Discussion:
Why the nerdy right-wingers dislike the French
(too old to reply)
Harry Hope
2005-04-05 02:53:14 UTC
Permalink
From The Minnesota Daily
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/04/04/63951

April 4, 2005

Why conservatives dislike the French

The French have a tendency to point out the hypocrisy of U.S.
political rhetoric.

By Joe LaFleur


Why do U.S. conservatives hate the French?

Conservative animosity toward a country that has traditionally
espoused the same values (namely democracy), political liberty and
equality seems bizarre.

Could it be the French opposition to the Iraq war that aggravates the
conservatives?

If it is based fundamentally in France’s opposition to the war, it
would be wise to understand France’s history as an imperialist global
power.

We should be grateful for the insight that French military history
could provide the United States; indeed, some lessons could be
learned.

The French initially attempted military colonization of Vietnam.

When France pulled out of Vietnam, it was the United States that
became bogged down in a war that caused the loss of thousands of U.S.
lives and millions of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian lives.

It could be that U.S. conservatives are angry that France figured out
the futility of trying to suppress an entire nation at the barrel of a
gun, while the United States still believed it possible.

When President George W. Bush pressured France into the Iraq invasion,
the French may have had the Algerian War of independence in mind.

The parallel between the two conflicts is obvious.

In Algeria, France attempted to force French values on an Islamic
nation in the so-called name of democracy.

This proved difficult and quelling a fierce Islamic-led insurgency
proved impossible.

Eight years of war and revolution cost nearly 20,000 French lives and
more than 1 million Algerian deaths, and eventually the French were
forced out of Algeria.

The chaos in Algeria led a legacy of sectarian civil wars and one of
the most despotic regimes in world history.

U.S. neoconservatives decided that invading a fiercely Islamic,
sectarian nation in the heart of the Middle East for reasons that were
proven entirely false was a wise move.

The French foresaw the costs of the invasion while Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld and neoconservatives didn’t even have a plan
for postwar Iraq.

I’d be annoyed if I shot myself in the foot and didn’t realize it
would hurt and someone was telling me, "I told you not to do that."

Of course the French accent doesn’t make it any easier for the
conservatives to take.

It could be the food, fashion, art and maybe even France’s love of
soccer that annoys the conservatives.

I doubt it though; conservatives aren’t that shallow.

Maybe it’s a social religious thing.

The French are a bunch of cheese-eating atheists after all.

But this doesn’t make sense; Sweden, Germany, New Zealand, Japan, etc.
are all societies that espouse more liberal and socialist attitudes
than France.

What really annoys the conservatives is the French have a tendency to
point out the hypocrisy of U.S. political rhetoric.

I’ve spent some time in France and seen firsthand what superior U.S.
morality looks like.

Violence (the highest murder rate, guns or no guns, of any
industrialized nation in the world);

the Columbine High School shootings;

the obesity epidemic;

Abu Ghraib;

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba;

McDonald’s;

Britney Spears;

dependency on unclean and unsustainable energy;

suicide rates, conformism, etc.

Face it, we look pretty scary.

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney labeled Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.,
wimpy, and the Swift Boat Veterans labeled him a traitor.

Is the U.S. public in bizarro world?

Kerry was patrolling the Mekong Delta in Vietnam, getting shot at with
high-powered rifles and mortars while Bush dodged the draft and failed
to show up for his cakewalk guard duty.

Bush was too busy getting DUIs and flunking out of school.

The great French poet and singer George Brassens once said, "Those who
advocate dying for an idea should be the first to set an example."

If the United States desires respect from the rest of the world, Bush
and the conservatives would be wise to realize the hypocrisy of their
own rhetoric and begin living up to the supposed "moral values" they
preach.

________________________________________________________

What? Dimwit Georgie Bush realizing his hypocrisy? Hahahahahahaha

Harry
(<-TNT->)
2005-04-05 03:56:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Hope
From The Minnesota Daily
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/04/04/63951
April 4, 2005
Why conservatives dislike the French
The French have a tendency to point out the hypocrisy of U.S.
political rhetoric.
By Joe LaFleur
Why do U.S. conservatives hate the French?
Conservative animosity toward a country that has traditionally
espoused the same values (namely democracy), political liberty and
equality seems bizarre.
Could it be the French opposition to the Iraq war that aggravates the
conservatives?
If it is based fundamentally in France's opposition to the war, it
would be wise to understand France's history as an imperialist global
power.
We should be grateful for the insight that French military history
could provide the United States; indeed, some lessons could be
learned.
The French initially attempted military colonization of Vietnam.
When France pulled out of Vietnam, it was the United States that
became bogged down in a war that caused the loss of thousands of U.S.
lives and millions of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian lives.
It could be that U.S. conservatives are angry that France figured out
the futility of trying to suppress an entire nation at the barrel of a
gun, while the United States still believed it possible.
When President George W. Bush pressured France into the Iraq invasion,
the French may have had the Algerian War of independence in mind.
The parallel between the two conflicts is obvious.
In Algeria, France attempted to force French values on an Islamic
nation in the so-called name of democracy.
This proved difficult and quelling a fierce Islamic-led insurgency
proved impossible.
Eight years of war and revolution cost nearly 20,000 French lives and
more than 1 million Algerian deaths, and eventually the French were
forced out of Algeria.
The chaos in Algeria led a legacy of sectarian civil wars and one of
the most despotic regimes in world history.
U.S. neoconservatives decided that invading a fiercely Islamic,
sectarian nation in the heart of the Middle East for reasons that were
proven entirely false was a wise move.
The French foresaw the costs of the invasion while Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld and neoconservatives didn't even have a plan
for postwar Iraq.
I'd be annoyed if I shot myself in the foot and didn't realize it
would hurt and someone was telling me, "I told you not to do that."
Of course the French accent doesn't make it any easier for the
conservatives to take.
It could be the food, fashion, art and maybe even France's love of
soccer that annoys the conservatives.
I doubt it though; conservatives aren't that shallow.
Maybe it's a social religious thing.
The French are a bunch of cheese-eating atheists after all.
But this doesn't make sense; Sweden, Germany, New Zealand, Japan, etc.
are all societies that espouse more liberal and socialist attitudes
than France.
What really annoys the conservatives is the French have a tendency to
point out the hypocrisy of U.S. political rhetoric.
I've spent some time in France and seen firsthand what superior U.S.
morality looks like.
Violence (the highest murder rate, guns or no guns, of any
industrialized nation in the world);
the Columbine High School shootings;
the obesity epidemic;
Abu Ghraib;
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba;
McDonald's;
Britney Spears;
dependency on unclean and unsustainable energy;
suicide rates, conformism, etc.
Face it, we look pretty scary.
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney labeled Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.,
wimpy, and the Swift Boat Veterans labeled him a traitor.
Is the U.S. public in bizarro world?
Kerry was patrolling the Mekong Delta in Vietnam, getting shot at with
high-powered rifles and mortars while Bush dodged the draft and failed
to show up for his cakewalk guard duty.
Bush was too busy getting DUIs and flunking out of school.
The great French poet and singer George Brassens once said, "Those who
advocate dying for an idea should be the first to set an example."
If the United States desires respect from the rest of the world, Bush
and the conservatives would be wise to realize the hypocrisy of their
own rhetoric and begin living up to the supposed "moral values" they
preach.
________________________________________________________
What? Dimwit Georgie Bush realizing his hypocrisy? Hahahahahahaha
Harry
E.E.Bud Keith
2005-04-05 04:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Hope
From The Minnesota Daily
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/04/04/63951
April 4, 2005
Why conservatives dislike the French
The French have a tendency to point out the hypocrisy of U.S.
political rhetoric.
A little message for Joe and Zeppo. The French have a tendency to be the
biggest Hypocrites in the world. They talk a lot but when it comes to doing
somthing they are nowhere to be found.
You do remember world war one and two, in the first it took the USA to enter
the war and save their bacon as they were stalemated in the trenchs getting
nothing but being killed.. In the second world war it took the Germans about
30 minutes to get them to holler uncle. And they would now be speaking
German if it were not for the USA. Then there occupation of Nam as a
colonial power was a disgrace and they got kicked out. In the Iraq war it
was all about money, they were up to their ass in the oil for food scandal.
And the good old French were also making tons of money through there Fina
oil company who had the contract to manage the Iraq oil
refining,distribution and Maaintenance. worth a few zillion dollars.. So if
you are going to talk about hypocrites start with the French.
Post by Harry Hope
By Joe LaFleur
Why do U.S. conservatives hate the French?
Conservative animosity toward a country that has traditionally
espoused the same values (namely democracy), political liberty and
equality seems bizarre.
Could it be the French opposition to the Iraq war that aggravates the
conservatives?
If it is based fundamentally in France's opposition to the war, it
would be wise to understand France's history as an imperialist global
power.
We should be grateful for the insight that French military history
could provide the United States; indeed, some lessons could be
learned.
The French initially attempted military colonization of Vietnam.
When France pulled out of Vietnam, it was the United States that
became bogged down in a war that caused the loss of thousands of U.S.
lives and millions of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian lives.
It could be that U.S. conservatives are angry that France figured out
the futility of trying to suppress an entire nation at the barrel of a
gun, while the United States still believed it possible.
When President George W. Bush pressured France into the Iraq invasion,
the French may have had the Algerian War of independence in mind.
The parallel between the two conflicts is obvious.
In Algeria, France attempted to force French values on an Islamic
nation in the so-called name of democracy.
This proved difficult and quelling a fierce Islamic-led insurgency
proved impossible.
Eight years of war and revolution cost nearly 20,000 French lives and
more than 1 million Algerian deaths, and eventually the French were
forced out of Algeria.
The chaos in Algeria led a legacy of sectarian civil wars and one of
the most despotic regimes in world history.
U.S. neoconservatives decided that invading a fiercely Islamic,
sectarian nation in the heart of the Middle East for reasons that were
proven entirely false was a wise move.
The French foresaw the costs of the invasion while Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld and neoconservatives didn't even have a plan
for postwar Iraq.
I'd be annoyed if I shot myself in the foot and didn't realize it
would hurt and someone was telling me, "I told you not to do that."
Of course the French accent doesn't make it any easier for the
conservatives to take.
It could be the food, fashion, art and maybe even France's love of
soccer that annoys the conservatives.
I doubt it though; conservatives aren't that shallow.
Maybe it's a social religious thing.
The French are a bunch of cheese-eating atheists after all.
But this doesn't make sense; Sweden, Germany, New Zealand, Japan, etc.
are all societies that espouse more liberal and socialist attitudes
than France.
What really annoys the conservatives is the French have a tendency to
point out the hypocrisy of U.S. political rhetoric.
I've spent some time in France and seen firsthand what superior U.S.
morality looks like.
Violence (the highest murder rate, guns or no guns, of any
industrialized nation in the world);
the Columbine High School shootings;
the obesity epidemic;
Abu Ghraib;
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba;
McDonald's;
Britney Spears;
dependency on unclean and unsustainable energy;
suicide rates, conformism, etc.
Face it, we look pretty scary.
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney labeled Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.,
wimpy, and the Swift Boat Veterans labeled him a traitor.
Is the U.S. public in bizarro world?
Kerry was patrolling the Mekong Delta in Vietnam, getting shot at with
high-powered rifles and mortars while Bush dodged the draft and failed
to show up for his cakewalk guard duty.
Bush was too busy getting DUIs and flunking out of school.
The great French poet and singer George Brassens once said, "Those who
advocate dying for an idea should be the first to set an example."
If the United States desires respect from the rest of the world, Bush
and the conservatives would be wise to realize the hypocrisy of their
own rhetoric and begin living up to the supposed "moral values" they
preach.
________________________________________________________
What? Dimwit Georgie Bush realizing his hypocrisy? Hahahahahahaha
Harry
unknown
2005-04-05 04:13:03 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 23:10:31 -0500, "E.E.Bud Keith"
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
Post by Harry Hope
From The Minnesota Daily
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/04/04/63951
April 4, 2005
Why conservatives dislike the French
The French have a tendency to point out the hypocrisy of U.S.
political rhetoric.
A little message for Joe and Zeppo. The French have a tendency to be the
biggest Hypocrites in the world. They talk a lot but when it comes to doing
somthing they are nowhere to be found.
You do remember world war one and two, in the first it took the USA to enter
the war and save their bacon as they were stalemated in the trenchs getting
nothing but being killed.. In the second world war it took the Germans about
30 minutes to get them to holler uncle. And they would now be speaking
German if it were not for the USA. Then there occupation of Nam as a
colonial power was a disgrace and they got kicked out. In the Iraq war it
was all about money, they were up to their ass in the oil for food scandal.
And the good old French were also making tons of money through there Fina
oil company who had the contract to manage the Iraq oil
refining,distribution and Maaintenance. worth a few zillion dollars.. So if
you are going to talk about hypocrites start with the French.
The French knew that AWOL Bush's rush to war was a blunder and they
said "thanks, but count me out."

The French were right. AWOL Bush and the neocon Chickenhawks and
passive patriots were WRONG.

and you can't stand it.
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
Post by Harry Hope
By Joe LaFleur
Why do U.S. conservatives hate the French?
Conservative animosity toward a country that has traditionally
espoused the same values (namely democracy), political liberty and
equality seems bizarre.
Could it be the French opposition to the Iraq war that aggravates the
conservatives?
If it is based fundamentally in France's opposition to the war, it
would be wise to understand France's history as an imperialist global
power.
We should be grateful for the insight that French military history
could provide the United States; indeed, some lessons could be
learned.
The French initially attempted military colonization of Vietnam.
When France pulled out of Vietnam, it was the United States that
became bogged down in a war that caused the loss of thousands of U.S.
lives and millions of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian lives.
It could be that U.S. conservatives are angry that France figured out
the futility of trying to suppress an entire nation at the barrel of a
gun, while the United States still believed it possible.
When President George W. Bush pressured France into the Iraq invasion,
the French may have had the Algerian War of independence in mind.
The parallel between the two conflicts is obvious.
In Algeria, France attempted to force French values on an Islamic
nation in the so-called name of democracy.
This proved difficult and quelling a fierce Islamic-led insurgency
proved impossible.
Eight years of war and revolution cost nearly 20,000 French lives and
more than 1 million Algerian deaths, and eventually the French were
forced out of Algeria.
The chaos in Algeria led a legacy of sectarian civil wars and one of
the most despotic regimes in world history.
U.S. neoconservatives decided that invading a fiercely Islamic,
sectarian nation in the heart of the Middle East for reasons that were
proven entirely false was a wise move.
The French foresaw the costs of the invasion while Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld and neoconservatives didn't even have a plan
for postwar Iraq.
I'd be annoyed if I shot myself in the foot and didn't realize it
would hurt and someone was telling me, "I told you not to do that."
Of course the French accent doesn't make it any easier for the
conservatives to take.
It could be the food, fashion, art and maybe even France's love of
soccer that annoys the conservatives.
I doubt it though; conservatives aren't that shallow.
Maybe it's a social religious thing.
The French are a bunch of cheese-eating atheists after all.
But this doesn't make sense; Sweden, Germany, New Zealand, Japan, etc.
are all societies that espouse more liberal and socialist attitudes
than France.
What really annoys the conservatives is the French have a tendency to
point out the hypocrisy of U.S. political rhetoric.
I've spent some time in France and seen firsthand what superior U.S.
morality looks like.
Violence (the highest murder rate, guns or no guns, of any
industrialized nation in the world);
the Columbine High School shootings;
the obesity epidemic;
Abu Ghraib;
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba;
McDonald's;
Britney Spears;
dependency on unclean and unsustainable energy;
suicide rates, conformism, etc.
Face it, we look pretty scary.
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney labeled Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.,
wimpy, and the Swift Boat Veterans labeled him a traitor.
Is the U.S. public in bizarro world?
Kerry was patrolling the Mekong Delta in Vietnam, getting shot at with
high-powered rifles and mortars while Bush dodged the draft and failed
to show up for his cakewalk guard duty.
Bush was too busy getting DUIs and flunking out of school.
The great French poet and singer George Brassens once said, "Those who
advocate dying for an idea should be the first to set an example."
If the United States desires respect from the rest of the world, Bush
and the conservatives would be wise to realize the hypocrisy of their
own rhetoric and begin living up to the supposed "moral values" they
preach.
________________________________________________________
What? Dimwit Georgie Bush realizing his hypocrisy? Hahahahahahaha
Harry
Rightard Whitey
2005-04-05 14:48:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 23:10:31 -0500, "E.E.Bud Keith"
Post by Harry Hope
From The Minnesota Daily
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/04/04/63951
April 4, 2005
Why conservatives dislike the French
The French have a tendency to point out the hypocrisy of U.S.
political rhetoric.
The French knew that AWOL Bush's rush to war was a blunder and they
said "thanks, but count me out."
The French were right. AWOL Bush and the neocon Chickenhawks and
passive patriots were WRONG.
and you can't stand it.
Post by Harry Hope
By Joe LaFleur
Why do U.S. conservatives hate the French?
Conservative animosity toward a country that has traditionally
espoused the same values (namely democracy), political liberty and
equality seems bizarre.
Could it be the French opposition to the Iraq war that aggravates the
conservatives?
If it is based fundamentally in France's opposition to the war, it
would be wise to understand France's history as an imperialist global
power.
We should be grateful for the insight that French military history
could provide the United States; indeed, some lessons could be
learned.
The French initially attempted military colonization of Vietnam.
When France pulled out of Vietnam, it was the United States that
became bogged down in a war that caused the loss of thousands of U.S.
lives and millions of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian lives.
It could be that U.S. conservatives are angry that France figured out
the futility of trying to suppress an entire nation at the barrel of a
gun, while the United States still believed it possible.
When President George W. Bush pressured France into the Iraq invasion,
the French may have had the Algerian War of independence in mind.
The parallel between the two conflicts is obvious.
In Algeria, France attempted to force French values on an Islamic
nation in the so-called name of democracy.
This proved difficult and quelling a fierce Islamic-led insurgency
proved impossible.
Eight years of war and revolution cost nearly 20,000 French lives and
more than 1 million Algerian deaths, and eventually the French were
forced out of Algeria.
The chaos in Algeria led a legacy of sectarian civil wars and one of
the most despotic regimes in world history.
U.S. neoconservatives decided that invading a fiercely Islamic,
sectarian nation in the heart of the Middle East for reasons that were
proven entirely false was a wise move.
The French foresaw the costs of the invasion while Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld and neoconservatives didn't even have a plan
for postwar Iraq.
I'd be annoyed if I shot myself in the foot and didn't realize it
would hurt and someone was telling me, "I told you not to do that."
Of course the French accent doesn't make it any easier for the
conservatives to take.
It could be the food, fashion, art and maybe even France's love of
soccer that annoys the conservatives.
I doubt it though; conservatives aren't that shallow.
Maybe it's a social religious thing.
The French are a bunch of cheese-eating atheists after all.
But this doesn't make sense; Sweden, Germany, New Zealand, Japan, etc.
are all societies that espouse more liberal and socialist attitudes
than France.
What really annoys the conservatives is the French have a tendency to
point out the hypocrisy of U.S. political rhetoric.
I've spent some time in France and seen firsthand what superior U.S.
morality looks like.
Violence (the highest murder rate, guns or no guns, of any
industrialized nation in the world);
the Columbine High School shootings;
the obesity epidemic;
Abu Ghraib;
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba;
McDonald's;
Britney Spears;
dependency on unclean and unsustainable energy;
suicide rates, conformism, etc.
Face it, we look pretty scary.
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney labeled Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.,
wimpy, and the Swift Boat Veterans labeled him a traitor.
Is the U.S. public in bizarro world?
Kerry was patrolling the Mekong Delta in Vietnam, getting shot at with
high-powered rifles and mortars while Bush dodged the draft and failed
to show up for his cakewalk guard duty.
Bush was too busy getting DUIs and flunking out of school.
The great French poet and singer George Brassens once said, "Those who
advocate dying for an idea should be the first to set an example."
If the United States desires respect from the rest of the world, Bush
and the conservatives would be wise to realize the hypocrisy of their
own rhetoric and begin living up to the supposed "moral values" they
preach.
________________________________________________________
What? Dimwit Georgie Bush realizing his hypocrisy? Hahahahahahaha
Harry
This is a great post. Most Americans forget the French saved our ass in
the Revolutionary war. Without their help, we might be British subjects
today. The French have a longer history than we do and have made the
same mistakes in the past that we are making today.

They were correct on Vietnam and history will show they were right on
Iraq. "Democracy is not a potato that you can move from one garden to
another."
--
Educating rightards every day.
r***@comcast.net
2005-04-05 15:39:41 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 14:48:13 GMT, Rightard Whitey
Post by Rightard Whitey
This is a great post. Most Americans forget the French saved our ass in
the Revolutionary war. Without their help, we might be British subjects
today. The French have a longer history than we do and have made the
same mistakes in the past that we are making today.
They were correct on Vietnam and history will show they were right on
Iraq. "Democracy is not a potato that you can move from one garden to
another."
See "The Battle of Algiers" for the French history of fighting Islamic
fundamentalists, complete with their slide into torture and
abandonment of their principles. Chriac was an officer in Algiers.
These guys knew what America was getting itself into, even if Perle,
Wolfowtiz and Chenney did not. They would have done well to listen.

Get the DVD version, it includes interviews with the insurgents and
French officers.

For an appropriate reading also look to "The Question" by Henri
Alleg, forward be Sartre looks at the French question f torture in
Algiers.
George
2005-04-05 07:57:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
Post by Harry Hope
From The Minnesota Daily
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/04/04/63951
April 4, 2005
Why conservatives dislike the French
The French have a tendency to point out the hypocrisy of U.S.
political rhetoric.
A little message for Joe and Zeppo. The French have a tendency to be the
biggest Hypocrites in the world. They talk a lot but when it comes to doing
somthing they are nowhere to be found.
You do remember world war one and two, in the first it took the USA to enter
the war and save their bacon as they were stalemated in the trenchs getting
nothing but being killed.. In the second world war it took the Germans about
30 minutes to get them to holler uncle. And they would now be speaking
German if it were not for the USA. Then there occupation of Nam as a
colonial power was a disgrace and they got kicked out. In the Iraq war it
was all about money, they were up to their ass in the oil for food scandal.
And the good old French were also making tons of money through there Fina
oil company who had the contract to manage the Iraq oil
refining,distribution and Maaintenance. worth a few zillion dollars.. So if
you are going to talk about hypocrites start with the French.
Post by Harry Hope
By Joe LaFleur
Why do U.S. conservatives hate the French?
I love the French. I think EVERY American should own one or two of them.
Barry Worthington
2005-04-05 11:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
Post by Harry Hope
From The Minnesota Daily
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/04/04/63951
April 4, 2005
Why conservatives dislike the French
The French have a tendency to point out the hypocrisy of U.S.
political rhetoric.
A little message for Joe and Zeppo. The French have a tendency to be the
biggest Hypocrites in the world. They talk a lot but when it comes to doing
somthing they are nowhere to be found.
You do remember world war one and two, in the first it took the USA to enter
the war and save their bacon as they were stalemated in the trenchs getting
nothing but being killed..
Er....that isn't true. By the time American troops started arriving in
any numbers, the German army had been broken and was in retreat.


In the second world war it took the Germans about
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
30 minutes to get them to holler uncle.
I'm sick of hearing this. The French went to war in September, 1939.
They mounted a limited offensive in the Saar to try and help the
Poles. They participated in the Norway campaign in 1940. They fought
the German invader for the best part of two months. French rearguard
actions helped our army escape at Dunkirk. The army put up a stubborn
resistance on the Somme. At the same time, they wiped the floor with
the Italians in the south before being overwhelmed by the blitzkreig
tactics.


And they would now be speaking
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
German if it were not for the USA.
It's as well to remember, before you get carried away, that the
assault forces on D-Day were composed of more British, Polish,
Canadian, and Free French troops than American.... (This is not
intended to reflect upon the bravery of your troops, but to respond to
the kind of inane comments that people like Mr. Keith sometimes come
out with.)


Then there occupation of Nam as a
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
colonial power was a disgrace and they got kicked out.
And were American actions in Vietnam any different? You do know that
America supplied most of the equipment the French used in this
'colonial' war, don't you?
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
In the Iraq war
Which one? The one in which France fielded a division?

it
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
was all about money, they were up to their ass in the oil for food scandal.
And the good old French were also making tons of money through there Fina
oil company who had the contract to manage the Iraq oil
refining,distribution and Maaintenance. worth a few zillion dollars.. So if
you are going to talk about hypocrites start with the French.
Hmmm......someone who knows bugger all about history...

Dr. Barry Worthington
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
Post by Harry Hope
By Joe LaFleur
Why do U.S. conservatives hate the French?
Conservative animosity toward a country that has traditionally
espoused the same values (namely democracy), political liberty and
equality seems bizarre.
Could it be the French opposition to the Iraq war that aggravates the
conservatives?
If it is based fundamentally in France's opposition to the war, it
would be wise to understand France's history as an imperialist global
power.
We should be grateful for the insight that French military history
could provide the United States; indeed, some lessons could be
learned.
The French initially attempted military colonization of Vietnam.
When France pulled out of Vietnam, it was the United States that
became bogged down in a war that caused the loss of thousands of U.S.
lives and millions of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian lives.
It could be that U.S. conservatives are angry that France figured out
the futility of trying to suppress an entire nation at the barrel of a
gun, while the United States still believed it possible.
When President George W. Bush pressured France into the Iraq invasion,
the French may have had the Algerian War of independence in mind.
The parallel between the two conflicts is obvious.
In Algeria, France attempted to force French values on an Islamic
nation in the so-called name of democracy.
This proved difficult and quelling a fierce Islamic-led insurgency
proved impossible.
Eight years of war and revolution cost nearly 20,000 French lives and
more than 1 million Algerian deaths, and eventually the French were
forced out of Algeria.
The chaos in Algeria led a legacy of sectarian civil wars and one of
the most despotic regimes in world history.
U.S. neoconservatives decided that invading a fiercely Islamic,
sectarian nation in the heart of the Middle East for reasons that were
proven entirely false was a wise move.
The French foresaw the costs of the invasion while Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld and neoconservatives didn't even have a plan
for postwar Iraq.
I'd be annoyed if I shot myself in the foot and didn't realize it
would hurt and someone was telling me, "I told you not to do that."
Of course the French accent doesn't make it any easier for the
conservatives to take.
It could be the food, fashion, art and maybe even France's love of
soccer that annoys the conservatives.
I doubt it though; conservatives aren't that shallow.
Maybe it's a social religious thing.
The French are a bunch of cheese-eating atheists after all.
But this doesn't make sense; Sweden, Germany, New Zealand, Japan, etc.
are all societies that espouse more liberal and socialist attitudes
than France.
What really annoys the conservatives is the French have a tendency to
point out the hypocrisy of U.S. political rhetoric.
I've spent some time in France and seen firsthand what superior U.S.
morality looks like.
Violence (the highest murder rate, guns or no guns, of any
industrialized nation in the world);
the Columbine High School shootings;
the obesity epidemic;
Abu Ghraib;
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba;
McDonald's;
Britney Spears;
dependency on unclean and unsustainable energy;
suicide rates, conformism, etc.
Face it, we look pretty scary.
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney labeled Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.,
wimpy, and the Swift Boat Veterans labeled him a traitor.
Is the U.S. public in bizarro world?
Kerry was patrolling the Mekong Delta in Vietnam, getting shot at with
high-powered rifles and mortars while Bush dodged the draft and failed
to show up for his cakewalk guard duty.
Bush was too busy getting DUIs and flunking out of school.
The great French poet and singer George Brassens once said, "Those who
advocate dying for an idea should be the first to set an example."
If the United States desires respect from the rest of the world, Bush
and the conservatives would be wise to realize the hypocrisy of their
own rhetoric and begin living up to the supposed "moral values" they
preach.
________________________________________________________
What? Dimwit Georgie Bush realizing his hypocrisy? Hahahahahahaha
Harry
David Moffitt
2005-04-05 12:35:52 UTC
Permalink
%%%% Cheese eating surrender monkeys. :o)
Mitchell Holman
2005-04-05 14:14:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
Post by Harry Hope
From The Minnesota Daily
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/04/04/63951
April 4, 2005
Why conservatives dislike the French
The French have a tendency to point out the hypocrisy of U.S.
political rhetoric.
A little message for Joe and Zeppo. The French have a tendency to be the
biggest Hypocrites in the world. They talk a lot but when it comes to
doing somthing they are nowhere to be found.
American would still be a British colony
if it weren't for the French.
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
You do remember world war one and two, in the first it took the USA to
enter the war and save their bacon as they were stalemated in the
trenchs getting nothing but being killed.. In the second world war it
took the Germans about 30 minutes to get them to holler uncle.
What was America doing to fight the Nazis
during the Battle of France?
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
And they
would now be speaking German if it were not for the USA. Then there
occupation of Nam as a colonial power was a disgrace and they got kicked
out. In the Iraq war it was all about money, they were up to their ass
in the oil for food scandal. And the good old French were also making
tons of money through there Fina oil company who had the contract to
manage the Iraq oil refining,distribution and Maaintenance. worth a few
zillion dollars..
Have you taken up your "making money off of Saddam"
rant with Dick Cheney and his Saddam/Halliburton ties?


Mitchell Holman

"France didn't even support our war against
Afghanistan after 9-11."
Steven Litvintchouk, 2/21/04. Not only did
France send 5,500 troops to assist the US
forces in Afghanistan, it was the only other
nation to send bombers as well.
ronin
2005-04-07 10:17:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
Post by Harry Hope
From The Minnesota Daily
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/04/04/63951
April 4, 2005
Why conservatives dislike the French
The French have a tendency to point out the hypocrisy of U.S.
political rhetoric.
A little message for Joe and Zeppo. The French have a tendency to be the
biggest Hypocrites in the world. They talk a lot but when it comes to doing
somthing they are nowhere to be found.
You do remember world war one and two, in the first it took the USA to enter
the war and save their bacon as they were stalemated in the trenchs getting
nothing but being killed..
Wrong, loser - read some history, schmuck.
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
In the second world war it took the Germans about
30 minutes to get them to holler uncle.
Because while you were sitting on your asses in WW1, France lost millions of
their adult males in battle.

There were no adult male to defend France because they were dead, loser.
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
And they would now be speaking
German if it were not for the USA.
Anyone who knows their history know it was the combined allied invasion at
Normandy (not just the US, loser) and the disatrous second front in Russia
that Hilter kept throwing soldiers at.

The Russians were the first in Berlin.
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
Then there occupation of Nam as a
colonial power was a disgrace and they got kicked out.
So did you - your point?
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
In the Iraq war it
was all about money, they were up to their ass in the oil for food scandal.
Eight of the top ten bribers were US oil companies.
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
And the good old French were also making tons of money through there Fina
oil company who had the contract to manage the Iraq oil
refining,distribution and Maaintenance. worth a few zillion dollars.. So if
you are going to talk about hypocrites start with the French.
We should start with mouth breathers like you.
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
Post by Harry Hope
By Joe LaFleur
Why do U.S. conservatives hate the French?
Conservative animosity toward a country that has traditionally
espoused the same values (namely democracy), political liberty and
equality seems bizarre.
Could it be the French opposition to the Iraq war that aggravates the
conservatives?
If it is based fundamentally in France's opposition to the war, it
would be wise to understand France's history as an imperialist global
power.
We should be grateful for the insight that French military history
could provide the United States; indeed, some lessons could be
learned.
The French initially attempted military colonization of Vietnam.
When France pulled out of Vietnam, it was the United States that
became bogged down in a war that caused the loss of thousands of U.S.
lives and millions of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian lives.
It could be that U.S. conservatives are angry that France figured out
the futility of trying to suppress an entire nation at the barrel of a
gun, while the United States still believed it possible.
When President George W. Bush pressured France into the Iraq invasion,
the French may have had the Algerian War of independence in mind.
The parallel between the two conflicts is obvious.
In Algeria, France attempted to force French values on an Islamic
nation in the so-called name of democracy.
This proved difficult and quelling a fierce Islamic-led insurgency
proved impossible.
Eight years of war and revolution cost nearly 20,000 French lives and
more than 1 million Algerian deaths, and eventually the French were
forced out of Algeria.
The chaos in Algeria led a legacy of sectarian civil wars and one of
the most despotic regimes in world history.
U.S. neoconservatives decided that invading a fiercely Islamic,
sectarian nation in the heart of the Middle East for reasons that were
proven entirely false was a wise move.
The French foresaw the costs of the invasion while Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld and neoconservatives didn't even have a plan
for postwar Iraq.
I'd be annoyed if I shot myself in the foot and didn't realize it
would hurt and someone was telling me, "I told you not to do that."
Of course the French accent doesn't make it any easier for the
conservatives to take.
It could be the food, fashion, art and maybe even France's love of
soccer that annoys the conservatives.
I doubt it though; conservatives aren't that shallow.
Maybe it's a social religious thing.
The French are a bunch of cheese-eating atheists after all.
But this doesn't make sense; Sweden, Germany, New Zealand, Japan, etc.
are all societies that espouse more liberal and socialist attitudes
than France.
What really annoys the conservatives is the French have a tendency to
point out the hypocrisy of U.S. political rhetoric.
I've spent some time in France and seen firsthand what superior U.S.
morality looks like.
Violence (the highest murder rate, guns or no guns, of any
industrialized nation in the world);
the Columbine High School shootings;
the obesity epidemic;
Abu Ghraib;
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba;
McDonald's;
Britney Spears;
dependency on unclean and unsustainable energy;
suicide rates, conformism, etc.
Face it, we look pretty scary.
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney labeled Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.,
wimpy, and the Swift Boat Veterans labeled him a traitor.
Is the U.S. public in bizarro world?
Kerry was patrolling the Mekong Delta in Vietnam, getting shot at with
high-powered rifles and mortars while Bush dodged the draft and failed
to show up for his cakewalk guard duty.
Bush was too busy getting DUIs and flunking out of school.
The great French poet and singer George Brassens once said, "Those who
advocate dying for an idea should be the first to set an example."
If the United States desires respect from the rest of the world, Bush
and the conservatives would be wise to realize the hypocrisy of their
own rhetoric and begin living up to the supposed "moral values" they
preach.
________________________________________________________
What? Dimwit Georgie Bush realizing his hypocrisy? Hahahahahahaha
Harry
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
2005-04-08 20:45:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by ronin
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
In the second world war it took the Germans about
30 minutes to get them to holler uncle.
Because while you were sitting on your asses in WW1, France lost millions of
their adult males in battle.
There were no adult male to defend France because they were dead, loser.
The women weren't killed by and large in the first one so the fact that
Germany was producing fighting age men at a two to one ratio compared to
France isn't really the fault of anyone but the French.
Post by ronin
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
And they would now be speaking
German if it were not for the USA.
Anyone who knows their history know it was the combined allied invasion at
Normandy (not just the US, loser) and the disatrous second front in Russia
that Hilter kept throwing soldiers at.
Had the French held in the first place, it isn't clear any of that
would've been needed.
Post by ronin
The Russians were the first in Berlin.
It was a race because the two sides were obviously only together for the
current convenience, not the long haul.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
ronin
2005-04-09 10:49:46 UTC
Permalink
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
Post by ronin
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
In the second world war it took the Germans about
30 minutes to get them to holler uncle.
Because while you were sitting on your asses in WW1, France lost millions of
their adult males in battle.
There were no adult male to defend France because they were dead, loser.
The women weren't killed by and large in the first one so the fact that
Germany was producing fighting age men at a two to one ratio compared to
France isn't really the fault of anyone but the French.
Hate to break it to you, but it takes two to procreate.
Post by Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
Post by ronin
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
And they would now be speaking
German if it were not for the USA.
Anyone who knows their history know it was the combined allied invasion at
Normandy (not just the US, loser) and the disatrous second front in Russia
that Hilter kept throwing soldiers at.
Had the French held in the first place, it isn't clear any of that
would've been needed.
See above, and learn some history, schmuck.
Post by Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
Post by ronin
The Russians were the first in Berlin.
It was a race because the two sides were obviously only together for the
current convenience, not the long haul.
They were still there first, like Canada and the UK were in WW1 and WW2,
when Prescott Bush, Charles Lindburgh, Henry Ford and Walt Disney were
supporting Hitler.
Post by Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
2005-04-09 16:47:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by ronin
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
Post by ronin
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
In the second world war it took the Germans about
30 minutes to get them to holler uncle.
Because while you were sitting on your asses in WW1, France lost
millions of
Post by Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
Post by ronin
their adult males in battle.
There were no adult male to defend France because they were dead, loser.
The women weren't killed by and large in the first one so the fact that
Germany was producing fighting age men at a two to one ratio compared to
France isn't really the fault of anyone but the French.
Hate to break it to you, but it takes two to procreate.
There is no physical limitation that there must be a different man for
every pregnant woman. France could've imported Don Juan, instead it
looks like they got a few Dox Quixotes and called it good.
Post by ronin
Post by Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
Post by ronin
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
And they would now be speaking
German if it were not for the USA.
Anyone who knows their history know it was the combined allied invasion
at
Post by Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
Post by ronin
Normandy (not just the US, loser) and the disatrous second front in
Russia
Post by Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
Post by ronin
that Hilter kept throwing soldiers at.
Had the French held in the first place, it isn't clear any of that
would've been needed.
See above, and learn some history, schmuck.
I am aware of history. If the French had not run and had kept their
country, why would you think that the US would've had to come all the
way over there and free them from the Germans?
Post by ronin
Post by Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
Post by ronin
The Russians were the first in Berlin.
It was a race because the two sides were obviously only together for the
current convenience, not the long haul.
They were still there first, like Canada and the UK were in WW1 and WW2,
when Prescott Bush, Charles Lindburgh, Henry Ford and Walt Disney were
supporting Hitler.
You are a kook.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
Foxtrot
2005-04-05 04:13:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Hope
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/04/04/63951
Why conservatives dislike the French
The French have a tendency to point out the hypocrisy of U.S.
political rhetoric.
By Joe LaFleur
Why do U.S. conservatives hate the French?
WW2.

Note how this smarmy pansy, in his pompous history lesson
praising the frenchies' war history (I use the term loosely),
somehow forgot to mention that little conflict.

It's more disdain than hatred. We see them as a bunch
of crepe-cooking faggots prancing around like girls.
Post by Harry Hope
U.S. neoconservatives decided that invading a fiercely Islamic,
sectarian nation in the heart of the Middle East for reasons that were
proven entirely false was a wise move.
We're also still pissed that you wouldn't let Reagan fly
our planes over your shithole of a country when we had
to attack Libya.
Post by Harry Hope
Face it, we look pretty scary.
Only if we have to bend over to pick something up.
Post by Harry Hope
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney labeled Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.,
wimpy, and the Swift Boat Veterans labeled him a traitor.
Ketchup boy acted like a traitor when he returned to the
US afterward. He aided the enemy. Surely you frenchies
can relate. Remember how you cowards were after you
surrendered to the Nazis?
Post by Harry Hope
If the United States desires respect from the rest of the world, Bush
and the conservatives would be wise to realize the hypocrisy of their
own rhetoric and begin living up to the supposed "moral values" they
preach.
Um no, we don't give a wet fart whether the rest of the
world respects us or not. That's one of the reasons the
eurotrash hates us--our apathy toward them. Heh heh
Mitchell Holman
2005-04-05 14:06:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Harry Hope
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/04/04/63951
Why conservatives dislike the French
The French have a tendency to point out the hypocrisy of U.S.
political rhetoric.
By Joe LaFleur
Why do U.S. conservatives hate the French?
WW2.
Note how this smarmy pansy, in his pompous history lesson
praising the frenchies' war history (I use the term loosely),
somehow forgot to mention that little conflict.
It's more disdain than hatred. We see them as a bunch
of crepe-cooking faggots prancing around like girls.
Oh, I see. You hate the French because they
surrended to the Nazis in WWII. That means you
equally hate the Danes, the Belgians, the Dutch,
the Norwegians, the Greeks, the Poles, and every
other nation that was overwhelmed militarily.

PS: What was the US doing to fight the Nazis
during the Battle of France, pray tell?
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Harry Hope
U.S. neoconservatives decided that invading a fiercely Islamic,
sectarian nation in the heart of the Middle East for reasons that were
proven entirely false was a wise move.
We're also still pissed that you wouldn't let Reagan fly
our planes over your shithole of a country when we had
to attack Libya.
Do you hate every country that disagrees
with US foreign policy?
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Harry Hope
Face it, we look pretty scary.
Only if we have to bend over to pick something up.
Post by Harry Hope
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney labeled Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.,
wimpy, and the Swift Boat Veterans labeled him a traitor.
Ketchup boy acted like a traitor when he returned to the
US afterward. He aided the enemy. Surely you frenchies
can relate. Remember how you cowards were after you
surrendered to the Nazis?
Post by Harry Hope
If the United States desires respect from the rest of the world, Bush
and the conservatives would be wise to realize the hypocrisy of their
own rhetoric and begin living up to the supposed "moral values" they
preach.
Um no, we don't give a wet fart whether the rest of the
world respects us or not.
That's why Bush is constantly going to
Europe, grovelling for help in the quagmire war
he started against better advice. The US made
the mess, and now he wants Europe to clean it up.

How very Republican.


Mitchell Holman

Federal deficit in 2001 = 0
Federal deficit in 2002 = 154 Billion
Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion
Federal deficit in 2004 = 412 Billion
Federal deficit in 2005 = 427 Billion
r***@hotmail.com
2005-04-05 14:31:38 UTC
Permalink
Oh...pick me...I know.....because the french are assholes...

love
hank
..........................................
David Moffitt
2005-04-05 21:31:24 UTC
Permalink
news:m23451tooo4mdnof2em3ac0nkrbj6id8o9
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Harry Hope
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/04/04/63951
Why conservatives dislike the French
The French have a tendency to point out the hypocrisy of U.S.
political rhetoric.
By Joe LaFleur
Why do U.S. conservatives hate the French?
WW2.
Note how this smarmy pansy, in his pompous history lesson
praising the frenchies' war history (I use the term loosely),
somehow forgot to mention that little conflict.
It's more disdain than hatred. We see them as a bunch
of crepe-cooking faggots prancing around like girls.
Oh, I see. You hate the French because they
surrended to the Nazis in WWII.
%%%% Vichy French.

http://www.answers.com/topic/vichy-france

That means you
Post by Mitchell Holman
equally hate the Danes, the Belgians, the Dutch,
the Norwegians, the Greeks, the Poles, and every
other nation that was overwhelmed militarily.
PS: What was the US doing to fight the Nazis
during the Battle of France, pray tell?
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Harry Hope
U.S. neoconservatives decided that invading a fiercely Islamic,
sectarian nation in the heart of the Middle East for reasons that were
proven entirely false was a wise move.
We're also still pissed that you wouldn't let Reagan fly
our planes over your shithole of a country when we had
to attack Libya.
Do you hate every country that disagrees
with US foreign policy?
http://www.answers.com/topic/vichy-france
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Harry Hope
Face it, we look pretty scary.
Only if we have to bend over to pick something up.
Post by Harry Hope
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney labeled Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.,
wimpy, and the Swift Boat Veterans labeled him a traitor.
Ketchup boy acted like a traitor when he returned to the
US afterward. He aided the enemy. Surely you frenchies
can relate. Remember how you cowards were after you
surrendered to the Nazis?
Post by Harry Hope
If the United States desires respect from the rest of the world, Bush
and the conservatives would be wise to realize the hypocrisy of their
own rhetoric and begin living up to the supposed "moral values" they
preach.
Um no, we don't give a wet fart whether the rest of the
world respects us or not.
That's why Bush is constantly going to
Europe, grovelling for help in the quagmire war
he started against better advice. The US made
the mess, and now he wants Europe to clean it up.
How very Republican.
Mitchell Holman
Federal deficit in 2001 = 0
Federal deficit in 2002 = 154 Billion
Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion
Federal deficit in 2004 = 412 Billion
Federal deficit in 2005 = 427 Billion
Mitchell Holman
2005-04-05 22:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Moffitt
news:m23451tooo4mdnof2em3ac0nkrbj6id8o9
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Harry Hope
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/04/04/63951
Why conservatives dislike the French
The French have a tendency to point out the hypocrisy of U.S.
political rhetoric.
By Joe LaFleur
Why do U.S. conservatives hate the French?
WW2.
Note how this smarmy pansy, in his pompous history lesson
praising the frenchies' war history (I use the term loosely),
somehow forgot to mention that little conflict.
It's more disdain than hatred. We see them as a bunch
of crepe-cooking faggots prancing around like girls.
Oh, I see. You hate the French because they
surrended to the Nazis in WWII.
%%%% Vichy French.
http://www.answers.com/topic/vichy-france
That means you
Post by Mitchell Holman
equally hate the Danes, the Belgians, the Dutch,
the Norwegians, the Greeks, the Poles, and every
other nation that was overwhelmed militarily.
PS: What was the US doing to fight the Nazis
during the Battle of France, pray tell?
What, no answer?
Post by David Moffitt
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Harry Hope
U.S. neoconservatives decided that invading a fiercely Islamic,
sectarian nation in the heart of the Middle East for reasons that were
proven entirely false was a wise move.
We're also still pissed that you wouldn't let Reagan fly
our planes over your shithole of a country when we had
to attack Libya.
Do you hate every country that disagrees
with US foreign policy?
http://www.answers.com/topic/vichy-france
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Harry Hope
Face it, we look pretty scary.
Only if we have to bend over to pick something up.
Post by Harry Hope
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney labeled Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.,
wimpy, and the Swift Boat Veterans labeled him a traitor.
Ketchup boy acted like a traitor when he returned to the
US afterward. He aided the enemy. Surely you frenchies
can relate. Remember how you cowards were after you
surrendered to the Nazis?
Post by Harry Hope
If the United States desires respect from the rest of the world, Bush
and the conservatives would be wise to realize the hypocrisy of their
own rhetoric and begin living up to the supposed "moral values" they
preach.
Um no, we don't give a wet fart whether the rest of the
world respects us or not.
That's why Bush is constantly going to
Europe, grovelling for help in the quagmire war
he started against better advice. The US made
the mess, and now he wants Europe to clean it up.
How very Republican.
Mitchell Holman
Federal deficit in 2001 = 0
Federal deficit in 2002 = 154 Billion
Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion
Federal deficit in 2004 = 412 Billion
Federal deficit in 2005 = 427 Billion
David Moffitt
2005-04-05 22:42:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Moffitt
news:m23451tooo4mdnof2em3ac0nkrbj6id8o9
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Harry Hope
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/04/04/63951
Why conservatives dislike the French
The French have a tendency to point out the hypocrisy of U.S.
political rhetoric.
By Joe LaFleur
Why do U.S. conservatives hate the French?
WW2.
Note how this smarmy pansy, in his pompous history lesson
praising the frenchies' war history (I use the term loosely),
somehow forgot to mention that little conflict.
It's more disdain than hatred. We see them as a bunch
of crepe-cooking faggots prancing around like girls.
Oh, I see. You hate the French because they
surrended to the Nazis in WWII.
%%%% Vichy French.
http://www.answers.com/topic/vichy-france
%%%% What, no comment?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Moffitt
That means you
Post by Mitchell Holman
equally hate the Danes, the Belgians, the Dutch,
the Norwegians, the Greeks, the Poles, and every
other nation that was overwhelmed militarily.
PS: What was the US doing to fight the Nazis
during the Battle of France, pray tell?
What, no answer?
%%%% It was not our war but we provided arms and equipment to the British to
fight with and many American volunteered to fight along the side of the
British. France surrendered so fast it was a waste of life and equipment .
Germany royally kicked their ass in a little over a month. France was full
of collaborators. (see Vichy French
http://www.answers.com/topic/vichy-france ) We got involved on the ground
when Hitler declared war on the US.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Moffitt
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Harry Hope
U.S. neoconservatives decided that invading a fiercely Islamic,
sectarian nation in the heart of the Middle East for reasons that were
proven entirely false was a wise move.
We're also still pissed that you wouldn't let Reagan fly
our planes over your shithole of a country when we had
to attack Libya.
Do you hate every country that disagrees
with US foreign policy?
http://www.answers.com/topic/vichy-france
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Harry Hope
Face it, we look pretty scary.
Only if we have to bend over to pick something up.
Post by Harry Hope
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney labeled Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.,
wimpy, and the Swift Boat Veterans labeled him a traitor.
Ketchup boy acted like a traitor when he returned to the
US afterward. He aided the enemy. Surely you frenchies
can relate. Remember how you cowards were after you
surrendered to the Nazis?
Post by Harry Hope
If the United States desires respect from the rest of the world, Bush
and the conservatives would be wise to realize the hypocrisy of their
own rhetoric and begin living up to the supposed "moral values" they
preach.
Um no, we don't give a wet fart whether the rest of the
world respects us or not.
That's why Bush is constantly going to
Europe, grovelling for help in the quagmire war
he started against better advice. The US made
the mess, and now he wants Europe to clean it up.
How very Republican.
Mitchell Holman
Federal deficit in 2001 = 0
Federal deficit in 2002 = 154 Billion
Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion
Federal deficit in 2004 = 412 Billion
Federal deficit in 2005 = 427 Billion
George
2005-04-07 16:20:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Moffitt
news:m23451tooo4mdnof2em3ac0nkrbj6id8o9
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Harry Hope
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/04/04/63951
Why conservatives dislike the French
The French have a tendency to point out the hypocrisy of U.S.
political rhetoric.
By Joe LaFleur
Why do U.S. conservatives hate the French?
WW2.
Note how this smarmy pansy, in his pompous history lesson
praising the frenchies' war history (I use the term loosely),
somehow forgot to mention that little conflict.
It's more disdain than hatred. We see them as a bunch
of crepe-cooking faggots prancing around like girls.
Oh, I see. You hate the French because they
surrended to the Nazis in WWII.
%%%% Vichy French.
http://www.answers.com/topic/vichy-france
That means you
Post by Mitchell Holman
equally hate the Danes, the Belgians, the Dutch,
the Norwegians, the Greeks, the Poles, and every
other nation that was overwhelmed militarily.
PS: What was the US doing to fight the Nazis
during the Battle of France, pray tell?
What, no answer?
Why should anybody care what a lying dickhead like you says, Mitch?
David Moffitt
2005-04-08 01:26:03 UTC
Permalink
An oldie but a goodie! :o)

Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 8:24 AM


Fascism, corruption and my "Democratic" Party


By Bob Just

Ten years ago, Newsweek magazine shocked mainstream America with a cover
story headlined "Thought Police," a lengthy report on a new social/political
movement developed on college campuses since the 1960s. Ironically, one year
after the Berlin wall came down and one year before the fall of the Soviet
Empire, Americans were being seriously warned that liberal academia had
adopted a hybrid "Marxist" philosophy often called "PC." This new
"Politically Correct" creed was being espoused, according to Newsweek, at
hundreds of colleges and universities as a result of the growing influence
of "a generation of campus radicals."

If they no longer talk of taking to the streets, it is because they now are
gaining access to the conventional weapons of campus politics: social
pressure, academic perks (including tenure) and -- when they have the
administration on their side -- outright coercion ... where the PC reigns,
one defies it at one's peril.
(Newsweek, Dec. 24, 1990)

After that, PC attitudes were heavily criticized, and even mocked, by
mainstream thinkers all around the country, liberal and conservative. And
yet, in 1992 America elected into power an administration that in many ways
adhered to the PC worldview, thus beginning a process of "change" unforeseen
not only by most Americans, but by most Democrats as well. I have known for
a long time that there were serious problems in my party, but I didn't fully
grasp the political nature of those problems. Sometimes it takes a simple,
symbolic moment to cause an epiphany -- to bring clarity. That happened to
me this past May.

My awakening
When I read about people spitting on the Honor Guard at the New York State
Democratic Convention May 16, I started to understand what has happened to
my party over the last few years. I still can't get over the fact that
Democrats attending a formal convention would so insult the American flag,
but it happened. As an Honor Guard of Albany police officers entered the
convention hall - with band playing and lights shining - they were spit on
and called "Nazis" by a number of people on the delegate floor. On top of
that, no Democrat nearby stopped the "spitters," or even reported them. And
the Democratic leadership expressed no public outrage.

I was so outraged at my party's lack of outrage that I started a reward fund
to find the "spitters." But I soon realized that I needed to address the
larger issue of what I had come to understand. I direct this commentary to
the mainstream elected officials of my party - the "adults" as the media
often calls them. Whether you are still in office or retired, you can have a
profound effect in waking up the party and the public. I see clearly now
that the path the party is taking will eventually lead to its destruction
and to the destruction of liberty in America. It is practically
mathematical. And it won't take very long in years if nothing is done to
stop it.

I have been a Democrat all my life. I grew up in New York City in a
staunchly Democratic middle class family. Although private-school educated
(I had financial assistance thanks to Trinity School), my father was a union
man, a musician with the Metropolitan Opera. My parents and stepparents were
all "Roosevelt Democrats." As a young English teacher in Montclair, New
Jersey, during the Richard Nixon Watergate scandal, I drove around with a
bumper sticker saying, "Don't Blame Me I Voted for McGovern." I was proud to
be on the side of "right" as I saw it. I was proud to stand against
corruption and the abuse of power.

Now, 25 years later, I am ashamed to be a Democrat. More than that, I have
come to fear my own party. Hatred and corruption - the roots of fascism -
are on the march in America as they have never been before, and leading this
march is the Democratic Party. Increasingly, mainstream Democrats are
uncomfortable with what we see in our party. We may not have a real name for
it, but we know it is dangerous.

The totalitarian choice in Alabama
On Sunday, June 18, the headline of the Washington Post read, "Political
Dirty Tricks Alleged in Alabama Trial," but the story revealed something far
more serious than "dirty tricks." A Democrat lawyer and a private
investigator are now being tried for attempting to defeat a Republican
candidate in 1998 by bribing a prostitute to accuse the Republican of raping
her. The prostitute recanted and turned witness against the two "Democrats."

The Republican, Lt. Gov. Steve Windom, was elected when the prostitute
confessed, but let's consider what his "political opponents" were willing to
do to him. This wasn't political rumor mongering -- which is bad enough.
These two men allegedly took direct action to destroy Windom's reputation in
the community, shame him before his family, and basically ruin his life.

We all know from history that when totalitarian forces, driven by their
dysfunctional fury, seek to uproot the political establishment, they will
use any means necessary. Bribery and character assassination are easy
choices for them, even murder, because civilized limits are meaningless to
the Stalins, Hitlers and Maos of the world. Their goal is to grab power, and
"The Party" -- whether Communist or Nazi -- is the highest good. Loyalty to
the party is everything because the party is the country.

These two "Democrats" were apparently willing to destroy everything precious
to a Republican man because he stood between their party and political
power. It is the totalitarian choice. The question is, how deep does it go
into the party and what motivates it?

No longer a political party
What we are dealing with here has nothing to do with American politics. In
fact, I worry that as the Democrats increasingly adopt fascist tactics they
will cease being a genuine political party, focused on honest debate and
decision by fair ballot. They could become one day something more related to
the fascists of 1930s Germany. The SA "brown shirts" were not interested in
debate and civil rule; they wanted power in order to force the democratic
nation to accept their Nazi agenda. If I am right about the fanatical
direction my party is taking, then America has never faced a danger like
this, and real Democrats who stand by and watch will be as guilty before
history as the actual leaders of this corruption movement.

When did the party start making its shift to this strange other form? Some
Democrats would say the sexual revolution, abortion and other moral issues
were the beginning. However, I am not talking here about party alignment
over the social issues, although they have been a major contributing factor.
There were many other issues in dispute among Democrats during the waning
years of the Cold War, but, whether we agreed or not, all issues were seen
as debatable opinions of the party's majority leadership. Reagan Democrats
just voted Republican and hoped the liberal Democrats would come to their
senses. There was still freedom of thought within the party, and in public
debate. But something happened which changed all that.

Suddenly, the traditional restraint of civilized limits was gone. Gone was
comity. Gone was loyal opposition. It was somewhere in the mid-nineties -
perhaps around the time the Republicans seized control of Congress for the
first time in 40 years. The panic among Democrats and the panic within the
Clinton administration may have been the turning point. Whenever it was that
the dam cracked, it had exploded by the end of 1998.

The year of living dangerously
As mainstream Democrats watched the impeachment trials, we experienced a
feeling of vast separation. It was like watching actors on a stage playing
the famously recognizable roles from Watergate but saying the wrong lines.
We heard that lying under oath and bold-faced lying to the American people
didn't "rise to the level of an impeachable offense." Famous phrases from
the past appeared twisted beyond recognition as we learned that the
president of the United States is not "below the law. ..."

Where were the lines we knew so well from our youth? "Have you no shame,
sir?" or later, "What did the President know and when did he know it?" Or
how about the greater words that inspired a generation of Democrats? Words
that put the very wind in our youthful sails: "Ask not what your country can
do for you..." or "Judged not by the color of skin but by the content of
character. ..." Where were the words of American tradition, duty, honor and
country? These were never just Republican words.

During the Clinton impeachment trial, we listened to honored senators like
Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York.
They spoke high-sounding words of outrage, but, in the end, actions betrayed
words. In the end, even these honorable men defended party over principle.
They rationalized, and let the party fall. Everyone knows it. History will
show it. They let one man's behavior compromise the integrity of the
Democratic Party. In the process, they turned their backs on the traditions
of our past symbolized by men like President Harry Truman.

We looked for truth during the impeachment and trial process and watched
hopefully as the "wise men" of the party in the House and the Senate
expressed "concern," then made excuses, and finally voted lock-step to
defend party power. Sure they had their reasons. They also, I believe, did
not grasp the significance of the vote - a symbolic alignment with the
corrupt elements in the party, an act of submission that sent a message
across America, from Hollywood to Wall Street and beyond. Anything goes.

The F-word fund-raiser and losing our souls
About a week after the spitting incident at the New York Democratic Party
Convention, there was another incident that shocked me profoundly. I still
cannot believe this one actually happened, but it is on videotape. At the
MCI Center fund-raiser in Washington, Robin Williams performed before a
crowd of corporate and Democrat dignitaries, people who would that very
night raise the party over 26 million dollars.

The fund-raiser, including Williams's performance, was broadcast live on
C-SPAN. However, that didn't stop Robin Williams from doing some kind of
seedy nightclub act. He used the F-word and other obscenities several times
(C-SPAN later cut this out when the event was rebroadcast). Imagine. A grand
room full of powerful Democrats, representatives of America's oldest
political party, and the F-word is being said, over and over again with
cameras recording!

As in the case of the harassment of the Honor Guard at the Albany Democratic
Convention, the specific violation was bad enough, but the most egregious
violation was the passive, cowardly acceptance of the audience. The hardest
thing to believe - for those of us who remember America before 1992 - was
that the president, vice president and Mrs. Clinton were at this
fund-raiser. Did none of them think to stand up and leave? Didn't anyone in
the audience consider booing the smutty language spoken before the assembled
dignitaries? No, there was only laughter.

Even when Robin Williams noticed a child present and joked about the "new
words" he was learning that night - even then - no one objected. Not one
Democrat dared step forward and condemn the moment. Peer pressure is a
powerful and coercive thing, for adults as well as children - one breaks
rank at one's peril. And I'm sure it wouldn't have been good for "business"
for the party leadership to create embarrassment at such a high-level
Hollywood/corporate function. So everyone laughed.

This is not about politics. This is about corruption. Stop and think about
it. Somehow Robin Williams knew that no one would object if he used the
F-word and the S-word continually - even on national TV! How did he know no
one would walk out on him? Apparently, Williams knows something about the
Democratic Party that most "little guy" Democrats like me don't know (not to
mention the "little guy" Republicans who are still embarrassed by MTV, thank
God). He knows the party has become corrupt.

Democrat leaders have lost their way. They find themselves at the head of a
parade full of people Harry Truman or even Jack Kennedy wouldn't recognize -
radicals of various kinds who think that Western civilization began in 1969.
Strangely, without meaning to, mainstream Democrats find themselves
representing this "corruption movement." However, for the "new fascists" in
the party, there is nothing so strange about it. Fascists have always sought
to leverage corruption for the sake of power.

In William Shirer's seminal book, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,"
listen to his famous description of Hitler: "He who was so monumentally
intolerant by his very nature, was strangely tolerant of one human
condition - a man's morals. No other party in Germany came near to
attracting so many shady characters." Shady characters, I should add, who
are useful because they will do "whatever it takes" to win.

Carried to its extreme, this corruption movement will destroy us all. It is
compulsive in its lust for power. It is an anti-establishment lobby that is
vast and very powerful. Right now the specific labels don't matter, and
there are too many to name here, from corporate greed to union greed to
organized crime to "special interest" causes. It is a long list. However,
the core desire of this group, conscious or unconscious, is to tear down
everything traditional and decent in this country. Full of personal anger
and a desire for radical change at whatever cost, these people wish to
"re-imagine" an America they have never understood.

The Party uber alles
Fueled by anger, the New Fascists have completely adopted the radical '60s
notion of the "honest con." In other words, they think that because they are
"correct in their beliefs" and because in their minds what they fight is so
"evil," just about any act can be committed for the sake of victory - and
certainly, lying is no problem. Loyalty to "the cause" is at the heart of
this mindset. And for the moment, at least, the heart of their loyalty is
President Clinton.

Allegiance to the Clintons personally has become a key factor of the current
corruptive atmosphere. During the Starr investigation, this allegiance took
a particularly extreme form. According to award-winning investigative
reporters, Susan Schmidt and Michael Weisskopf, who worked together at the
Washington Post, throughout the Starr investigation the Clintons "operated
like a crime family, expecting friends and aides to protect them even
against their own best interests."

And yet, despite this demand of personal loyalty to the leader, blind
loyalty to cause and party is the larger problem. "This administration sets
their own standards of loyalty. If they don't think you're 'one of them,'
they don't want you around," said one Secret Service agent I talked to
recently who has served under a number of administrations at the national
level, including serving the current one. "It's something you expect from a
Nazi Germany - the party over all, the Party 'uber alles.'"

"Sometimes party loyalty asks too much," said President Kennedy in a
different era, and yet, these days loyalty to a "higher right" than the
party is apparently no longer an option among inner circle Democrats. Even
the FBI was used by the Clinton administration to double check people's
loyalty to the cause, according to 25-year FBI veteran Gary Aldrich. Your
conscience is not yours to obey - the cause is everything. Thus,
traditionally neutral governmental agencies, from Energy to Defense to State
to Justice to the IRS, increasingly, seem to be loyal to something other
than the American people.

Recently, former prosecutor Charles LaBella was interviewed on Fox News'
"Hannity and Colmes" about the fundraising scandal of 1996 and about
LaBella's memo to Reno, recommending an independent counsel. The news had
just broken that Robert Conrad, Jr., LaBella's successor as special
prosecutor for the Justice Department, had also recommended to Attorney
General Reno that there be an independent counsel. "I know what he's going
through," said LaBella, talking about Conrad's politically incorrect
decision and the price he would pay for disloyalty. "You're made to feel
radioactive, isolated like I was - like you're the enemy and 'we're going to
show you what team sports are all about - you play with us or you don't
play.'" So much for Conrad's career and so much for making decisions based
on "the facts and the law." LaBella paid a price too, famously losing a plum
federal job in San Diego.

Those who are "disloyal" pay a price, but those who are "loyal" are
rewarded. Consider the White House Travel Office scandal that occurred when
Clinton took office. In what the Washington Post called a "shabby episode,"
Mrs. Clinton had made it clear to White House senior officials that she
wanted to replace the White House Travel Office employees (who had served
the American people faithfully) with loyalists who would serve the Clintons
faithfully. Suddenly, Billy Dale, the head of the travel office, was fired
and accused of "improper financial practices." The court cleared him in
"record time," according to Dale, but he was nearly ruined. Sound familiar?
Shades of Alabama. And in the end, the goal was accomplished: Dale and his
staff were out and "loyalists" were in.

Democrats can redeem the party from this kind of "party first" fascism. But
for that to happen, mainstream Democrats must wake up, including the 80
percent of the media who are Democrats. Instinctively, we all know the
dangers of what I am describing. It is simply not an American way of doing
things. We must dare to understand and communicate what is really going on
in our party, and in our country.

Understanding the fascist motive
People are essentially innocent and fair-minded. They look for reasons in
debate. Power-grasping totalitarians know this, and, no matter what the
country, they always supply some plausible response: They seek to "empower
the people"; they seek to "reestablish national pride," or to correct
"social injustice." Consider the irony that "racial injustice" has long been
a popular cause with fascists. For the Nazis it was white power, but for
other fascists it could be "black power." It doesn't matter what the reasons
are. America's Corruption Movement may be politically empowered by
"reasons," but it is not truly motivated by them. It is motivated by
something far more basic.

On my radio show, I always like to demonstrate a key principle with a
current news story. The principles of life are everywhere in the news. One
need only look for them. Famous supermodel Naomi Campbell was recently
accused of attacking two former employees in separate incidents. The story
was covered June 23rd on ABC's "20/20." Ms. Campbell confessed that her
violent temper is rooted in her childhood.

In one of the attacks, Campbell's irrational, out-of-control temper led her
to assault her former assistant Georgina Galanis with a blunt instrument.
She pleaded guilty, but more than that, she was brave enough to reveal to
the public exactly where her rage came from.

"There are a lot of issues that I have from childhood," Campbell told
Barbara Walters. "For instance, not knowing your father, not seeing your
mother. It manifests a lot of feelings. One of those feelings is anger." She
went on to talk about her insecurity, lack of self-esteem and loneliness.
Naomi Campbell is not the only person whose father abandoned her before she
was born, and whose mother was a distant presence in her life. Our
neighborhoods around the country, both minority and white, are increasingly
full of such children. The June issue of the journal "Pediatrics" declares
that nearly three times as many U.S. children have "emotional and
behavioral" problems as did 20 years ago.

Rage is everywhere in our adult society too. Just listen to the words of
"Gangsta" rap music, or the words spoken at some of the radical rallies in
Washington, D.C. Rage is the raw material of the New Fascists. They know how
to focus it - and give it a cause - and how to direct it at their enemies.
This process has now become so obvious that it's time we face up to it, and
identify it in our national political dialogue. In fact, facing up to it is
the only way we can save ourselves, and save this "grand experiment" in
political and religious freedom we call America.

Confronting the gathering political storm
Increasingly, personal anger has a political face in America. Millions of
dysfunctional people can create a very difficult situation in a free
society. They have a right to be wrong, but their "wrong" can undermine our
rights. They are also our brothers and sisters.

Solving the problem, of course, begins with seeing the problem. We know from
incidents of "road rage" or "workplace shootings" that angry, hate-filled
people are dangerous. They are also hard to reason with; try reasoning with
someone who's attempting to run you off the road because you forgot to
signal. We are talking here about "political road rage"; it's a slower burn,
but the intent is the same -- running you off the road.

As we observe the political scene, the politics of rage will become more and
more obvious. Make your own list of radicals and you'll see that rage has
many faces and many "reasons" to demand justice. Watch those angry faces on
talk television. See how difficult it is for others to reason with them and
how rarely they accept anyone else's point of view. Here's the secret: For
these political road ragers - in whatever category of public or private
life - it is no longer about debate or logic. In that sense, we have reached
the end of debate, which is a civilized method of dialogue involving two
groups seeking the truth. Fascists, as we know from history, don't debate
free thinkers. They choke them out of existence.

Make no mistake: We are headed for what President George Bush called "the
silly season" back in 1992. Of course, "silly" doesn't describe it anymore
than "tricks" are what the two "Democrats" were up to in Alabama. The
election period will get more and more emotionalized as we get close to the
vote - by whatever means necessary, from the race card, to Christian
bashing, to class warfare, to corporation bashing, to fear-mongering of all
kinds. What Ronald Reagan called the "Iron Triangle" will be in full gear:
The angry special interest groups will be out in force demonstrating and
calling press conferences; the liberal media will cooperate with cameras
rolling; and hysterical Democrat politicians will make outrageous statements
like, "They're coming for our children." All this, focused on emotionalizing
the atmosphere of the presidential debates where Al Gore will do his best to
"rip the lungs out" of George W. Bush. It is serious business, provoking
anger and fomenting hate - all with a purpose of getting millions of
Americans to fear Republicans, or any other opposing party. Then, in this
kind of heated atmosphere, people will vote.

The technique of "legislation by hysteria" - emotionalizing debate in
Congress and rushing a decision - now becomes "election by hysteria."
Fascists do not operate in a calm, considered environment. Inflammatory
language is an essential tool in their kit. Already we are seeing
race-baiting Democrats calling on Americans to "Stop the Lynching" because
of the tragic hanging death of a local black teenager in Mississippi, which
authorities so far have indicated is a likely suicide and which, in any
event, is an isolated incident. Remember the black church burning scare in
the '96 election cycle? That turned out to be a sham, but it made headlines,
created anger, caused fear and it galvanized voters. That tactic is applied
aggressively to every issue in every political arena, local, state or
national. If you haven't recognized it before, it will now be transparent.

Holding on to truth
The key to successfully confronting the New Fascist movement is, first, to
see it for what it is. Fascism inspires an emotionalized, cultic allegiance,
and many of these people can't see what they are trapped in. If we rage back
at them, it pushes them deeper into this alien loyalty. So the second key is
to be forceful but remain calm - to understand that they need our help. I
don't mean a weak, simpering, "can't we all get along" kind of help, but a
focused, forceful desire to draw the line for their own sake as well as
ours. They need us to resist them with strength, but they don't need our
rage. They got that as children.

The principle here is something Mahatma Gandhi, the great liberator of
India, called "force of righteousness," "love force," or "soul force."
Gandhi was a great admirer of Judeo-Christian thinking and Americans will
recognize the wisdom. He coined a new Indian word for it, Satyagraha. The
root meaning is "holding on to truth," and "not hating back" is one of the
keys to this truth.

Of course, fascists reject the idea of a truth higher than the party, and
hate is their driving impulse. This puts them at odds with America's "under
God" religious heritage, and as a result, America has suffered a great deal
of pain and confusion in recent decades. The fascist corruption movement
(which puts power, material wealth, personal pleasure and everything else
above what's right) has all but destroyed the social fabric of our society,
much to the horror of most Americans. In this respect, mainstream Americans
also deal with an anger problem. Nevertheless, the hope for America's future
lies in love. It may sound corny, but in the end, it is the only way to
avoid civil conflict. Permissive weakness will drive these "children" crazy,
but so will judgmental anger.

When the leaders of the corruption movement understand that "the game is
up" - that we see them for what they are without hate - they may hate and
fear us all the more. At that point, they must get the kind of love that
good parents deliver: Tough love. Consider a mother who warns her son that
he is getting too close to the street, but the child gets closer. Does the
mother stop the child with a gentle voice? Of course not. An aggressive
shout is what's needed to frighten the boy away from danger. Now let's take
it a step further. Despite the mother's shout, the boy rebelliously runs
toward the street where there are cars coming. At that moment, for the sake
of the child, the mother rushes to use force and yanks the child out of
danger.

We must be as determined in our love for these "unloved children" as they
are absolutely determined to get revenge on the "establishment" they
associate with the parents who abandoned them in one way or another. I
confess I am talking about myself since in my angry youth I was once on
their side.

Most of us are reachable. Former radical leftist David Horowitz is a classic
example. Or consider Jane Fonda's recent desire to turn her life around,
which has been reported in these pages, and which Fonda now talks about with
Oprah Winfrey in the current issue of "O" magazine. Fonda's mother committed
suicide when she was 12. That kind of shock is inconceivable to most of us.
What a lonely, painful journey it must have been for that little girl,
especially since her father Henry Fonda was aloof and incapable of giving
her the love she needed. Many of us remember her angry youth in the 1970s.
Now, we are coming to understand it. Courageously facing the mistakes of her
past, Jane Fonda looks to the future with a renewed determination to change.
I believe there are people like this in every political and social sphere
within my party. People who are looking to do what is right - people who can
change their angry ways.

Coming home to America
When it comes to a dysfunctional, angry childhood, Jane Fonda has lots of
company. Think of how many of other famous liberal Democrats have already
admitted serious parental problems from sexual abuse to alcoholism to
abandonment, either physical or emotional. It is a remarkably talented group
of people, from Barbara Streisand to Rosie O'Donnell to Bill Clinton to
Gloria Steinem. If we truly knew the length and breadth of this list of
cultural and political leaders, and the details of their personal suffering,
we would all be shocked - and touched. Don't be distracted by their
political labels. When they were children, these people deserved love, and
they didn't get it. Can we blame them for being angry?

I know how they feel. My parents were divorced when I was five. I spent some
lonely years in boarding school until I was 9 years old. You bet I was
afraid - and angry. The world is supposed to be a safe place for
5-year-olds, not a hostile environment. My suffering was small compared to
the list above, but I can tell you that by the time I reached college age my
anger manifested, and not only politically. I was rebellious in my moral
behavior too. The "sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll" socialist creed of the
1960s and '70s didn't just affect the Clintons and a few other famous
people. There were millions of us.

Some of us functionally recovered from our anger, but some didn't - and
there are many angry children coming up in the generations behind the "baby
boomers," younger people who don't remember the America we remember. They
need to believe in something and we need to give them something genuinely
good - because the New Fascists have a dream to sell, too. And it isn't the
American dream.

How Democrats can reclaim the party
The following is especially important for the mainstream Democratic
leadership to read. The corruption movement with its fascist tendencies is
not yet a determined majority in America. However, its strength is
threefold: Its adherents have access to great combined wealth; they have
huge influence on our culture; and most importantly, they have not yet been
clearly identified in the minds of average Americans. Most Americans still
think the Democratic Party is "liberal," even "liberal to moderate." They
may distrust the president and the rest of the PC crowd, but they don't see
the larger problem.

Let me be clear. This is not about President Clinton. The current corruption
goes way beyond him. It started before him and it will undoubtedly survive
him. Consider that Newsweek's "Thought Police" issue was published in
December 1990, two years before Clinton's presidency. Even then, Newsweek
raised the specter of what it called "New McCarthyism," describing the
"politically correct" movement among liberal-leftists as essentially
"Marxist" and "totalitarian," an extremist belief system determined to root
out and destroy all those in the mainstream who oppose it.

If you are wondering how this belief system has affected liberalism in the
last decade, just read the words of long-time, liberal Democrat commentator
Mark Shields writing in the Washington Post last month: "Today to be a
liberal there is one test," said a frustrated Shields. "Unqualified support
for all legal abortions ideally joined by an almost libertarian commitment
to no societal limits on individual behavior or autonomy."

Although increasingly dominant in our culture, this PC ethic is still only
one element of the New Fascism, and Bill Clinton's personal anger and
radical Sixties "no-limits" attitude is only the most current catalyst to
the dark impulse that has risen before in human history. Remember, Clinton
is a victim too - and has the potential to recover.

Once Democrats like Shields start to recognize in large numbers what has
happened to our party, the fascist power base will be greatly weakened -
mainstream Democrats will all back away from it. Catholic Democrats will
certainly run the other way. So will most teachers. I'm sure church-going
African Americans and Latinos won't stand for it - and neither will
patriotic union workers. If that is a dream, it is a good dream. And like
the one of Dr. King's, it is up to us to make the dream a reality.

Conclusion: Our awakening
Many middle-aged and older Americans will remember the famous World War II
movie, "Bridge on the River Kwai," in which Japanese prisoner Col.
Nickolson, a British officer played by Alec Guinness, is forced to lead his
fellow prisoners in building a bridge for the Japanese. Under great hardship
and to rally his men's morale, Col. Nickolson sets out to prove the
superiority of British freedom over Japanese tyranny by building a great
bridge. Under his leadership, the prisoners succeed marvelously. They
demonstrate to the Japanese what inner-inspired free men can do. It's a
magnificent bridge. But there's a tragedy coming in the story: Due to the
pride he takes in the impressive bridge, built to last long after the war,
Col. Nickolson ends up on the wrong side when British commandos come to
destroy the bridge. For a moment he resists his own countrymen, warning the
Japanese.

After several of the commandos die in the struggle to blow up the bridge,
Col. Nickolson realizes to his horror that his passionate dedication to "the
cause" has led him to forget his first loyalty - his country. Severely
wounded, and with his last bit of energy, he blows up the bridge himself.

It is time to detonate the lie the Democratic Party is becoming. It's time
to call on the people who are the keepers of the flame in the party -
President Carter, Sen. Byrd, Sen. Moynihan, Sen. Leiberman, Sen. Nunn and
all the rest of you who remember the true Democratic Party: We need you and
we need you now.

Stop this totalitarian "party first" madness! Stop the moral decline, and
help us return to the values and traditions of our parents and those of our
once-great party. If you cannot change the party, if the levers of power are
totally controlled by the New Fascists among us, from Hollywood to
Washington to Wall Street, then please tell us. Talk to the people. Sound
the alarm so that America will know the danger it truly faces. Yes, it will
temporarily diminish the Democratic Party, but like a beautiful garden, once
weeded and pruned, it will come back stronger than ever as the patriotic
party of "the little guy."

When Newsweek reporters told Americans about the growing totalitarian ethic
on our college campuses at the end of the Cold War, they revealed a core
ingredient of the New Fascism, something impossible for most Americans to
even imagine:


The failure of Marxist systems throughout the world has not noticeably
dimmed the allure of left-wing politics for American academics. Even today,
says David Littlejohn of Berkeley's Graduate School of Literature, "an
overwhelming proportion of our courses are taught by people who really hate
the system."
(Newsweek, Dec. 24, 1990)
"Hate the system. ..." What if such people got complete control of one of
our two major parties? I say they are very close to doing it. But more,
let's say they succeed. What if these New Fascists go on to corrupt our
military, our police, our courts, and even our Congress and our governmental
agencies with this same anti-American ethic? If that happens, then by any
analysis we will no longer have a "culture war" in America, but rather a
"cold civil war," ready to heat up the moment government establishes laws
that tyrannize the American conscience.

Right now we have two parties that are becoming like two different
countries - which are increasingly acting like enemies. God forbid it, and
please make us again one nation, a shining city on a hill for all the world
to see, where love can reign and truth prevail, and where freedom can be
enjoyed by all.


"Perseverance is more prevailing than violence; and many
things which cannot be overcome when they are together, yield
themselves up when taken little by little." --Plutarch
JimK
2005-04-08 01:55:37 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 01:26:03 GMT, "David Moffitt"
Post by David Moffitt
An oldie but a goodie! :o)
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 8:24 AM
Fascism, corruption and my "Democratic" Party
By Bob Just
http://www.bobjust.com/

No URL so it must of came from WorldNetDaily
Post by David Moffitt
Ten years ago, Newsweek magazine shocked mainstream America with a cover
story headlined "Thought Police," a lengthy report on a new social/political
movement developed on college campuses since the 1960s. Ironically, one year
after the Berlin wall came down and one year before the fall of the Soviet
Empire, Americans were being seriously warned that liberal academia had
adopted a hybrid "Marxist" philosophy often called "PC." This new
"Politically Correct" creed was being espoused, according to Newsweek, at
hundreds of colleges and universities as a result of the growing influence
of "a generation of campus radicals."
If they no longer talk of taking to the streets, it is because they now are
gaining access to the conventional weapons of campus politics: social
pressure, academic perks (including tenure) and -- when they have the
administration on their side -- outright coercion ... where the PC reigns,
one defies it at one's peril.
(Newsweek, Dec. 24, 1990)
After that, PC attitudes were heavily criticized, and even mocked, by
mainstream thinkers all around the country, liberal and conservative. And
yet, in 1992 America elected into power an administration that in many ways
adhered to the PC worldview, thus beginning a process of "change" unforeseen
not only by most Americans, but by most Democrats as well. I have known for
a long time that there were serious problems in my party, but I didn't fully
grasp the political nature of those problems. Sometimes it takes a simple,
symbolic moment to cause an epiphany -- to bring clarity. That happened to
me this past May.
My awakening
When I read about people spitting on the Honor Guard at the New York State
Democratic Convention May 16, I started to understand what has happened to
my party over the last few years. I still can't get over the fact that
Democrats attending a formal convention would so insult the American flag,
but it happened. As an Honor Guard of Albany police officers entered the
convention hall - with band playing and lights shining - they were spit on
and called "Nazis" by a number of people on the delegate floor. On top of
that, no Democrat nearby stopped the "spitters," or even reported them. And
the Democratic leadership expressed no public outrage.
I was so outraged at my party's lack of outrage that I started a reward fund
to find the "spitters." But I soon realized that I needed to address the
larger issue of what I had come to understand. I direct this commentary to
the mainstream elected officials of my party - the "adults" as the media
often calls them. Whether you are still in office or retired, you can have a
profound effect in waking up the party and the public. I see clearly now
that the path the party is taking will eventually lead to its destruction
and to the destruction of liberty in America. It is practically
mathematical. And it won't take very long in years if nothing is done to
stop it.
I have been a Democrat all my life. I grew up in New York City in a
staunchly Democratic middle class family. Although private-school educated
(I had financial assistance thanks to Trinity School), my father was a union
man, a musician with the Metropolitan Opera. My parents and stepparents were
all "Roosevelt Democrats." As a young English teacher in Montclair, New
Jersey, during the Richard Nixon Watergate scandal, I drove around with a
bumper sticker saying, "Don't Blame Me I Voted for McGovern." I was proud to
be on the side of "right" as I saw it. I was proud to stand against
corruption and the abuse of power.
Now, 25 years later, I am ashamed to be a Democrat. More than that, I have
come to fear my own party. Hatred and corruption - the roots of fascism -
are on the march in America as they have never been before, and leading this
march is the Democratic Party. Increasingly, mainstream Democrats are
uncomfortable with what we see in our party. We may not have a real name for
it, but we know it is dangerous.
The totalitarian choice in Alabama
On Sunday, June 18, the headline of the Washington Post read, "Political
Dirty Tricks Alleged in Alabama Trial," but the story revealed something far
more serious than "dirty tricks." A Democrat lawyer and a private
investigator are now being tried for attempting to defeat a Republican
candidate in 1998 by bribing a prostitute to accuse the Republican of raping
her. The prostitute recanted and turned witness against the two "Democrats."
The Republican, Lt. Gov. Steve Windom, was elected when the prostitute
confessed, but let's consider what his "political opponents" were willing to
do to him. This wasn't political rumor mongering -- which is bad enough.
These two men allegedly took direct action to destroy Windom's reputation in
the community, shame him before his family, and basically ruin his life.
We all know from history that when totalitarian forces, driven by their
dysfunctional fury, seek to uproot the political establishment, they will
use any means necessary. Bribery and character assassination are easy
choices for them, even murder, because civilized limits are meaningless to
the Stalins, Hitlers and Maos of the world. Their goal is to grab power, and
"The Party" -- whether Communist or Nazi -- is the highest good. Loyalty to
the party is everything because the party is the country.
These two "Democrats" were apparently willing to destroy everything precious
to a Republican man because he stood between their party and political
power. It is the totalitarian choice. The question is, how deep does it go
into the party and what motivates it?
No longer a political party
What we are dealing with here has nothing to do with American politics. In
fact, I worry that as the Democrats increasingly adopt fascist tactics they
will cease being a genuine political party, focused on honest debate and
decision by fair ballot. They could become one day something more related to
the fascists of 1930s Germany. The SA "brown shirts" were not interested in
debate and civil rule; they wanted power in order to force the democratic
nation to accept their Nazi agenda. If I am right about the fanatical
direction my party is taking, then America has never faced a danger like
this, and real Democrats who stand by and watch will be as guilty before
history as the actual leaders of this corruption movement.
When did the party start making its shift to this strange other form? Some
Democrats would say the sexual revolution, abortion and other moral issues
were the beginning. However, I am not talking here about party alignment
over the social issues, although they have been a major contributing factor.
There were many other issues in dispute among Democrats during the waning
years of the Cold War, but, whether we agreed or not, all issues were seen
as debatable opinions of the party's majority leadership. Reagan Democrats
just voted Republican and hoped the liberal Democrats would come to their
senses. There was still freedom of thought within the party, and in public
debate. But something happened which changed all that.
Suddenly, the traditional restraint of civilized limits was gone. Gone was
comity. Gone was loyal opposition. It was somewhere in the mid-nineties -
perhaps around the time the Republicans seized control of Congress for the
first time in 40 years. The panic among Democrats and the panic within the
Clinton administration may have been the turning point. Whenever it was that
the dam cracked, it had exploded by the end of 1998.
The year of living dangerously
As mainstream Democrats watched the impeachment trials, we experienced a
feeling of vast separation. It was like watching actors on a stage playing
the famously recognizable roles from Watergate but saying the wrong lines.
We heard that lying under oath and bold-faced lying to the American people
didn't "rise to the level of an impeachable offense." Famous phrases from
the past appeared twisted beyond recognition as we learned that the
president of the United States is not "below the law. ..."
Where were the lines we knew so well from our youth? "Have you no shame,
sir?" or later, "What did the President know and when did he know it?" Or
how about the greater words that inspired a generation of Democrats? Words
that put the very wind in our youthful sails: "Ask not what your country can
do for you..." or "Judged not by the color of skin but by the content of
character. ..." Where were the words of American tradition, duty, honor and
country? These were never just Republican words.
During the Clinton impeachment trial, we listened to honored senators like
Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York.
They spoke high-sounding words of outrage, but, in the end, actions betrayed
words. In the end, even these honorable men defended party over principle.
They rationalized, and let the party fall. Everyone knows it. History will
show it. They let one man's behavior compromise the integrity of the
Democratic Party. In the process, they turned their backs on the traditions
of our past symbolized by men like President Harry Truman.
We looked for truth during the impeachment and trial process and watched
hopefully as the "wise men" of the party in the House and the Senate
expressed "concern," then made excuses, and finally voted lock-step to
defend party power. Sure they had their reasons. They also, I believe, did
not grasp the significance of the vote - a symbolic alignment with the
corrupt elements in the party, an act of submission that sent a message
across America, from Hollywood to Wall Street and beyond. Anything goes.
The F-word fund-raiser and losing our souls
About a week after the spitting incident at the New York Democratic Party
Convention, there was another incident that shocked me profoundly. I still
cannot believe this one actually happened, but it is on videotape. At the
MCI Center fund-raiser in Washington, Robin Williams performed before a
crowd of corporate and Democrat dignitaries, people who would that very
night raise the party over 26 million dollars.
The fund-raiser, including Williams's performance, was broadcast live on
C-SPAN. However, that didn't stop Robin Williams from doing some kind of
seedy nightclub act. He used the F-word and other obscenities several times
(C-SPAN later cut this out when the event was rebroadcast). Imagine. A grand
room full of powerful Democrats, representatives of America's oldest
political party, and the F-word is being said, over and over again with
cameras recording!
As in the case of the harassment of the Honor Guard at the Albany Democratic
Convention, the specific violation was bad enough, but the most egregious
violation was the passive, cowardly acceptance of the audience. The hardest
thing to believe - for those of us who remember America before 1992 - was
that the president, vice president and Mrs. Clinton were at this
fund-raiser. Did none of them think to stand up and leave? Didn't anyone in
the audience consider booing the smutty language spoken before the assembled
dignitaries? No, there was only laughter.
Even when Robin Williams noticed a child present and joked about the "new
words" he was learning that night - even then - no one objected. Not one
Democrat dared step forward and condemn the moment. Peer pressure is a
powerful and coercive thing, for adults as well as children - one breaks
rank at one's peril. And I'm sure it wouldn't have been good for "business"
for the party leadership to create embarrassment at such a high-level
Hollywood/corporate function. So everyone laughed.
This is not about politics. This is about corruption. Stop and think about
it. Somehow Robin Williams knew that no one would object if he used the
F-word and the S-word continually - even on national TV! How did he know no
one would walk out on him? Apparently, Williams knows something about the
Democratic Party that most "little guy" Democrats like me don't know (not to
mention the "little guy" Republicans who are still embarrassed by MTV, thank
God). He knows the party has become corrupt.
Democrat leaders have lost their way. They find themselves at the head of a
parade full of people Harry Truman or even Jack Kennedy wouldn't recognize -
radicals of various kinds who think that Western civilization began in 1969.
Strangely, without meaning to, mainstream Democrats find themselves
representing this "corruption movement." However, for the "new fascists" in
the party, there is nothing so strange about it. Fascists have always sought
to leverage corruption for the sake of power.
In William Shirer's seminal book, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,"
listen to his famous description of Hitler: "He who was so monumentally
intolerant by his very nature, was strangely tolerant of one human
condition - a man's morals. No other party in Germany came near to
attracting so many shady characters." Shady characters, I should add, who
are useful because they will do "whatever it takes" to win.
Carried to its extreme, this corruption movement will destroy us all. It is
compulsive in its lust for power. It is an anti-establishment lobby that is
vast and very powerful. Right now the specific labels don't matter, and
there are too many to name here, from corporate greed to union greed to
organized crime to "special interest" causes. It is a long list. However,
the core desire of this group, conscious or unconscious, is to tear down
everything traditional and decent in this country. Full of personal anger
and a desire for radical change at whatever cost, these people wish to
"re-imagine" an America they have never understood.
The Party uber alles
Fueled by anger, the New Fascists have completely adopted the radical '60s
notion of the "honest con." In other words, they think that because they are
"correct in their beliefs" and because in their minds what they fight is so
"evil," just about any act can be committed for the sake of victory - and
certainly, lying is no problem. Loyalty to "the cause" is at the heart of
this mindset. And for the moment, at least, the heart of their loyalty is
President Clinton.
Allegiance to the Clintons personally has become a key factor of the current
corruptive atmosphere. During the Starr investigation, this allegiance took
a particularly extreme form. According to award-winning investigative
reporters, Susan Schmidt and Michael Weisskopf, who worked together at the
Washington Post, throughout the Starr investigation the Clintons "operated
like a crime family, expecting friends and aides to protect them even
against their own best interests."
And yet, despite this demand of personal loyalty to the leader, blind
loyalty to cause and party is the larger problem. "This administration sets
their own standards of loyalty. If they don't think you're 'one of them,'
they don't want you around," said one Secret Service agent I talked to
recently who has served under a number of administrations at the national
level, including serving the current one. "It's something you expect from a
Nazi Germany - the party over all, the Party 'uber alles.'"
"Sometimes party loyalty asks too much," said President Kennedy in a
different era, and yet, these days loyalty to a "higher right" than the
party is apparently no longer an option among inner circle Democrats. Even
the FBI was used by the Clinton administration to double check people's
loyalty to the cause, according to 25-year FBI veteran Gary Aldrich. Your
conscience is not yours to obey - the cause is everything. Thus,
traditionally neutral governmental agencies, from Energy to Defense to State
to Justice to the IRS, increasingly, seem to be loyal to something other
than the American people.
Recently, former prosecutor Charles LaBella was interviewed on Fox News'
"Hannity and Colmes" about the fundraising scandal of 1996 and about
LaBella's memo to Reno, recommending an independent counsel. The news had
just broken that Robert Conrad, Jr., LaBella's successor as special
prosecutor for the Justice Department, had also recommended to Attorney
General Reno that there be an independent counsel. "I know what he's going
through," said LaBella, talking about Conrad's politically incorrect
decision and the price he would pay for disloyalty. "You're made to feel
radioactive, isolated like I was - like you're the enemy and 'we're going to
show you what team sports are all about - you play with us or you don't
play.'" So much for Conrad's career and so much for making decisions based
on "the facts and the law." LaBella paid a price too, famously losing a plum
federal job in San Diego.
Those who are "disloyal" pay a price, but those who are "loyal" are
rewarded. Consider the White House Travel Office scandal that occurred when
Clinton took office. In what the Washington Post called a "shabby episode,"
Mrs. Clinton had made it clear to White House senior officials that she
wanted to replace the White House Travel Office employees (who had served
the American people faithfully) with loyalists who would serve the Clintons
faithfully. Suddenly, Billy Dale, the head of the travel office, was fired
and accused of "improper financial practices." The court cleared him in
"record time," according to Dale, but he was nearly ruined. Sound familiar?
Shades of Alabama. And in the end, the goal was accomplished: Dale and his
staff were out and "loyalists" were in.
Democrats can redeem the party from this kind of "party first" fascism. But
for that to happen, mainstream Democrats must wake up, including the 80
percent of the media who are Democrats. Instinctively, we all know the
dangers of what I am describing. It is simply not an American way of doing
things. We must dare to understand and communicate what is really going on
in our party, and in our country.
Understanding the fascist motive
People are essentially innocent and fair-minded. They look for reasons in
debate. Power-grasping totalitarians know this, and, no matter what the
country, they always supply some plausible response: They seek to "empower
the people"; they seek to "reestablish national pride," or to correct
"social injustice." Consider the irony that "racial injustice" has long been
a popular cause with fascists. For the Nazis it was white power, but for
other fascists it could be "black power." It doesn't matter what the reasons
are. America's Corruption Movement may be politically empowered by
"reasons," but it is not truly motivated by them. It is motivated by
something far more basic.
On my radio show, I always like to demonstrate a key principle with a
current news story. The principles of life are everywhere in the news. One
need only look for them. Famous supermodel Naomi Campbell was recently
accused of attacking two former employees in separate incidents. The story
was covered June 23rd on ABC's "20/20." Ms. Campbell confessed that her
violent temper is rooted in her childhood.
In one of the attacks, Campbell's irrational, out-of-control temper led her
to assault her former assistant Georgina Galanis with a blunt instrument.
She pleaded guilty, but more than that, she was brave enough to reveal to
the public exactly where her rage came from.
"There are a lot of issues that I have from childhood," Campbell told
Barbara Walters. "For instance, not knowing your father, not seeing your
mother. It manifests a lot of feelings. One of those feelings is anger." She
went on to talk about her insecurity, lack of self-esteem and loneliness.
Naomi Campbell is not the only person whose father abandoned her before she
was born, and whose mother was a distant presence in her life. Our
neighborhoods around the country, both minority and white, are increasingly
full of such children. The June issue of the journal "Pediatrics" declares
that nearly three times as many U.S. children have "emotional and
behavioral" problems as did 20 years ago.
Rage is everywhere in our adult society too. Just listen to the words of
"Gangsta" rap music, or the words spoken at some of the radical rallies in
Washington, D.C. Rage is the raw material of the New Fascists. They know how
to focus it - and give it a cause - and how to direct it at their enemies.
This process has now become so obvious that it's time we face up to it, and
identify it in our national political dialogue. In fact, facing up to it is
the only way we can save ourselves, and save this "grand experiment" in
political and religious freedom we call America.
Confronting the gathering political storm
Increasingly, personal anger has a political face in America. Millions of
dysfunctional people can create a very difficult situation in a free
society. They have a right to be wrong, but their "wrong" can undermine our
rights. They are also our brothers and sisters.
Solving the problem, of course, begins with seeing the problem. We know from
incidents of "road rage" or "workplace shootings" that angry, hate-filled
people are dangerous. They are also hard to reason with; try reasoning with
someone who's attempting to run you off the road because you forgot to
signal. We are talking here about "political road rage"; it's a slower burn,
but the intent is the same -- running you off the road.
As we observe the political scene, the politics of rage will become more and
more obvious. Make your own list of radicals and you'll see that rage has
many faces and many "reasons" to demand justice. Watch those angry faces on
talk television. See how difficult it is for others to reason with them and
how rarely they accept anyone else's point of view. Here's the secret: For
these political road ragers - in whatever category of public or private
life - it is no longer about debate or logic. In that sense, we have reached
the end of debate, which is a civilized method of dialogue involving two
groups seeking the truth. Fascists, as we know from history, don't debate
free thinkers. They choke them out of existence.
Make no mistake: We are headed for what President George Bush called "the
silly season" back in 1992. Of course, "silly" doesn't describe it anymore
than "tricks" are what the two "Democrats" were up to in Alabama. The
election period will get more and more emotionalized as we get close to the
vote - by whatever means necessary, from the race card, to Christian
bashing, to class warfare, to corporation bashing, to fear-mongering of all
The angry special interest groups will be out in force demonstrating and
calling press conferences; the liberal media will cooperate with cameras
rolling; and hysterical Democrat politicians will make outrageous statements
like, "They're coming for our children." All this, focused on emotionalizing
the atmosphere of the presidential debates where Al Gore will do his best to
"rip the lungs out" of George W. Bush. It is serious business, provoking
anger and fomenting hate - all with a purpose of getting millions of
Americans to fear Republicans, or any other opposing party. Then, in this
kind of heated atmosphere, people will vote.
The technique of "legislation by hysteria" - emotionalizing debate in
Congress and rushing a decision - now becomes "election by hysteria."
Fascists do not operate in a calm, considered environment. Inflammatory
language is an essential tool in their kit. Already we are seeing
race-baiting Democrats calling on Americans to "Stop the Lynching" because
of the tragic hanging death of a local black teenager in Mississippi, which
authorities so far have indicated is a likely suicide and which, in any
event, is an isolated incident. Remember the black church burning scare in
the '96 election cycle? That turned out to be a sham, but it made headlines,
created anger, caused fear and it galvanized voters. That tactic is applied
aggressively to every issue in every political arena, local, state or
national. If you haven't recognized it before, it will now be transparent.
Holding on to truth
The key to successfully confronting the New Fascist movement is, first, to
see it for what it is. Fascism inspires an emotionalized, cultic allegiance,
and many of these people can't see what they are trapped in. If we rage back
at them, it pushes them deeper into this alien loyalty. So the second key is
to be forceful but remain calm - to understand that they need our help. I
don't mean a weak, simpering, "can't we all get along" kind of help, but a
focused, forceful desire to draw the line for their own sake as well as
ours. They need us to resist them with strength, but they don't need our
rage. They got that as children.
The principle here is something Mahatma Gandhi, the great liberator of
India, called "force of righteousness," "love force," or "soul force."
Gandhi was a great admirer of Judeo-Christian thinking and Americans will
recognize the wisdom. He coined a new Indian word for it, Satyagraha. The
root meaning is "holding on to truth," and "not hating back" is one of the
keys to this truth.
Of course, fascists reject the idea of a truth higher than the party, and
hate is their driving impulse. This puts them at odds with America's "under
God" religious heritage, and as a result, America has suffered a great deal
of pain and confusion in recent decades. The fascist corruption movement
(which puts power, material wealth, personal pleasure and everything else
above what's right) has all but destroyed the social fabric of our society,
much to the horror of most Americans. In this respect, mainstream Americans
also deal with an anger problem. Nevertheless, the hope for America's future
lies in love. It may sound corny, but in the end, it is the only way to
avoid civil conflict. Permissive weakness will drive these "children" crazy,
but so will judgmental anger.
When the leaders of the corruption movement understand that "the game is
up" - that we see them for what they are without hate - they may hate and
fear us all the more. At that point, they must get the kind of love that
good parents deliver: Tough love. Consider a mother who warns her son that
he is getting too close to the street, but the child gets closer. Does the
mother stop the child with a gentle voice? Of course not. An aggressive
shout is what's needed to frighten the boy away from danger. Now let's take
it a step further. Despite the mother's shout, the boy rebelliously runs
toward the street where there are cars coming. At that moment, for the sake
of the child, the mother rushes to use force and yanks the child out of
danger.
We must be as determined in our love for these "unloved children" as they
are absolutely determined to get revenge on the "establishment" they
associate with the parents who abandoned them in one way or another. I
confess I am talking about myself since in my angry youth I was once on
their side.
Most of us are reachable. Former radical leftist David Horowitz is a classic
example. Or consider Jane Fonda's recent desire to turn her life around,
which has been reported in these pages, and which Fonda now talks about with
Oprah Winfrey in the current issue of "O" magazine. Fonda's mother committed
suicide when she was 12. That kind of shock is inconceivable to most of us.
What a lonely, painful journey it must have been for that little girl,
especially since her father Henry Fonda was aloof and incapable of giving
her the love she needed. Many of us remember her angry youth in the 1970s.
Now, we are coming to understand it. Courageously facing the mistakes of her
past, Jane Fonda looks to the future with a renewed determination to change.
I believe there are people like this in every political and social sphere
within my party. People who are looking to do what is right - people who can
change their angry ways.
Coming home to America
When it comes to a dysfunctional, angry childhood, Jane Fonda has lots of
company. Think of how many of other famous liberal Democrats have already
admitted serious parental problems from sexual abuse to alcoholism to
abandonment, either physical or emotional. It is a remarkably talented group
of people, from Barbara Streisand to Rosie O'Donnell to Bill Clinton to
Gloria Steinem. If we truly knew the length and breadth of this list of
cultural and political leaders, and the details of their personal suffering,
we would all be shocked - and touched. Don't be distracted by their
political labels. When they were children, these people deserved love, and
they didn't get it. Can we blame them for being angry?
I know how they feel. My parents were divorced when I was five. I spent some
lonely years in boarding school until I was 9 years old. You bet I was
afraid - and angry. The world is supposed to be a safe place for
5-year-olds, not a hostile environment. My suffering was small compared to
the list above, but I can tell you that by the time I reached college age my
anger manifested, and not only politically. I was rebellious in my moral
behavior too. The "sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll" socialist creed of the
1960s and '70s didn't just affect the Clintons and a few other famous
people. There were millions of us.
Some of us functionally recovered from our anger, but some didn't - and
there are many angry children coming up in the generations behind the "baby
boomers," younger people who don't remember the America we remember. They
need to believe in something and we need to give them something genuinely
good - because the New Fascists have a dream to sell, too. And it isn't the
American dream.
How Democrats can reclaim the party
The following is especially important for the mainstream Democratic
leadership to read. The corruption movement with its fascist tendencies is
not yet a determined majority in America. However, its strength is
threefold: Its adherents have access to great combined wealth; they have
huge influence on our culture; and most importantly, they have not yet been
clearly identified in the minds of average Americans. Most Americans still
think the Democratic Party is "liberal," even "liberal to moderate." They
may distrust the president and the rest of the PC crowd, but they don't see
the larger problem.
Let me be clear. This is not about President Clinton. The current corruption
goes way beyond him. It started before him and it will undoubtedly survive
him. Consider that Newsweek's "Thought Police" issue was published in
December 1990, two years before Clinton's presidency. Even then, Newsweek
raised the specter of what it called "New McCarthyism," describing the
"politically correct" movement among liberal-leftists as essentially
"Marxist" and "totalitarian," an extremist belief system determined to root
out and destroy all those in the mainstream who oppose it.
If you are wondering how this belief system has affected liberalism in the
last decade, just read the words of long-time, liberal Democrat commentator
Mark Shields writing in the Washington Post last month: "Today to be a
liberal there is one test," said a frustrated Shields. "Unqualified support
for all legal abortions ideally joined by an almost libertarian commitment
to no societal limits on individual behavior or autonomy."
Although increasingly dominant in our culture, this PC ethic is still only
one element of the New Fascism, and Bill Clinton's personal anger and
radical Sixties "no-limits" attitude is only the most current catalyst to
the dark impulse that has risen before in human history. Remember, Clinton
is a victim too - and has the potential to recover.
Once Democrats like Shields start to recognize in large numbers what has
happened to our party, the fascist power base will be greatly weakened -
mainstream Democrats will all back away from it. Catholic Democrats will
certainly run the other way. So will most teachers. I'm sure church-going
African Americans and Latinos won't stand for it - and neither will
patriotic union workers. If that is a dream, it is a good dream. And like
the one of Dr. King's, it is up to us to make the dream a reality.
Conclusion: Our awakening
Many middle-aged and older Americans will remember the famous World War II
movie, "Bridge on the River Kwai," in which Japanese prisoner Col.
Nickolson, a British officer played by Alec Guinness, is forced to lead his
fellow prisoners in building a bridge for the Japanese. Under great hardship
and to rally his men's morale, Col. Nickolson sets out to prove the
superiority of British freedom over Japanese tyranny by building a great
bridge. Under his leadership, the prisoners succeed marvelously. They
demonstrate to the Japanese what inner-inspired free men can do. It's a
magnificent bridge. But there's a tragedy coming in the story: Due to the
pride he takes in the impressive bridge, built to last long after the war,
Col. Nickolson ends up on the wrong side when British commandos come to
destroy the bridge. For a moment he resists his own countrymen, warning the
Japanese.
After several of the commandos die in the struggle to blow up the bridge,
Col. Nickolson realizes to his horror that his passionate dedication to "the
cause" has led him to forget his first loyalty - his country. Severely
wounded, and with his last bit of energy, he blows up the bridge himself.
It is time to detonate the lie the Democratic Party is becoming. It's time
to call on the people who are the keepers of the flame in the party -
President Carter, Sen. Byrd, Sen. Moynihan, Sen. Leiberman, Sen. Nunn and
all the rest of you who remember the true Democratic Party: We need you and
we need you now.
Stop this totalitarian "party first" madness! Stop the moral decline, and
help us return to the values and traditions of our parents and those of our
once-great party. If you cannot change the party, if the levers of power are
totally controlled by the New Fascists among us, from Hollywood to
Washington to Wall Street, then please tell us. Talk to the people. Sound
the alarm so that America will know the danger it truly faces. Yes, it will
temporarily diminish the Democratic Party, but like a beautiful garden, once
weeded and pruned, it will come back stronger than ever as the patriotic
party of "the little guy."
When Newsweek reporters told Americans about the growing totalitarian ethic
on our college campuses at the end of the Cold War, they revealed a core
ingredient of the New Fascism, something impossible for most Americans to
The failure of Marxist systems throughout the world has not noticeably
dimmed the allure of left-wing politics for American academics. Even today,
says David Littlejohn of Berkeley's Graduate School of Literature, "an
overwhelming proportion of our courses are taught by people who really hate
the system."
(Newsweek, Dec. 24, 1990)
"Hate the system. ..." What if such people got complete control of one of
our two major parties? I say they are very close to doing it. But more,
let's say they succeed. What if these New Fascists go on to corrupt our
military, our police, our courts, and even our Congress and our governmental
agencies with this same anti-American ethic? If that happens, then by any
analysis we will no longer have a "culture war" in America, but rather a
"cold civil war," ready to heat up the moment government establishes laws
that tyrannize the American conscience.
Right now we have two parties that are becoming like two different
countries - which are increasingly acting like enemies. God forbid it, and
please make us again one nation, a shining city on a hill for all the world
to see, where love can reign and truth prevail, and where freedom can be
enjoyed by all.
"Perseverance is more prevailing than violence; and many
things which cannot be overcome when they are together, yield
themselves up when taken little by little." --Plutarch
David Moffitt
2005-04-08 02:18:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by JimK
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 01:26:03 GMT, "David Moffitt"
Post by David Moffitt
An oldie but a goodie! :o)
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 8:24 AM
Fascism, corruption and my "Democratic" Party
By Bob Just
http://www.bobjust.com/
No URL so it must of came from WorldNetDaily
%%%% The story was stored in my files and contained the above link. I
snipped off the original posters name in 2000. I ran across it going through
old floppy discs. :o)
Post by JimK
Post by David Moffitt
Ten years ago, Newsweek magazine shocked mainstream America with a cover
story headlined "Thought Police," a lengthy report on a new
social/political
Post by JimK
Post by David Moffitt
movement developed on college campuses since the 1960s. Ironically, one year
after the Berlin wall came down and one year before the fall of the Soviet
Empire, Americans were being seriously warned that liberal academia had
adopted a hybrid "Marxist" philosophy often called "PC." This new
"Politically Correct" creed was being espoused, according to Newsweek, at
hundreds of colleges and universities as a result of the growing influence
of "a generation of campus radicals."
If they no longer talk of taking to the streets, it is because they now are
gaining access to the conventional weapons of campus politics: social
pressure, academic perks (including tenure) and -- when they have the
administration on their side -- outright coercion ... where the PC reigns,
one defies it at one's peril.
(Newsweek, Dec. 24, 1990)
After that, PC attitudes were heavily criticized, and even mocked, by
mainstream thinkers all around the country, liberal and conservative. And
yet, in 1992 America elected into power an administration that in many ways
adhered to the PC worldview, thus beginning a process of "change" unforeseen
not only by most Americans, but by most Democrats as well. I have known for
a long time that there were serious problems in my party, but I didn't fully
grasp the political nature of those problems. Sometimes it takes a simple,
symbolic moment to cause an epiphany -- to bring clarity. That happened to
me this past May.
My awakening
When I read about people spitting on the Honor Guard at the New York State
Democratic Convention May 16, I started to understand what has happened to
my party over the last few years. I still can't get over the fact that
Democrats attending a formal convention would so insult the American flag,
but it happened. As an Honor Guard of Albany police officers entered the
convention hall - with band playing and lights shining - they were spit on
and called "Nazis" by a number of people on the delegate floor. On top of
that, no Democrat nearby stopped the "spitters," or even reported them. And
the Democratic leadership expressed no public outrage.
I was so outraged at my party's lack of outrage that I started a reward fund
to find the "spitters." But I soon realized that I needed to address the
larger issue of what I had come to understand. I direct this commentary to
the mainstream elected officials of my party - the "adults" as the media
often calls them. Whether you are still in office or retired, you can have a
profound effect in waking up the party and the public. I see clearly now
that the path the party is taking will eventually lead to its destruction
and to the destruction of liberty in America. It is practically
mathematical. And it won't take very long in years if nothing is done to
stop it.
I have been a Democrat all my life. I grew up in New York City in a
staunchly Democratic middle class family. Although private-school educated
(I had financial assistance thanks to Trinity School), my father was a union
man, a musician with the Metropolitan Opera. My parents and stepparents were
all "Roosevelt Democrats." As a young English teacher in Montclair, New
Jersey, during the Richard Nixon Watergate scandal, I drove around with a
bumper sticker saying, "Don't Blame Me I Voted for McGovern." I was proud to
be on the side of "right" as I saw it. I was proud to stand against
corruption and the abuse of power.
Now, 25 years later, I am ashamed to be a Democrat. More than that, I have
come to fear my own party. Hatred and corruption - the roots of fascism -
are on the march in America as they have never been before, and leading this
march is the Democratic Party. Increasingly, mainstream Democrats are
uncomfortable with what we see in our party. We may not have a real name for
it, but we know it is dangerous.
The totalitarian choice in Alabama
On Sunday, June 18, the headline of the Washington Post read, "Political
Dirty Tricks Alleged in Alabama Trial," but the story revealed something far
more serious than "dirty tricks." A Democrat lawyer and a private
investigator are now being tried for attempting to defeat a Republican
candidate in 1998 by bribing a prostitute to accuse the Republican of raping
her. The prostitute recanted and turned witness against the two "Democrats."
The Republican, Lt. Gov. Steve Windom, was elected when the prostitute
confessed, but let's consider what his "political opponents" were willing to
do to him. This wasn't political rumor mongering -- which is bad enough.
These two men allegedly took direct action to destroy Windom's reputation in
the community, shame him before his family, and basically ruin his life.
We all know from history that when totalitarian forces, driven by their
dysfunctional fury, seek to uproot the political establishment, they will
use any means necessary. Bribery and character assassination are easy
choices for them, even murder, because civilized limits are meaningless to
the Stalins, Hitlers and Maos of the world. Their goal is to grab power, and
"The Party" -- whether Communist or Nazi -- is the highest good. Loyalty to
the party is everything because the party is the country.
These two "Democrats" were apparently willing to destroy everything precious
to a Republican man because he stood between their party and political
power. It is the totalitarian choice. The question is, how deep does it go
into the party and what motivates it?
No longer a political party
What we are dealing with here has nothing to do with American politics. In
fact, I worry that as the Democrats increasingly adopt fascist tactics they
will cease being a genuine political party, focused on honest debate and
decision by fair ballot. They could become one day something more related to
the fascists of 1930s Germany. The SA "brown shirts" were not interested in
debate and civil rule; they wanted power in order to force the democratic
nation to accept their Nazi agenda. If I am right about the fanatical
direction my party is taking, then America has never faced a danger like
this, and real Democrats who stand by and watch will be as guilty before
history as the actual leaders of this corruption movement.
When did the party start making its shift to this strange other form? Some
Democrats would say the sexual revolution, abortion and other moral issues
were the beginning. However, I am not talking here about party alignment
over the social issues, although they have been a major contributing factor.
There were many other issues in dispute among Democrats during the waning
years of the Cold War, but, whether we agreed or not, all issues were seen
as debatable opinions of the party's majority leadership. Reagan Democrats
just voted Republican and hoped the liberal Democrats would come to their
senses. There was still freedom of thought within the party, and in public
debate. But something happened which changed all that.
Suddenly, the traditional restraint of civilized limits was gone. Gone was
comity. Gone was loyal opposition. It was somewhere in the mid-nineties -
perhaps around the time the Republicans seized control of Congress for the
first time in 40 years. The panic among Democrats and the panic within the
Clinton administration may have been the turning point. Whenever it was that
the dam cracked, it had exploded by the end of 1998.
The year of living dangerously
As mainstream Democrats watched the impeachment trials, we experienced a
feeling of vast separation. It was like watching actors on a stage playing
the famously recognizable roles from Watergate but saying the wrong lines.
We heard that lying under oath and bold-faced lying to the American people
didn't "rise to the level of an impeachable offense." Famous phrases from
the past appeared twisted beyond recognition as we learned that the
president of the United States is not "below the law. ..."
Where were the lines we knew so well from our youth? "Have you no shame,
sir?" or later, "What did the President know and when did he know it?" Or
how about the greater words that inspired a generation of Democrats? Words
that put the very wind in our youthful sails: "Ask not what your country can
do for you..." or "Judged not by the color of skin but by the content of
character. ..." Where were the words of American tradition, duty, honor and
country? These were never just Republican words.
During the Clinton impeachment trial, we listened to honored senators like
Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York.
They spoke high-sounding words of outrage, but, in the end, actions betrayed
words. In the end, even these honorable men defended party over principle.
They rationalized, and let the party fall. Everyone knows it. History will
show it. They let one man's behavior compromise the integrity of the
Democratic Party. In the process, they turned their backs on the traditions
of our past symbolized by men like President Harry Truman.
We looked for truth during the impeachment and trial process and watched
hopefully as the "wise men" of the party in the House and the Senate
expressed "concern," then made excuses, and finally voted lock-step to
defend party power. Sure they had their reasons. They also, I believe, did
not grasp the significance of the vote - a symbolic alignment with the
corrupt elements in the party, an act of submission that sent a message
across America, from Hollywood to Wall Street and beyond. Anything goes.
The F-word fund-raiser and losing our souls
About a week after the spitting incident at the New York Democratic Party
Convention, there was another incident that shocked me profoundly. I still
cannot believe this one actually happened, but it is on videotape. At the
MCI Center fund-raiser in Washington, Robin Williams performed before a
crowd of corporate and Democrat dignitaries, people who would that very
night raise the party over 26 million dollars.
The fund-raiser, including Williams's performance, was broadcast live on
C-SPAN. However, that didn't stop Robin Williams from doing some kind of
seedy nightclub act. He used the F-word and other obscenities several times
(C-SPAN later cut this out when the event was rebroadcast). Imagine. A grand
room full of powerful Democrats, representatives of America's oldest
political party, and the F-word is being said, over and over again with
cameras recording!
As in the case of the harassment of the Honor Guard at the Albany Democratic
Convention, the specific violation was bad enough, but the most egregious
violation was the passive, cowardly acceptance of the audience. The hardest
thing to believe - for those of us who remember America before 1992 - was
that the president, vice president and Mrs. Clinton were at this
fund-raiser. Did none of them think to stand up and leave? Didn't anyone in
the audience consider booing the smutty language spoken before the assembled
dignitaries? No, there was only laughter.
Even when Robin Williams noticed a child present and joked about the "new
words" he was learning that night - even then - no one objected. Not one
Democrat dared step forward and condemn the moment. Peer pressure is a
powerful and coercive thing, for adults as well as children - one breaks
rank at one's peril. And I'm sure it wouldn't have been good for "business"
for the party leadership to create embarrassment at such a high-level
Hollywood/corporate function. So everyone laughed.
This is not about politics. This is about corruption. Stop and think about
it. Somehow Robin Williams knew that no one would object if he used the
F-word and the S-word continually - even on national TV! How did he know no
one would walk out on him? Apparently, Williams knows something about the
Democratic Party that most "little guy" Democrats like me don't know (not to
mention the "little guy" Republicans who are still embarrassed by MTV, thank
God). He knows the party has become corrupt.
Democrat leaders have lost their way. They find themselves at the head of a
parade full of people Harry Truman or even Jack Kennedy wouldn't recognize -
radicals of various kinds who think that Western civilization began in 1969.
Strangely, without meaning to, mainstream Democrats find themselves
representing this "corruption movement." However, for the "new fascists" in
the party, there is nothing so strange about it. Fascists have always sought
to leverage corruption for the sake of power.
In William Shirer's seminal book, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,"
listen to his famous description of Hitler: "He who was so monumentally
intolerant by his very nature, was strangely tolerant of one human
condition - a man's morals. No other party in Germany came near to
attracting so many shady characters." Shady characters, I should add, who
are useful because they will do "whatever it takes" to win.
Carried to its extreme, this corruption movement will destroy us all. It is
compulsive in its lust for power. It is an anti-establishment lobby that is
vast and very powerful. Right now the specific labels don't matter, and
there are too many to name here, from corporate greed to union greed to
organized crime to "special interest" causes. It is a long list. However,
the core desire of this group, conscious or unconscious, is to tear down
everything traditional and decent in this country. Full of personal anger
and a desire for radical change at whatever cost, these people wish to
"re-imagine" an America they have never understood.
The Party uber alles
Fueled by anger, the New Fascists have completely adopted the radical '60s
notion of the "honest con." In other words, they think that because they are
"correct in their beliefs" and because in their minds what they fight is so
"evil," just about any act can be committed for the sake of victory - and
certainly, lying is no problem. Loyalty to "the cause" is at the heart of
this mindset. And for the moment, at least, the heart of their loyalty is
President Clinton.
Allegiance to the Clintons personally has become a key factor of the current
corruptive atmosphere. During the Starr investigation, this allegiance took
a particularly extreme form. According to award-winning investigative
reporters, Susan Schmidt and Michael Weisskopf, who worked together at the
Washington Post, throughout the Starr investigation the Clintons "operated
like a crime family, expecting friends and aides to protect them even
against their own best interests."
And yet, despite this demand of personal loyalty to the leader, blind
loyalty to cause and party is the larger problem. "This administration sets
their own standards of loyalty. If they don't think you're 'one of them,'
they don't want you around," said one Secret Service agent I talked to
recently who has served under a number of administrations at the national
level, including serving the current one. "It's something you expect from a
Nazi Germany - the party over all, the Party 'uber alles.'"
"Sometimes party loyalty asks too much," said President Kennedy in a
different era, and yet, these days loyalty to a "higher right" than the
party is apparently no longer an option among inner circle Democrats. Even
the FBI was used by the Clinton administration to double check people's
loyalty to the cause, according to 25-year FBI veteran Gary Aldrich. Your
conscience is not yours to obey - the cause is everything. Thus,
traditionally neutral governmental agencies, from Energy to Defense to State
to Justice to the IRS, increasingly, seem to be loyal to something other
than the American people.
Recently, former prosecutor Charles LaBella was interviewed on Fox News'
"Hannity and Colmes" about the fundraising scandal of 1996 and about
LaBella's memo to Reno, recommending an independent counsel. The news had
just broken that Robert Conrad, Jr., LaBella's successor as special
prosecutor for the Justice Department, had also recommended to Attorney
General Reno that there be an independent counsel. "I know what he's going
through," said LaBella, talking about Conrad's politically incorrect
decision and the price he would pay for disloyalty. "You're made to feel
radioactive, isolated like I was - like you're the enemy and 'we're going to
show you what team sports are all about - you play with us or you don't
play.'" So much for Conrad's career and so much for making decisions based
on "the facts and the law." LaBella paid a price too, famously losing a plum
federal job in San Diego.
Those who are "disloyal" pay a price, but those who are "loyal" are
rewarded. Consider the White House Travel Office scandal that occurred when
Clinton took office. In what the Washington Post called a "shabby episode,"
Mrs. Clinton had made it clear to White House senior officials that she
wanted to replace the White House Travel Office employees (who had served
the American people faithfully) with loyalists who would serve the Clintons
faithfully. Suddenly, Billy Dale, the head of the travel office, was fired
and accused of "improper financial practices." The court cleared him in
"record time," according to Dale, but he was nearly ruined. Sound familiar?
Shades of Alabama. And in the end, the goal was accomplished: Dale and his
staff were out and "loyalists" were in.
Democrats can redeem the party from this kind of "party first" fascism. But
for that to happen, mainstream Democrats must wake up, including the 80
percent of the media who are Democrats. Instinctively, we all know the
dangers of what I am describing. It is simply not an American way of doing
things. We must dare to understand and communicate what is really going on
in our party, and in our country.
Understanding the fascist motive
People are essentially innocent and fair-minded. They look for reasons in
debate. Power-grasping totalitarians know this, and, no matter what the
country, they always supply some plausible response: They seek to "empower
the people"; they seek to "reestablish national pride," or to correct
"social injustice." Consider the irony that "racial injustice" has long been
a popular cause with fascists. For the Nazis it was white power, but for
other fascists it could be "black power." It doesn't matter what the reasons
are. America's Corruption Movement may be politically empowered by
"reasons," but it is not truly motivated by them. It is motivated by
something far more basic.
On my radio show, I always like to demonstrate a key principle with a
current news story. The principles of life are everywhere in the news. One
need only look for them. Famous supermodel Naomi Campbell was recently
accused of attacking two former employees in separate incidents. The story
was covered June 23rd on ABC's "20/20." Ms. Campbell confessed that her
violent temper is rooted in her childhood.
In one of the attacks, Campbell's irrational, out-of-control temper led her
to assault her former assistant Georgina Galanis with a blunt instrument.
She pleaded guilty, but more than that, she was brave enough to reveal to
the public exactly where her rage came from.
"There are a lot of issues that I have from childhood," Campbell told
Barbara Walters. "For instance, not knowing your father, not seeing your
mother. It manifests a lot of feelings. One of those feelings is anger." She
went on to talk about her insecurity, lack of self-esteem and loneliness.
Naomi Campbell is not the only person whose father abandoned her before she
was born, and whose mother was a distant presence in her life. Our
neighborhoods around the country, both minority and white, are increasingly
full of such children. The June issue of the journal "Pediatrics" declares
that nearly three times as many U.S. children have "emotional and
behavioral" problems as did 20 years ago.
Rage is everywhere in our adult society too. Just listen to the words of
"Gangsta" rap music, or the words spoken at some of the radical rallies in
Washington, D.C. Rage is the raw material of the New Fascists. They know how
to focus it - and give it a cause - and how to direct it at their enemies.
This process has now become so obvious that it's time we face up to it, and
identify it in our national political dialogue. In fact, facing up to it is
the only way we can save ourselves, and save this "grand experiment" in
political and religious freedom we call America.
Confronting the gathering political storm
Increasingly, personal anger has a political face in America. Millions of
dysfunctional people can create a very difficult situation in a free
society. They have a right to be wrong, but their "wrong" can undermine our
rights. They are also our brothers and sisters.
Solving the problem, of course, begins with seeing the problem. We know from
incidents of "road rage" or "workplace shootings" that angry, hate-filled
people are dangerous. They are also hard to reason with; try reasoning with
someone who's attempting to run you off the road because you forgot to
signal. We are talking here about "political road rage"; it's a slower burn,
but the intent is the same -- running you off the road.
As we observe the political scene, the politics of rage will become more and
more obvious. Make your own list of radicals and you'll see that rage has
many faces and many "reasons" to demand justice. Watch those angry faces on
talk television. See how difficult it is for others to reason with them and
how rarely they accept anyone else's point of view. Here's the secret: For
these political road ragers - in whatever category of public or private
life - it is no longer about debate or logic. In that sense, we have reached
the end of debate, which is a civilized method of dialogue involving two
groups seeking the truth. Fascists, as we know from history, don't debate
free thinkers. They choke them out of existence.
Make no mistake: We are headed for what President George Bush called "the
silly season" back in 1992. Of course, "silly" doesn't describe it anymore
than "tricks" are what the two "Democrats" were up to in Alabama. The
election period will get more and more emotionalized as we get close to the
vote - by whatever means necessary, from the race card, to Christian
bashing, to class warfare, to corporation bashing, to fear-mongering of all
The angry special interest groups will be out in force demonstrating and
calling press conferences; the liberal media will cooperate with cameras
rolling; and hysterical Democrat politicians will make outrageous statements
like, "They're coming for our children." All this, focused on
emotionalizing
Post by JimK
Post by David Moffitt
the atmosphere of the presidential debates where Al Gore will do his best to
"rip the lungs out" of George W. Bush. It is serious business, provoking
anger and fomenting hate - all with a purpose of getting millions of
Americans to fear Republicans, or any other opposing party. Then, in this
kind of heated atmosphere, people will vote.
The technique of "legislation by hysteria" - emotionalizing debate in
Congress and rushing a decision - now becomes "election by hysteria."
Fascists do not operate in a calm, considered environment. Inflammatory
language is an essential tool in their kit. Already we are seeing
race-baiting Democrats calling on Americans to "Stop the Lynching" because
of the tragic hanging death of a local black teenager in Mississippi, which
authorities so far have indicated is a likely suicide and which, in any
event, is an isolated incident. Remember the black church burning scare in
the '96 election cycle? That turned out to be a sham, but it made headlines,
created anger, caused fear and it galvanized voters. That tactic is applied
aggressively to every issue in every political arena, local, state or
national. If you haven't recognized it before, it will now be
transparent.
Post by JimK
Post by David Moffitt
Holding on to truth
The key to successfully confronting the New Fascist movement is, first, to
see it for what it is. Fascism inspires an emotionalized, cultic allegiance,
and many of these people can't see what they are trapped in. If we rage back
at them, it pushes them deeper into this alien loyalty. So the second key is
to be forceful but remain calm - to understand that they need our help. I
don't mean a weak, simpering, "can't we all get along" kind of help, but a
focused, forceful desire to draw the line for their own sake as well as
ours. They need us to resist them with strength, but they don't need our
rage. They got that as children.
The principle here is something Mahatma Gandhi, the great liberator of
India, called "force of righteousness," "love force," or "soul force."
Gandhi was a great admirer of Judeo-Christian thinking and Americans will
recognize the wisdom. He coined a new Indian word for it, Satyagraha. The
root meaning is "holding on to truth," and "not hating back" is one of the
keys to this truth.
Of course, fascists reject the idea of a truth higher than the party, and
hate is their driving impulse. This puts them at odds with America's "under
God" religious heritage, and as a result, America has suffered a great deal
of pain and confusion in recent decades. The fascist corruption movement
(which puts power, material wealth, personal pleasure and everything else
above what's right) has all but destroyed the social fabric of our society,
much to the horror of most Americans. In this respect, mainstream Americans
also deal with an anger problem. Nevertheless, the hope for America's future
lies in love. It may sound corny, but in the end, it is the only way to
avoid civil conflict. Permissive weakness will drive these "children" crazy,
but so will judgmental anger.
When the leaders of the corruption movement understand that "the game is
up" - that we see them for what they are without hate - they may hate and
fear us all the more. At that point, they must get the kind of love that
good parents deliver: Tough love. Consider a mother who warns her son that
he is getting too close to the street, but the child gets closer. Does the
mother stop the child with a gentle voice? Of course not. An aggressive
shout is what's needed to frighten the boy away from danger. Now let's take
it a step further. Despite the mother's shout, the boy rebelliously runs
toward the street where there are cars coming. At that moment, for the sake
of the child, the mother rushes to use force and yanks the child out of
danger.
We must be as determined in our love for these "unloved children" as they
are absolutely determined to get revenge on the "establishment" they
associate with the parents who abandoned them in one way or another. I
confess I am talking about myself since in my angry youth I was once on
their side.
Most of us are reachable. Former radical leftist David Horowitz is a classic
example. Or consider Jane Fonda's recent desire to turn her life around,
which has been reported in these pages, and which Fonda now talks about with
Oprah Winfrey in the current issue of "O" magazine. Fonda's mother committed
suicide when she was 12. That kind of shock is inconceivable to most of us.
What a lonely, painful journey it must have been for that little girl,
especially since her father Henry Fonda was aloof and incapable of giving
her the love she needed. Many of us remember her angry youth in the 1970s.
Now, we are coming to understand it. Courageously facing the mistakes of her
past, Jane Fonda looks to the future with a renewed determination to change.
I believe there are people like this in every political and social sphere
within my party. People who are looking to do what is right - people who can
change their angry ways.
Coming home to America
When it comes to a dysfunctional, angry childhood, Jane Fonda has lots of
company. Think of how many of other famous liberal Democrats have already
admitted serious parental problems from sexual abuse to alcoholism to
abandonment, either physical or emotional. It is a remarkably talented group
of people, from Barbara Streisand to Rosie O'Donnell to Bill Clinton to
Gloria Steinem. If we truly knew the length and breadth of this list of
cultural and political leaders, and the details of their personal suffering,
we would all be shocked - and touched. Don't be distracted by their
political labels. When they were children, these people deserved love, and
they didn't get it. Can we blame them for being angry?
I know how they feel. My parents were divorced when I was five. I spent some
lonely years in boarding school until I was 9 years old. You bet I was
afraid - and angry. The world is supposed to be a safe place for
5-year-olds, not a hostile environment. My suffering was small compared to
the list above, but I can tell you that by the time I reached college age my
anger manifested, and not only politically. I was rebellious in my moral
behavior too. The "sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll" socialist creed of the
1960s and '70s didn't just affect the Clintons and a few other famous
people. There were millions of us.
Some of us functionally recovered from our anger, but some didn't - and
there are many angry children coming up in the generations behind the "baby
boomers," younger people who don't remember the America we remember. They
need to believe in something and we need to give them something genuinely
good - because the New Fascists have a dream to sell, too. And it isn't the
American dream.
How Democrats can reclaim the party
The following is especially important for the mainstream Democratic
leadership to read. The corruption movement with its fascist tendencies is
not yet a determined majority in America. However, its strength is
threefold: Its adherents have access to great combined wealth; they have
huge influence on our culture; and most importantly, they have not yet been
clearly identified in the minds of average Americans. Most Americans still
think the Democratic Party is "liberal," even "liberal to moderate." They
may distrust the president and the rest of the PC crowd, but they don't see
the larger problem.
Let me be clear. This is not about President Clinton. The current corruption
goes way beyond him. It started before him and it will undoubtedly survive
him. Consider that Newsweek's "Thought Police" issue was published in
December 1990, two years before Clinton's presidency. Even then, Newsweek
raised the specter of what it called "New McCarthyism," describing the
"politically correct" movement among liberal-leftists as essentially
"Marxist" and "totalitarian," an extremist belief system determined to root
out and destroy all those in the mainstream who oppose it.
If you are wondering how this belief system has affected liberalism in the
last decade, just read the words of long-time, liberal Democrat commentator
Mark Shields writing in the Washington Post last month: "Today to be a
liberal there is one test," said a frustrated Shields. "Unqualified support
for all legal abortions ideally joined by an almost libertarian commitment
to no societal limits on individual behavior or autonomy."
Although increasingly dominant in our culture, this PC ethic is still only
one element of the New Fascism, and Bill Clinton's personal anger and
radical Sixties "no-limits" attitude is only the most current catalyst to
the dark impulse that has risen before in human history. Remember, Clinton
is a victim too - and has the potential to recover.
Once Democrats like Shields start to recognize in large numbers what has
happened to our party, the fascist power base will be greatly weakened -
mainstream Democrats will all back away from it. Catholic Democrats will
certainly run the other way. So will most teachers. I'm sure church-going
African Americans and Latinos won't stand for it - and neither will
patriotic union workers. If that is a dream, it is a good dream. And like
the one of Dr. King's, it is up to us to make the dream a reality.
Conclusion: Our awakening
Many middle-aged and older Americans will remember the famous World War II
movie, "Bridge on the River Kwai," in which Japanese prisoner Col.
Nickolson, a British officer played by Alec Guinness, is forced to lead his
fellow prisoners in building a bridge for the Japanese. Under great hardship
and to rally his men's morale, Col. Nickolson sets out to prove the
superiority of British freedom over Japanese tyranny by building a great
bridge. Under his leadership, the prisoners succeed marvelously. They
demonstrate to the Japanese what inner-inspired free men can do. It's a
magnificent bridge. But there's a tragedy coming in the story: Due to the
pride he takes in the impressive bridge, built to last long after the war,
Col. Nickolson ends up on the wrong side when British commandos come to
destroy the bridge. For a moment he resists his own countrymen, warning the
Japanese.
After several of the commandos die in the struggle to blow up the bridge,
Col. Nickolson realizes to his horror that his passionate dedication to "the
cause" has led him to forget his first loyalty - his country. Severely
wounded, and with his last bit of energy, he blows up the bridge himself.
It is time to detonate the lie the Democratic Party is becoming. It's time
to call on the people who are the keepers of the flame in the party -
President Carter, Sen. Byrd, Sen. Moynihan, Sen. Leiberman, Sen. Nunn and
all the rest of you who remember the true Democratic Party: We need you and
we need you now.
Stop this totalitarian "party first" madness! Stop the moral decline, and
help us return to the values and traditions of our parents and those of our
once-great party. If you cannot change the party, if the levers of power are
totally controlled by the New Fascists among us, from Hollywood to
Washington to Wall Street, then please tell us. Talk to the people. Sound
the alarm so that America will know the danger it truly faces. Yes, it will
temporarily diminish the Democratic Party, but like a beautiful garden, once
weeded and pruned, it will come back stronger than ever as the patriotic
party of "the little guy."
When Newsweek reporters told Americans about the growing totalitarian ethic
on our college campuses at the end of the Cold War, they revealed a core
ingredient of the New Fascism, something impossible for most Americans to
The failure of Marxist systems throughout the world has not noticeably
dimmed the allure of left-wing politics for American academics. Even today,
says David Littlejohn of Berkeley's Graduate School of Literature, "an
overwhelming proportion of our courses are taught by people who really hate
the system."
(Newsweek, Dec. 24, 1990)
"Hate the system. ..." What if such people got complete control of one of
our two major parties? I say they are very close to doing it. But more,
let's say they succeed. What if these New Fascists go on to corrupt our
military, our police, our courts, and even our Congress and our governmental
agencies with this same anti-American ethic? If that happens, then by any
analysis we will no longer have a "culture war" in America, but rather a
"cold civil war," ready to heat up the moment government establishes laws
that tyrannize the American conscience.
Right now we have two parties that are becoming like two different
countries - which are increasingly acting like enemies. God forbid it, and
please make us again one nation, a shining city on a hill for all the world
to see, where love can reign and truth prevail, and where freedom can be
enjoyed by all.
"Perseverance is more prevailing than violence; and many
things which cannot be overcome when they are together, yield
themselves up when taken little by little." --Plutarch
Jeff George
2005-04-05 19:16:18 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 21:13:40 -0700 I used my godlike powers to observe
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Harry Hope
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/04/04/63951
Why conservatives dislike the French
The French have a tendency to point out the hypocrisy of U.S.
political rhetoric.
By Joe LaFleur
Why do U.S. conservatives hate the French?
WW2.
Note how this smarmy pansy, in his pompous history lesson
praising the frenchies' war history (I use the term loosely),
somehow forgot to mention that little conflict.
It's more disdain than hatred. We see them as a bunch
of crepe-cooking faggots prancing around like girls.
That's only because you are uneducated.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Harry Hope
U.S. neoconservatives decided that invading a fiercely Islamic,
sectarian nation in the heart of the Middle East for reasons that were
proven entirely false was a wise move.
We're also still pissed that you wouldn't let Reagan fly
our planes over your shithole of a country when we had
to attack Libya.
Why should they? What has America ever done for them?
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Harry Hope
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney labeled Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.,
wimpy, and the Swift Boat Veterans labeled him a traitor.
Ketchup boy acted like a traitor when he returned to the
US afterward. He aided the enemy. Surely you frenchies
can relate. Remember how you cowards were after you
surrendered to the Nazis?
Again you show your lack of education.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Harry Hope
If the United States desires respect from the rest of the world, Bush
and the conservatives would be wise to realize the hypocrisy of their
own rhetoric and begin living up to the supposed "moral values" they
preach.
Um no, we don't give a wet fart whether the rest of the
world respects us or not. That's one of the reasons the
eurotrash hates us--our apathy toward them. Heh heh
No, they hate America because of uneducated people like you.
--
"Every man dies, not every man really lives."
(spoken by William Wallace in "Braveheart")
David Moffitt
2005-04-05 21:38:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff George
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 21:13:40 -0700 I used my godlike powers to observe
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Harry Hope
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/04/04/63951
Why conservatives dislike the French
The French have a tendency to point out the hypocrisy of U.S.
political rhetoric.
By Joe LaFleur
Why do U.S. conservatives hate the French?
WW2.
Note how this smarmy pansy, in his pompous history lesson
praising the frenchies' war history (I use the term loosely),
somehow forgot to mention that little conflict.
It's more disdain than hatred. We see them as a bunch
of crepe-cooking faggots prancing around like girls.
That's only because you are uneducated.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Harry Hope
U.S. neoconservatives decided that invading a fiercely Islamic,
sectarian nation in the heart of the Middle East for reasons that were
proven entirely false was a wise move.
We're also still pissed that you wouldn't let Reagan fly
our planes over your shithole of a country when we had
to attack Libya.
Why should they? What has America ever done for them?
%%%% They are not speaking German are they?
Post by Jeff George
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Harry Hope
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney labeled Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.,
wimpy, and the Swift Boat Veterans labeled him a traitor.
Ketchup boy acted like a traitor when he returned to the
US afterward. He aided the enemy. Surely you frenchies
can relate. Remember how you cowards were after you
surrendered to the Nazis?
Again you show your lack of education.
%%%% Look up "Vichy French".
Post by Jeff George
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Harry Hope
If the United States desires respect from the rest of the world, Bush
and the conservatives would be wise to realize the hypocrisy of their
own rhetoric and begin living up to the supposed "moral values" they
preach.
Um no, we don't give a wet fart whether the rest of the
world respects us or not. That's one of the reasons the
eurotrash hates us--our apathy toward them. Heh heh
No, they hate America because of uneducated people like you.
--
"Every man dies, not every man really lives."
(spoken by William Wallace in "Braveheart")
Barry Worthington
2005-04-11 08:45:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Moffitt
Post by Jeff George
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 21:13:40 -0700 I used my godlike powers to observe
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Harry Hope
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/04/04/63951
Why conservatives dislike the French
The French have a tendency to point out the hypocrisy of U.S.
political rhetoric.
By Joe LaFleur
Why do U.S. conservatives hate the French?
WW2.
Note how this smarmy pansy, in his pompous history lesson
praising the frenchies' war history (I use the term loosely),
somehow forgot to mention that little conflict.
It's more disdain than hatred. We see them as a bunch
of crepe-cooking faggots prancing around like girls.
That's only because you are uneducated.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Harry Hope
U.S. neoconservatives decided that invading a fiercely Islamic,
sectarian nation in the heart of the Middle East for reasons that were
proven entirely false was a wise move.
We're also still pissed that you wouldn't let Reagan fly
our planes over your shithole of a country when we had
to attack Libya.
Why should they? What has America ever done for them?
%%%% They are not speaking German are they?
I think that you will find that that is largely due to the British
Eighth Army...my father fought in Libya, by the way....
Post by David Moffitt
Post by Jeff George
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Harry Hope
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney labeled Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.,
wimpy, and the Swift Boat Veterans labeled him a traitor.
Ketchup boy acted like a traitor when he returned to the
US afterward. He aided the enemy. Surely you frenchies
can relate. Remember how you cowards were after you
surrendered to the Nazis?
Again you show your lack of education.
%%%% Look up "Vichy French".
The regime that the American government recognised as the legitimate
government of France? That Wall Street did deals with? You know bugger
all about this period of history, do you?
Post by David Moffitt
Post by Jeff George
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Harry Hope
If the United States desires respect from the rest of the world, Bush
and the conservatives would be wise to realize the hypocrisy of their
own rhetoric and begin living up to the supposed "moral values" they
preach.
Um no, we don't give a wet fart whether the rest of the
world respects us or not. That's one of the reasons the
eurotrash hates us--our apathy toward them. Heh heh
No, they hate America because of uneducated people like you.
--
"Every man dies, not every man really lives."
(spoken by William Wallace in "Braveheart")
What has that got to do with the price of fish?

You do write some crap, David.....

Dr. Barry Worthington

shrikeback
2005-04-05 19:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Hope
From The Minnesota Daily
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/04/04/63951
April 4, 2005
Why conservatives dislike the French
Actually, everybody dislikes the French. What makes
you think it's only conservatives. I work with a good
many immigrants from Europe and they all report the
same feelings toward the French.
Post by Harry Hope
The French have a tendency to point out the hypocrisy of U.S.
political rhetoric.
Point out where they have pointed that out again. I
missed that.
Post by Harry Hope
By Joe LaFleur
Why do U.S. conservatives hate the French?
Conservative animosity toward a country that has traditionally
espoused the same values (namely democracy), political liberty and
equality seems bizarre.
Another thing that seems bizarre is that a country that espoused
the same values instead wound up in a state of Terror after its
revolution, and eventually a state of military dictatorship.
Post by Harry Hope
Could it be the French opposition to the Iraq war that aggravates the
conservatives?
No. It's their arrogance. Same thing that pisses everyone else off
about the French.
Post by Harry Hope
If it is based fundamentally in France's opposition to the war, it
would be wise to understand France's history as an imperialist global
power.
Hmm. I guess we could feel sorry for them because they are really
just nostalgic for those glory days. Oh for the good old days, when
we weren't an irrelevant backwater, Jacques!
Post by Harry Hope
We should be grateful for the insight that French military history
could provide the United States; indeed, some lessons could be
learned.
The French initially attempted military colonization of Vietnam.
No, the French had militariy colonized Vietnam, but eventually
they lost it to the Red colonialists.
Post by Harry Hope
When France pulled out of Vietnam, it was the United States that
became bogged down in a war that caused the loss of thousands of U.S.
lives and millions of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian lives.
It could be that U.S. conservatives are angry that France figured out
the futility of trying to suppress an entire nation at the barrel of a
gun, while the United States still believed it possible.
It isn't futile to suppress an entire nation at the barrel of a gun.
Hadn't you heard what happened to Cambodia after the
Red victory in Southeast Asia?
Post by Harry Hope
When President George W. Bush pressured France into the Iraq invasion,
the French may have had the Algerian War of independence in mind.
The parallel between the two conflicts is obvious.
In Algeria, France attempted to force French values on an Islamic
nation in the so-called name of democracy.
This proved difficult and quelling a fierce Islamic-led insurgency
proved impossible.
This is France we're talking about. They couldn't win a war against
the French. In fact, they lost the French Revolution to the barbarians,
and a short little general.
Post by Harry Hope
Eight years of war and revolution cost nearly 20,000 French lives and
more than 1 million Algerian deaths, and eventually the French were
forced out of Algeria.
The chaos in Algeria led a legacy of sectarian civil wars and one of
the most despotic regimes in world history.
That's typical of what happened when the great powers left their
colonies behind. Funny, you don't mention that the failure in Vietnam
led to a couple of the most despotic regimes in world history taking
over in Southeast Asia.
Post by Harry Hope
U.S. neoconservatives decided that invading a fiercely Islamic,
sectarian nation in the heart of the Middle East for reasons that were
proven entirely false was a wise move.
Well, the reasons weren't false. Saddam did invade Kuwait. What's
your problem?
Post by Harry Hope
The French foresaw the costs of the invasion while Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld and neoconservatives didn't even have a plan
for postwar Iraq.
I'd be annoyed if I shot myself in the foot and didn't realize it
would hurt and someone was telling me, "I told you not to do that."
Of course the French accent doesn't make it any easier for the
conservatives to take.
It could be the food, fashion, art and maybe even France's love of
soccer that annoys the conservatives.
Actually, nobody in this country, conservative, liberal, or moderate
gives a rat's ass about soccer.
Post by Harry Hope
I doubt it though; conservatives aren't that shallow.
Maybe it's a social religious thing.
The French are a bunch of cheese-eating atheists after all.
The Brits are a bunch of chips-eating atheists. Big deal.
Post by Harry Hope
But this doesn't make sense; Sweden, Germany, New Zealand, Japan, etc.
are all societies that espouse more liberal and socialist attitudes
than France.
True. France can't be called "liberal" given that they have enacted
anti-terrorism laws that would get any politician here tarred with the
epithet "fascist" even more indelibly than anyone in the current US
Administration.
Post by Harry Hope
What really annoys the conservatives is the French have a tendency to
point out the hypocrisy of U.S. political rhetoric.
Hardy har. That's like Pat Robertson criticizing someone's fanatacism.
Post by Harry Hope
I've spent some time in France and seen firsthand what superior U.S.
morality looks like.
What would any of this have to do with why conservatives would
dislike the Frogs?
Post by Harry Hope
Violence (the highest murder rate, guns or no guns, of any
industrialized nation in the world);
So conservatives hate the Frogs because of the violence in the US?
Post by Harry Hope
the Columbine High School shootings;
Even the French have the occassional postal outbreak. Every society
has people who go postal. But, even in America, this doesn't account
for much of our previously mentioned violence. It remains a rarity.
Post by Harry Hope
the obesity epidemic;
Well, America is the farthest along on this path, being the center
of modern civilization, but it is spreading even to the developing
world as we speak.
Post by Harry Hope
Abu Ghraib;
I guess they don't remember Algeria, where torture was a matter of
policy. The perps at Abu Ghraib have been thrown in American prison,
to experience forcible sodomy for themselves.
Post by Harry Hope
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba;
McDonald's;
Britney Spears;
If the Frogs didn't buy her CDs, they wouldn't have to put up with her.
Post by Harry Hope
dependency on unclean and unsustainable energy;
As opposed to what? Nuclear power? Ah, that's why the Frogs helped
Saddam build that breeder reactor.
Post by Harry Hope
suicide rates, conformism, etc.
What? Frogs don't commit suicide? They certainly do conform. All you
have to do is see how rapidly that stilted anti-American rhetoric from
Chirac
even got the pinkos to love a Conservative.
Post by Harry Hope
Face it, we look pretty scary.
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney labeled Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.,
wimpy, and the Swift Boat Veterans labeled him a traitor.
Well, you can understand that, can't you? Anybody who labels his alleged
comrades in arms "war criminals" in a blanket fashion, might seem to be
a Judas to the insulted comrades.
Post by Harry Hope
Is the U.S. public in bizarro world?
Well, the Democrats are. They don't even know how easy it would be
to pull the Republican coalition apart. But they aren't willing to do the
right thing on that score.
Post by Harry Hope
Kerry was patrolling the Mekong Delta in Vietnam, getting shot at with
high-powered rifles and mortars while Bush dodged the draft and failed
to show up for his cakewalk guard duty.
What's the frequency Kenneth?

What John Kerry needs, my friend,
is an XMas Holdiay in Cambodia.
Post by Harry Hope
What? Dimwit Georgie Bush realizing his hypocrisy? Hahahahahahaha
Oh yeah... did you see the Tom Brokaw interview of Kerry where he
points out that some guy did an analysis of Kerry's Naval aptitude
test and based on that analysis and Bush's SATs concluded that Kerry's
IQ was lower than Bush's. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"That's great! More power!" said John Kerry, verbal acrobat.
Martin Holterman
2005-04-05 20:04:52 UTC
Permalink
I have to admit, the French really aren't that popular in Europe. But it
isn't for the same reasons as in the US. Unlike most Americans, most
Europeans have actually met a few French.

Martin Holterman
Post by shrikeback
Post by Harry Hope
From The Minnesota Daily
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/04/04/63951
April 4, 2005
Why conservatives dislike the French
Actually, everybody dislikes the French. What makes
you think it's only conservatives. I work with a good
many immigrants from Europe and they all report the
same feelings toward the French.
Post by Harry Hope
The French have a tendency to point out the hypocrisy of U.S.
political rhetoric.
Point out where they have pointed that out again. I
missed that.
Post by Harry Hope
By Joe LaFleur
Why do U.S. conservatives hate the French?
Conservative animosity toward a country that has traditionally
espoused the same values (namely democracy), political liberty and
equality seems bizarre.
Another thing that seems bizarre is that a country that espoused
the same values instead wound up in a state of Terror after its
revolution, and eventually a state of military dictatorship.
Post by Harry Hope
Could it be the French opposition to the Iraq war that aggravates the
conservatives?
No. It's their arrogance. Same thing that pisses everyone else off
about the French.
Post by Harry Hope
If it is based fundamentally in France's opposition to the war, it
would be wise to understand France's history as an imperialist global
power.
Hmm. I guess we could feel sorry for them because they are really
just nostalgic for those glory days. Oh for the good old days, when
we weren't an irrelevant backwater, Jacques!
Post by Harry Hope
We should be grateful for the insight that French military history
could provide the United States; indeed, some lessons could be
learned.
The French initially attempted military colonization of Vietnam.
No, the French had militariy colonized Vietnam, but eventually
they lost it to the Red colonialists.
Post by Harry Hope
When France pulled out of Vietnam, it was the United States that
became bogged down in a war that caused the loss of thousands of U.S.
lives and millions of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian lives.
It could be that U.S. conservatives are angry that France figured out
the futility of trying to suppress an entire nation at the barrel of a
gun, while the United States still believed it possible.
It isn't futile to suppress an entire nation at the barrel of a gun.
Hadn't you heard what happened to Cambodia after the
Red victory in Southeast Asia?
Post by Harry Hope
When President George W. Bush pressured France into the Iraq invasion,
the French may have had the Algerian War of independence in mind.
The parallel between the two conflicts is obvious.
In Algeria, France attempted to force French values on an Islamic
nation in the so-called name of democracy.
This proved difficult and quelling a fierce Islamic-led insurgency
proved impossible.
This is France we're talking about. They couldn't win a war against
the French. In fact, they lost the French Revolution to the barbarians,
and a short little general.
Post by Harry Hope
Eight years of war and revolution cost nearly 20,000 French lives and
more than 1 million Algerian deaths, and eventually the French were
forced out of Algeria.
The chaos in Algeria led a legacy of sectarian civil wars and one of
the most despotic regimes in world history.
That's typical of what happened when the great powers left their
colonies behind. Funny, you don't mention that the failure in Vietnam
led to a couple of the most despotic regimes in world history taking
over in Southeast Asia.
Post by Harry Hope
U.S. neoconservatives decided that invading a fiercely Islamic,
sectarian nation in the heart of the Middle East for reasons that were
proven entirely false was a wise move.
Well, the reasons weren't false. Saddam did invade Kuwait. What's
your problem?
Post by Harry Hope
The French foresaw the costs of the invasion while Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld and neoconservatives didn't even have a plan
for postwar Iraq.
I'd be annoyed if I shot myself in the foot and didn't realize it
would hurt and someone was telling me, "I told you not to do that."
Of course the French accent doesn't make it any easier for the
conservatives to take.
It could be the food, fashion, art and maybe even France's love of
soccer that annoys the conservatives.
Actually, nobody in this country, conservative, liberal, or moderate
gives a rat's ass about soccer.
Post by Harry Hope
I doubt it though; conservatives aren't that shallow.
Maybe it's a social religious thing.
The French are a bunch of cheese-eating atheists after all.
The Brits are a bunch of chips-eating atheists. Big deal.
Post by Harry Hope
But this doesn't make sense; Sweden, Germany, New Zealand, Japan, etc.
are all societies that espouse more liberal and socialist attitudes
than France.
True. France can't be called "liberal" given that they have enacted
anti-terrorism laws that would get any politician here tarred with the
epithet "fascist" even more indelibly than anyone in the current US
Administration.
Post by Harry Hope
What really annoys the conservatives is the French have a tendency to
point out the hypocrisy of U.S. political rhetoric.
Hardy har. That's like Pat Robertson criticizing someone's fanatacism.
Post by Harry Hope
I've spent some time in France and seen firsthand what superior U.S.
morality looks like.
What would any of this have to do with why conservatives would
dislike the Frogs?
Post by Harry Hope
Violence (the highest murder rate, guns or no guns, of any
industrialized nation in the world);
So conservatives hate the Frogs because of the violence in the US?
Post by Harry Hope
the Columbine High School shootings;
Even the French have the occassional postal outbreak. Every society
has people who go postal. But, even in America, this doesn't account
for much of our previously mentioned violence. It remains a rarity.
Post by Harry Hope
the obesity epidemic;
Well, America is the farthest along on this path, being the center
of modern civilization, but it is spreading even to the developing
world as we speak.
Post by Harry Hope
Abu Ghraib;
I guess they don't remember Algeria, where torture was a matter of
policy. The perps at Abu Ghraib have been thrown in American prison,
to experience forcible sodomy for themselves.
Post by Harry Hope
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba;
McDonald's;
Britney Spears;
If the Frogs didn't buy her CDs, they wouldn't have to put up with her.
Post by Harry Hope
dependency on unclean and unsustainable energy;
As opposed to what? Nuclear power? Ah, that's why the Frogs helped
Saddam build that breeder reactor.
Post by Harry Hope
suicide rates, conformism, etc.
What? Frogs don't commit suicide? They certainly do conform. All you
have to do is see how rapidly that stilted anti-American rhetoric from
Chirac
even got the pinkos to love a Conservative.
Post by Harry Hope
Face it, we look pretty scary.
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney labeled Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.,
wimpy, and the Swift Boat Veterans labeled him a traitor.
Well, you can understand that, can't you? Anybody who labels his alleged
comrades in arms "war criminals" in a blanket fashion, might seem to be
a Judas to the insulted comrades.
Post by Harry Hope
Is the U.S. public in bizarro world?
Well, the Democrats are. They don't even know how easy it would be
to pull the Republican coalition apart. But they aren't willing to do the
right thing on that score.
Post by Harry Hope
Kerry was patrolling the Mekong Delta in Vietnam, getting shot at with
high-powered rifles and mortars while Bush dodged the draft and failed
to show up for his cakewalk guard duty.
What's the frequency Kenneth?
What John Kerry needs, my friend,
is an XMas Holdiay in Cambodia.
Post by Harry Hope
What? Dimwit Georgie Bush realizing his hypocrisy? Hahahahahahaha
Oh yeah... did you see the Tom Brokaw interview of Kerry where he
points out that some guy did an analysis of Kerry's Naval aptitude
test and based on that analysis and Bush's SATs concluded that Kerry's
IQ was lower than Bush's. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
"That's great! More power!" said John Kerry, verbal acrobat.
f***@yahoo.com
2005-04-08 02:47:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Holterman
I have to admit, the French really aren't that popular in Europe. But it
isn't for the same reasons as in the US. Unlike most Americans, most
Europeans have actually met a few French.
Martin Holterman
The average American will believe just about anything about a foreign
country.
Loading...