Why Do Some Americans Hate America?: The Legacy of Elitism

Since my earlier post on the origins of foreigners disliking the United States and adopting false preconceptions of what Americans are really like, I decided that another, perhaps more important issue needs to be addressed: HOW THE HELL CAN AMERICANS BELIEVE THIS STUPID CRAP AS WELL?!

In a lot of ways, it is basically fueled by the same willful ignorance to the facts in order to preserve one's worldview that the Europeans have. Their subconscious minds know it is not true, but unfortunately, that doesn't help if they want the security of knowing they're right. Despite this, there is, unfortunately, more to the story in terms of the Anti-American American.

There is, and this is also true to the well-traveled and well-educated foreign person, a desire to be smarter than everyone else. Being in the academic environment sometimes traps people into this desire. Being in "higher education" makes certain types of people want to have that desire fulfilled. Often, this is due to the professors and their prattling about how people aren't as "free-thinking" as they are. This desire to be smarter and more free-thinking leads students to want to think differently than anyone else, and thus, they adapt ways of thinking that are unpopular to the average American and thus, they believe that in doing so, that makes them smarter than them. Paradoxically, they also desire social acceptance for their seeming superiority, and they find it in the Academic world. Sex and Gender roles can also play a role in this too, as some female students can use their supposed superiority to show how they and all women are somehow inherently smarter than those knuckle-dragging men. This is, of course, re-inforced by feminism on campus, with programs that even go so far as to say that women should identify themselves by a certain unique part of the *ahem* female anatomy and that men are the source of all the world's troubles because they are inherently stupid and violent. Also, males can then court females using this, by talking in what I like to call the "Academic Drone" whenever they want to "correct" people who say something against their worldview, which seems to impress girls looking for an intelligent guy, but can't tell the difference between someone who is intelligent and one who acts like it. I've found, through others, that the "Academic Drone" is more often used by those who simply try to act like it. But, anyways, certain "frustarations" mixed with political disagreements with certain individuals are now threatening to go off-topic, so I will stop on the subject of the gender aspects.

Also, there is the desired goal among Professors that college should "change" the students and their outlook on the world. They decry how, God forbid, up until then the parents provided the students with their worldview. I remember almost 2 years ago, one of my professors lamented that somehow, our college wasn't causing the students to "change" enough, and how he feels a horrible, sinking feeling when parents say proudly about their newly-graduated former children that "he hasn't changed a bit!". Now, there is a fallacy to this thinking, that somehow, for the hell of it, the student MUST change their views by the end of college. College is not meant to change a person's views, but to help give them the facts and expose them to other points of view, not have the students adopt them. If the student believes that the facts they have been exposed to in college are more consistent with the point of view that they had generally since before their college years and the other points of view and ideologies are in their opinions, inconsistent, then college has done it's job. Sadly, many Professors have trouble seeing it this way. Instead, too many wish that the college is a place to teach their "enlightened" worldview with the young students that they view as indoctrinated by narrow-minded, ill-educated parents. This is of course, hidden, but sometimes they have trouble hiding in this way of thinking and end up exposing it, although perhaps with more sugary rhetoric.

And what messages do these individuals espouse? Hatred and relentless criticism of the United States. In an effort to look different, all these individuals I have mentioned tend to want to find a contrarian view. To do this, they find a punching bag in the United States. They criticise the US even when there are well-known facts in the US's defense and shrug it off as media lies without much evidence to support their claims. Another unfortunate side-effect is the attraction to conspiracy theories. While it is okay to question the commonly thought wisdom on history, they blanketly disagree with any element which does not in effect tear the US's reputation and re-inforce their viewpoint. Such examples are the works of Howard Zinn, and the conspiracy theories of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the more recent conspiracy theories on the 9/11 attacks. Not agreeing with what is commonly believed gives these people a feeling of superiority over people they see as blindly believing what is thought to be the truth. The problem is that they are no different in that regard than the straw men they imagine are their opponents in these debates. They have blanketly chosen what is outside of the mainstream not on the merits of the arguments for their position, but because it's not the common interpretation.

And after college? Well, some people grow out of it, while others don't and continue on their regular lives. And sadly, most of our professors are the latter.

Good Reads (7/30)

"Reformation or Civil War?" - Victor Davis Hanson
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson072905.html
"The Attempt to Establish a World Dominated by Muslims, Islam, and the Shari'a has Begun — But the World is in Denial " - Daniel Pipes
http://jewishworldreview.com/0705/pipes2005_07_26.php3

Paratrooper @ Moorewatch Makes an Excellent Point

Are any Americans out there astounded at how little leftist Europeans and other foreigners know about the American people, seemingly relying on almost cartoon-like stereotypes of Americans? Well, it seems Paratrooper at MOOREWATCH has a really good theory about that, and it seems the very people who decry our beloved "image" in "the world" may have a part in this little game:

I have often heard how “decadent” and “immoral” and “violent” Americans are from folks across the pond, even though many of the most opinionated among them have never been here. But who could blame them? Would not a Englishman or Spaniard who saw “Bowling for Columbine” have a lesser opinion of us “racist” Amerikkkans as a result of having seen that film? Would not people from Syria or Saudi Arabia think that Americans revel in the thought of killing Arabs after watching “True Lies”? Would not people from Denmark think we’re a violence worshipping people after watching “Kill Bill, vol.1”? Do the Germans think we’re all as stupid as Ernest P. Worrel or Joe Dirt? Probably so.

Source: http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/
is_hollywood_to_blame/

Yes, Hollywood does indeed have a part in this unfortunate trend. The real tragedy is that these people are intelligent enough not to make such judgements based on media imagery. Some, in my opinion, don't want to believe otherwise. The desire to make a straw man out of Americans in the European left is far too great. Why give credit to the point of view Americans who believe in less strict gun laws than you would want when you can just consider it derived from brainwashing and a "glorification of guns and violence in American society"? Such attitudes give a feeling of superiority over the other argument without looking at the other side. However, as most of us Americans know, the average American who is against extreme gun control like they have in Europe is not basing his opinion on a cultural glorification of guns, but on their belief in being protected should a potential violent attack on them take place, and because they believe that if they are using guns responsibly and making all the necessary precautions, they should be able to own these guns and not have the government confiscate them. But, such acknowlegements are inconvenient, because they feel having an argument that would take into account these views would be too much work. Their ideological bretheren in Hollywood advance such stereotypes through film, and thus, the system is re-inforced. Hollywood's fault is to blame in the re-inforcement, but in the other cases that I have mentioned, it is the viewer who should bear the blame of their thinly-veiled ignorance.

Anyways, read the article I linked to, because it is an excellent, quick read.

The 9/11 World Trade Center Memorial: What Can You Do About It?... PLENTY!

Read this article.

Then decide whether or not you are outraged. If you aren't, it's obvious you don't realize the inappropriate placing of 300,000 square feet dedicated to preaching a left-wing view of "freedom" while only 50,000 square feet is actually dedicated to the event that shook our world and especially America. I have no problem with exhibits on lynchings in the South, Nazi Concentration Camps and Soviet Gulags, or even an examination of Abu Ghraib. However, such exhibits have absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11 and deserve to be elsewhere. Such exhibits on the Concentration Camps are already visible, not to mention more appropriate, at the National Holocaust Museum, and exhibits on the Soviet Gulags should be shown somewhere, but this is hardly the place, and I would judge for different reasons than the IFC planners desire. Other memorials are dedicated entirely to the events of which they are to memorialize. To have such obvious political propaganda as an exhibit on why the Patriot Act is wrong on the ground of this event, taking over 4/5ths of the area while the actuall memorial gets 1/5 just sickens me like nothing else. I have no problem if these organizations wish to place such an exhibit somewhere else, but asking for their exhibit to be put at Ground Zero would be just as inappropriate as if someone had a 9/11 memorial at the National Holocaust Museum or put the an exhibit about Vietnam at Pearl Harbor. It's all ridiculous, and we can thankfully do something about it. A movement called Take Back the Memorial has been created and has had the signatures of 1,600 9/11 victims' families. Their opponents are saying that this is a "minority of unusually vocal family members of 9/11 victims with a Conservative agenda" which is far from the truth. If such an allegation is true, so what? There has been hardly much of an opposition to the 9/11 families' demands for a proper memorial from this group, while the others seem to call them a "vocal minority" most likely to cover up their own lack of support from 9/11 families. Take Back The Memorial may be our only hope to have a truly respectable memorial dedicated to the events of 9/11.

There is a petition at their website. I have signed it, and I hope you will, as well.

Website: Take Back The Memorial

Australian Prime Minister John Howard Gets it Right

(Hat-tip goes to Boortz)

In a recent press conference yesterday after the London attacks, Prime Minister John Howard of Australia and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain stood their ground against the horrible fallacy that these recent attacks are only because of their support for the US-led war in Iraq. Here is PM Howard's response to this pathetic idea:

Question:

To both Prime Ministers, what was your immediate reaction on hearing that some incidents had occurred, was it here we go again? And do incidents like this, coming just 14 days after the horrific attacks, suggest that the war against terror is being lost on the streets? And yesterday an Australian bomb victim of July 7 linked the bombings to Iraq. Does that suggest that the propaganda war against terrorists is also being lost?

Mr Howard:

Could I start by saying the Prime Minister and I were having a discussion when we heard about it, and my first reaction was to get some more information, and I really don't want to add to what the Prime Minister has said. It is a matter for the police and a matter for the British authorities to talk in detail about what has happened here. Could I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government, and indeed the policies of the British and American government on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it has given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.

Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq; and could I remind you that the 11 September occurred before the operation in Iraq; can I also remind you that the very first occasion that Bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor.

Are people, by implication, suggesting that we shouldn't have done that? When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on 7 July, they talked about British policy, not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?

When Sergio de Melo was murdered in Iraq, a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, immensely respected for his work in the United Nations, when al Queda gloated about that they referred specifically to the role that de Melo had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor. Now I don't know the mind of the terrorist, by definition you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber, I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I have cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq, and indeed all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggest to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of the principles of a great world religion that at its root preaches peace and cooperation, and I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances, rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.

Prime Minister:

I agree 100% with that.

"Prime Minister" by the way, is Tony Blair in case you didn't know. In my opinion, these 2 men deserve to have some sort of honorary US Citizenship.

Good Reads (7/17)

"War of the Worlds" - Ronald Bailey
http://www.reason.com/links/links071105.shtml
"Canada's Unhappy Birthday" - David Frum
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.22766,filter.all/
pub_detail.asp
"Our Wars Over the War" - Victor Davis Hanson
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson071605.html
"The Jews" - Michael A. Ledeen
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.22832,filter.all/
pub_detail.asp
"Conversation with a Pacifist" - George Orwell (1940s)
http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/pacifist.html

We're only making more terrorists by fighting them...

... NOT! A recent Pew research study refutes that the general trend is that more and More Muslims all over the Muslim world are gathering to the Jihadist cause. Recently, it was said that while support for bombings and Bin Laden/Al-Queda increased in Jordan, generally in other Muslim countries such as Indonesia, Turkey, and Morocco, it has significantly dropped.

Support for Osama bin Laden and suicide bombings have fallen sharply in much of the Muslim world, according to a multicountry poll released on Thursday.

The survey by the Pew Research Center examined public opinion in six predominantly Muslim nations: Morocco, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Jordan and Lebanon. It also examined views in nine North American and European countries as well as in India and China. In all, more than 17,000 people were questioned either by telephone of face-to-face.

"There's declining support for terrorism in the Muslim countries and support for Osama bin Laden is declining. There's also less support for suicide bombings," said Pew Center director Andrew Kohut.

"This is good news, but still there are substantial numbers who support bin Laden in some of these countries," he told a news conference.

In Morocco, 26 percent of the public now say they have a lot or some confidence in bin Laden, down from 49 percent in a similar poll two years ago.

In Lebanon, where both Muslims and Christians took part in the survey, only 2 percent expressed some confidence in the Saudi-born al Qaeda leader, down from 14 percent in 2003.

In Turkey, bin Laden's support has fallen to 7 percent from 15 percent in the past two years. In Indonesia, it has dropped to 35 percent from 58 percent.

...

A similar picture emerged when respondents were asked whether suicide bombings were justifiable. In Morocco, 13 percent said they often or sometimes could be justified, down from 40 percent in 2004.

Unfortunately, not all of the countries polled had such a favorable outcome to their polls. In Jordan, sadly, "confidence in bin Laden, who took responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and many other attacks, rose to 60 percent from 55 percent." Also, Pakistan's stance on the issue is 51 percent favorable towards Bin Laden, as opposed to its previous 46 percent.

Thankfully, though, many countries see this terrorism as the evil it is:

Both in western countries and the Muslim world, respondents expressed fears about Islamic extremism.

Seventy-three percent in Morocco and 52 percent in Pakistan saw Islamic extremism as a threat to their country. The figure was 84 percent in Russia, 78 percent in Germany, and an identical 70 percent in Britain and the United States. The poll was taken well before last week's bombings in London.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050714/ts_nm/
muslims_binladen_dc&printer=1;
_ylt=Ap_gAVoD1LZEgR9lC_MGgTtg.3QA;_ylu=
X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

There is much more work to be done if we are to win hearts and minds, of course. But to simply assume that the whole front for the US and the Western World to gain favor in comparison with Jihadists has been a failure because the US and others were fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere is pure uninformed silliness. Now, that being said, while I would not be surprised if these polls were a strong reflection of truth, I also have to admit that statistics are often very fuzzy in their collection of data, and often either merely reflect the biases of the pollsters, the takers' ignorance on the subject, and of course, the fact that one area or segment may, more often than not, be very different in views from the country as a whole. However, whether this poll ends up being 100% accurate or not is not entirely important if someone wishes to refute polls that may say the opposite of this poll. If this is a poll that does not truly represent with 100% accuracy the attitudes of the country, one can point out to an anti-war person that their poll may, in fact, be formed with such flaws as well. And if this poll is truly for the most part accurate, I doubt this will be seen anywhere in the Mainstream Press, who, along with the extreme Left and some of the Paleoconservatives and some libertarians, have succumbed to a certain nationalist-masochism where good news about our country is phased out and the bad news is hammered into people like there is no tomorrow.

This is a good sign. Progress is being made in getting the hearts and minds of more truly moderate Muslims in some countries, while others are slowly gaining more extreme views. We have done a good job, but as always, there is room for improvement. Of course, the more people the terrorists kill, the more they will be despised. Such viciousness does not gain fans when it is out in the open like what we've seen in London last week. Hopefully, this means that those worldwide who are not infected with Cranial-Rectal insertion will feel the push and gain the desire to call into question terrorists and their apologists.

Good Reads (7/15)

"Can You Fight an Idea?" - Mona Charen
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/
mc20050715.shtml
"Enemies, Foreign, and Domestic" - Charles Krauthammer
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/
ck20050715.shtml
"Dishonest and Deadly" - Bruce Thornton
http://victorhanson.com/articles/thornton071405.html

Good Reads (7/12)

"What We Should Expect From Muslims" - David Frum
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.22827,filter.all/
pub_detail.asp
"Revising History" - Oliver North
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/
on20050708.shtml
"British Islamists Threatened Violence" - Daniel Pipes
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0705/
pipes2005_07_08.php3
"Terrorism: Too Many Canadians Still Don't Get It" - Arthur Weinreb
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/weinreb071205.htm

Good Reads (7/11)

"The Anticipated Attack" - Christopher Hitchens
http://slate.msn.com/id/2122186/
"How to Lose a War" - Victor Davis Hanson
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson071105.html

Yes, Virginia, There IS an Exit Strategy

Buzzwords are a peculiar thing in politics. These days, the term so often used by politicians who are against the Iraq War and some of the more "Moderate" Republicans and Conservatives who seem to have found that the Iraq War was not the slam-dunk for their political careers that they hoped it would be. So, like fair-weather friends, they are in the process of distancing themselves from the war effort and slowly joining in the chorus of the war effort's determined enemies on the Left. Recently, it came to my attention that my Representative Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC) has become one of these groups of Republicans. SInce I am among his constituents, I thought it was my responsibility, as with all constituents in my district that are likeminded on the War in Iraq and how to fight it to prove how wrong he is to demand an "exit strategy" of the sort that the Left have been demanding. So, I sent him a letter, pointing out that if we have a withdrawal based on time instead of results like the Democrats and others have so gotten wrapped up in demanding that our troops have an exit strategy to get out of Iraq. I recently got his letter in response, and I've been led to believe that neither he nor those hired to go through his correspondence from his constituents truly read what is written to them or they simply are unable to comprehend it. Of course, he most likely has his office send a prewritten statement on the subject at hand, but what his statement shows is an obvious ignornance to the facts. Here is part of what has been sent back to me from Rep. Coble's office:

"As you will recall, the coalition forces turned over control of the governing functions to a provisional Iraqi government on June 28, 2004, and from every indication, it appears the January election process was a resounding success. In early May, Iraq's first-ever elected Prime Minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari formally swore in 29 of his cabinet ministers. The country's 275-member elected parliament, represented by a large Shia majority, has already made overtures towards enfranchising more of the Kurd and Sunni minorities. Finally, the parliamentary committee charged with drafting Iraq's constitution should have its initial proposal completed by the end of August. Sadly, I have no doubt certain sectors of the media have played a part in downplaying some of these measurable accomplishments."

"That being said, over the course of recent months, it is no secret that I have become increasingly disheartened by the apparent lack of a high-quality exit strategy incumbent upon our initial invasion. I am discontent with the present reality of learning of new fatalities on seemingly a daily basis. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that the recent Iraqi election process will yield the promising future we are all hoping for in that country. As I have publicly stated, while I applaud the transition of governing authority to the Iraqi people, I also believe it is only right that this administration keep a full U.S. withdrawal on the table. Again, I am not saying it is the only option, merely that we owe it to our brave men and women, steadfastly serving in harm's way, to give it the full consideration it deserves. I will continue to follow this situation closely and I welcome your input as this process moves forward."

As you can see, Rep. Coble is using a series of "What if it all goes completely wrong?" statements to make his point. The unfortunate thing is, this isn't a war we can afford to lose, and we have a lot more to lose in this war than the public, and it seems Rep. Coble seem to think. People are sadly under the impression that this war is one where either the place is fine enough left alone, or irreparably sunk into Islamofascism no matter how much or how little we do there and that in either case, we won't lose as much getting out of there as staying there. This is an unfortunate side-effect from the specter of Vietnam that seems to infect so many of our people, even today.

This specter has infected some of the most hawkish foreign-policy advocates, many of which most likely have one of those "Support Our Troops" ribbon stickers that seem to be on almost every vehicle in Middle America. Most of this stems from, in my opinion, this "Specter of Vietnam" feeding upon the part in all of us that says "what if I'm wrong?". Normally, this is a halpful mechanism to keep us humble, but if this is exploited negatively, it can lead to irrational decisions just as bad as if this mechanism did not exist and the person was believing everything he does and believes is 100% right, even when the facts conflict with such an attitude. Thus, I believe Rep. Coble may in fact be a victim of this, along with others, fearing that it may still all go wrong and fall apart, despite the obvious progress made in this conflict.

Not to say that things can't change for the worse, but even then, in this conflict specifically, we can't afford to lose. It is obvious that the people we are fighting now, many of which are called "insurgents" in the news media are the same people who bombed London a few days ago, the same people who attacked the World Trade Center, and the same people that hate our country and want to destroy it. Their attacks in Iraq against the US and coalition forces are acts of desperation, not bravery. They are attacking the coalition forces because of their fear over the Western Democratic influence on their countries, and thus, are on the Defensive. While this may seem simplistic, but I personally would rather them be on the Defensive in Iraq, then on the Offensive in the US. This is not a popular, native front like the Viet-Cong, and if it was, we would have had a much higher body count than we do and would have left the country much, much sooner. This is an invasion of terrorists from Iran and other Islamic radical states assisting former Ba'ath party loyalists who are not numerous and desiring to scare the Iraqis from supporting the rebuilding of their country under a truly representative state. However, their attacks may very well be backfiring against them. The Iraqis are growing in anger against these attacks which leave many more of their people dead than they do ours. The sad thing is, the News Media refrains reporting much of the deaths of civilian Iraqis that are killed in these attacks, instead mentioning merely the coalition, particularly American, deaths. Leaving this country because of the body count of brave men and women who chose to fight in our military, and perhaps implied, die if necessary to make Iraq and the world a better place is a move that will have made our troops die in vain and basically change nothing for the better and further convince the Arabs that we are petty, self-interested people who compose nothing more than a "paper tiger" that can be beaten if pushed enough.

There is a working exit strategy that the Bush administration has put out, but it isn't a full withdrawal like the Democrats have so desperately wanted. This is a gradual withdrawal based on the sufficient training of Iraqi soldiers and policemen, as well as other forces, not on time or how bad it gets. Bush clearly set out in his speech at Fort Bragg to talk to those with the outlook of Rep. Coble who could still have their minds changed. To Pro-Iraq Republicans, this was just more preaching to the chior, but to the undecided this was a way to win their hearts and minds. The President did an excellent job, but he should have mentioned one more fact, and perhaps I should have mentioned this to Mr. Coble. As much as it seems that America has been given a "black eye" according to the conventional wisdom of foreign policy types and Academia (which, in this case "wisdom" should be changed to "belief") abandoning Iraq would be even worse than whatever evil happened to that country whether when we came in or before it. I would rather have my country have a "black eye" in the eyes of the world if we stayed there and did what was right, no matter the consequences, than have my country be seen as a selfish one with a black heart that deserves more martyrs to attack it and eventually extinguish it from this earth.