Return
to Main Page

Daniel W Kauffman Jr's Profile
Daniel W Kauffman Jr's Facebook profile
Create Your Badge

uat

LINKS

Open Trackback Alliance


The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII).

CAII Supporting Members
The Community for Life, Liberty, Property
blogroll -




Return
to Main Page
Opposing Views Heinlein Centennial web site This site is Gunny Approved
Heard the
Word of Blog?

Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

Open Trackback Alliance

Check out our Frappr!


Patterico's Pledge

If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues,

I will not obey those rules.

ARCHIVE
« August 2014 »
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

View blog reactions

Who Links Here

Free counter and web stats

eXTReMe Tracker

Blogroll Me!

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com

Listed on BlogShares



The Anti-PC League Anti-PC League
Monday, 11 June 2007
The Leagcy Of Charles The Hammer
Topic: Eurabia
A little under 1300 years ago, Charles the Hammer won the defining battle for the future of Europe at Tours France.

The Battle of Tours:

732



October 10, 732 AD marks the conclusion of the Battle of Tours, arguably one of the most decisive battles in all of history.

A Moslem army, in a crusading search for land and the end of Christianity, after the conquest of Syria, Egypt, and North Africa, began to invade Western Europe under the leadership of Abd-er Rahman, governor of Spain. Abd-er Rahman led an infantry of 60,000 to 400,000 soldiers across the Western Pyrenees and toward the Loire River, but they were met just outside the city of Tours by Charles Martel, known as the Hammer, and the Frankish Army.





Martel gathered his forces directly in the path of the oncoming Moslem army and prepared to defend themselves by using a phalanx style of combat. The invading Moslems rushed forward, relying on the slashing tactics and overwhelming number of horsemen that had brought them victories in the past. However, the French Army, composed of foot soldiers armed only with swords, shields, axes, javelins, and daggers, was well trained. Despite the effectiveness of the Moslem army in previous battles, the terrain caused them a disadvantage. Their strength lied within their cavalry, armed with large swords and lances, which along with their baggage mules, limited their mobility. The French army displayed great ardency in withstanding the ferocious attack. It was one of the rare times in the Middle Ages when infantry held its ground against a mounted attack. The exact length of the battle is undetermined; Arab sources claim that it was a two day battle whereas Christian sources hold that the fighting clamored on for seven days. In either case, the battle ended when the French captured and killed Abd-er Rahman. The Moslem army withdrew peacefully overnight and even though Martel expected a surprise retaliation, there was none. For the Moslems, the death of their leader caused a sharp setback and they had no choice but to retreat back across the Pyrenees, never to return again.

Not only did this prove to be an extremely decisive battle for the Christians, but the Battle of Tours is considered the high water mark of the Moslem invasion of Western Europe.


In recent times some have come to belief that Europe and France in particular has and is being probed by the same forces that attacked it all those centuries ago.

Virtually, philosophically and at times in reality France has been under attack and in flames



The political focus of the Left in Europe has been more interested in proving to the world that the United States is the World's Greatest Terrorist State, than taking action against the real thing inside their borders.

There have been some hopeful signs recently that the Conservative Right has not only turned it's attention to this danger, but has galvanized the populace.

One case in point has been the recent French Parliamentary Elections.



The Blue areas are the Conservative Party in case you have some doubt.

This trend first became noticeable earlier this Spring during the Presidential Elections and appears to have broadened.






One hopes these events are signs that the Legacy of Charles the Hammer has not died.

There were some extreme reactions to these turns of events.




One wonders if there will be another round of the same violence in responce to these newest election results.

We must wish and hope for the New French Government the Best.

Otherwise the Map of the French Presidential Elections above?

May be dupiicated before the end of this Century, but instead of demarking French Political Parties it may mark the boundaries of the Sixth Republic and the Kaliphate of Paris.

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, DeMediacratic Nation, stikNstein... has no mercy, On the Horizon, The Pet Haven Blog, Pirate's Cove, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices,Outside the Beltway, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The Virtuous Republic, Maggie's Notebook, The World According to Carl, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

View blog reactions


|




Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 9:53 AM CDT
| Post Comment | View Comments (1) | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Monday, 11 June 2007 5:58 PM CDT
Tuesday, 4 October 2005
Now time for England to find a new flag ?
Topic: Eurabia
Now time for some to decide if they want to live in a Western Secular Country or would prefer to go back to a Muslim Country?

This takes the Cake. From LGF Muslims Offended by English Flag

A poll at CNN asks, “Is it time for England to change its national flag?”

Why in the world would such a thing even be considered?

To avoid offending ... you know who:


Race fears spark St. George ban.

LONDON, England (CNN) -- British prison officers who wore a St. George's Cross tie-pin have been ticked off by the jails watchdog over concerns about the symbol's racist connotations.

The pins showing the English flag -- which has often raised hackles due to its connection with the Crusades of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries -- could be "misconstrued," Chief Inspector of Prisons Anne Owers said in a section on race in a report on a jail in the northern English city of Wakefield

Chris Doyle, director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, said Tuesday the red cross was an insensitive reminder of the Crusades.

"A lot of Muslims and Arabs view the Crusades as a bloody episode in our history," he told CNN. "They see those campaigns as Christendom launching a brutal holy war against Islam.

"Muslim or Arab prisoners could take umbrage if staff wore a red cross badge. It's also got associations with the far-right. Prison officers should be seen to be neutral."

Doyle added that it was now time for England to find a new flag and a patron saint who is "not associated with our bloody past and one we can all identify with




Why doesn't this guy say the Shahadah,
("ASH-HADU ANLA ELAHA ILLA-ALLAH WA ASH-HADU ANNA MOHAMMADAN RASUL-ALLAH"),There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his Prophet, and accept Dhimmitude




I have an idea Ban MUSLIM symbols, because it reminds Christians about

The Muslim Conquest of Spain,
The Muslim Conquest of the Holy Land by Islam.
The Muslim Conquest of the Byzantine Empire.
The Muslim Conquest of Russia
The Muslim Conquest of Eastern Europe.
The almost thousand years of slave raids by the Muslim Empire in Christian Lands.

WHEN EUROPEANS WERE SLAVES: RESEARCH SUGGESTS WHITE SLAVERY WAS MUCH MORE COMMON THAN PREVIOUSLY BELIEVED

COLUMBUS, Ohio ? A new study suggests that a million or more European Christians were enslaved by Muslims in North Africa between 1530 and 1780 ? a far greater number than had ever been estimated before


Give me a BREAK! You know when the story came out about banning the symbols of Pigs the other day, I thought to myself it was not only ridiculous, but disingenuous, BECAUSE as I stated in my earlier post, Pigs are NOT considered to be the most unclean animals by Islam, DOGS are.

So why the outcry about Pigs and silence about Dogs?

Because it is not ABOUT Pigs or Dogs or St George's Cross. It is about how much of our Culture we are willing to sacrifice in a vain and futile attempt to assuage their feelings.

The truth friends they want to whittle away at us until the proper time, then they can overthrow what remains of our Society and impose their own upon us.

Some may claim that my views are paranoid and delusional.

Well then don't listen to ME.

Listen to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

"We have declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it," said the speaker in the 35-minute message.

"Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion," he said, and that is "against the rule of God."
Is it time for England to change its national flag?


I know I have said the above before,
and I will KEEP saying it
as long as the world is so filled
with those who have their
hands either over
their ears,eyes or mouths.

This is result of the
CNN POll
Is it time for England
to change its national flag?

Yes 12% 775 votes

No 88% 5632 votes

Total: 6407 votes

That 12% voted yes is sickening.

But we must make ALL attempts
possible to not offend or be
insensitive to criminals in
prison.

|


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 8:04 PM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Sunday, 3 June 2007 7:30 AM CDT
Sunday, 18 September 2005
What Schroeder Needs Now
Topic: Eurabia
Is some American DNC style Chad counter. You know the Washington State Scenerio. When the vote is close, and you have lost, call for a recount.


2005 German National Election: Unexpected Results
+++UPDATE+++: Because of the relatively close CDU-CSU results relative to the SPD, both Schroeder and Merkel are laying claim to the Chancellery. It still looks like the CDU-CSU has the slightly better position, but anything is possible, with Schroeder pointing to the fact that he is far more popular than Merkel in a one-on-one comparison. It may be that the distribution of seats is very close indeed between the CDU-CSU and SPD once all the counting is done


Find some "lost" votes and if that STILL does not
put you in a winning position call for ANOTHER recount. Repeat this process until you eek out a victory and then loudly demand the ceasation of counting because it is devisive and now is the time for "healing" and "coming together"



Besides yet another recount might result in you being in the losing position again.

If all the above fails to result in Victory, just claim that you REALLY won the election and that the other side "Stole" it. Continue this claim even though neutral organizations do exhaustive studies proving you are wrong. After all the Big Lie will always work better than the Real Truth with the Lumpine Masses. The core of your political philosophy is that the People cannot think for themselves and need you to do it for them.

It does appear that polarization of the body politic is not confined to the US or the fault of Republican Neo-Cons, but rather a "Sign of the Times"

Election Results: Divided Germany



Many observers noted during the 2004 Presidential elections in the United States how entire regions of the nation were either "blue" for Democrat states or "red" for Republican states. Germany looks much the same, with "red" representing SPD districts and "black/gray" representing CDU-CSU districts.

Anyway, once the media circus and the hype die down, the fact remains that the SPD was the largest overall loser of votes in this election and that the SPD has lost almost every state election over the past four years. The SPD also lost a significant chunk of its voters to the "Left/PDS" party throughout Germany. The reason that the SPD still looks like a winner despite it all is explained by the low expectations on Schroeder and the high expectations on Merkel. Merkel clearly underperformed and also lost votes and Schroeder indeed had a strong surge at the end. But this SPD loss is still a loss and sober political reality will govern Germany's unclear and divided future

|


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 10:22 PM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Sunday, 3 June 2007 7:17 AM CDT
Monday, 5 September 2005
Wir sind Berliner nicht
Topic: Eurabia
We are not Berliners, not to some Germans, not anymore


During the Berlin Airlift, President John F Kennedy stood facing East and said "Ich bin ein Berliner."




Times have changed. West Germany faced threat and destruction, by human power. We have faced destruction by the power of Nature.

There are many Germans who feel the same as most might have all those years ago, but some Germans feel differently. To them we are no longer Berliners.

President Bush has been accused of losing us Allies.
I read the following and I think, such Allies we are better off without. Let them go their way, and we will go ours. We do not have to be enemies, but we are no longer friends.

But then I remember that this website in Germany IS our friend, The people they quote are not by a long shot. But they still do not speak for the whole.

So read the following, I would expect your reaction will be fury, but keep in mind not they do not speak for ALL Germans.

TAZ on Hurricane Katrina: Philipp Mausshardt's Sick Schadenfreude

(By Ray D.)

We knew this would happen. We knew some sick member of Germany's extreme left-wing media would express their deep joy at the tragedy in New Orleans. Of course, we hoped that such twisted outbursts of Schadenfreude would simply never happen. But this is Germany. This is the same country where 31% of Germans under 30 believed the US government could have been behind September 11. So, in a way, we weren't shocked to see the following piece by Philipp Mausshardt in the Tageszeitung (taz). But the article, entitled "The True Catastrophe" is shocking nonetheless. The concluding paragraphs read:

"Yet joy and sympathy beat simultaneously in my chest. I am, for example, joyful at the moment that the latest hurricane catastrophe hasn't again hit some poor land, but instead the richest country in the world.

Yes, I even see in that a form of balancing justice for that which the inhabitants of that country have done to others through their war in Iraq.

I would, however, be even more happy, if I knew that only the houses of Bush voters and members of the Army had been destroyed.

I feel genuinely sorry for all the rest."

What an enlightened thing to think: It's just fine if people suffer, suffocate and starve, as long as they are political opponents or have a different worldview. It's just fine if people lose their homes and drown in their own feces, as long as they are members of the US military and red-state Bush voters. It isn't so bad that an entire city has been flooded and thousands killed and displaced because it is somehow "balancing justice" for this to be happening to the United States and not some poor nation.

One last thought. This author has people who agree with him, HERE in this country.

You know who they are, the ghouls who are trying so hard to put this tragedy to use to gain more political power.

So don't spend too much energy railing about the spiteful words in publications from other lands.

Let's put our energy into cleaning our own house
in 2006

60 in '06 is my motto.

THEN we can tackle 2008

|


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 10:46 PM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Sunday, 3 June 2007 7:06 AM CDT
Saturday, 20 August 2005
It's Not Just Bias
Topic: Eurabia
In his latest post David Medienkritik posits a question for us.

Why Are the German Media Silent about Iranian Terror?

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder desperately tries to energize his doomed re-election campaign by "warning" against military "adventures" of the U.S. government in the nuclear conflict with Iran. Only with peaceful means, according to Schroeder, can the Iranian government be convinced not to develop nuclear weapons. Of course, no one in German politics or in the German media would dare to oppose Schroeder's anti-war rhetoric.

Not much is heard, though, from Gerhard Schroeder and the German media about some not so peaceful activities of the Iranian government. The Iranian democratic opposition sure would appreciate some help...


An UN-biased observer might point out that this does not seem to be unique to the German Media.

Medienkritik does present a partial answer to their query. the German media don't turn a blind eye to unbearable torture. It's just that Abu Ghraib makes a much nicer copy, with Americans involved...

But for me that answer is only partial it does not address WHY:

When the French went in the Cote d'Ivoire took out most of their Air Force and then later fired upon unarmed demonstrators the World Press reacted with a collective yawn

Ivory Coast threatens take France to world court over destruction of planes
ABIDJAN (AFP) — France faced the threat of legal action at the world court following its destruction of Ivorian military aircraft, as an Ivorian police chief said he saw French troops fire directly at unarmed demonstrators at a rally in Abidjan


But when demonstrators were fired upon in Uzbekistan, since there was a US base in that country it became a US issue. I note that there has been little coverage of the US moving OUT of Uzbekistan as a result of our reaction to that tragedy.

We do not have any answers as to why Tuvalu in the Maldives is constantly held up as an example of America's perfidy in not signing on to the Kyoto Treaty. It's true the Island is sinking but even the most cursory examination of the real facts and science will show this is due to the sub-Ocean floor in that region SUBSIDING. Tuvalo is not going to disappear beneath the waves because the level of the Ocean is rising but because the Island is sinking. So why the finger pointing at the US.

This is an issue I have covered in one manner or another in many of my posts. It is an issue that prompted me to start writing again a few months back.

Bias is to mild a term for what I believe is happening.

Bias is defined as " A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.

What we see in the Media today and in Diplomatic Circles goes far beyond "A preference or an inclination, that inhibits impartial judgment"

It is evidence of something else entirely.

I have NUMEROUS posts which illustrate this viewpoint, I will come back here later and put the links in.

Until then I want you to mull over a concept.
It is the title of an article I stumbled on sometime back, which gave me pause.

Diplomacy, as War by Other Means


No I have not gotten Clausewitz confused, HE
said "War is simply a continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means."

But if you think a bit the concept is also contained in the famous statement by Clausewitz.

We have heard the phrase "Business is War", but few have pondered the concept Diplomacy is War.

Today we stand upon a worldwide battle field.
In this conflict the fate of Civilization is in the balance.

There are two outcomes, victory will be in the hands of those who believe that the Control of the destiny of the individual should reside in the hands of an enlightened oligarchy comprised of the Intelligentsia (which by some odd coincidence includes them)

OR

That Liberty, Rights and Responsibility is the inalienble possession of the Individual and should not be abrogated by the State.

It matters not whether the battalions attacking are Islamic Jihadists, or Transnational Progressives, their goal, their ultimate society, in FORM and STRUCTURE is the same.

So NO, what we see today in the News, in the Media and by some Statesmen is NOT Bias, it is instead a concerted attack on ALL who hold this true.

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Some may do it for Principle, some may do it simply to obtain for themselves temporary power and prestige. It matters not their reasons or motives, what only matters is on which side of the barricades they have chosen to stand.

In this war there can be no Neutrality, at its end there can be only one victor. One mode of life for Humanity, as part of a Hive or as free Individuals.

That is the Future we face whether we wish to face it or not, it matters not, face it we shall, those who think they can hide from it? The future will seek out and find.

No Bias is too tame a word to describe this unrelenting attack upon America and what She stands for.

|


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 11:23 PM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Sunday, 3 June 2007 6:50 AM CDT
Thursday, 18 August 2005
This Isn't Supposed To Be Happening
Topic: Eurabia
French flag burnt outside Tehran embassy in nuclear protest



AFP

TEHRAN - A group of some 30 Islamist protesters Tuesday burnt the French flag outside France's embassy in Tehran in protest at its stand on Iran's controversial nuclear programme.

"England, France, two Satans, two Lucifers," chanted the demonstrators, as security agents tried in vain to stop the flag burning.

"Death to France, death to England, death to Germany,"
they cried.

The three European countries have been negotiating with Iran on behalf of the EU to keep its uranium-enrichment activities suspended in return for a package of incentives.

At their initiative, the International Atomic Energy Agency last week urged Iran to suspend all such activities. The Islamic republic could now be referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.

The British embassy was pelted with stones and tomatoes on Sunday by some 300 Islamist students.

In a statement addressed to French President Jacques Chirac, the protesters condemned what they called the West's "double standards" when it came to dealing with the Muslim world.

"Any action which would harm the legitimate rights of Iran will be met with a decisive response," it warned.

Iran is at loggerheads with the international community over its nuclear programme after resuming the uranium conversion activities, ending a nine-month freeze agreed on during talks with the Europeans.



Anyone besides me have the strangest feeling something is MISSING in this article? ;-)

Maybe someone should tell them that, Germany has already surrendered so the,
"Death to Germany is rather redundant. This from

Medienkritik
After President George W. Bush commented this past week that he would not rule out military force as a last option in confronting Iran over its nuclear program, Schroeder quickly seized the opportunity by declaring that he was for "taking military options from the table,"

While I know it might grate on France to follow Germany's lead, can anyone doubt that Chirac will be that far behind Schroeder?



I will have to admit that it feels odd to be reading about a FRENCH flag being burned by demonstrators.

However the TRUTH is, these were rather LAME protests, now weren't they? I mean. 30 outside the French Embassy and 300 outside the British Embassy??
PLEASE, the Mullahs KILL and WOUND numbers like that in protests against the Government all the time.

Iran sends in troops to crush border unrest
The Guardian

Michael Howard

The Iranian government has deployed large numbers of troops in cities in the northwestern region which borders Iraq in an effort to quell three weeks of civil unrest that has left up to 20 people dead and more than 300 wounded, according to reports from dissident groups.

They said as many as 100,000 state security forces, backed up by helicopter gunships, had moved into the region to crack down on pro-Kurdish demonstrations.
*********************************************
The protests in the Kurdish areas came after the killing of a Kurdish activist by Iranian security forces in the city of Mahabad on July 9. Since then, anti-regime demonstrations have erupted in the mainly Kurdish towns of Sanandaj, Mahabad, Sardasht, Piranshahr, Oshnavieh, Divandareh, Baneh, Sinne, Bokan and Saqiz.

In the worst violence so far, Iranian security forces are reported to have killed at least 12 Kurdish demonstrators and injured more than 70 in a clash in the city of Saqiz on Wednesday.

Witnesses said the unrest began just before noon as hundreds of protesters attacked a paramilitary outpost with sticks and stones. Government buildings, including the governor's office, were also attacked and some were ransacked.

Protesters then gathered in the main square, chanting "Down with Khamenei", the country's supreme leader.

Witnesses said that security forces responded with live bullets, and some protesters were fired at by helicopters.

Kurdsat, an Iraqi-Kurdish satellite channel based in Sulaimaniyah, reported yesterday that police had detained as many as 1,200 people after the incident.

|


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 11:55 PM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Sunday, 3 June 2007 6:48 AM CDT
Sunday, 31 July 2005
Full Circle?
Topic: Eurabia
I am a little sorry I have already used "The World Turned Upside Down" for a topic,

When I read the following from the Fjordman website it reinforced how MUCH the World has changed in the last few generations.

Had one said something like this would happen someday, people would have thought you mad.


Europeans sent missionaries to Africa a couple of centuries ago. Now, Africans are sending missionaries to all those pagan white people and their empty churches.


What portent does this omen presage for the future of the World and of Europe?

I am going to have to think about this.

But still, the concept of African missionaries sojourning northward to save the souls of Lost Europeans?

Who says God does not have a sense of humor?


|


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 9:44 AM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Sunday, 3 June 2007 6:18 AM CDT
Tuesday, 24 May 2005
Americans Anonymous
Topic: Eurabia





From www.ErikSvane.com


Keep Your Hopes Up, Overseas Americans, Help Is Available!


"Hello, my name is Eric, and I'm an American."


"HELLO, ERIC!"


"I used to be embarrassed to admit I carried a U.S. passport, and ashamed in turn to be embarrassed about that. These dark secrets led to feelings of guilt and to an evil circle from which I couldn 't escape. That's when I discovered AA (Americans Anonymous)?


"Thanks to this 12-step group, and to the fellowship of like-minded people, I have learned true humility. I have had to face up to the truth. The sad and uncomfortable truth. I now realize that as Americans, we cannot, and never will, measure up to Europeans (among others) in the areas of honesty, generosity, tolerance, solidarite (en francais dans le texte), clear-mindedness, humanitarianism, infinite wisdom, true democracy, world peace, and the love of one's fellow man.


"Yes, unfortunately, I must confess the truth, there's no use denying it: I'm an American. That means I am not intelligent enough to realize the gravest dangers threatening mankind today are Coca-Cola, McDonald's, and a rodent named Mickey. It means I am too simple-minded to realize that modern European society represents the pinnacle of brotherhood (or is on the path thereto). It means I am too myopic to realize that referring to regimes such as Saddam's or Kim Jong-Il's or Brezhnev's as 'evil' is hopelessly retrograde, not to mention preposterous. (And I hope that one day Iraqis, North Koreans, and citizens of former Warsaw Pact countries who think the same will be able to make a pilgrimage to Western Europe, where the powers that be will, in their infinite wisdom, sober them up by telling them to shut up and by otherwise correcting all such reactionary beliefs.)


"It means I am too stupid to see what is obvious to Europeans (and others): that the US of A is a 'false democracy' and that I and my fellow countrymen are incapable of seeing when we are being manipulated. It means I am too naive to see that respect and dialogue are necessary, nay vital, in international relations. And if the leaders we show this respect and tolerance to don't show the same respect and tolerance to their own citizens (because of, say, mass imprisonment, torture, rape, beheadings, and things of that order), I'm too stupid to understand that just a little more of European-type dialogue would convince said autocrats to see the light, do away with their uncouth ways, and install a democratic system in their lands (the fraternal European kind, bien sur, not the 'false' American kind)?


"Thank goodness there is a Higher Power to which to turn. And that is the vastly superior European system of brotherhood. These wise, visionary beings are here to set us straight. All we need do is turn our power over to them, and an era of world peace will ensue?"


AA: Aid and Assistance to Americans Abroad


Dear Guest to this website,


As the founder of Americans Anonymous ? an organization for expatriates who are ashamed to admit that they are U.S. citizens when in the company of a group of smug, self-righteous foreigners ? I would like to welcome you to an open meeting of the group, in which we discuss our basic principles. (Foreign sympathizers and Americans stateside are welcome at meetings in our sister organization, Am-Anon.)


The most common frequently-asked question newcomers ask is: How do I respond to a group of smug foreigners submitting me to a barrage of irony-laden questions, asinine comments, and demented accusations concerning my government, my country, and/or the type of society I live in? Our main precept is this: Do your homework (i.e., know your facts, this being something you obviously prepare beforehand), and? agree with them. Agree with them wholeheartedly!


After years of trying to deal with this problem, I now know it doesn't pay to argue or defend yourself. Certainly you should never lose your temper. It is useless to try to defend, say, the policies of Washington (or the benefits of capitalism, or the content of Hollywood films, or the character of the American people) with this type of foreigner because their true purpose is not to have a real debate, nor is it for you ? or they! ? to try to gain more understanding about a particular subject. The point is to prove ? as much to their interlocutors, American or other, as to themselves ? the "obvious" fact (in their point of view): that in the final analysis they are ever and always more superior and more advanced than those hopeless Yanks.


Insofar as this is true, AA's advice to Americans is: agree with them! Do not bother to argue. Do not waste your time. You simply admit "the truth" to everybody, fellow Americans and foreigners alike, pro-Washington and anti-Washington people alike. Here's how it goes:


The Forrest Gump Treatment


If a Euro-weenie asks, say, "Why did you Yanks choose war?", you agree with them wholeheartedly, and then you go a step further. Reply as follows: "It's because we are stupid, myopic, greedy, arrogant, treacherous, war-mongering, and wholeheartedly without a single ounce of love for our fellow man." Then go "above and beyond the call of duty": "?And if only we were as wise, as generous, as peace-loving, as respectful, as tolerant, as solidaires, as visionary, as clear-headed (lucides), as you (so obviously) are, then naturally, an era of encompassing and lasting peace would ensue on the entire planet. Why do you ask?"


Ideally, all this should be said entirely innocently, in a matter-of-fact manner, without the slightest hint of irony in the tone of voice or the facial expression. Somewhat like Tom Hanks in the movie Forrest Gump. Because when you speak in this manner, of course, all you are doing is ape the self-serving litany that most foreigners are parroting in the first place. They are not as knowledgeable of the issues as they like to believe, they are not as objective as they like to claim, and they certainly don't really have any way of knowing that their choice of action (or absence thereof) would really have offered a better alternative to the event(s) which took place (or of knowing, alternatively, that Uncle Sam invariably chooses the worst alternative). All they are doing is extolling their societies' (supposed) "fraternal" virtues while condemning the (supposed) sins of American society, policies, and/or values.


Americans of All Stripes, Unite!


Americans abroad have said they have felt compelled to defend George W Bush's policies, even if they don't agree with them (in fact, some are diametrically opposed to them and would never vote for him). Please trust me: all this doesn't matter. Well, it may matter to the American in question, obviously, but it doesn't matter to those who attack Uncle Sam. Again, their main purpose, consciously or not, is simply to make their own society look good and U.S. society look bad, and it doesn't matter who is president or what party is in power. (If ever there is any truth in the charge that Americans are simplistic, it is in the fact that they are too honest; they are so honest they take these remarks literally and at face value.)


Of course, you will hear some say "Clinton (or Carter), now there was a president we liked" or "Oh the Democrats, they are smart"; please don't believe in this (self-)deception ? an honest look (instead of a rosy one) back at the times will show that if they weren't tearing into Carter for being an imperialist, they were mocking him for being a simpleton (as well as a peanut farmer); if they weren't criticizing Clinton for being arrogant, they were either criticizing him for not standing up (enough) to the forces of reaction (the real enemy!), or criticizing the American public for not standing up (enough) for Clinton. (To put the alleged popularity of, and respect for, Democratic presidents into perspective ? as well as their alleged ability to work harmoniously with the rest of the world ? consider that when NATO representatives rose to toast Warren Christopher after Clinton's first secretary of state decided to leave the government in December 1996, the French foreign minister stood up and walked out while Chirac's ambassador to the organisation turned his back and kept talking to an aide.) And if they weren't attacking a particular president or his administration, they were lambasting another aspect of U.S. society. The point is for America to stand out as guilty of the worst crimes, and any type of proof will do, no matter how small, and that whether it involves a particular president or another part of Americana. (Then again, it is true that that simplistic message is the main point of many American citizens protesting within the United States.)


Of course, what some Europeans say are the same charges that some Americans bring against their own society, notably in the opposition. And that is fine. It is fine for there to be an oppisition in a country, in any country. Please note, however, that this does not mean the type of anti-American foreigner who make these comments are in any way your allies and friends. Why? Because they invariably use double standards. The people who are always concluding that American society is a criminally inept one rarely if ever apply the same standards ? and certainly not the same level of fury, the rantings and the ravings ? to China, to Iraq, to Zimbabwe, to Ethiopia, to Cuba, not to mention to their own societies. (Well, some do, sometimes, but never with the same energy, and you often feel they're doing so for either of two reasons; either so they can claim that they cannot be accused of being anti-American since this is allegedly proof that they also promote "humanistic" policies elsewhere ; or else they do so reluctantly, because you can almost hear them muttering, "Wouldn't those people (Russians in Chechnya, Chinese in Tibet, etc) know better than to act in such retrograde ways, when they ought to be clear-headed (as clear-headed as we are) and join forces against the real enemy ? the U.S. and American capitalism!")


So the point here is not (for Americans) to stop criticizing (or fighting to defeat) a given president, a given party, and/or a given policy. Not at all. By all means, keep it up. The point is to be aware that for many of the foreigners issuing what they claim to be "simply constructive criticism", the evidence shows that criticizing America is all they do, criticizing America is all they ever have done, and criticizing America is all they ever will do. In other words, when you hear someone say "Oh, it's your policies we are against", be wary before you say, "Oh, if I make an effort to get our (Washington) leadership to wake up and change its policies in a way they like, the atmosphere will improve", hesitate before you believe them, because they have never used this standard about any other country to the extent they do about the United States, if at all.


This is where it should be said: "Nous sommes tous americains".


Some Specific Examples


Answering anti-Americans in the way prescribed usually brings a hush (at least a temporary one) to their ranting monologs. Alas, the silence doesn't usually last long, as they strive to bring up "evidence" of their (self-serving) "opinions." (Notice that, for people who like nothing better than to excoriate Americans for speaking of good and evil in a simple-minded manner, this usually takes the form of black-and-white, such as "We are incredibly humanistic, while you are hopelessly clueless.") I hate to make this sound aggressive, but besides "Do not lose your temper" and "You must learn to read between the lines", AA's precept is: "Have no pity and make them wiggle."


Let's take some specific examples: "Did you support the intervention in Iraq?" or "What do you think about the death penalty?". These are not real questions of debate, rather the comments serve as camouflage for the real question: "Are you a simplistic war-monger/a retarded reactionary or do you belong in the same hallowed circle of humanistic, clear-minded, and visionary beings as myself?" In fact, more than a question, the point of the remark is obviously nothing more than to make this subtle point: "Either you agree with my wise view that this is/was wrong, even criminally wrong, or you are stupid, blinded, arrogant, etc, etc, etc?" (This from people who love nothing more than to claim that in America, there is one, and only one, opinion!)


If the debate carries you this far, you simply go along with them and, as before, take a step further. Note: You should not fail to do this as it invariably turns the tables on them (but it does require a basic knowledge of current events as well as history) [I will write why this is invariable in a coming article]. "Of course! Of course I am! I'm against all forms of war. That's why I condemn the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia, and/or the war involving half a dozen nations in the Congo." If they ask you what you think about the Iraq war, say, "yes, it's tragic that a couple of thousand people were killed, always is", then simply ask them why they have never demonstrated against any of the above conflicts, which have killed many more people (respectively 100,000 to 200,000 and 3 million, with the Congo accounting for a total of deaths similar to those of World War I). And, please: do so however you feel about Bush's policies in Iraq; because, remember, their "opinion", again, has little to do with a particular policy or person and everything to do, at its core, with self-serving self-satisfaction.


Or "Of course I'm against death being applied by people in power against defenceless citizens. That's why I condemn (always have) the death penalty in Saudi Arabia and Japan. Not to mention horrors like the mass murders in Nazi Germany, communist Russia, and Idi Amin's Uganda." Then ask them, innocently, why you've never heard them, or seen them, demonstrate against the blood-letting in Zimbabwe. Be sure to bring up the death penalty in China, which accounts for up to three times more deaths in a single year than those in the US over a quarter century.


Watching for the "Fool-Proof" Cards


Beware of their whipping out their "fool-proof" cards. You can just feel that the word has gone around on what to respond on certain matters because the remarks are invariably the same. These take the form of smug attitudes that are supposed to be the final word on a certain subject and, by a very strange coincidence, they somehow, just as invariably, end up painting Uncle Sam as being by far the worst villain in the matter, whatever it is.


Some common cards are those referring to the atomic bombs against Japan and the coup d'etat in Chile. If they say, "America forced everyone to observe a minute of silence for the victims of September 11, why don't we observe one for the victims of Hiroshima?", answer the truth: "Nobody prevents you or me or anybody else from paying our respects to the 80,000 victims of Hiroshima, and in fact the entire Japanese nation has been doing so methodically on a yearly basis for, oh, about the past 60 years; you were asked (not forced) to observe a minute of silence for the Manhattan and Pentagon victims only once ? exactly 24 hours later, at 8:48 a.m. in the morning of September 12, 2001 ? and you never have been (and never will be) asked to do so again." Then add, "While we're at it, shouldn't we observe a minute of silence for the victims of the rape of Nanjing?" Chances being pretty high that they don't know what you're talking about (their minds and lives are too busy making a list of all the "sins" with which to lambaste America and anyway, for some reason, Tokyo doesn't make as big a fuss about this as it does the atomic bombs), you add that you're speaking of the massacre of some 300,000 Chinese nationals ? men, women (some of them pregnant), and children ? which the Japanese imperial army embarked enthusiastically upon in late 1937.


If looking down their noses, they ask "Do you know what other event occurred on September 11?", answer "Yes, a terrible tragedy." Pause while they nod approvingly, then add "George Washington lost the battle of Brandywine" (in 1777) or even "Brian De Palma was born on that date" (so was Ferdinand Marcos, by the way), although I'm not sure to what extent that counts as a tragedy. If they object that they are referring to something more recent and more tragic than that, agree and say "you must be talking of Hitler ordering reinforcements to Romania" (1940) or "FDR ordering any Axis ships in U.S. waters shot on sight" (1941) or even "wasn't it the first TV broadcast of a Miss America beauty contest?" (1954).


If they mention Pinochet's coup d'etat and the 3,000 Chileans killed under his subsequent reign, agree that this was a tragedy (it certainly was) and ask them what they think of Castro and the 20,000 Cubans shot under el Comandante's reign. Oh, and by the way, why don't they get revolted about that? And why do so few of them march against el Jefe Maximo in Europe's streets? If they insist upon the Cuban revolution being necessary or about Fidel having good intentions, ask them how a Lopez family whose father was killed in Cuba is supposed to be better off than a Lopez family whose son was killed in Chile.


If they tick off the list of the dictators that America has supported since World War II, ask them why dictators Washington has opposed (such as Castro and Saddam) invariably brings condemnation from them against? Uncle Sam?! (Of course, when you're used to saying everything is America's fault, the answer will be easy.) Then ask them why they never rant and rave against the bloodiest regimes of the 20th century (the USSR and China), either at the time those regimes existed or in retrospect. (Oh, those leaders had good intentions. I see.) While you're at it, ask why, in listing the dictators the U.S. has supported, they invariably forgot to mention the bloodiest dictator ever supported by Washington in all history. A man who killed tens of millions of people in his country was supported by Uncle Sam in the early '40s. The bloke's name was Joseph Stalin, and he received a massive amount of cash and war materiel through 1945. If they say, "Well, that's something different, they shared a common enemy, one who was more bloody and more dangerous", answer that that may be the exact reason that, rightly or wrongly, Washington supported Batista and his ilk. But don't let up: ask them again why they never include Mao Zedong among the mass-killer dictators who brings up such an amount of anger in them.


Another rabbit they like pulling out is the "live in the present" precept: the past is something one shouldn't bring up. Funny thing, they always bring this out of the hat when referring to themselves (or the people(s) and societies with whom they, for whatever reason, feel close to). Where America is concerned, on the other hand, it's always fair game, strangely enough, to bring up events from September 11, 1973, and the Enola Gay to black slavery and the fate of the Indians.


If they insist, you should bring up your ace: the continent on which the U.S. enjoys relatively little presence. "Yes, it is such a pity that we (or our leaders) have not shown our (them) selves as generous as you so obviously are, but hopefully we can learn from your experience in Africa. What a shame it is that we are blinded to the happy and bountiful effects of your intrinsically wise, generous, fraternal, clear-minded, and forward-looking policies in such places as Congo, Uganda, Cote d'Ivoire, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, and Rwanda."



Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 7:48 PM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Sunday, 3 June 2007 5:57 AM CDT
Friday, 5 November 2004
Thou Shalt Not Kill=Racist
Mood:  on fire
Topic: Eurabia
(via LVB: Tolerantie (1).) In the Netherlands, artist Chris Ripke reacted to the murder on Theo Van Gogh by an islamic fundamentalist by painting a mural with the text "Gij zult niet doden" ("Thou Shalt Not Kill"),
From Live From Brussels





But because the head of the nearby mosque complained to the police that this was 'offensive' and 'racist', the cops came and sent in city workers to sandblast the mural. A local journalist, Wim Nottroth, who wanted to protest against this by standing in front of the mural was arrested. His story, in Dutch, here. Video of the event, here.
It has come to this.


Of cours this DOES fit right in with plans for the Future of Europe.

"The leaders of the European Union have agreed on a "road map" for the future. Sources close to the negotiations released the map to the media, showing how the EU's leaders expect Europe to look in 2015, at the end of a ten-year plan they hope to adopt next year"



|


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 5:49 PM CST
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Sunday, 3 June 2007 5:51 AM CDT

Newer | Latest | Older