← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · AntiYuppie

Neocon Francophobia, Part II

Thread ID: 18171 | Posts: 7 | Started: 2005-05-09

Wayback Archive

AntiYuppie [OP]

2005-05-09 20:31 | User Profile

It looks like Chilton Williamson has also caught on to the real agenda behind neoconservative hatred of the French - they use "anti-Americanism" as a cover to attack the French (and by extension, all white Europeans) for their legacy of "anti-Semitism." Well done, Mr. Williamson. -AY

Miller Watch (Resumed): Is France Really Our Enemy?

By Chilton Williamson Jr.

John J. Miller was described as “the most unscrupulous of contemporary immigration enthusiasts” by Peter Brimelow in the new Afterword to Alien Nation because of his uninhibited habit of simply lying about statistics and what his opponents were actually saying. Miller’s hiring by National Review immediately after John O’Sullivan firing as editor in 1999 was a clear sign that owner William F. Buckley had caved on immigration reform. At VDARE.COM, we started a “Miller Watch” series to keep him line. We succeeded too well, because he stopped writing about immigration altogether. Now it appears he has transferred his technique to diplomatic history.

One word I can think of to describe Miller and Mark Molesky’s book Our Oldest Enemy: A History of America’s Disastrous Relationship With France is vulgar. Another is naïve. Still another is just plain silly. [Vdare.com Note: Foreign Affairs Magazine likes "shoddy and biased"]

Miller and his co-author (an old school chum who teaches history at Seton Hall University), are very angry with France and with the French. The proximate reason is President Chirac’s opposition to the Iraq War. An amazing list of more distant reasons is also adduced, ranging from the French-Indian Wars of the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the XYZ and Citizen Genet Affairs of the 1790s, Napoleon’s insults to the young American republic, Napoleon III’s contemplated support of the Confederacy and his invasion of Mexico (perhaps if he’d won, the Border Patrol would today be arresting Frenchmen in berets along the U.S.-Mexican border?), Clemenceau’s bamboozling of President Wilson at Versailles, Jean-Paul Sartre, Charles De Gaulle, and Deconstructionism.

Only at the conclusion of the book, with its coy references to the French people’s “historic levels of anti-Semitic sentiment” and the French government’s failure “to grapple with a rising tide of anti-Semitic sentiment,” are we given a hint at what is really eating the authors.

Miller and Molesky have chosen such a long and improbable way around to make their point (somewhat on the order of attacking Iraq in order to defend the United States) that somehow we have ceased to care when finally they get around to it.

Like An End to Evil by Richard Perle and Miller’s colleague at National Review, David Frum, Our Oldest Enemy comes just a few months too late to deliver whatever conviction it might ever have carried. Trying to make Jacques Chirac a villain when he deserves rather to be treated as a prophet and a hero, having his health toasted in Beaujolais nouveau from the Azores to the Danube, is as absurd as it is childish.

There are no demonstrations in Paris or Berlin demanding that the French and German governments revisit their decision against sending troops to reinforce President Bush’s Grand Coalition in Iraq. On the contrary, Spain’s conservative government has been ousted for signing on with the United States, Berlusconi’s in Italy is threatened, and Tony Blair’s is a shambles.

If anything remains to be said about M. Chirac in this regard, it is that he has behaved in a gentlemanly way during the course of the American debácle in Iraq, never once giving rein to what must be the certain temptation to say, “I told you so.” For some people, it seems, civility is simply not an ordeal.

Meanwhile, concerning this “oldest enemy” business, a few thoughts at random: bullet Our oldest enemy, even by Miller’s & Molesky’s account, is not the French; it is the American Indian.

bullet France in the colonial period, and during the American Revolution, was not fighting Americans or America, as such: It was fighting its centuries-old enemy—England—and the Empire the British had created.

France was, in fact, playing what came in the late nineteenth century to be called the Great Game. (Miller & Molesky admit as much in their discussion of France’s role in aiding the American revolutionists.) If the authors believe the World’s Sole Superpower they are eager to defend at every turn is not engaged today in a Great Game of its own, they have no business writing about world politics at all. bullet Our first enemy - after the Noble Red Man, of course—was our parent people, the British. They not only interfered as often as the French in the affairs of our young republic for a century following independence (they fought an actual war with us in 1812), but who condescended to and insulted us equally.

Molesky & Miller are offended by a nineteenth-century French author who described Americans as

“a people of ignorant shopkeepers and narrow-minded industrialists, who do not have on the whole surface of their continent a single work of art…who do not have in their libraries a single science book not written by the hand of a foreigner; who do not have a single social institution not patterned after an ancient one, and constituting a flagrant rebuttal of the Christian principle it pretends to emulate.”

Well, well; fighting words to be sure. But for a truly effective putdown of the American people in the first half of the nineteenth century, however, one ought to consult Domestic Manners of the Americans by Frances Trollope (mother of Anthony). Her English hauteur and disdain remains unmatched by any Frenchie I know of.

While the French elite may have had little affection or respect for the United States, the same was true of all the other aristocratic European powers. bullet Our Oldest Enemy seems to be arguing that France in the twentieth century, and particularly in that century’s second half, has been the enemy of American culture (Sartre, Derrida, Deconstruction, and all that). Insofar as M&M have a point, however, it is that France in this respect has been the enemy of Western civilization.

Admittedly, France has harbored a special animus against the United States for having pioneered mass culture. But who can blame it? bullet Molesky & Miller seem to me to have missed the essential point: the French have never liked, nor really behaved well toward, anybody.

Nothing personal—or discriminatory! They have just always regarded la France as being truly God’s country, and French culture as the residuum of every noble and civilized element in history, like the Heavy Dragoon in Gilbert & Sullivan’s Patience.

And who are Miller & Molesky to complain? bullet Finally, Our Oldest Enemy keeps returning to a dominant leitmotif - the evilness of France’s revolutionary Enlightenment tradition. Of course, the United States has an Enlightenment tradition of its own; one, moreover, that is growing more and more Jacobin in its fervor and content. But Miller & Molesky don’t get it.

The Girondins, they charge, “subscribed to the very immoderate program of overthrowing monarchs everywhere. Their slogan was ‘War with all kings and peace with all peoples.’”

Elsewhere, M&M mock the French belief in France’s ability to change the world.

Here is a spectacular example of how fanaticism blinds men to themselves, as well as to other men. Neocons are supposed to be smarter than the rest of us. But do they really know what they are saying most of the time? In respect of the Iraq War, John Miller and Mark Molesky—not the much-maligned Jacques Chirac—have identified themselves as ideological heirs of the Girondins.

But at least the Girondins were French patriots. In urging on an imperial war, while simultaneously supporting nation-dissolving immigration at home, M&M raise real questions as to where their own loyalties lie.

Howard Campbell, Jr.

2005-05-10 00:19 | User Profile

If anything remains to be said about M. Chirac in this regard, it is that he has behaved in a gentlemanly way during the course of the American debácle in Iraq, never once giving rein to what must be the certain temptation to say, “I told you so.” For some people, it seems, civility is simply not an ordeal.

This may be the gravest Gaullic sin. For corporate; anti-intellectual; anti-traditionalist; anti-individualist Neo-Cons have NO CLASS...

Howling Privateer

2005-05-10 02:57 | User Profile

Only at the conclusion of the book, with its coy references to the French people’s “historic levels of anti-Semitic sentiment” and the French government’s failure “to grapple with a rising tide of anti-Semitic sentiment,” are we given a hint at what is really eating the authors.

Cry me a river. -There is no rise in jewish emigration from France. -The rabbi Gabriel Farhi who runs the Jewish Liberal Movement of France (MJLF) slightly knived himself in the belly. -The journalist Claude Askolovitch sent anti-semitic insults to his own cellular. -The fire at the Jewish Social Center of la rue Popincourt was perpetrated by a former jewish employee. -Michaël Tronchon alias "Phineas" drew sawstikas in a jewish cemetery because he thought it to be a muslim one. A few days before he attempted to kill a Maghrebian with an axe. -And so forth ...

So the greatest cases were proven scams or very suspicious events and the remaining ones are perpetrated by far mainly by Muslims. Even the Jews do not believe there is a rise of french antisemistim, except those who attempt to create the feeling of fear among them for a goal which you know all about.

But let's be fair. Anti-americanism does exist in France, [u]albeit not at all in the way this simplistic pamphlet is describing it[/u].

Both of these documents are quite well-balanced and come from searchers, not obscurely funded think-tanks. They are short and worth reading for anybody curious about the french tendency towards such feelings.

[url]http://www.princeton.edu/~jjun/webs/PIIRS/papers/Roger.pdf[/url]

[url]http://www.princeton.edu/~smeunier/Meunier%20CES%20Newsletter%200105.pdf[/url]

The list of French grievances towards the US is long and varied, but these grievances are not simultaneously shared by all French men and women, thereby explaining some paradoxes —such as France being one of the countries where McDonald’s is most successful, while being the country which has made a McDonald’s basher into a national hero. Moreover, we need to remember that for all these manifestations of anti-Americanism, there are also countless manifestations of pro-Americanism.

One last thing. The inventor and main proponent of Deconstructionism is the jewish intellectual Jacques Derrida. [url]http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/023112/023112824X.HTM[/url]

xmetalhead

2005-05-10 13:17 | User Profile

Last year when Ariel Sharon cried that French Jews should [I]quitter La France tout de suite[/I] and move to Israel, I was watching Le Journal TV 5 French News and the French Jews thought Sharon was nuts and that they never feel threatened in France and they'll never leave. (whether that's good or bad depends on your view). But, this shows the American Jews influence in shaping France as the new Nazi State in order to have idiot Americans hate France.

Howling Privateer, I remember the story about the girl on the metro who claimed she was attacked and had swastikas painted on her. She made a national story, but was later found out to be a complete hoax.

[QUOTE]If anything remains to be said about M. Chirac in this regard, it is that he has behaved in a gentlemanly way during the course of the American debácle in Iraq, never once giving rein to what must be the certain temptation to say, “I told you so.” For some people, it seems, civility is simply not an ordeal. [/QUOTE]

Good point by Williamson.

Hugh Lincoln

2005-05-10 21:00 | User Profile

John J. Miller... a Jew? Miller is a common cover name, a la Judith Miller of the NYT, helper of the WMD story...

If not, maybe they'll make him one by osmosis. Last time I ventured to peek at the pages of NR, the bylines made a minyan.

Otto Skorzeny

2005-05-11 19:13 | User Profile

Mark Molesky the co-author of this francophobe book teaches history at Seton Hall? Didn't their history department have a guy who taught western civilization suddenly start running around in a comic opera nazi costume a few months ago?:wacko: Sounds like a weird place. Clearly there is no historiography to support the thesis of the book.

Howling Privateer

2005-05-19 12:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Last year when Ariel Sharon cried that French Jews should [I]quitter La France tout de suite[/I] and move to Israel, I was watching Le Journal TV 5 French News and the French Jews thought Sharon was nuts and that they never feel threatened in France and they'll never leave.

Of course they are not threatened. When french Jews emigrate to Israel out of a fashion and fail there, they go back to France or even New Caledonia, about half of departures conclude in returns. 2000 a year are moving out of a 600-700.000 population, the rate is less than for french natives. Since the second Intifada, Maghrebians may assault them more, it is true. But statistically speaking, the trend is negligible, especially when you watch their behaviour against non-jewish french.

(whether that's good or bad depends on your view).

I pay little attention. For sure, I do not like at all much most of the Jews in politics, media and entertainement, but I remain agnostic considering others.

But, this shows the American Jews influence in shaping France as the new Nazi State in order to have idiot Americans hate France.

Not only the American Jews, also the french ones who acted hand in hand. For example you can read Olivier Guetta in the Weekly Standard, and this guy is not just dishonnest, he also fabricates facts. A man of many ideas.

Howling Privateer, I remember the story about the girl on the metro who claimed she was attacked and had swastikas painted on her. She made a national story, but was later found out to be a complete hoax.

I forgot this one, since the great majority of antisemitic agressions were scams. Marie Leblanc was a non-jewish psychiatric affabulator. She heard so many reports about agressions towards Jews that she merely invented her own. All the media merely jumped on her lies and changed one's tune very quickly.

Good point by Williamson.[/QUOTE] Anyway, what is done cannot be reshaped easily and nobody goes into pathetic mockery in a diplomatic angle. Iraq is something Americans can overcome, but the robbery of american political balance is a more serious matter. You have a lot to loose. Definitely, I prefer the old Right of the 50-80's and perhaps even Democrats. But you know, if Jews remain a special people, sometimes and more often that one would think, goyim crooks are able to hide behind Jews and even control them, whom act as a smokescreen.

What are you thinking about Eisenhower's last words to the Nation? [url]http://wikisource.org/wiki/Military-Industrial_Complex_Speech[/url]

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.