Anti Amaricanism

Anti-Americanism: An Example

An example of anti-Ami, both the hostile kind and the sort of sedative intellectual kind.I will post Dave’s comment first, that way you don’t have to click on the link to read his full comment. It is long enough that if I post it here, you might have an easier time of reading this post and its contents.
Comment below written by: Kool Aid Dave
Ok, so the debate gets more interesting…
I’ll ignore the insults and attempt to raise my tone (admitting that I insulted too).
“Therefore we have two sides, allies and enemies. The way the Left treats argument, is as a destructive conflict. They seek to undermine and destroy you, as they would an enemy, a mortal enemy of theirs. It is because they do not believe you are ‘on their side’, even marginally.”
Remarkable: the above paragraph almost exactly describes the approach of the Right! “Either with us or against us”, “axis of evil”, the Christian fundamentalists… Astonishing that you feel this is the approach of the left. Of course if you are a racist/sexist/homphobe/etc I would consider you an enemy of sorts (although we don’t believe in killing our enemies with guns). The fact is that my experience in Apartheid South Africa taught me that there isn’t much common ground to be found with bigots… generally they’re a bit of a lost cause/waste of energy. And unfortunately the word bigot is what springs to mind when I think of the leadership of the Right.
“Because for every person there is a core set of beliefs or axioms that he or she holds by…”
This is a key point. Yes what does make us tick and who are we representing? What is this “Left” you speak of, and conversely who is the “Right” I assume you speak for. In the USA today there is no apparent political “Left” to speak of. Bill Clinton certainly was a bit more progressive than most American presidents in a while but he certainly cannot be regarded as a representative of the Left (his failed leadership on Kyoto alone would exclude him) . The Democrats these days are some sort of Centre-right party while the current Republican administration would be regarded as ultra right-wing in most democracies.
So if you want to understand my core you need to know a couple of things: and up front I want to say that I don’t regard my life as some sort of showcase or example that you should waste valuable time understanding - but you claim to understand my core, so I want to illustrate the extent to which you don’t and thus challenge you to question your fundamental assumptions in this debate.
I live in a mud hut in the most remote village in South Africa. There is no road, no school, no clinic, no electricity (save my solar panels used to write this), no cell phone signal, no running water, no toilets, no mommá’s basement… and my community are materially some of the poorest in the world. I started and run a tourism project with this community in an effort to help them lift themselves out of poverty. This project is fairly well known in international community tourism circles (see www.bulungula.com or google “Bulungula”) and has helped half the families in the village find employment or start their own businesses.
My core also was significantly influenced by five years of travel to the poorest parts of the world: crossing Africa by land for 18 months (www.africanwanderers.co.za), crossing the Amazon, China, Cuba, South America, etc. All these are layered on top of being born and raised in a neo-Nazi, police state that has fairly peacefully transformed itself into viable democracy.
These travels and experiences obviously have had a huge impact on my life and outlook and naturally inform what I’ve said in these posts.
One important lesson learnt is that there is a sort of dual nature of human existence which balances a common desire shared by all humans (the need for peace, happiness, community and the satisfaction of basic needs) while at the same time it is obvious that there is no one fundamental shared truth or reality that is seen by or can be applied to all. An obvious example is to have an eloquent Palestinian and an eloquent Israeli discuss what are the true FACTS about the cause of their conflict - yet they both share similar desires for themselves and their families.
An example closer to home: people in my village just cannot comprehend that there exist communities in the world that take their old people when they’re no longer convenient and hide them away in institutions/old age homes/concentration camps. I know all the arguments why our Western society has developed this solution - but the response from my community is that there is just no possible justification. In the same way that you would not put your children in a children’s home during their inconvenient years, neither can you put away your old people when they become a hassle. This is just part of the deal of being a human being, you care for your children and one day your children care for you. Again, here there is no truth or right or wrong, but it is not impossible that some militant young people given the means could launch attacks on the USA to end this “barbaric practice.” Of course the USA has and does often do the same by imposing its “truth” on others.
So (hopefully) getting vaguely back to the topic: it was the Right/Bush who began the rhetoric of one truth “you’re either with us, or against us”, “Axis of Evil”, etc and then sought to impose this where he deemed fit. He obviously comes from a strong faith background (faith = belief without proof = belief in one truth dictated by a super natural power) and is convinced that he has some knowledge of some simplified universal truth that if you can’t see it, you must be some lefty hippy who doesn’t live in the real world (a real world, we should note, that Bush has very limited experience of both in terms of geography, culture and class). Hence, the solutions evident to Bush/the Right are clear cut and need a no-nonsense, cut-the-crap direct solution.
I contend however that in areas where someone doesn’t have expertise, the Left recognises the need for experts in those fields. When 99% of meteorologists/climate scientists agree that global warming is an imminent catastrophe, the Left (since the 60’s!) calls for action. Bush/the Right/the centre-right Democrats fought necessary change tooth and nail (the victims: the poorest people in the world who never caused the problem and don’t have the wealth to save themselves). Peak Oil - an obvious inevitability with increasing consumption of a finite resource… yet seemingly intelligent people with foresight suddenly panic when oil hits $80 a barrel. Americans drive Hummers and SUVs while the rest of the world long accepted the need for fuel efficiency, so the GM giant slowly sinks under its lack of foresight of the obvious trend.
I’m not having a US bashing session here, I’m just trying to illustrate that the arrogance displayed by the Right in their dismissal of the Left as some unprincipled, directionless, indecisive movement is precisely what has landed us in many of the world’s major current predicaments. Of course, the best solutions are never clear cut and obvious… it’s that multiple differing realities situation raising its head again: this is why the Left is easily labelled as indecisive. How much freedom should you give your young child? Enough to learn and explore, but not put him/her in danger (do you let him/her burn herself on that candle?)… where do we draw that line, is there a true answer to this question?
Nevertheless, grappling with the problem, putting the best minds to work trying to solve it, this is how we can have the best chance at solving most problems.
The problem comes when someone claims a monopoly on truth. Gay marriage is wrong. Period. Not “wrong for me” but wrong for everyone, even if in some private ceremony where I don’t know it happens. This is the Right at its worst: unilateral moral truth and unilateral action.
Which finally brings us back to Iraq. The reason why the UN and any multilateral institution will always struggle to quickly take action is that it by its very nature is trying to grapple with thousands of decision makers with thousands of different perspectives/realities and through this quite chaotic mix come up with a solution. The fact that this is slow and time-consuming doesn’t give one nation with 5% of the world’s population the right to go impose its truth/reality/solution on other people. As much as that nation might believe that when, cutting-the-crap, it is the example that all others should follow: the reality is that the vast majority of the world don’t see it that way. (Certainly the elderly of Africa would dread the imposition of the American lifestyle. Not to mention our poor environment!) The fact that the US has the biggest guns and can do what it likes like imperial dictators, just stirs up animosity. An animosity easily exploited by the likes of Al Qaeda.
So where does this leave us in this debate? Well, central to my (dare I say “the Left’s”) mission is that the Right be held to account for their unilateral action in Iraq. In the face of compelling evidence about the dubious nature of the WMD claims and the likely possibility of civil war, the Right rushed to war in an act of unilateral action that has caused enormous devastation to all concerned. We must remember, Hussein was not about to attack anyone, or launch bombs, he was blustering nonsense from his bunkers and was essentially harmless to the outside world. One missile fired in anger by Hussein and he was history and he knew it! Certainly there was no imminent threat that couldn’t wait 6 months to fully build a united world coalition to deal with it.
Addressing the oppressive domestic Iraqi situation unfortunately is just not the mandate of the UN security council (unless there was genocide). As much as all of us would love to instantly liberate every oppressed person and let them share the joy of peace and prosperity, this is currently a naive idea. The world is just not in a position to accept this right now: China is slowly emerging in its own way into a free society, but will not countenance anyone dictating the terms of this process. Ditto dozens of other countries at various complicated stages of democratisation. If we want to simplistically “free everyone now”, most knowledgeable commentators would agree that we would almost certainly fail and set the whole process back a few decades. This is delicate stuff.
Any world governing system has to have some consistent set of rules for everyone, but the US has just announced that it operates according to its own rules thus opening the pandora’s box of the whole world acting unilaterally.
The precedent set by the US in Iraq is a terrifying one: on what basis now could the US criticise China re-occupying its “renegade province” Taiwan? By acting without an explicit international mandate, the US is in effect saying: “find some expedient, half-baked justification for war, and away you go.” The moral and legal high ground has been lost. I’m sure China with its economic clout in Asia could easily create its own coalition of the willing. And its historical claim to Taiwan would certainly bare more scrutiny than alleged uranium shipments from Niger!
So as you say, where to now?:
I think that first, unfortunately, the US must pay the heaviest price for its unilateral military action so that from a purely self-interested point of view it will not be so hasty in invading another country. The 3000+ dead US soldiers are the price of this lesson. 2nd Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld Rove must be prosecuted for what they’ve done: from the indefensible Guantanamo Bay to the deliberate misleading of the American public and the horror visited on Iraqi people. (This may seem unlikely now, but I hope there’ll be an angry backlash once they’ve left office and are no longer protected by their positions.) In Iraq, I think the experts (aka Iraq Study Group) have spoken (unfortunately informed opinion has again been trumped by Bush’s inbuilt “Truth” thing): speak to Syria and Iran and everyone else who has a vested interest in a stable Iraq, withdraw all US troops soon thus undermining Al Qaeda’s claim to be fighting the infidel on behalf of all muslims, bring in a UN peace-keeping (mostly Muslim) force, and begin real negotiations between the various parties under the assumption that in the long term everyone prefers peace. This could take decades… the unfortunate consequence of trying to find peace amidst a bloody civil war rather than trying to bring peaceful democracy to a brutal, but more peaceful dictatorship.
Posted by: Kool Aid Dave May 7, 2007 8:16:12 AM
it is obvious that there is no one fundamental shared truth or reality that is seen by or can be applied to all.
-Dave
Then I suppose in the end, the reason you’re arguing is because you are fighting against your station and reality. Reality says there is a direct causality relationship, you say there isn’t, so you argue. Here, there, etc.
If there is no fundamental shared truth or reality, then what are you talking about? Facts? Facts don’t exist without a reality to base the events upon. People may not see the same reality, but it applies all the same to them.
etc and then sought to impose this where he deemed fit.
It may be easier to attack Bush for the station that the world has given you, but it is not more effective. The world is the way it is, not the way Bush made it. He does not dictate how causality runs, he can only make decisions with the power he has. If you want to argue with the world over what reality it has or doesn’t have over you, it is pointless to waste time on Bush. People act like he is the Emperor of the Galaxy.
(faith = belief without proof = belief in one truth dictated by a super natural power)
Since as you say, reality doesn’t apply to everyone the same, why should folks not believe in a super natural power? Super natural just means beyond the natural, and the natural just means what is normally there in the world. But if the world isn’t the same to two different people, then it doesn’t matter, now does it.
A person can live through life believing in two or more inconsistent beliefs. But eventually, not even a human being’s mind can work through so many false and inconsistent beliefs at the same time in parallel. Eventually something breaks.
I’m just trying to illustrate that the arrogance displayed by the Right in their dismissal of the Left as some unprincipled, directionless, indecisive movement is precisely what has landed us in many of the world’s major current predicaments.
Everyone sees the world differently. Why is the so called Right arrogant just because they disagree with you and your take on reality? Maybe if everybody went lockstep and agreed with everybody else, the world’s major current predicaments would disappear…
it’s that multiple differing realities situation raising its head again: this is why the Left is easily labelled as indecisive.
meaning that the Left can’t figure out which is the true reality amongst their ranks, but all together they can agree that the Right is totally wrong and arrogant… I see.
Nevertheless, grappling with the problem, putting the best minds to work trying to solve it, this is how we can have the best chance at solving most problems.
The best minds are useless without wisdom and rather overrated as a consequence. Because it is not the mind that is the key ingredient to success, but the will and the correct desire for the right. If a person believes in false premises and axioms, it does not matter how good of a mind he has, his mind is broken for his will is directed towards the wrong things.
This is the Right at its worst: unilateral moral truth and unilateral action.
No, it is the Republic at its best.
The reason why the UN and any multilateral institution will always struggle to quickly take action is that it by its very nature is trying to grapple with thousands of decision makers with thousands of different perspectives/realities and through this quite chaotic mix come up with a solution.
That’s more or less right, and I’d agree with that take. Course their solution is how to more efficiently enrich themselves, but still.
The fact that this is slow and time-consuming doesn’t give one nation with 5% of the world’s population the right to go impose its truth/reality/solution on other people.
Sure it does. For God gives rights, the Constitution gives rights. Even the military provides rights. You and your words, don’t, however.
As much as that nation might believe that when, cutting-the-crap, it is the example that all others should follow: the reality is that the vast majority of the world don’t see it that way.
The majority of soldiers in history were looters, rap[]ists, and sluggards. America has always had a better standard for success than following the “vast majority of the Old Country”.
Vast majority of Europe was a monarchy, when the upstart Ami Republic in 1812 was attacked by the British.
An animosity easily exploited by the likes of Al Qaeda.
Just as with Native Americans, you can choose to be exploited by the British and Spanish, but it doesn’t mean you won’t go into the ashbin of history.
Well, central to my (dare I say “the Left’s”) mission is that the Right be held to account for their unilateral action in Iraq.
When you can field a military that can defeat ours on the open field of battle, then you can hold us accountable. Otherwise, you’re just talking.
We must remember, Hussein was not about to attack anyone, or launch bombs, he was blustering nonsense from his bunkers and was essentially harmless to the outside world.
Right, he was harmless when he invaded Kuwait and started the looting and rap][ine, up until the US Bush family kicked his ass back to Baghdad. I remember.
One missile fired in anger by Hussein and he was history and he knew it!
The reason why the Left always underestimates dictators is because the so called Right is more of a threat to them and their theology on reality and the world. Precisely because the United States supresses things like piracy and conquerors like Hussein. Killers are not a big threat to those who believe reality is multifaceted for different people not just in perception but in application as well. The US, however, with the Gold standard in success and the example that reality does favor one and only one approach, stands as a testament to the Left’s theological collapse. And that, more than anything else, is why the US is hobbled more than dictators, by folks who believe as the Left believes.
Any world governing system has to have some consistent set of rules for everyone, but the US has just announced that it operates according to its own rules thus opening the pandora’s box of the whole world acting unilaterally.
if you want a unilateral set of rules for everyone, the US will oblige you. As soon as you pay us taxes in return for the protection the US provides the world, or you apply for state membership.
So long as you don’t pay us taxes or anything else for that matter, we don’t have to listen to you or anyone else. It’s called trading. So long as you don’t have anything we need, we’re not going to do what you want us to do.
The precedent set by the US in Iraq is a terrifying one: on what basis now could the US criticise China re-occupying its “renegade province” Taiwan?
Cause Taiwan has US carriers protecting it, that means we don’t need to criticize China. The US doesn’t just talk about what it is doing, it actually does it.
The moral and legal high ground has been lost.
Nobody had it in the first place, trying to get to the moon while folks are starving, is a rather interesting strategy for human progress. It is just bad priority in my view.
I’m sure China with its economic clout in Asia could easily create its own coalition of the willing. And its historical claim to Taiwan would certainly bare more scrutiny than alleged uranium shipments from Niger!
But you don’t understand something. The US likes winning wars. Americans don’t shrink from national contests and wars. Not until recently with the advent of the powerful movement on the Left, of transnational progressivism anyways. Started with the Soviets and socialism of course.
Americans have always solved their disputes with finality, through wars. They had an argument with the British… Revo War. They had an argument with Southern Democrats… Civi Ami War. They had an argument with Germany… WWI. They had another argument with Japan… WWII. Soviet argument was solved cause everybody gave each other the cold shoulder and eventually the Soviets moved out of the house without getting whipped out.
So as you say, where to now?:Iran.
I think that first, unfortunately, the US must pay the heaviest price for its unilateral military action so that from a purely self-interested point of view it will not be so hasty in invading another country.
The only thing preventing other countries from invading each other, like China invading Taiwan, is the US. You try punishing the US, and you’ll get what you have been working for. Total international anarchy and the digression of human affairs back into piracy and fragmented despair.
speak to Syria and Iran and everyone else who has a vested interest in a stable Iraq
Syria and Iran has a vested interest in a stable Iraq? Stable in terms of under their power and a weapon to be used against the innocent, perhaps, but not stable in terms of peace or prosperity.
bring in a UN peace-keeping (mostly Muslim) force,
The Iraqis better hide their children, all of the ones in Yon’s photos as well.
This could take decades… the unfortunate consequence of trying to find peace amidst a bloody civil war rather than trying to bring peaceful democracy to a brutal, but more peaceful dictatorship.
As I said before, I don’t want the Left’s peace of the grave and of the totalitarian silencing of the mind.
It is just unacceptable to us. We found peace in our Civil War, and it didn’t need a decade. Total War is and has always been the solution for the United States. It is a tradition the Americans should not turn their back on, lest they fall too far to recover, as their enemies converge on them.
Americans know in a sense that there is a kind of anti-Ami indoctrination system going on in the world about us, that produces people like you. Both folks who are hostile and full of angst, and those who just apparently believes that the US is the problem and the obstacle to world unity, peace, stability, and safety. (like you do)
If America wanted to take over the world, nobody outside could stop her. Because the only thing that Americans obey, is their own laws, their own Constitution. Your attempt to impose another order on America, is both unworkable and counter-productive.
People here talked about Kool Aid because we had an incident here in the US where a cult[]st preacher with charisma, was able to get people to drink poison laced Kool Aid because he had convinced them that the there were terrible things afoot and would do horrible things to them. Even still, the followers that didn’t want to die, were forced to take the poison, by armed guards. A US Congressman and his entourage who landed to perhaps make a deal or negotiate, died on the leader’s orders.
During the late 1970’s, Jones had been abusing prescription drugs and appears to have become increasingly paranoid. Rumors of human rights abuses circulated. As in most high-intensity religious groups, there was a considerable flow of people joining and leaving the group. Tim Stoen, the Temple attorney and right-hand man to Jones left to form a group called Concerned Relatives. They claimed that Jonestown was being run like a concentration camp, and that people were being held there against their will.
These concerns motivated Leo Ryan, a Congressman, to visit Jonestown in 1978-NOV for a personal inspection. At first, the visit went well. Later, on NOV-18, about 16 Temple members decided that they wanted to leave Jonestown with the visitors. This came as quite a blow to both Jones and the rest of the project. While Ryan and the others were waiting at Port Kiatuma airfield, the local airstrip, some heavily armed members of the Temple’s security guards arrived and started shooting. Congressman Ryan and four others were killed; three were members of the press; the other was a person from Jonestown who wanted to leave. 11 were wounded.
This is what they mean when they say Kool Aid drinker. You are a follower of a cult, anti-Americanism, that will destroy not only those you love, but yourself as well.
The absolute one and only truth that anti-Ami would have us believe is that the US must be punished, held back, and controlled. That this is for the “good of the world”.
“He preached a ’social gospel’ of human freedom, equality, and love, which required helping the least and the lowliest of society’s members. Later on, however, this gospel became explicitly socialistic, or communistic in Jones’ own view, and the hypocrisy of white Christianity was ridiculed while ‘apostolic socialism’ was preached.” 1
A lot of people talk about the “good”, but most of the time they are just talking about themselves. What is good for them. Why? Because people can be made to do horrible things if you just tell them that they will have the moral high ground if they do so, that they will be doing the world a favor, that what they are doing is good, for their self-survival and soul. But all of these are lies when coming from the mouths of evil men. They manipulate the fear in the human soul.
I saw the [pics] of the shootout at the airport where the Congressman died. There was a reporter there with a camera. That’s the eventual end for those who seek to constrain or destroy America. They will be destroyed by the true killers. And not only that, but they will take any honest folks trying to help, at the same time, just like the Congressman. Jones killed the Congressman to make sure that nobody could leave, that everyone knew that they had cut all ties to the United States, to our protection and mercy.
That is what AL Qaeda does. That is what the Left does. And that is what anti-Americanism does. It is a rot upon the face of this world.
Jim Jones
4 Comments »
“I live in a mud hut in the most remote village in South Africa. There is no road, no school, no clinic, no electricity (save my solar panels used to write this), no cell phone signal, no running water, no toilets, no mommá’s basement… and my community are materially some of the poorest in the world. I started and run a tourism project with this community in an effort to help them lift themselves out of poverty.”snippedMy core also was significantly influenced by five years of travel to the poorest parts of the world: crossing Africa by land for 18 months (www.africanwanderers.co.za), crossing the Amazon, China, Cuba, South America, etc. All these are layered on top of being born and raised in a neo-Nazi, police state that has fairly peacefully transformed itself into viable democracy.”
What this says to me is that he has a resevoir of wealth from some source, and is _choosing_ to use it to assist those in poverty to achieve something better through capitalism. This also tells me that he can leave that poverty, should he do so. Those he hopes to help cannot.
“and up front I want to say that I don’t regard my life as some sort of showcase or example”
So he thinks that possibly we _might_ consider him virtuous in some way, but we shouldn’t … because…why and why?
You certainly take on the “there is no moral certainty but the right must be punished because they are immoral” aspect, but I thought the above was interesting and contradictory as well.
Comment by suek — May 7, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
It was interesting that he used the US model of pulling yourself up by the boot straps to get out of poverty and then goes off the rails. If he thinks Clinton is a conservative he’s been in the sun too much. At best he was left of center. I also loves how he gets a shot in at Christians as well. Perhaps he was happy those three got slaughtered in Turkey? Wow, what’s he on and why isn’t he sharing?
Comment by Greg Laurich — May 7, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
>>If he thinks Clinton is a conservative he’s been in the sun too much.>>
I understand that other nations (political bodies) use different terminology - even directly opposite to the terms we use here. I don’t even try to keep it straight. No doubt a failing, but it points up the necessity of defining terms…!
Comment by suek — May 7, 2007 @ 6:50 pm

That’s why I use the word “Left” so much. Because they are in every country, and they all more or less mean the same. Because there’s a communist party in Canada, Britain, Germany, and France. And they all more or less, have the same beliefs and policies. Even in Indian, they have this neo-marxist thing going on. Japan as well presumably, although their politics are like Koreans, even less accessible than the EU/US divide.
I used to use the phrase “fake liberal” a lot to describe the Left. But that was when the Left still tried to portray themselves as the knight in shining armor for common folks and the downtrodden. With Iraq and various other examples of the Left… that is no longer fake. It is just completely non-existent anymore. Even as a lie. For me anyways.
They don’t even fauking try to fake it about being concerned with human rights in Iraq, anymore. Or even GitMo. It’s about leave and let the slaughter occur because they don’t even care anymore, probably with the belief that they are in power and whatever they say goes. So why should they keep their masks and pretensions on? But I saw through their pretensions, starting right during the leadup to OIF 1. True evil can be revealed by whom it fights and what kind of allies it procurs.