Anti-war or anti-America?

Leave mondo alone...Im in a highly critical mood today...I think mondo is misunderstood...he wears his heart on his sleeve, much the same way you are going to wear my ball sac on your head like a yarmulke

 

I understood that one!!!

You must take after Mr. meats and cheeses himself, huh?

 

nothing wrong with a healthy dose of anti-Americanism - in times of a mad American anti-Europeanism

 

I would wish it on you but being that you do most of your thinking on your stomach, biting the pillow and taking the best that French men have to offer, Im sure you already have far worse diseases afflicting you.

 

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030407/opinion/7john.htm

another related article. I don't have proof that communist socialist anti american groups are behind this.... but as you can see in the article above, it's a common beleif.

 

Excellent point!

 

>>you haven't refuted the argument that the peace rallies are being funded by anti-american organizations.<<

Lundy, you are a real optimist aren't you ?
You don't really expect the LL's to discuss things in a rational manner do you now ?

freealways

'LL' of course stands for 'Loony Left'

 

This information, especially regarding ANSWER, has been widely reported, and has been available for months. If you're patient, you can turn it up with your own Google search.

 

Very French and academic, but helps to explain what's going on:

”THE NEO-PACIFISTS AT WAR…WITH PEACE”

Robert Redeker in Le Monde, Thursday, 3/27/03:

There is nothing more tragic than the fate of pacifism. Claiming to fight imperialism, it has generally ranged itself on the side of the worse – fascism, Nazism, communism – finding itself, most of the time, in the camp of the most determined enemies of freedom.

The anti-war demonstrations taking place across almost the whole of the planet are unlikely to free pacifism from its ambivalent history: pacifist rhetoric, which divides the world into two camps, America and the People, shows no signs of breaking with the anti-American slogans of the 1950s, when the Movement for Peace received its orders from Moscow.

In order to survive, contemporary pacifism regards itself obliged to work at hiding its roots and its history. All the rhetoric deployed from one demonstration to another, insistent and dichotomic, pursues, now that communism has been consigned to the dustbin of history, a secret objective: to make us forgot such an important event as the victory of the Americans over Hitler’s Nazism, which is never mentioned. The repressed event, the object of a taboo of memory, lasted several decades: America protected Western Europe from communism.

The American miracle in western Europe took an unusual direction: forming an effective barrier preventing red totalitarianism from extending its empire of gulags, psychiatric asylums, mass executions and barbed wire as far as the Atlantic, making possible, in the countries protected in this way (France, Italy, West Germany, Benelux) the arrival of a degree of prosperity never known in the world before, with a degree of individual liberty never experienced till then.

May 1968, the child of Coca Cola and Marx, could only be born in the midst of this prosperity and liberty – inside the geographical, ideological, commercial and historical space sheltered by American military power. When we know what became of European nations like Czechoslovakia, East Germany or Hungary, under communist control, we can measure the degree of the good dispensed us by the Americans.

Pacifist rhetoric – not very pacifist in the aggressive virulence of its pronouncements regarding the United States – presents itself as the rhetoric of forgetting this lasting event. It is the civilizational benefits of America, as well as the philototalitarian history of pacifism that all the current demonstrations attempt to hide.

“War on America” has constituted, for the past sixty years, the one and only watchword of all forms of pacifism. Yet it is thanks to the United States with the power of the American army and in spite of pacifist hatred that we are neither “red” nor “dead” today.

The neo-pacifists of the present time attempt to hide the benefits brought by America in order to avoid being forced to acknowledge a difficult double truth: on the one hand, it wasn’t the “People” who liberated themselves from Nazism, it is to the American army, ”the Anglo-Americans”, as Vichy propaganda hatefully said, that we owe that liberation, and, on the other hand, it was not the “People” either who guaranteed western Europe’s protection against communism, whose charms they felt, but American policy. The syntagma “Anglo-Americans” in a context of diabolization, which we are daily given the opportunity to hear on the airwaves and in the interminable, rainbow-coloured rosary of the protests in the street, has a strange resonance to our ears.

To place side by side, as happened in a recent demonstration, with these diatribes attacks against Israel recalls the dark anti-English, anti-American and anti-Semitic years of the Nazi occupation. At the time, this Vichy-Nazi propaganda put forward (in the news, in the cinemas) pictures of “Anglo-American” bombardments in order to accuse their authors of barbarism and inhumanity.

Current pacifism, with its highly ambiguous vocabulary, far from raising itself above both camps, to the heights of the philosophical idea of peace, reveals itself, when we examine the slogans it thunders, to be the exact opposite of pacifism: it expresses itself in a “two-camp” manner (there only exist two camps: America and the “People”), dichotomic and partisan, without any nuances, directed exclusively against the Americans (to which they sometimes add the Israelis), and violently aggressive. This global neo-pacifism is, in its violence and hostility towards America, another form of war talk. It calls for mobilization, for combat, for the forms of war.

Even if Bush is not necessarily right, in his use of a propaganda dedicated to failure, to stigmatizing Iraq to excess – transforming age-old Baghdad into an enemy of the entire human race – the neo-pacifists are transforming America into a scapegoat for every people.

The unacknowledged debt towards the dominant power is expressed in the form of massive resentment towards the stronger and richer. Defining depoliticization, the resentful refusal of power engenders historical irresponsibilty: to refuse power, particularly that of a non-totalitarian empire which is the bearer of democratic values like the United States, means campaigning on behalf of the global law of the jungle, dividing the planet between warlords and ethnocrats, favouring the neo-feudalism of interminable conflicts, infinite civil war. The neo-pacifists’ fight is an unconscious fight against peace in as far as it remains inspired by resentment towards power.

The pacifists fail to understand that it is best to distrust the “People”. They see rightness in numbers. The belief is that the “People” is the true good, the pronouncements of the “People” the expression of this good. Now, generally, the “People” do not want the good: they want to be able to be alienated (to consumption, to religions, to traditions, to limited particularisms) in peace. They wish for a voluntary, peaceful slavery to symbols.

The Iranians in their struggle against the Shah - a struggle backed by Western intellectuals, including Michel Foucault, under the pretext of the Shah’s vassal status to the United States – far from fighting for their freedom, were fighting for an even greater slavery, more exalted in their eyes, the absolute religious alienation of the government of the ayatollahs and the mullahs.

The People experience politics – and, in the case of the United States, politics is identified with power – as an obstacle to the alienation they desire so much.

In the identification of the true and the good with the People, with the movement of history, originate all the pacifists’ systematic errors, and their choice in favour of totalitarianisms – whose ideologies always claim to be popular – rather than the United States, whose system of individual and democratic values displeases to the exact degree it is assimilated to power.

translation provided at:

http://www.cinderellabloggerfeller....cinderellabloggerfeller_archive.html#91424010