The World According to Graham...
They’re here again: anti-American feelings… Or aren’t they? The symptoms of anti-American feelings usually include utterings that are critical of American world policy or any aspect of the American way of life, for that matter. Anti-American feelings are reserved for non-Americans only. The French for instance are anti-American, they didn’t support Gulf War II and blocked the UN resolution that would have been needed to give the invasion an air of international respectability.
If such expressions of opinion on the other hand come from American mouths, that’s an entirely different thing. These individuals are un-American and unpatriotic.
In a country that has been in the grip of a wave of almost pathological flag waving for some time now and where a “Good v. Evil” outlook on life and the world predominates, you are “either with them [the US] or against them [the US]”. Anything in between is a little too taxing on the brain of Joe Average.
This is more or less also the view held by another flag waver, Graham, who considers himself to be one of the Cognoscenti, when really he squarely belong in the majority camp of Ignoranti.
Graham was recently shocked when one of his friends in Britain tried to rile some American students, by openly expressing anti-American feelings, in a pub (of all places! A British pub! Well, Irish actually.) Cheeeekyyy! I quote from the distasteful blog post:
One particular friend began an aggressive, drunken diatribe about the United States, knowing full well that the table of US students were close by. In essence he blamed the stupidity, and ignorance of Americans for the terrorist bombings on the 7th of July. Americans were isolated, hamburger eating, religious zealots, and their ignorance, and election of George Bush, alongside Tony Blair’s unconditional support for the war in Iraq, was ultimately responsible.
Bad Briton, bad bad Briton, for expressing an opinion in a free country, about another free country. And in close proximity of Americans too! This cannot be tolerated! Quickly, let’s write another Bill (the anti riling of American students in Irish pubs in Britain Bill.)
The Americans, though, behaved uncharacteristically:
The US students finished their drinks and left offended and shocked by what I think they perceived as a personal attack.
Damn, if only I could get rid of rambling Americans so easily!
As regards Graham, it would be unrealistic to expect anything more nuanced from a Blair hagiographer (Graham: that’s arse-licker in plain English).
Graham, apparently, is going back to the States and is going to help the Democratic campaign. Sounding like a Bush impersonator, Graham is the last thing the Democrats need. Losing elections is something they manage very well without his help, but thanks for the offer!
When will the average American learn that being critical of an American aspect of their society does not make one a “Yankee-hater” (or a terrorist for that matter)? And do they need support from a British poodle like our fellow, Graham?
No, then I much prefer the views of Mike Leon, which represent the voices of many decent, albeit “un-American” people, whose voices have been drowned out and whose opinions have been paved over by mainstream “news” broadcasting, in which critical thinking or dissent is not encouraged.
At the complete other end of the spectrum and therefore not representative of mainstream American thought, are the Jewish Task Force. It would be hours of fun reading, if it wasn’t so disturbing… These too, are patriots...
Keywords: anti-American, unAmerican, terrorism.
posted by Gert @ 3:42 PM
10 comments
10 Comments:
Graham,
You wrote:
You're like a one man wrecking crew out to take me on at every opportunity. Are you an ex-girlfriend in disguise? lol.
My reply:
Don’t be ridiculous!
You wrote:
I'm worried because by the looks of things you've only read two or three of my posts... god help you when you find out there are lots more.
My reply:
You’re worried. Oh dear. What’s the worst that could happen? Blood on the keyboard? A paper cut? And here was me thinking you liked debate…
You wrote:
But then in the subsequent paragraph you finish your comment by ridiculing US culture for the Lewinski scandal in a completely tangential and irrelevant point. It was a petty cheap shot at the nation as a whole.
My reply:
It wasn’t a shot at the nation. In Europe, the affair in question was indeed subject of much hilarity; I believe it was too in the States.
You wrote:
And in regards to the issue I had with my friend at the pub, it wasn't because he had ill feeling towards the US, it was because he aggressively verbally assaulted the US in an attempt to initimidate American Students sitting near us. I was ashamed by that act. And I make this explicitly clear in my post.
My reply:
No, you didn’t, which is what got me going. You wrongly associated one man’s “misbehaviour” with that “greatest of all evils”, anti-American feelings. And where’s your sense of humour and perspective? So someone riles a couple of American kids, so what?
You said:
Feel free to criticize my views, and offer your own responses, but please make an effort to not misrepresent me.
My reply:
It’s your effortless success at misrepresenting yourself that keeps me going.
Expect more sniper fire…
There’s really only one point in your rebuttal that merits counter-argument.
You wrote:
You claimed you were not anti-American simply because you disagreed with US foreign policy, which I agree with, but then made a completely unrelated point only to denigrate US culture, which had no pertinence to the point of your argument. It was a revealing moment.
My reply:
My little aside was perhaps unnecessary, even irrelevant but nonetheless true. You’re again accusing someone of being anti-American because my chuckle “denigrates US culture”. It does. Ergo it’s an "anti-American” feeling. Bad Gert. Bad bad Gert.
I also intensely dislike the tripe and “template” kind of drivel that parades for “movies”, i.e. Hollywood. Now that’s practically un-American, even from a non-US citizen!
Do you want me to go on?
And someone cracks a joke you don’t like and ooops… you have a revelation. Now you’re starting to sound like the Religious Right…
I’m going to have to warn the Democrats that a British mole is about to infiltrate them…
Regards,
Gert
NYgirl:
You said:
The fact that Graham is coming to America is a loss for England & a gain for us Americans.
My reply:
Hey, we actually agree on something: I’d rather see him leave too! He’ll fit right in, in the current "political" climate of the US.
Not entirely sure what the Democrats will make of this polite imbecile but that will be your problem, not ours.
Tony Bliar needs more opposition, not more "patriots" [sic] like you and the poodle, so in that respect, it’s a win-win!
But I find it incredible that you appreciate Graham’s feeble and confused support, when really you should try and bring order to your own house first. I mean, what’s he gonna do, stifle “anti-American feelings” amongst British expats in the US?
Do try not to invade another country this week, we’re all getting a little pissed off over here.
More “anti anti-American feelings”.
How the West was Wrong”.
You don’t really get it, do you?
Although you’re trying to reply paragraph by paragraph, you missed the central point. My post is all about perception. How Americans are seen by many people. Don’t say: “not by all” because that’s just a useless truism. How many Americans (again, don’t say: “not by all”) are very touchy about criticism of their country and hide behind more pointless and often risible “patriotism”, because their own perception of the outside world is extremely narrow (“not all”, ad nauseam). You may not agree with those perceptions or the reasons why they exist, but that doesn’t make them go away.
So, I’m not going to reply to all your work because most of it is irrelevant in light of the above. I’ll just respond to a few points.
You wrote:
I do not know if you have been to the United States, but this is not my personal experience of the country.
My reply:
You obviously don’t read my comments.
You wrote:
Why are you incapable of arguing the merits of a case without descending into personal attacks.
My reply:
Stop being so fucking sensitive.
Your wrote:
You are content to wax lyrical about the way in which Tony Blair has disrespected our Democracy by his actions, pointing to two specific examples which I've debunked and you've never redressed... and yet your own views aren't exactly Democratic and respectful of disagreement.
My reply:
To you, debate has to be “nice and cosy”, someone who fights a little harder isn’t democratic. In the hands of prats like you, democracy is something we might as well dispense with immediately. You’re lame and intellectually lazy but guess what… you’re polite: well done, bird brain.
You wrote:
Name calling is a sign of weakness.
My reply:
Oh, but it’s not. It spices things up a bit but doesn’t take anything away from any arguments at all.
You wrote:
I am not that accomplished. I will not be a party strategist, lol, so I don't imagine my contribution will be as pivotal as you suggest.
My reply:
Me, thinking “your contribution” will be “pivotal”? Who are you kidding here?
You wrote:
Gert, you are not familiar with the average American. President Bush's approval rating is currently as low as 40% in some respected polls and to suggest the US electorate are incapable of scrutiny or respecting dissent is just another foolhardy misinterpretation that stems from a generalized stereotype rather than factual evidence.
My reply:
Oh, but I am my friend, I am. Much, much more than you imagine. And don’t tell me things everybody already knows.
You wrote:
The truth is that I unapologetically adore the United States
My reply:
You don’t say…
And Graham,
As regards:
And NY Girl you are way too sweet, my darling.
Don’t forget this “Sweet old darling is also
a would be assassin. And most commentators agree: “Kill Chavez!”
Hey, if it makes the world a better place… [sic]
Mind who you ally yourself with in the New World.
Graham,
You’re only further proving my point: you’re an unashamed and uncritical lover of all things US and can’t stand it when someone has dig at you for that. You’ve now spent God knows how much time and energy on a post that really wasn’t much more than a mere distraction to me. “anti-Americanism Lite” if you like. It was started merely because your “pub incident” had me rolling with laughter. Boy, do you take yourself seriously, you sound like you’ve personally invented Political Correctness yourself! And even at the heart of New Labour, there are people that are at least a liiiiiittle more critical of the Leader Supremo than you.
You’re a woolly and very mediocre mind, unoriginal and full of yourself and your idealistic twaddle.
You struggle seriously with concepts like Democracy, believing (naively) that it’s all about a coterie of polite people debating quietly, like model children in a model classroom.
Meanwhile, serious crimes have been committed in Afghanistan and Iraq, by your polite “leaders” and many of many different countries have “politely” lost their lives, so that you can live in the “polite” illusion that the world is now a safer place and that the theocrats have been stopped in their deadly tracks. Real politicians have you right where they want you: politely eating out of their hand, whilst stroking you gently on the head from time to time, for being such a well-adjusted, empty-headed model Citizen.
As regards your leftism? You write a blatant, uncritical and frankly very, very boring piece about the chimp’s ally and what do you attract? Right-wingers, which congratulate you on your views and which then, also unthinkingly, get thanked back by you. What a self-promoter you are.
One point I do want to address in your last bout of irate verbal diarrhoea.
You wrote:
In regards to NY Girl, I don't hate people for their ideas or political perspectives. Unlike you Gert I don't need to pigeonhole vast sways of people into categories of normal - people who agree with me, and abnormal - people who disagree with me... and I don't need to condemn, vociferously, those who reach alternative conclusions to my own.
My reply:
I don’t hate Miss Tick either (nor you, I’ve almost become emotionally attached to you really), but her views are extremely dangerous, no amount of polite but puerile “I want to debate, not call names” blabbering is going to change that.
Do read the original post again, including the comments, it’s frankly incredible that some hold opinions like that, then prefer your “views” because “at least he [you] doesn’t sink to name calling”. A polite would-be political assassin… Oh, well it takes all sorts to make a world, I suppose. You’ll also tell me that her opinions aren’t shared by “most” Americans but what’s that got to do with anything?
Stop spending so much energy and time on this post. It’s typical of you that the post I originally created in response
to your “theocratic fascism” theory contains no reference to you personally whatsoever, doesn’t use any name-calling but gets… completely ignored.
Graham,
Although I’ve read your comment, I decline to respond for the reasons I’ve mentioned before: you’re spending too much time on this one, our “debate” here is debilitating tit-for-tat and about as useful as fitting wheels to a tomato.
“How the West was Wrong” on the other hand, contains no “personal attacks” on you, mentions no reference to you as a person or as a blogger and doesn’t call anyone else names either.
It also has a much wider scope than my couple of “anti-American” digs, which were just that: digs.
And if you prefer to ignore that post, well, that’s of course your indisputable right.
I’m also planning a follow-up, working title “How the West won”, about what I feel is how the West can afford to, generally speaking, to treat Arabs and Africans with much contempt, because throughout most of modern history, we’ve made them look down the barrel of a very loaded gun. It’s not about racism; it’s about what white people have been able to inflict on Africa and the Middle East, simply because we could... And our vastly superior firepower, still today, continues to allow us invade far away places without the risk of actually losing the battle. From a position of economical, technological and military dominance, the West can really do what it sees fit, wherever on this planet (soon also in space?) And that includes making serous mistakes...
Best regards,
Gert
Also, Graham, I expect you might want to post about Katrina first and that's entirely undestandable.
I would do so myself, but I fear I wouldn't be able to contribute much right now.
What a terrible tragedy that is. But I'm not really making things any better by saying that....
It's quite shocking to see how many from all different sides are willing to blame just anything they can think of (God, Bush, Osama, the Islamists, Gaya, name it and you've got it, we'll never learn), just hours after the scale of the catastrophe became imminent.
Take care.
Yeah, I found RepentAmerica.com's conclusion too: "gays and fornicators", these guys from RA really have got the finger on the button...
This one's "good" too: God's revenge for "selling out Gaza" to the Muslims". There's an incredible amount of "Holy Land" related twaddle by the underbelly of the Fundies on the net (the "colander" as I call it sometimes, on account of it leaking so much)...
The great Imaginary Manager in the Skies still works in mysterious ways. Or is it just a Psychopathic Deity on the loose?
I'm afraid the Muslim bampots' theories will be even more grave and sinister, though.
As regards, the video: breath stopping, but Al Jazeera is just another "Ministry of Disinformation", they're not to be trusted. They make their money passing "messages" from Osama et al to the West.
I noticed your avatar hasn't been working for some time.
Take care.
The Big Moolla's Flatulence is also to be blamed, oh bless the Lawd...
Post a Comment
<< Home