While the Germans were inclined to crush the source of their problems, and the Russians tended to conquer and then annex the source of their discontent, America's favorite culprit is herself. She prefers to try to weasel out of predicaments by claiming that she has caused them. From this pseudo-fact of self-hate, the US inclines to conclude that giving up and giving in will make the trouble go away.
This is about US-bashing which is the fashionable “anti”-movement of our time. By this term a culturally approved predisposition is meant. It blames robotically something for whatever seems to be ailing a community. Illustrations of the generalization are the past’s anti-Semitism, anti-capitalism or the inclination to discover a commie in anything to one's left. Hate groups had local mutations. In some countries certain minorities – Koreans in Japan, Armenians in Turkey, Hungarians in central Europe, Zionists in the Near East and the USSR – serve(d) to explain misfortune.
From beyond the culture wallowing in rage, such objects of detestation are hard to take seriously. The more so, as such accusations have contradictory elements. The “guilty” are said to be terribly clever but also inferior to their exploited victims. Once the inferior can exploit those that rate themselves as superior, then logic tells us that something is amiss with the ratings. If a lazy moron outsmarts you then you must be a catatonic low-grade moron.
Another aspect of prejudice is the dismissal of facts that contradict agreed upon therapeutic blame for failure. Luckily for the movements in which such haters congregate, logic will not thin their ranks. Hate theories cannot be weighted on the scale of logic as they are immune to facts. Their roots are not in the soil of rationality and, therefore, they are best approached through psychotherapy‘s insights.
Some nations are attracted to problem solving that avoids dealing with the fundamentals. They like to find their foe where he is not. They might like to blame other nations or a locally represented supranational group — such as the Jews. The Germans were inclined to crush the source. Whether czarist or communist, the Russians tended to conquer it and then annex it. America has found a special way. Her favorite culprit is herself. She prefers to try to weasel out of predicaments by claiming that she has caused them. From this pseudo-fact of self-hate, the US inclines to conclude that, giving up and giving in, will make the trouble go away.
A cautionary note: An ideology might be a collage of tear-outs from an imaginary picture. The venom-spiced brew is hogwash. So the end product might tower over the errors that is the sum of the distortions of its constituent parts. The travesties of such dogmatic constructions might make them seem ludicrous outside their self-chosen intellectual asylum. However, it does not follow that the nonsense is — given its imbecility — to be dismissed. In the past organized madness repeatedly reached for world domination — and nearly succeeded. Today, columns are already marching incanting bizarre slogans that challenge the global order and also our existence. To argue that, they “do not need” to do what they profess because “it makes no sense,” and that the alleged goal will not be seriously pursued, is understandable. (Typical is the soothing guass that Iran will desist because it does not need nukes.) However, such estimates (of the sane) ignore experience and also current evidence. The worldview of those who threaten us might rest upon ridiculous premises. Nevertheless, such postulates and the connected inclination to fight phantoms rather than to overcome real and solvable problems, can move masses. Therefore, the punch of the delusion-driven is powerful.
Especially in Europe, a new “anti-movement,” namely anti-Americanism, is gaining ground. The public use of the term would be rejected by the idea’s practitioners. Most anti-Americans here are what the Germans call “Gutmenschen”/Virtuefolks. It is a trademark of their loving virtue that openly they are reluctant to admit to be against anything.
It is difficult to distinguish between a legitimately critical attitude towards the US and anti-Americanism. We could rate critique that extrapolates from facts to fit legitimate discourse. Irrational accusations, rooted in sentiment and devoid of a rational basis, signal prejudice. Therefore a working definition of bias might be an attitude divorced from rational, that is fact-dependent proof.
The problem with a growing majority where this is written is that, the skeptical attitude toward the US has its own facts created by acclamation. These are not necessarily anchored in reality. Could the seeking and acceptance of artificial facts in itself be a sign of prejudice? Even outside of mad-houses the thesis can be voiced here that 9/11 was a CIA plot. It is also common knowledge that the Jews were told not to go to the WTC that day. (Whereby the conspiracy is improved by involving an additional Jewish, pardon me, Zionist plot.) One is also enlightened that the number of casualties was exaggerated — have you seen the dead bodies? Once such views can become worthy of consideration, a pre-condition of constructive discourse, that being a set of acceptable premises, is lacking.
Public opinion asserts that Bush is worse than bin Laden. Presumably because Bush might, Pelosi willing, hit back if Osama strikes. If you question such assessments what you get is not really a counter argument. The reaction is sincere surprise that you disagree. Therefore, what we encounter is more than a symptom of a lost PR war. A filter emerges through which no communication is possible. The immunity to arguments or to new evidence is guaranteed.
A quality of the thriving Anti-Americanism is striking. It is that it is not only socially acceptable but also “required.” This is so because its postulates are assumed to be as self-evident as is turning on the wipers when it rains. What this witness finds in the anti-Americanism he meets is a stunning predisposition issuing from a twisted impression of reality. This sentiment goes beyond the inclination to believe anything absurd that rests on allegations that are easily discernible as whacky.
Conventional “anti” claims assert that all wrong is due to "X." Newly this stage is being surpassed on the popular level. In pleas that are directly unrelated to the US, there is a tendency here to refer to her. A penchant spreads to use “in America” to prove the incorrectness of just about any scheme. Prejudice cannot go deeper than when it transcends the level of a claim and becomes a self-evident fact that is beyond questioning. Once this is the case the “anti”-sentiment moves from the realm of politics into that of culture. With that it becomes a force that is not a means used by politicians but an elementary energy fed by its own dynamics.
This finding will make you concerned if you agree that Europe’s and the West’s survival depends on the transatlantic security system. Therefore, the good question might be this: are writings such as this one a call to plug the holes of a sinking ship, or do they amount to funeral orations?
handlery@sunrise.ch
Read more articles by George de Poor Handlery
