in many countries opposed the war in advance, but there was never anywhere near a majority that sympathized with or had confidence in Hussein's side. Coverage of the war by, for example The Daily Review, was therefore seriously impaired, because it ended by providing support for the Americans and British. They were the sources for our information and pictures."

- Gill

What an odd article. Perhaps he looks exclusively at the interviewees, ie. if NRK shows a statement made by Bush then it's pro-war, while ignoring the context it was shown in. I can see why some people would call the coverage _balanced_ - that is after all the natural reaction when the media confirms your views, but pro-war?

One error, btw: He says that the Iraqi information minister soon became something of a joke, so statements by him were not really examples of anti-war reporting. I remember seeing him quoted (seriously) in headlines as late as the first week of April. To many reporters, he first became a joke when the Americans actually entered Baghdad, and no sooner than that.

What you say about the Iraqi information minister ("Comical Ali") is true. It was not until the TV viewer was actually able to see American infantery standing behind him that the Norwegian media definitely abandoned him. (I liked him, too, though. Liar though he was.)

The commentator's attitude toward the American and British media is confusing. At one point, he says that the dissenters (and Arab media!) are better informed. And therefore more reliable, I guess he means to say. At another point, though, he says, "de har tross krigsmotstanden en langt større troverdighet enn Al-Saadi i Bagdad."

Translated: "They [American and British media] have, despite our opposition to the war, more credibility with us than Al-Saadi in Bagdad."

When he says this, he seems to be lamenting the fact that the pro-war media might be making inroads in Norway. In other words, he is willing to admit that they have some credibillity (more, at least, than Al-Saadi), but regrets that their credibility serves the pro-war viewpoint. He regrets, that is, that his reliable sources do not support his anti-war viewpoint. Well, a journalist's purpose, of course, is not to search about for sources that will support any particular viewpoint — for or against. Rather, his purpose is supposed to be to find the truth. Always a challenge. If the truth does not conform to his own viewpoint, that is too bad. What he needs to do then is not to lament that fact in a commentary like the one I refer to here. What he needs to do, rather, is adjust his point of view, if he's interested in doing that for himself. At any rate, what he needs to present to the public is the truth, and not his own point of view. And not even the public's på forhånd cherished point of view.

- Gill

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/295

Thought Mesh: How can I stay on script if they keep rewriting it?, April 2, 2004 03:40 PM

Over at Tim Blair’s place is an interesting quote from John Pilger, idiot journalist in December, 2001. The twin towers...