ANTI-AMERICANISM

Environmentalism, free trade and globalization don't bring people or nations together. There is only one cause that unites people and nations, today. That cause is anti-Americanism.

The dislike or hatred of America and Americans is an obsession that unifies most people on the planet. That hatred crosses race, gender and even age barriers. It is an activity that reaches almost sexual like pleasures among those that engage in it. America is the root all evils- past, present and future. It is hard for those who have such great hatred for America to opine on which gave them greater pleasure- the people who jumped to their deaths from the World Trade Center, or those who burned to death. Ward Churchill, never made that clear to his cheering audiences. Perhaps the question was too difficult to answer. Those who blame George Bush for the all the ills of the world never make that clear. As Dr Sanity points out,

The chant, "Bush Lied, People Died" would be revised to, "3000 People Died on 9/11 before Bush Said Anything" . The former has the advantage of rhyming, but the latter is closer to truth in advertising. And, that is exactly why the people chanting the former cutesy phrase are so indignant and scream ragefully like stuck pigs about "cynical manipulation" when images of 9/11 are shown; or even when that horrible day is mentioned. They know all about it. The "cynical manipulation" they are referring to is entirely a product of their own minds

Pesky truths! Ironic as it is, the French and Germans feel compelled to lecture America on militarism. Given that US military intervention is usually at the request of and as a result of European military and adventurism of all other varieties, that charge is laughable and accepted only as fact by the `useful idiots.'

In fact, anti-Americanism has evolved from the minor religion of has-been Marxists, professional victims, Islamo-fascists and Third World tinpot dictators playing to the cameras, into what can best be described as new found religious status, elevated to unimaginable heights. Che Gueverra, Uday and Qusei Hussein, Mao, and Ho Chi Minh are a few of the new saints (Castro will be canonized immediately upon death) with the Rosenbergs, Uday and Qusay Hussein, to name a few, are the angels over our shoulders, all blessed and ordained by Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky and the religious orders of MoveOn and TruthOut.

The objective of the new religion is to put the US into the worst possible light- and ignore those things that the US does well. The MSM had virtually nothing to say when US soldiers were brutally murdered along with Iraqi children, as the soldiers were passing out gifts. In fact, the story was almost immediately forgotten. Contrast that with pretend Quran desecration story, that went on for weeks. America is the hell and Mr Bush is the devil in this new religion. Of course, there can be no heaven or God- anti American ideology of the left precludes the need for a deity. Of course, if you are an anti- American Islamofascist, you can impose your beliefs at will.

What the anti American religion offers it's millions, if not billions, of adherents, is the same as any other faith- meaning. Of course it is really no more than an illusion, a mirage, to mitigate an otherwise useless existence (When anti-Americanism is the focus of your life, that life is indeed meaningless). What the anti-American religion would have you believe is that no matter how hypocritical, backward, bigoted, ignorant, corrupt, evil, murderous or cruel you or the regime you pledge allegiance to, you are better than the disgusting Americans.

The new religion of the left, anti-Americanism, was founded for one reason and one reason only: to counter the incoming high tide of truth. Revolutions today aren't about Marxist or socialist agendas. They are about free societies, capitalism and market economies. That is what people want, from Africa to South America to Eastern Europe. The war of ideas is over and the socialist agenda has been soundly defeated on every front. Even Hugo Chavez, will be soon forgotten. The high tides of freedoms and the aspirations of free men can no more held be back than the high tides of the oceans.

Even the political 'successes' of the left, under close examination, are debatable. Was opposition to the Vietnam War a success? The war was entered into by a liberal President, John F Kennedy, in response to a French plea for help. That war against communism was expanded many fold by Lyndon Johnson, who - rightly wanting to bring freedom to an oppressed people. The war ended- and hundreds of thousands were killed in communist re-education camps. The liberal voices usually neglect to recall those truths.

Are there liberal voices today, demanding freedom for oppressed peoples? Of course not. The despots and totalitarian regimes found all over the world are reflective of what passes for liberal ideology. If John Kennedy remarked today, `Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for country,' his call would be answered by those wishing to destroy many of the most important values of this country- that freedom was to be shared by all.

The Iraqis suffered under years of UN sanctions, put in place because Saddam was an evil butcher who used WMD's on numerous occasions as a highlight to his already murderous regime. He refused to submit to international authorities looking to curtail his murderous adventures. In those 12 years of sanctions, the Oil for Food debacle provided Saddam with billions and left even more Iraqis dead, as he purposefully kept food and medicine from being distributed.

The left only cared about the Iraqis when military action, spearheaded by the US, became an inevitability. When it was America that wanted to alleviate Iraqi suffering, it was America that was evil. Only American bombing were responsible for the death of Iraqis. Saddam was to join the ranks of the saints, in the new left religion. Bloody hands were to be no impediment to the anointing.

The American government are often accused of ignoring their critics, never giving them the hearing they demand. In fact, that is opposite of reality. Critics of American policy are given a hearing everyday, in the press, on the streets and even in Congress. What those critics can't abide is not being agreed with. They cannot conceive of anyone having an opinion that is different from their own. To differ is to become illegitimate. When Mr Bush won his second term, that truth became apparent. His opponents could blame the Supreme Court or the State of Florida for the loss of the 2000 election. They cannot abide the incontrovertible results of the 2004 elections. Cries of `foul!' quickly subsided as where the evidence of voter fraud occurred. Voter fraud it seems, is only objectionable under certain conditions.

The religion of the left is as bereft of ideas as it is of political gravitas. The sloganeering of `No to Terror! No to War!' is as relevant as saying `No to Cancer! No to Radiation!' Terror cannot be addressed with conversation any more than cancer can be cured by sitting in the yoga lotus position. Terror and cancer must be addressed head on and aggressively. To believe otherwise is to delude oneself. The simple fact is, we cannot all just get `along.' In fact, we do not want to get along with those whose ideas are and beliefs are so different than our own.

Do you share the same agenda as Hollywood? Do you want to see your children influences by ideals and behaviors that are different from your own? Of course not. While each of us are free to express ourselves in anyway we wish, we do not have to make room in our beds for those whose beliefs differ from our own. The right does not have to countenance Michael Moore any more than the left will tolerate George Bush. That's the way it is.

The obfuscation continues, with the left indicting America as self absorbed or materialistic. In fact, the most self absorbed and materialistic regimes are those in Africa or the Arab world, where corruption and deceit are the defining adjectives of those regimes. That greed, corruption and self serving attitudes rival religion in their tenacious expressions by citizens of all strata in those countries.

As to materialism, in fact, there is no more generous nation on earth than the United States. In fact, what makes the America great is not it's generous foreign aid, but in the aid and charity given by it's citizens. While France and Germany were eager to highlight their post Katrina aid- for which we are thankful- it is curious to note that the bulk of that aid was given by those governments. There is very little indication that French and German private citizens, reached into their own pockets. Contrast that with the behavior and contributions of American citizens, helping out in Indonesia, Pakistan, Darfur and a host of other countries, all donated in addition to government aid. So much for the selfish American!

Another mischaracterization is the charge by the left that Americans are simplistic. They pointed to Ronald Reagan referring to the Soviet Union as the `Evil Empire' as evidence of American shallowness. Well with the passage of time, no one is yet claiming the Soviet Union as the `Gentle and Kind Empire'- certainly not the Eastern bloc nations that suffered behind the iron curtain. In fact, the real display of half baked silliness is by the left themselves, insisting that a make believe socialist agenda is reason enough to forgive any despotic regime, no matter how bloody and murderous. That remains the legacy of the left- the support for regimes that have failed. In fact, the left has supported every `ism' that has failed.

The only agenda they have refused to endorse is the only that has succeeded and the one agenda that is gaining ground- capitalism. As we noted earlier, the revolutions today are not for socialism, but rather, for political and economic freedoms.

In a world where the left falls in lockstep with with dictators wherever they pop up, it is curious how only the democratic US is described as fascist, another idea propagated by the idiot brigade. It bears remembering that the most murderous of ideologies came about in Europe and for the most part, it was European colonialism that left former empires in shambles, led by a secession of leftist loving murderous tyrants.

Source



VDH on "Fairness"

Democrats have discussed reinstating some sort of “fairness” doctrine aimed at regulating talk radio. They are furious that the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Bill Bennett, Michael Savage, and a host of other conservatives dominate the AM airwaves — while Air America, Jerry Brown, Jim Hightower, Mario Cuomo, and other liberals have failed utterly to carve out a comparable audience in the marketplace of ideas and entertainment.

Once again, liberal civil libertarians are not so liberal about free speech when it is a matter of the public not buying into their own progressive agendas. We should remember that the public is free to choose–and advertisers respond accordingly–about what they wish to hear. Apparently, whiny sermons by nasal-droning elites about the illiberal nature of the yokel middle class is exactly what most on their way to work do not wish to endure.

Of course, conservatives likewise lament the imbalance of left-leaning public radio and television, the major networks such as NBC and CBS, the predominantly liberal print media, universities, the entertainment industry, and foundations. But the difference is that for the most part they are not calling for the government to mandate “fairness” by empowering federal bureaucrats to curb the liberal biases of these institutions.

It is stereotypically easy to identify authoritarians who seek restrict civil liberties during war in the name of “national security.” But it is much harder to take on crusading special interest groups, district attorneys, court justices, and liberal Senators who ignore, twist, or subvert our constitutional freedoms under the liberal clarion call of helping minorities, stopping the war, or championing the underclass.

If we are to lose our civil liberties, it won’t be all of sudden due to Patriot-Act zealots in sunglasses and flattops, but rather insidiously and incrementally by egalitarian professors, moral crusaders, muckraking journalists, and government utopians all unhappy that constitutional justice is too little and too late for their ever impatient desire to ensure heaven on earth.

Source



Violence by blacks was 'sanitised'

In the theory-addled heads of Leftists, Australian Aborigines were prime candidates for being the "noble savages" of Rousseauian myth. Only the Tasaday ever lived up to that myth -- and they were a hoax. Primitive people are in fact characteristically very violent -- and Australian Aborigines are great perpetrators of violence on one-another to this day

PUBLISHERS in the 1980s and 1990s sanitised Aboriginal history by censoring accounts of violence, including sexual abuse and infanticide. Award-winning historical author Susanna de Vries has revealed that her books on early colonial life, based on the memoirs of pioneer women, were allegedly toned down so as not to upset Aboriginal sensibilities. De Vries said the memoirs of one woman, Louisa Meredith, were allegedly censored by Queensland publishing house Michael White Publishers to remove references to infanticide, tribal warfare, and the rape and removal of women.

The memoirs of the first Aboriginal justice of the peace, Ella Simon, were similarly sanitised by Sydney publishers Millennium Books in the late 1990s so that a baby "stuffed head-first down a rabbit hole and left to die after it fell ill on walkabout" was allegedly edited to read "left under a tree to die". Both publishers have since gone out of business but de Vries's revelations have raised questions about how widespread the practice was at the time.

"We don't sanitise anti-Semitism and the Holocaust," said Louis Nowra, author of Bad Dreaming, which documents the use of Aboriginal customary law to legitimise sexual abuse and domestic violence against women and children.

De Vries has written about a dozen books on women in colonial times and was made a member of the Order of Australia for her services to literature. "This kind of benign censorship stemming from guilt over the stolen children question has hidden references to the abuse of part-Aboriginal and Aboriginal children in the past," she said. "Anything to do with the abuse of Aboriginal women and children by their fellow Aborigines has been censored out by editors keen not to offend and raise ghosts of the stolen children stories. Ignoring the other stories of the rape of Aboriginal girls by Aboriginal men; the killing of Aboriginal babies often by leaving them to die in the bush; and the neglect and abuse of Aboriginal and part-Aboriginal children have all been part of a taboo which is based on guilt."

Controversial historian Keith Windschuttle, who came to national prominence for questioning claims by other historians that Tasmanian Aborigines were massacred by white settlers, said the tendency to whitewash Aboriginal culture started in the 1970s. "People thought by flattering pre-modern Aboriginal culture you would assert esteem in Aboriginal culture and make Aboriginal people feel good about themselves," Mr Windschuttle said. "It also continued the belief that the problem with modern Aboriginal culture doesn't lie with Aborigines, it lies with white people instead of seeing that the problem in many ways lies with both."

Nowra said there was a tendency to view Aborigines as "noble savages", which denied part of Aboriginal culture, and overlooked the harsh environment in which they survived. "It was difficult to keep an abundant number of Aboriginal children alive; they were life-and-death decisions we don't have to face," Nowra said. He added that the "small-l" liberals who dominated the conversation always supported the male view of the world. "Aboriginal culture tends to be defined by the male culture ... the thing about customary law is that it always works in favour of men, never women," he said.

Historian Inga Clendinnen said censorship arose from a "very understandable tenderness and concern" towards the Aboriginal community. Australian Publishers Association chief executive officer Maree McCaskill said publishers now fought fiercely to protect their right to free speech and to publish without fear. Sandy Grant of Hardie Grant Books, who published Spycatcher, the memoirs of MI5 agent Peter Wright, said any publisher worth their salt would not censor their authors and that the fact these publishers were no longer in business was telling.

Source



More deliberately distorted Australian history -- "Evil white men" created

Comment by Christopher Pearson

I BEGAN this column by talking about the way people expect the past to suck up to the present. In the June issue of The Monthly Robert Manne provides a particularly egregious example. He was reviewing Sven Lindqvist's book Terra Nullius: A Journey Through No One's Land. Although Manne displays some awareness of "characteristic flaws" in Lindqvist's approach, namely "hyperbolic exaggeration, historical oversimplification and inaccuracy, cavalier carelessness in the mounting of argument, fanciful self-indulgence", he nonetheless insists: "There is no Western society which more needs to hear a local version of the Lindqvist sermon than post-Windschuttle Australia."

Manne himself provides a neat illustration of the pitfalls of this don't-fuss-with-the-facts, get-with-the-moralising style of commentary with the following: "Although he has read extensively on Australia, it is fair criticism of Lindqvist that he has still not read enough to become truly familiar with the country. Because he has discovered in John Mulvaney's Encounters in Place that a massacre occurred at Moorundie, outside Adelaide, Lindqvist is astonished and indignant that no one he meets there seems to have heard anything about it. Lindqvist is unaware that virtually all the massacres that took place in Australia are unknown to the public."

The clear implication is that, along with South Australia's early settlers, people living in Adelaide and the public in general are so complacently ignorant and morally obtuse that they neither know nor care that a massacre of Aborigines took place on or near the stolen lands they occupy; hence the needfor a sermon from Lindqvist and indeed from Manne.

Anyone sufficiently concerned to consult Mulvaney's book for further detail will find no account of a massacre at Moorundie. Moorundie is about 120km northeast of Adelaide, just south of where the Sturt Highway crosses the Murray at Blanchetown. According to Mulvaney, a government outpost was established there in 1841 and operated until 1856. From October 1841 it was administered by Edward John Eyre, who was appointed "resident magistrate and protector of Aborigines" by governor George Grey. Eyre was concerned about violent clashes between settlers and Aborigines near Rufus River about 190km farther upstream near Wentworth in southwest NSW. Mulvaney tells us that "within a few weeks of his appointment, Eyre visited the disaffected Rufus country to conciliate and to urge that the white man wished to live with them on terms of amity".

He also says that "Grey and Eyre both wished to save lives on humanitarian grounds and were well intentioned ... Eyre was trusted because he treated Aborigines simply as human beings." Mulvaney's account leaves us in no doubt that Eyre, similar to Charles Sturt and John McLaren, who also recorded early encounters with Aborigines in regions around Adelaide, took great pains to avoid violence. There is ample evidence in their journals that Eyre and Sturt were gravely concerned about the rapid disintegration of Aboriginal society, in particular as a result of the virulence of introduced diseases, in the first decade after the settlement of South Australia.

Source

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

***************************