A few days ago wxjames and others asked me why the French had come to hate America. The following is only a catalog of reasons and and not a real article with polishing to make it pleasant to read. -- JFM
First "intemporal" causes.
World leadership. France has battled England for centuries about world leadership. Suddenly, there is a newcomer who puts the goal completely out of reach. First time antiamericanism reached heinous levels was when America crushed Spain: ie a European nation defeated by the New Workld. It was then when antiamericans proposed an allianxce with Germany! (yes, despite the 1870 war and the bleeding wound that was the loss of Alsace Lorraine) in order to contain America.
Americans seen as freed serfs. There are richs and poor in America but no nobility, no people who take off their hat in front of Bill Gates. That displeases the French elites (be they bourgeois, full blooded aristocrats or like Villepin false ones). Not only are those uncouth serf decendants called Americans ruling the world they dare to not look to their betters in European elites for guidance and enligtenment. However there is also contempt coming from the ranks of those whose elders didn't dare to cross the ocean in order to escape old Europe's "caste system". (1)
Now some causes ordered in chronological order.
American Civil War: Napoleon III needed to shfit Francer's pro-Union public opinion before acting in supoort of the Confederation. Therefore, the French press undertook a masssive effort to depict not merely American policy but American people in the worst possible colors. It was the start of anti-american racism (2)
Birth of IIIrd Republic: Until then French Republicans needed USA as a proof that Republican governemnt works. But after that their fear was French looking at it and begin questionning French society and the fact that France was democracy only in name.
Contempt towards capitalism: Since America is the beacon of capitalism it is no wonder it is disliked by socialists. Let's however tell to the discharge of the French that the egoism and brutality of their bourgeoisie made that they never never had a positive experience of capitalism. Workers were second class citizens (3) during most of XIXth century. Low salaries and high illiteracy rates (4) prevented them from opening their own shop. French workers never had role models of their likes working hard and succeding IN captalism From despair they turned to socialism. In case you are curious about why illitercy was so high it was because the bourgeois who started the French revolution thought that instruction was bad for the people and closed the free schools who existed during the monarchy. In the mentime protestant churches in America had undertaken a massive effort of providing elementary education to Americans with industry owners praising the benefits of skilled labor. This illustrates the difference between French and American capitalisms
Roosevelt: Roosevelt mishandled De Gaulle. He should have either liquidated him politically or made a friend of him. Instead, he supported anyone who opposed De Gaulle however unpalatable (like that symbol of collaboration called Darlan or the symbol of defeat called Georges) and built De Gaulle's rencor. But in case De Gaulle's admirers had not wanted to follow him in his antiamericanism, Roosevelt ensured they would by his attitude towards French civilian casualties and his lunatic projects of partitionning France.
D-Day: "The stain of a surrender forever remains and the poison of a cowardly capitulation undermines the efforts of future genereations" Clausewitz. In Mein Kampf Hitler discusses that sentence and tells that a wise victor will present lenient peace clauses (at least at the beginning) in order to get the enemy to capitulate and thus, destroy its soul forever. Hitler knew what he was doing since the poison of the 1940 capitulation is still at work in France. In order to heal France's soul, gaullism tried to have the French believe they had been unanimous in resistance and that they had beasically self-liberated. This implied minimizing Allied role and questionning their motivations. However it was not Gaullism who wrote the history books who are teaching our high schoolers that the guys who died at Omaha did it for America's colmmercial intesrests. This came later with Mitterrand, Chirac and the EU.
Communism: The popular and wrong (5) belief in Soviet Union having done all the work ensured that nearly 30% of French sympathised with Communists. De Gaulle had to settle with them. Not only he had to admit Communists in Governemnt but he had to let a communist (Jean Paul Sartre) preside the Comités d'Epuration for writers and this way to place Communist sympathisers at strategic places (eg book reviewers at book publishing companies). This way Communists got a disproportionate share on the means of influencing public opinionn.
De Gaulle: At the age of 12, he was writing memos about France being invaded and saved by a such... General de Gaulle. He had a very high, even mystic opinion about France's role in world. He also had an even bigger idea about the role he wanted to play in world and a complete lack of morals in political matters. I think that even without Roosevelt mishandling he would have ended playing Soviet Union against America like he did historically but perhaps he would not have tried to poison French minds.
Frustrated intellectuals: Movie authors who see people line for Titanic instead of for their movies. Singers who see people listening rock or jazz. Pseudo-philosophers a la Sartre or 2cnts wrioters a la Hoellebeck. You can be sure they hate America and they have means to influence minds
Fear of America contaminating the minds of French people: What is the image projected by that most American genre called the western? A horizontal society where cowboys don't stay in awe in front of ranchers and walk away when they have had enough. A society where people, thanks to Sam Colt, take care of problems by themselves instead of whingeing to nanny state. That is the American ideal, that is not what our elites wants. As an example, even before D-DAY, with Germans still in Paris the future founder of Le Monde was writing about the mortal danger America represnted for French society. BTW, this guy advocated for a model of resistance where the unwahed masses did the dying, shile the elites preserved their precious lives and only surfaced after Liberation to "lead the reconstructions" (his terms) or collect the spoils (my terms).
European Union: Even as early as in the 20s it was very clear from reading the texts of its advocates that the dream of an European Union was about Europe regaining world's leadership and going against the "defending champion". As time passed the pro-EU became more openly hostile specially when Soviet Union disappeared and when western europe ceased to be an economic entity and began to became a quasistate. I simply couldn't understand how Clinton and HalfBright didn't notice that the logic of EU would lead to it becoming a rival of America, that its advocates were already in cold war against USA. Our elites are dreaming of ruling the world through the EU.
European Union again: How do you get people accepting a non-democratic intrusive super-state like the EU? How do you unite vastly different people who have nothing in common but geography and have fought one another? Through a war against a common ennemy. That was how France, England, Spain or Germany were unified. The EU NEEDS a cold war with the United States.
Stockolm Syndrome: Be nice to Soviets and perhaps they will not nuke Germany. That is why you had the massive demonstrations in the 80s against America (better Red than dead was the slogan). Be nice to Islamists and perhaps they will not put bombs in Paris or start massive riots. But it is not dangerous to confront America.
Moonbatism: You have no idea of how nutty the French are becoming. From "Fair trade" to "Sustained development", from "Parité" (equal number of women in candidates for Parliament) to "Ungrowth", conspiracy theories, raise of the ultrafar-left (ie left of communism) you name every moonbat theory you have it and with significant number of supporters. France is going in foetal position
Conclusion:
Can all of this be reversed? Very difficult. When my daughter was four years old I found an educator singing her a song about "an American Boeing bombing people". In high school the official history text books will tell her that D-DAY was about ensuring America's commercial supremacy. Also for 60th birthday of D-DAY Le Point (right wing but also the organ of that pro-EU French technocracy who dreams of ruling the world) spent its issue about such things as rapes perpetrated by GIs. I cannot see how the French could be reconditionned.
Also you have to keep in mind that most of the factors of antiamericanism I have described are valid in other countries of western europe and are at work for poisonning minds. With esatern europe nations in EU also means entry of Western Europe antiamericanism in Eastern Europe.
Notes:
(1) I use the word caste because I have no place for going into details
(2)Please I know Americans are not a race but I think it is a very adequate word when you hate Americans (even Italo-Americans or Japanese-Americans) for the alleged crimes of their grand-grand-grand-fathers against the Indians.
(3) French workers were not full citizens. By law their testimony was inferior to the one of shop owners. Also by law they had to keep a booklet where shop owners and authorities recorded their observations about worker's behaviour.
(4)Before Civil War, litercay rate in America was over 80% with peaks of 95% in New England. In France it was under 50% but much lower in the working class.
(5)No, the Soviet didn't do all the work. In 1941 Germany was spending on submarines as much as on its better tank the Mk IV. In 1942 it spent 40% of its resources fighting the allies (basically in beefing its anti-aircraft defences). In other words, without the Allies, Germany would have taken Moscow in 1941 (all Soviet railways converge there) or the oil wells in 1942 and the Soviets would have lost.
JFM, thanks for this long (and painful, I'm sure) cataloguing of France's ills. I myself am still scratching my head trying to figure out how she overthrew her monarchy in 1789 only to end up with an Emperor. For the record, I love the *idea* of France but I am quite sure that is not what lives there right now. So very sad, and so very dangerous for the future of the world. Please let us Amis know if there is any institution/person/movement within France that we could lend support to that will help reverse the decline of France to a protectorate of the the Greater Arabian Co-Prosperity Sphere. Otherwise we may be forced to stop caring at all.
#1
They're gonna hate us even more tomorrow, when Floyd Landis becomes the third American to wear yellow in Paris. I'm gonna watch every millisecond of the podium presentation. Vive la France!
#2
Nice history lesson, but France is gone and is not coming back. Reminds me of what Iggy Pop (of all people) said about the descendants of the Mayans -- beggars picking through the ruins of a once-great civilization and having no clue as to how that civilization was created nor idea of how to bring it back.
Posted by: regular joe ||
07/22/2006 10:20 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Thanks, JFM. Very illuminating.
I propose a new category for RB: the Rantburg Univ. Core Curriculum. And this article should be in it.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
07/22/2006 10:27 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The consistent theme is that power flows top down in France and bottom up in the US. It seems to me the French have tried everything but changing the direction of power flows to compete with us.
While I am a France basher to match anyone I cannot read this and feel anything but sad.
#8
There are richs and poor in America but no nobility, no people who take off their hat in front of Bill Gates.
I have a book published in 1887: Aristocracy in England by Adam Badeau, an American diplomat. He said that he explained this to his upperclass English friends. They said, "What? Do you mean that the great merchants' daughters don't look down on the little grocers' daughters?" He replied, "They may well look down on the little grocers' daughters. But the little grocers' daughters do not look up." His audience marvelled at the idea of a society where no one looked up.
Napoleon III needed to shfit Francer's pro-Union public opinion before acting in supoort of the Confederation.
Henry Adams (another American diplomat of the 19th c.) wrote that Abraham Lincoln was hated in Europe. Remember that when you hear how Reagan or Bush -- or any American president -- is despised in Europe. Or loved, for that matter.
In high school the official history text books will tell her that D-DAY was about ensuring America's commercial supremacy.
I have heard this from Europeans before, but I thought it was some fringe theory. I didn't know it was taught in schools. It must be taught alongside the view that the poor Japanese had no choice but to attack Pearl Harbor because of our oil and steel embargo (which, of course, had nothing to do with Japanese actions in Manchuria, but was all due to fear for our commercial dominance).
#9
That's funny since Thomas Jefferson was 6 ft 2½ in (1.89 m) when Europeans averaged 5 ft 6 in.
Posted by: ed ||
07/22/2006 13:34 Comments ||
Top||
#10
This was covered in John Adams' bio. Also to prove Tom's point, he was at a dinner and had all men stand up at the dinner table and we were the tallest.
#11
If you can track it down, Henry Steele Commager's The Empire of Reason: How Europe Imagined and America Realized the Enlightenment is an excellent overview of this issue
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
07/22/2006 14:48 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Great job, JFM. I nominate this for the classics.
The other false premise of the "Soviets did all of the heavy lifting in WWII" argument is usually presented as, "Well the Soviets lost 20M men and the US only lost 450K." Of course the US had decent air support, radios, trained officers and NCOs, strategic air interdiction, and the best damned artillery the world had ever seen. The Russians had lots of illiterate peasants led by poorly trained officers, no coordination of manuever arms and artillery (hard to do without radios), penal battalions, poor air support, artillery that was only capable of laying down creeping barrages, etc.
The US substituted steel for men. It's that simple.
#16
The continent is all but finished. (This gives me no joy.) Demographics are destiny. Europe isn't having children, doesn't cherish its past and current civilization, and has lost all but a whisper of its spiritual life.
When I point this out to Euros or to American leftists (for whom Europe is a utopia they wish to emulate down to the last detail) they always respond along the lines of, "Well, Europe will just find a way."
Pressed for the mechanism by which Europe will reverse its demographic suicide, not one person who defends this notion of some miraculous means of Europe continuing to populate itself has ever given me a single coherent response.
What nonsense! This boilerplate given by the left that the Euros will "just find a way" represents a wish, not intelligent discourse, and a desperate wish at that.
In order, the likely outcomes for France and the continent:
1. Northern Caliphate of a Muslim Empire.
2. New holocaust of Muslims and descent into barbarous autocracy.
3. Mass peaceful deportation of Muslims followed by extreme xenophobia, and subsequent descent of Euroland into a depopulated cipher vulnerable to being attacked militarily from without.
The problem with all of these scenarios is the nukes that France possesses. What will happen to them?
It may be that in the end the U.S., in an ultimate act of irony, will find itself needing to colonize Europe to re-Westernize it. There are precedents - the Byzantine Empire eventually sending its knowledge back west, the re-Christianization of Britain by the Irish, etc.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
07/22/2006 16:23 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Very sharp, as always, JFM (sucking noises).
Only thing I could add with my own limited insight is how I'm always perplexed by the omnipresence of antiamericanism... a bit in conversation (but people mostly follow what's told in the msm or by their political family - almost all french political denominations are antiamerican, one more harmful french unanimities), but mostly in the media.
I mean, I read the "télé7jours" teevee program, and while reading reviews, I see that the murder of JFK is casually attributed to the Cia by the anonymous writer on a documentary on arte; I read the local newspaper, and there is a review of a comics graphic novel, and it is how the American Dream is dead, and probably never was,... I mean, this is an obession.
Not only there is a real "party line" followed by the msm (today, I saw the news channel lci "geopolitical expert" explain that basically the US diplomats were standing up waiting for orders from the "israeli centurions" waiting to destroy lebanon, that the USA were warmongers, neoconservatives were back on their megalomaniacal dreams,... = the quai d'orsay line), but this antiamerican obsession is self sustaining (isn't that the definition of a meme?)... every little cog in the media machinery does his part. Little strokes, little bits, repeated infinitely, you can't avoid it.
You are at the center of those people, you consume them, they spent all their time defining themselves against you; french bashing seems to be a big part of the anglosaxon collective mind, but it is only a very secondary topic : how many time do you think about France daily? How many teevee mag writer feel obliged to pontifcate about France while reviewing a show? Is GWB obsessed with the "french ennemy"?
Definitively not healthy nation-wise.
Scapegoating, and imaginary ennemies are not good signs of a country's moral state, as is the fact that our collective optimism supposedly depends on our "national" football team success or lack of thereof (analysts said that a world cup would have "jumpstarted us" into getting back on track... like a third world country).
By the way, I'm not a blind americanophile intoxicated by my vision of the USA, but this is sickening. I can make my own mind about you, but there's an imaginary America that is been forcefed to people; once you realize that, once you realize the media machine is bent on shaping your opinion rather than informing/entertaining you, it can't escape you.
And on the other hand... what, 70%?, 80%?, 90%?, of all our tv shows, theater movies, pop songs,... are american. No kidding, name a show from the 70's onward, it's been followed by the french public... and with cable, in english (much better!).
France hasn't produced anything of any cultural value since a loooong time, except harmful postmodernist ideologies, we're being literally colonized culturally by your own culture (something I like much/resent), all this while our Enlightened Elites dub you as a Nation without culture!
Isn't that sad, and very funny!?
#20
Wow. An excellent thread - Thanks, JFM, for kicking it off in style.
I'm very impressed with the the initial post and the comments. Thank you very much for what's been contributed thus far.
It seems to me, from what I've read here, in Revel's "Anti-Americanism", and many other sources, that so much of the current situation in Europe, and France in particular, is based upon "anti" attitudes - a very heavily reactionary attitude. If this is an accurate interpretation, it begs the question: Can a reactionary ideology (or whatever name is better suited to describe it) ever succeed and prosper, not just survive until it collapses from the vacuum within?
Of course, since I'm an unvarnished Jacksonian, I think the core issue of the health of a society must revolve around how much individualism is valued and not just tolerated, but encouraged and rewarded. If the individual is not valued above the state, which I see to be purely derivative, then it loses the boundless creativity, and support, of its citizens. When this occurs, then it is doomed to stagnation, which makes it vulnerable to almost any "system" which has sufficient inertia - not that the invading ideology will necessarily be any better or more prone to survive over the long term.
I believe another key is whether the society's emphasis is on a punishment model (negative) or a reward model (positive). In Napoleonic Law, it definitely seems to be a punishment model - with some social class exceptions tossed in for fun - much like the primary constitutional difference between us. We specify the rights of the state, all else being reserved to the individual -- and the opposite is true of Napoleonic Law, at least as I understand it.
So, summarizing, I believe strongly promoting individualism and the reward model are the core strengths of America. If either is removed, we would have similar systemic ills.
Please correct me where I've misstated or missed important salient points.
I echo the feelings of many here - this is extremely sad.
#21
They hate us because we use deoderant and encourage our women to shave their legs. There is even a saying -- when everyone stinks no one notices. Well, we refused to stink.
#23
Iblis, that was totally uncalled for. If you don't have anything but insults to contribute, why contribute?
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
07/22/2006 18:51 Comments ||
Top||
#24
However I will complete the observations of anonymous5089 by telling that he is reporting about the stae in the media. When you begin to talk to people it is far easier to find people who like Americans than what you could think through the MSM. But their voices aren't being heard and I fear their children are as brainwashed as the childrens of leftists.
France hasn't produced anything of any cultural value since a loooong time,
THe last real master piece in French litterature was Proust's "La recherche du temps perdu" and that was in 192x. Nothing after it, has reached its ankle. BTW, Only 1 French in hundred has read La Recherche. I read it twice. :-)
But worse than lack of quelity is the fact that French culture has produced nothing who gained universal acceptance and this hurts French pride. The British produced the Beatles, the Stones, James Bond, the Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter. The french nothing read, wtched, listened except bertween a reduced circle of intellectuals.
#26
I never have been a fan of France (I blame all those horrible French language teachers I had....the only one who was any good was from Provence, the rest were those annoying Americans who think they are more French than the French....), but this is truly sad.
There were so many scientific and cultural innovations by the French in the past. Watch the History Channel and Nova when they do shows about something that happened up until World War 1. And now? Hell if I can think of any. I'm sure that their ghosts weep when they see what has become of la belle Republique.
Thanks for the article, JFM. I hope France can turn it around and once again become a great nation.
#27
The real tragedy is that there are, and have recently been, men in France who were strong and doughty warriors. Massu, Bigeard, Challe and Aussaresses won the Algerian War militarily only to have DeGaulle politically cast their success away. The West has been paying for that, and for Eden's failure of nerve at Suez, ever since. Now the brave men defending France know they not only have to keep watch on France's external enemies, they have to constantly keep looking behind them to see that they don't get knifed in the back by another cowardly government. I suspect they feel it's like trying to build a concrete wall on a foundation of pudding.
I think that if there is going to be any hope of France regenerating itself it will take a military coup and a complete cleansing of the Augean stables that constitute French politics. The system appears broken beyond any other means of repair.
Posted by: mac ||
07/22/2006 19:19 Comments ||
Top||
#28
As sources I have used Revel's book but also an "Histoire de l'antiamericanisme" (don't remeber tyhe author).
While I knew about teh story of Jefferson being told that Americans were short havibng all peole raise and... the tallest French was hsorter than the shortest American I don't consider this as real anti-americanism but simply as harmmless stupidity. Real anti-americanism: americans are greedy only interested in money, no culture (they had twice the litteracy rates than we had in France b ut that doesn't matter) begins with Napoloeon III. Also notice that propaganda was aimed at incite hate not merealy against the US government but Americans themselves.
Small note: the building of the Liberty statue was in fact a last try from the pro-American Frenchs for ditching the growing wave of antiamericanism. Unfortunately the bickering of the Congress about financing the pedestal caused an increase of Anti-americanism instead.
#29
JFM, is it really hatred? Anti-American hatred, the flag-burning kind, is something that one can expect to see coming out of the likes of Iran, Pakistan, etc. Are we talking about the same thing in France? There are a lot of people who say that they are better than Americans at pretty much everything, but they don't necessarily hate them.
#31
There is a saying "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it". Or something like that. It might be said that "But those who do not learn history won't be encumbered by it." Or something like that. There are so many examples of why carrying around all that baggage only causes problems. Islamic culture, for example, seems to remember every slight to them ever. My wife remembers every argument we've ever had or perceived slight. Usually taken out of context, too! :-) If I find myself in a burning building, I just want to get the hell out, I don't care to remember exactly how I got where I am and to backtrack every step of the way and carefully exit the door I came in. Maybe that's why Americans don't seem to have a "culture", because history isn't really taught that well in the US. It is offered, and there are those who excel at it, but it isn't stressed as much as many Europeans I know. Too much fodder for those who would want to use it to create nationalism, etc, too. I had a history teacher who started off the course with a reminder that history is written mostly by people who weren't defeated, and not to take it too seriously. I guess it might also be said that history can also written down by people isolated from the victorious.
And remember, everyone puts their pants on one leg at a time, even if they don't want others to think so. Including the guy who wins that bicycle race with the yellow shirt. :-)
Nobody should strive for world domination any more. Things aren't that simple. We should just strive to work together to keep the evil of the day in check until it burns itself out.
Don't worry if capitalism or socialism or whatever is best. The system that works best will prevail all by its darling self. Do worry if dictators are trying to take over the world by touting one system over another. Personally, I think we still haven't settled on the perfect system. It's really not a competition unless you get an evil dictator.
Honest mistakes are OK. Even by a government. Don't beat yourself up too bad, just recognize them, learn from them, and try to fix them. Time to overhaul history lessons in much of Europe if all this is as true as it might seem. I would start things out something like "You've been misled, Americans have been trying to improve your quality of life just like they're saying after all!" :-)
When things get too complicated, you're doing something wrong. We should definitely get rid of the UN as it is today. Complicated diplomacy and politics should be outlawed and punishable by death.
Just returned from a mass protest in London against Israel. I will send pics soon. Galloway said, among other things:
"What Im about to say is illegal in this country ...
Hezbollah has never been a terrorist organisation. I am here to glorify the Lebanese resistance, Hezbollah, and to glorify the resistance leader, Nasrallah..." Damn, I wish one of his Arab brothers would stab him about 20 times in the butt cheeks, and he *wound't* die.
I agree with Newt, but he needs to know that at least 50% of the Lebanese army are Shiite, and under the effective control of the Iran-Syria axis. Thus, I would shelve concerns about democraticizing Lebanon (and the entire Middle East) until Hizbollah and Hamas, etc are destroyed. Yesterday, Victor Davis Hanson signalled support for pure military solutions to the problem of Arab-Persian aggression. Rantburgers shouldn't fear escalation, because it is the solution..
The civilized world stands balanced between victory and defeat.
The long road to victory begins with the free world helping the Lebanese democracy defeat Hizbullah, expelling the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and removing all of the 10,000 plus missiles aimed at Israel from Lebanon. Then we must create the circumstance where the Lebanese can control their own territory and thus end the mortal threat to Israel.
The ceasefire called for by the recent and ill-advised G-8 communiqué would do the opposite. It would simply allow the terrorists to organize and prepare for the next round of killing and bloodshed.
The nature of the threat - with Iran at the epicenter - is at its core ideological. The ideological wing of Islam that is irreconcilable to modern civilization. And while not operationally connected, the events of just the last seven weeks throughout the world share the common strategic goal of defeating the West and its values. It could be accurately described as a third world war.
Just place these events on a map and a clear picture emerges.
An Iran-Syrian-Hizbullah-Hamas terrorist alliance is waging war against Israel; seven bombings in Mumbai, India, killed more than 200 people; North Korea, launched seven missiles, including an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of hitting the West coast of the continental United States; seven Americans pledging allegiance to al-Qaida on video tape; a plot to bomb New York City subways and tunnels; 18 Canadians arrested with twice the explosive force used in the Oklahoma City bombing. Now add all the cities where previous events have occurred and a global campaign of terror is no longer deniable.
The free world must stand up to the barbarism or be defeated by it.
In the current conflict, the free world must stand ready to support the democratic government of Lebanon in its quest to impose authority over all of Lebanon but especially its southern border region. This will test the resolve of the civilized world to turn this vicious attack on a democracy into an opportunity for an historic victory over terrorists and their state sponsors.
In this crisis of civilization, with nerve and steady focus it is possible to win a decisive victory.
#1
I have been listing to Newt and I think he should be the next president.
His foreign policy I always considered a little weak until now he is stepping up to the challenge finally. His economics are superb and would be a boon to our countries future.
I am a Independent not Republican but am seriously considering registering as Republican so I can vote in the primary for Newt. I suspect it will be a close one between him and McCain.
#2
McCain is for open borders and wont get past conservatives that want border control with no amnesty. Newt is for Israel, tight border control, against amnesty, and peace through force. It will be Newt or someone like Newt that will make it as President. McCain as a President is a MSM fantasy. Giuliani wont get past social conservatives and is also a MSM fantasy.
With the uprising in the Middle East, Democrats and RINOs are in trouble. For example, king RINO himself Senator George V. Voinovich, all of a sudden loves the heck out of Bolton. Democrats can thank the Hezbollah attack on Israel for their downfall otherwise Democrats were on their way to the control the House and/or Senate. The Republicans wants Israel to destroy the terrorists and it gets Iraq out of the news. Republicans can thank the Hezbollah attack on Israel for renewed energy from the base. This explains why the Democrats, other than hatred for Israel, want this conflict stopped immediately. The Democrats know that their agenda for this fall is getting shredded. I wouldnt be surprised to hear Hillary say that she has switched to kosher meals.
Social conservatism has run its course and wont be on the ticket in 2008. I am dead against abortion, but the reality is that Roe v. Wade will NEVER be overturned. The gay marriage Constitutional Amendment is dead. IRS is cracking down on churches using the church as political platform. Social conservatives around the country are waking up to that fact that the promises that have been promised by politicians running on the social conservatism agenda, have not materialized. Republicans wont be able to use the social agenda to raise money.
There will be only four subjects in 2008 for Republicans. WoT, strict border control, no amnesty, and support of Israel.
Since the outbreak of the Hezbollah-Israeli conflict, Pat Buchanan and other paleoconservatives have made themselves true exponents of populism: the Jew-baiting, conspiracy-driven demagoguery of 1890s agrarians. In two columns, posted at WorldNetDaily this week, Buchanan accused President Bush of being a puppet of nefarious Jewish warmongers. Outlets of the Hate America Right especially Paul Craig Roberts and LewRockwell.com have joined him, and then some.
Nothing sets Buchanans imagination racing like a Bush-backed Israeli war. On Tuesday, Pat asked, Who is whispering in his ear? His answer: bloodthirsty Hebrews.
That Tel Aviv is maneuvering us to fight its wars is understandable. That Americans are ignorant of, or complicit in this, is deplorable.
This occurred after Israel instructed the United States to terminate all aid to the Palestinian Authority, and Our Crawford cowboy meekly complied. In an overtly ethnic reference, he added, Bush sounded less like the leader of the Free World than some bellicose city councilman from Brooklyn Heights.
In Thursdays column, entitled No, This is Not Our War, Buchanan writes America is impotent because we have allowed Israel to dictate to whom we may and may not talk.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
07/22/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
'Idiotarian' describes Pat to a tee. Not all moonbats are lefties.
#2
I'm not Jewish, but I find his joo bashing insulting.
Posted by: Captain America ||
07/22/2006 1:06 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Moonbats are lefties. Wingnuts are righties. Idiotarians are found on both sides.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/22/2006 1:13 Comments ||
Top||
#4
what's more troubling than this little anti-semetic little racist jerk is the forum that his views are being given. Why are we airing them? I suggest we take a few tips from Stalin and erase this guy. No publicity. Despite being a fool - he's a dangerous man.
#11
The fact that this ugly gas-chamber loving sassenach fascist still exists is reason enough to mourn.
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
07/22/2006 14:54 Comments ||
Top||
#12
That bigoted asshole can FOAD.
And when he finally does, I think he's going to be in for a fat surprise as to where he ends up.
You will be weighed in the balance, you worthless jerk, and found extremely wanting.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/22/2006 16:08 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Back in 1990 William F. Buckley blasted Pat Buchanan in a long and controversail article in National Review. In essence he said that Buchanan's statements about Israel "could not reasonably be interpreted as anything but anti-semetic." He was right. Sometimes I think that's why CNN and others keep him in public view, hoping someday he will inadvertly wear his klan hood to the studio and they can point to him as a "conservative and a catholic." I despise him because I am a conservative and a Catholic.
WHEN the American-led coalition invaded Afghanistan five years ago, pessimists warned that we would soon find ourselves in a similar situation to what Soviet forces faced in the 1980s. They were wrong but only about the timing. The military operation was lean and lethal, and routed the Taliban government in a few weeks. But now, just two years after Hamid Karzai was elected as the countrys first democratic leader, the coalition finds itself, like its Soviet predecessors, in control of major cities and towns, very weak in the villages, and besieged by a shadowy insurgency that uses Pakistan as its rear base.
Our backing of an enlightened government in Kabul should put us in a far stronger position than the Soviets in the fight to win back the hinterland. But it may not, and for a good reason: the involvement of our other ally in the region, Pakistan, in aiding the Taliban war machine is deeper than is commonly thought.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john ||
07/22/2006 13:28 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The situation is tragically simple: the very people we need to kill or apprehend we cant get at, because they are in effect protected by our so-called ally, Pakistan. All we can do is win tactical battles against foot soldiers inside Afghanistan, who are easily replaced.
Waging war with your hands tied behing your back has been tried before.
Posted by: john ||
07/22/2006 13:45 Comments ||
Top||
#2
And it's a huge money maker for Pakistan since they are supplying our forces for a very hefty fee.
Posted by: ed ||
07/22/2006 13:47 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I still think it is part of a bigger picture scenario. Remember that Musharraf is weak, and he is virtually our only ally in country. Their government is heavily Islamist and hates us.
So our strategy is to make Musharraf more and more powerful, but incrementally. He helps us a little, we make him more powerful, so he can help us more. But if he pushes too hard, he could lose his head and we would be SOL.
Right now, Pakistan is split between government ruled, Baluchistan enclave and the Wazoos enclave.
We have strengthened Perv enough so that he was able to purge much of his army and some of the ISI. So we gave them weapons, making them and him stronger. So he now has almost brought Baluchistan under his control. This makes his mojo strong, and gives Pakistan lots more resources, and a valuable deep water port.
He has already softened up the Wazoos, but that is the heart and soul of his Islamist opposition, so he has to be very careful. He must outmaneuver his opposition in parliament and weaken not just them but the political parties that support them.
Finally, he has to maintain and build popular support.
I'll have to give Damocles the benefit of the doubt for right now, even if he does have a nest of vipers in his bosum.
#4
Remember that Musharraf is weak, and he is virtually our only ally in country
This is what Liqiat Ali Khan, the very first Prime Minister of Pakistan claimed ... he alone was preveting the bearded mullahs from power.
That was almost sixty years ago.
In fact, there is an endless sucession of generals and other pliant politicans waiting in the wings, if the price is right.
There was even an ISI report mentioned in the Pak press that was quite open about the need to present a facade of anarchy - rabid islamists just waiting to take over, in order to receive American aid - money and guns.
Posted by: john ||
07/22/2006 23:50 Comments ||
Top||
Two days after the Mumbai bombings last week that killed more than 180, the government of India issued a directive banning 17 websites. These websites were singled out because, according to the Indian government, they might incite religious violence. The nine American websites banned by India are all critical of the Islamist movement. Not a single website of Islamic extremists justifying and even celebrating the Mumbai bombings has been banned.
Why did India ban these websites? And what is the larger meaning of this action? As proprietor of one of the banned websites, I am in a unique position to answer those questions.
The short answer to the first question is that we offended Islamists, and India is afraid of its own Muslim citizens. The short answer to the second question is that liberty may not be able to exist where there are large populations of Muslims.
Some time ago, a false story began to be circulated in the mainstream press that a detainee's Quran had been put in a toilet at Guantanamo Bay. Some Muslims reacted by protesting, some rioted, and some were killed as a result.
This reaction was a clarifying moment for many of us. Islam, as understood by many Muslims, is not a tolerant religion.
The very definition of tolerance is to allow that which we do not agree with. The moment Muslims demand that their governments punish those who say, write or depict things they find offensive, they reveal their intolerance.
So, the reaction of our websites was to make fun of this overreaction. Oddly, mocking the intolerant is now considered a form of intolerance by many in the world.
The specific reason for India's ban was that our reactions to the Quran-flushing story could cause religious violence. Since it was only websites deemed offensive to Muslims that were banned, we know precisely who it is that India fears.
India's banning of our websites is completely rational. It is based on the real fear of real people who do real violence.
I understand India's reason for banning our websites, but certainly don't condone it.
Giving in to violent threats is not, in my book, a winning strategy for defeating the very people who are threatening you. Appeasement only works if your goal is appeasement.
Further, banning religiously offensive speech kills two freedoms at once. A nation cannot truly have freedom of religion if that religion is immune from public criticism. A nation cannot truly have freedom of speech if blasphemy becomes a criminal act.
India's actions lead us to suspect that it will not just be Islamic states where religious oppression is the norm, but that any country with a sizeable and vocal Muslim minority might also be forced, for the sake of domestic tranquility, to ban blasphemy. And we believe that our fears are founded on more than this one case.
While many Muslim countries in the post-Bush Doctrine era are moving toward more liberalization, many non-Muslim countries are moving the wrong way. Some criminalize religiously offensive speech, and nearly all of their leaders bend over backwards to never say anything that could possible be construed as critical of Islam.
If India and other countries hope that condemning speech critical of Islam will appease their Muslim populations, they have greatly miscalculated. What offends Islamists is not what we or others say, it is that they are not in power to stop us from saying it.
Their ultimate goal is the creation of a state based on Islamic law. It is only then, when it is Muslims who decide what needs banning, that they will be happy. The real gripe Muslims have in non-Muslim countries is about power.
India, of all countries, should understand this. Both Pakistan and Bangladesh were states founded because Muslims refused to be part of the secular Indian state. India has fought wars over this. That war continues today in Kashmir and on the streets of Mumbai.
India is said to be a secular state with aspirations of greatness. Its recent actions show that it is neither completely secular nor ready for its proper place on the world stage. This is all doubly sad because India is also a natural ally against the cancer of Islamic fundamentalism.
It is India, not the U.S., which has bloody borders with Islam. Mumbai should be a reminder to India who its real friends are and who are its enemies.
The move towards religious censorship by India is a mistake. A nation does not cement its alliances by adopting the values of its enemies and rejecting those of its allies.
Despite this slap in the face by India, I will continue to wish her continued progress and prosperity. A wealthy India is an India better able to stay off the attacks of the barbarians who are our common enemies at her gates.
India may have turned its back on us, but we should not be so petty as to completely turn our backs on her.
Posted by: john ||
07/22/2006 13:12 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
There are ministers in the Indian cabinet doing a ruthless calculation of electoral votes available at the next general elections.
They see the majority Hindu community as fragmented and not interested in national security matters.
Muslim votes are available to those who would pander to them.
Hence the perverse logic of "secularism" in India which means giving muslims sharia, subsidizing the Haj pilgrimage to Mecca, ignoring the incitement t murder of the Danish cartoonists by muslim politicians, preventing Indian citizens from buying land and residing in Jammu and Kashmir etc.
One minister, Arjun Singh, had to be silenced by Manmohan Singh when he interrupted a presentation during a cabinet meeting by the Home Minister Shivraj Patel.
Patel was giving some intelligence info on the mumbai train bombings when Arjun Singh, who has been pushing for a huge affirmative action program for muslims, claimed that hindus might have been responsible.
Now Arjun Singh is no pacifist. He was governor of the Punjab during the insurrection of the 1980s when it was under direct rule from Delhi. The police reported to him and they were exceedingly ruthless, "disappearing" thousands of terrorists and their suppporters.
The then Punjab police chief KPS Gill said that "Terrorism in the punjab didn't stop because of any peace process or political accomodation. it stopped because we killed all the terrorists."
Arjun Singh knows about the need to exterminate terrorists but he sees the need for the muslim vote to keep the Congress party in power.
Posted by: john ||
07/22/2006 13:42 Comments ||
Top||
#3
john: Arjun Singh knows about the need to exterminate terrorists but he sees the need for the muslim vote to keep the Congress party in power.
This is pretty lame. The Congress party used to have a lock on Indian elections. Now they're reduced to begging votes from terrorist-loving Muslims. John, based on the current situation, what are the odds of the BJP returning to power during the next election cycle?
#4
The BJP, like the Congress is incapable of winning an outright majority - they need smaller parties for their coalitions. If they can attract a party with enough seats, they can form a government.
Posted by: john ||
07/22/2006 22:54 Comments ||
Top||
#5
It will be interesting to see if there is significant hindu backlash to all this appeasing of the muslim vote.
Posted by: john ||
07/22/2006 22:55 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Since the outbreak of the Hezbollah-Israeli conflict, 
