Jonathan McClendon (from the linked article): "What are the odds that even after a deadly attack in which hundreds of thousands of millions could die in one day that politicians and people will still cry out for "talk" and "appeasement" and "peace"?"

The odds of this happening are zero, because there aren't hundreds of thousands of millions of people in the whole world.

I'd find the article more persuasive if he gave a hint as to what he thought victory would consist of, and how it is to be accomplished. He surely can't be suggesting more invasions and cluster-bombs, can he? The upcoming "wars" are more likely going to be wars of ideas - hearts and minds, that sort of stuff.

I ran across an article which relates to some of our posts, and which places our concerns in a context.  I think this is what we all fear and we are facing unless present reality is changed.
 
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2006/12/5_year_countdown.html

What are we, human guinea pigs for your "New World Order"? You want a war, you got one. We have nothing to fear, for death from Gulf War Syndrome is our reality. Pay us now. Or die. I have all of the proof about Desert Storm and the use of chemical and biological warfare agents from Saddam against America and our allies. Rothschild, you will hang. Neutron bombs are being discussed right this moment. Disarm or die.

Live Free Or Die.

@ Atheling

Do you really want to 'dignify' such nonsense with a response?   People who confuse the 'central bank' (to regulate the banking system and the money suppy) with a "flat tax" (a revenue-raising mechanism for government among many mechanisms) live on a (rightwing) fantasy-planet similar to leftwing Hollywood.   

No way. It is NOT in America's best interests to take any European country and annex it as a state. Leave Europe alone. Let it play out its history and we MUST stay out of it.

For a history lesson to all of you here, the United States was founded on the premise of no taxation without representation. "Central Banks" were to be violently opposed in our Republic, as our Founding Fathers stated. Our opposition to this led to the American Revolution which began in 1775.  So I bring up a name few heard of and those which have heard this name assume it is the stuff of conspiracies. The House of Rothschild is Al Qaida. Their ownership in one bank in the USA, MBNA, has been under investigation for some time. Why? Because this credit card issuer, MBNA, provided lines of credit to Jihadists found in New Jersey, Buffalo and Detroit, and in a smaller part, Chicago, in 2003. It is no coincidence this bank was recently sold. Sadly, this paper trail finds its way to London.  My message to the British is this, why do you wait? Are you free people or are you subjects to lands and titles you will never see nor know? Do you really want a King Charles with the scandal over Diana unresolved to this day? Who let the Jihadists into your nation? Are you not in the slightest unnerved with the presence of militant Muslims on your home soil? Do you like their presence as an "excuse" to have spy cameras throughout London? Do you care at all about "privacy" in your own home? Is this a freedom to sacrifice because you have terrorists nearby? In America, one can be both Lutheran and Catholic. I am both, and both Churches accept me. Can this be had in Britain without war and bloodshed? What I think the problem is for Britain and France is the lack of natural resources. A solution would be to find it within your hearts to look west to the United States and seriously consider the values of being States in our Union. You will have to earn it in warfare by joining with us to end finally this threat to civilization, the Jihadists. It would be in your best interests. Here you may own a home. Here you may start a business and be your own boss. Here you can seek the dream of wealth as a self-made Billionaire like Mark Cuban is. Can you do this in your nations? Last time I checked neither France nor Britain had property rights for its citizens. In the USA as members of a State, you would be free to pick one of 50 other States as well as our territories and own your own home. In the USA you would be free to quit your jobs and seek another. You would even be free to be homeless, if that is your desire in life.  We are free in America. We have our laws, and they are hotly debated. We accept the Patriot Act because it maintains habeaus corpus, which was suspended by Lincoln and Roosevelt. GWB has not done this. Congress won't allow it either.  Your solution, England, France, is to deal with the central banks of your states and demand economic freedoms and property rights for your people. Until you can do that, your notions of freedom are alien to Americans. We dealt the treasonous Federal Reserve a critical blow already. You will see United States Notes very soon.  God Bless AmericaGod Bless The World  
Live Free Or Die.

PS. Putin sacked Yukos. It was a monopoly. Run a search yourself to see if Yukos was influenced and/or owned by anyone named Rothschild. It might surprise you how this unholy "Lord" has made a mess of things, to say the least. We ended the USSR. But you wish to replace that with the EU? The former Russian Baltic states apply "flat taxes" as part of their freedoms as Nations. GWB supports a flat-tax. That is double-speak for saying he opposes the Federal Reserve. Is it Queen Elizabeth, or King Rothschild? Maybe it should be neither. England needs to own up for creating Communism in 1914.

Vincep1974 ... you Sir, are indeed correct. I found the following:
---------------------
On 3 May 2006, the British Treasury Minister, Ivan Lewis in a commons reply said "Repayment of the war loans to the US Government is expected to be completed on December 31 2006."

The final payment will be £45 million (as reported by the BBC)
---------------------

You can also read the BBC Article

Having said all that, I am absolutely certain there was a major announcement about paying back a major loan during Lady Thatcher's premiership (probably during her second term). It has stuck in my mind ever since, but I am unable to find any archive record of it. I had assumed it was a War Loan repayment to the USA, but it may well have been the repayment of that £2.3 billion IMF Loan incurred by Labour's Jim Callaghan, in the autumn of 1976.

Thank you for the correction!
.

What the BBC article fails to mention is that one of the terms Roosevelt's Administration laid down for assisting Britain was the dismantlement of the British Empire.

America hadn't even entered the War, yet by early August 1941 they were already trying to impose their own vision of a post-World War II world (using economic levers and blackmail). Here are the eight principal points that Roosevelt obliged Churchill to sign up to, in order that American war aid would be made forthcoming:

1. No territorial gains were to be sought by the United States or the United Kingdom (post WW2 only hypocritical America actually gained new territory, including a raft of British bases from the Caribbean to the Indian Ocean + the Philippines)

2. Territorial adjustments must be in accord with wishes of the peoples concerned (American habit of attempting to transplant democracy to states who will never apply it)

3. The peoples had a right to self-determination (as I said, the USA wanted an end to the British Empire)

4. Trade barriers were to be lowered (American business had already been haggling for this for 50 years - they resented British monopolies in some economic areas)

5. There was to be global economic cooperation and advancement of social welfare (as I said, the Roosevelt's were Communists)

6. Freedom from want and fear was to be enforced (more silly American idealisms: lashings of sickly sweet syrup)

7. There was to be freedom of the seas (America had long been nervous of the Royal Navy; this would also go some way to explain their reaction to Suez)

8. Disarmament of aggressor nations and postwar common disarmament was to be done (which is why we now have a pacifist Germany and Japan, a condition many Americans now bitch about)

The above 8 points (elaborated) were all contained in the Atlantic Charter, signed in Ship Harbour, Newfoundland; 14th August 1941.

What is it you want? What are the things you want to be able to do that you can't do now that make the suffering, economic disruption and loss of life you are suggesting worthwhile?

Can't you think of any way of achieving them that doesn't require the horrors you recommend?

@ Zen Master

Don't forget, Ayatollah Khomeini was given refuge by the French (possibly Aid),while in Exile, which allowed him to launch his his extremist policies against the West. Seems we never learn, we keep feeding snakes that end up biting us.

Good luck.

We're happy to stay out of it. The only thing we'd like back is the buried American GIs in Europe before hell all breaks loose.

Then you're on your own.

I wasn't trying to expand my thesis to critique every event since 1945. I was simply bringing people's attention to the calamatous outcome of America's ill-judged response to the Suez issue.

My thoughts? Well, the only route Europe now has is a radical shift to the right (if "right" is the right word so to speak). What I mean is a "permanent" shift towards nationalist parties. In Britain, this would mean a radical change of fortune for the BNP.

If this means insurrection and civil conflict for parts of Europe then so be it. The whole Cultural-Marxist + Radical Feminist edifice will have to be destroyed, and utterly. All Government agencies will have to be purged (as they were of Communists before) as at present, their mechanisms are being undermined or sabotaged by Cultural-Marxists or Islamists even as we speak. This would (in part) explain the strange loss of border controls in several countries.

Such a sea-change would also spell the end of the EU project. Brussels no more. New political alignments between nations will have to take place based upon shared initiatives and perspectives. We know the United Nations is already a waste of time, so no need to cry over that entity collapsing.

Islam, within the new alliance, will need to be proscribed, and Mosques dismantled or destroyed. Muslims can be given a choice, convert to Christianity or return to your nations of ethnic origin. Arab assets can be frozen. All Imams to be expelled. If they resist, and form violent resistance groups, they can be shot dead. We can find or develop alternatives to Arabian oil; where they cannot be found we use military force to ensure supplies: after all they have already been stolen from us through Arab nationalization that took place variously between 1960 and 1985. Essentially, one should understand, most Arabian oil assets once belonged to western nations!

We can announce that the New Alliance will respond to any chemical or nuclear attack on its member states by targetting Mecca and Medina directly with (small yield) nuclear destruction. Following that, we can begin to target Shi'ite shrines in Iran, if we are attacked again. In short, we need to work towards wiping out Islam completely: either by pursuasion or the phased destruction of its iconic sites.

It all sounds a bit like 1930s Germany under Naziism, but the parallels are far from exact. Remember, we are not looking for territorial expansion here, just the protection of our existing borders and cultural integrity. One hopes that this time it could all be done more humanely and with minimum force. But clearly, some immigrants will not comply without a fight, so the threat of force will need to be part of the equation.

All nationalist parties (including the BNP) do NOT advocate violence, but I think the ordinary people themselves will begin to tolerate state violence once they properly understand the dire circumstances that now surround them.

The Marxist+Feminist+Islamist alliance is the biggest cancer to threaten civilization in recorded history. Therefore, all efforts should be made to bring total destruction to it. We have enough knowledge to intelligently target their leadership, and institutions. That is where we should begin in order to minimize suffering.

As for the American reaction. Quite frankly you can mind your own business. Your political and media elite have already done more than enough damage as it is. America always offer assistance when it suits its national interests; when there might be some profit in it for you. So, it would be extremely naive for Europeans to look to America for early assistance and support. If we Europeans fail, then I guess you can just come and pick up the pieces when it suits you best; as you are wont to do.

"...Then came the majestic policy of the President and Congress of the United States in passing the Lend and Lease Bill, under which in two successive enactments about 3,000,000,000 pound sterling were dedicated to the cause of world freedom without - mark this, for it is unique - the setting up of any account in money. Never again let us hear the taunt that money is the ruling thought or power in the hearts of the American democracy. The Lend and Lease Bill must be regarded without question as the most unsordid act in the whole of recorded history."

Winston Churchill,

10 November, 1941

I didn't realize that we had forced the Lend and Lease Act upon Britain back then. Bad America. Bad, bad America!

I was under the impression that the UK is still paying back the debt until the end of this year, when it will be done.

End? END?! Why wasn't I told? No one consulted me.

Bob Doney

Your critiques are fair - to a point and I may have rushed judgement. Perhaps, I am overly sensitive since I am a metisse: Franco-American. France is the international ground zero of anti-americanism.

Sure, the US has made mistakes. But, what are the alternatives? Take for your example of 1945. Patton urged Ike to take on the Soviets but the Americans had become war weary. No stomach for it. Would we all be better off had we done so? Sure. Again, McCarthur wanted to take one Mao's China once North Korea had been overun and the Chinese on the defensive. Truman said no. In hindsight, was MacCarthur right?

Should Ike have supported the French in Dien Bien Phu? (My regiment fought there under the legendary Bigeard.) In otherwords, should America have helped Europe maintain tight control of their ex-colonies in the post-war years? America thought not - Eurpoe was just going to stir up more anti-Western resentment. Was America's decision wise? Obviously you don't think so. Perhaps that's fair in hindsight. No one knows.

Question now: where do we go from here? Europe, and to a degree here in the US, is run by an effete, effeminate elite who lack the moral character to defend the virtues of Western civilization against a global genocidal death cult.

No known entitity on earth is omniscient - America has made mistakes in the past, and undoubtedly will make more in the future. but, compared to what? Europe has no plan except appeasement and denial.

Your thoughts?

I was being facetious when I said "special relationship." That's why it was in quotes, and I used the term "smoke and mirrors."

So, in your previous post, you gave advice "as a friend." I take it now that you were being sarcastic. My mild response to you was in good faith regarding your "friendship."

It's too bad that it will all end for Britain on such a bitter note. If you're going to end that island story of yours, do it with class. That's what Churchill (half British, half American) would have done.

Britain was essentially bankrupt by late 1915 (due to First World War). American banks bailed us out (mainly JP Morgan). Then came another round of loans with special conditions, during the Second World War, called 'Lend Lease' (this time US Government sponsored).

These loans were not paid back until Margaret Thatcher's term as Prime Minister.

Essentially, you had us over a financial barrel for nigh on 70 years. That is why, and only why, you got away with what you did.

The Special Relationship was never a relationship, although it may have been special for you, from the profitability point of view. In 1946, America essentially also got a ready made empire to play with, for free.

Good business eh?

So much for the "special relationship", eh?

I suppose it was all smoke and mirrors. Well, don't worry, it'll all be irrelevant in 50 years or so.

Voyager ... I think you will find this link informative:

mujahedin in Macedonia

--------------------------------

Armor ... you wrote: I don't think the USA was responsible for France pulling out of Algeria.

I never suggested the USA was responsible for France's departure from Algeria!

Clearly, you have failed to read my comment properly, else you wouldn't be responding with disinformation. You have also somehow managed to completely misunderstand my main point about the aggrandizement of Nasser.

1 out of 10 for that effort.

I have found a French news publication with an English language blog. It is called ‘Expatica’ and it is mostly for expats who live in France, but others visit their Interactive Join a Discussion site. Most of the people live in the EU, but there are Americans living in the US who enter in. After a Paris teacher began to control the discussions, it was not as good. It was good to get the views of different people in the EU.

Voyager, am I overlooking the article? I got onto the english section, but do not see it. I see it on the German view.

Fox News in the US had an intelligence expert on who said that Al-Qaeda operatives were leaving the Afghanistan front and speculated that most would be coming to Western Europe. I guess that with Bosnian passports that they will have free movement within the domain of the EU.

Zen Master said, His blunders directly led to the current mess in the Middle East

What makes the Middle East a mess is the behavior of the local populations, more than anything Carter did or did not do!

M.I. asked, Do you understand how many French (and Algerians) were murdered in cold blood to satisfy your childish desire to breed a sweet family of "free" nations, all drinking coca-cola and watching Mickey Mouse

I don't think the USA was responsible for France pulling out of Algeria. Anyway I wish it had happened sooner. The french government's claim that Algeria was a part of France was nonsense. At least in Iraq, Bush does not insist that Iraqis are ordinary Americans. I think we should leave Allahland to the muslims, and Europe to the Europeans.

From Time Magazine, July 1953: "After 1946, when the people of Algeria were granted full French citizenship, they began pouring into France at the rate of 30,000 a year. Arriving in Paris on the slow trains from the Midi, they drift with their bundles into the old, revolutionary districts of Belleville and Ménilmontant, where whole blocks now have the sound and smell of Algerian medinas. Only one in five of the Algerians in Paris has regular employment;"

Bosnia

Interesting interview with an Al-Qaeda operative in Bosnia talking about how the Bosnian regime gave them Bosnian passports so the Al-Qaeda terrorists are now sleepers inside Europe. He claims there are 800 Bosnians trained by al-Qaeda and 400 Mujaddin

There is always doubt my friend. I have hurt your feelings. You'll get over it.

Mission, you seem to have a singular ability to see governmental actions in the political sphere as being those of the people. I note that some people can't stand criticism, become crabby and touchy people and try to present opinion of dubious factual basis as established fact. Is there any doubt of that persons identity?

Obviously, crabs are not only water animals.

For those of you who haven't read his book yet, he gives you the witty Gist here:

Mark Steyn Interview Podcast

Seems we were clicking on our keyboards at the same time. I didn't read your two posts until after I had finished editing (posting) mine.

Look, please understand, I am not trying to paint Europeans as holier than holy, and America as the great satan. I am just attempting to deal here with historical fact. The same facts are available to you if you'd care to look. If Americans cannot accept they have screwed up (here and there) between 1945 and 1995, then they are never going to get their international policies correct in future.

Je suis en désaccord: America's diplomatic intervention to end the Suez action led directly to the Soviets expanding their sphere of influence in the Middle East. Following Eisenhower's short-sighted efforts, Nasser then invited Soviet engineers onto the Aswan Dam project. The rest is history as they say.

As for the superior wisdom of the Europeans, your John F. Kennedy flew over to Britain to seek the advice of PM Harold MacMillan over what to do next during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Yes, I agree, the French support for Arab/Iranian nationalist policies (that often run counter to Western interests) is puzzling, troubling, and worse than frustrating, but perhaps their Algerian experience may account for this? I don't know yet, as I haven't studied the specifics.

I really don't understand how you can interpret my recent posts (on this topic) as evidence I believe Americans are "hayseeds garbage" as you put it. On the contrary my friend, on the contrary.

And before I close, had Eisenhower listened to Britain's Field Marshal Montgomery, early in 1945, the allied forces would have captured more of Germany (including Berlin), and perhaps prevented its division. Also, it was closet-communist F.D. Roosevelt who was cosying up to Stalin, and not Churchill. Recent history is full of such examples. So, it's time you people collectively grew up, acknowledged your errors, learned to live with them, and take full responsibility for them.

A formal apology to Britain, France, and Israel over Suez might be one way to begin.

Ever wondered why the French dislike the Americans? Your country's hare-brained role in Suez explains so much. I could have also mentioned in my earlier comment (but I ran out of space) that Eisenhower's decision to use the UN to veto the continuance of that tripartate action (America also employed financial threats too, to ensure compliance: just call it blackmail) also resulted in Nasser being left free to offer direct support to Algeria's fight for independence, leading to the Islamification of Algeria (the FIS).

The collapse of legitimate and long established French interests in North Africa led directly to the patterns of immigration into France, Americans love to make fun of today.

Typically, American's think, ooh goody, we stuffed it to an old imperial power (France); that'll teach 'em. But, what has America become in the years since 1956 except an imperial power?? Therefore, you Americans not only fail to understand history or geography, you are also self-serving hypocrites of the first order.

Do you know how much France had invested in Algeria? Do you understand how many French (and Algerians) were murdered in cold blood to satisfy your childish desire to breed a sweet family of "free" nations, all drinking coca-cola and watching Mickey Mouse, whilst busy-bodies in New York guarantee their human rights? It is memories of Algeria that inspired Chirac (and his cronies) to treat your request for support in Iraq with the contempt it deserved.

America's attitude towards Suez was designed to humiliate Britain. And it succeeded. The degree of cynicism and contempt you engendered in British society towards you, following the events of 1956, is something most Americans remain clueless about. Then, only 12 years after stabbing us in the back (and in front of all the world's nations) you had the barefaced cheek to approach our Prime Minister, in 1968, to ask Britain to send troops to support your adventures in Vietnam! We should have said "f*ck *ff and don't come back," but our refusal was no doubt couched in rather more diplomatic language.

I am not 'blaming' America. One doesn't 'blame' a guilty party when all the evidence already points to one obvious conclusion of guilt. If you are guilty of diplomatic incompetence, as America has consistently been, then 'blame' isn't the right word at all. Stating the bleedin' obvious isn't called blame. The fact is, Americans simply cannot stand being criticised. They quickly become a crabby, touchy people whenever someone presents them with unambiguous facts that show they were wrong.

Clearly, denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

article

And don't forget that France harbored Ayatollah Khomeini in the 1970's. After the oil shocks of '73 France abandoned Israel in favor of the muslim world. Why? To this day, Europe is more dependent on their oil than the US. They saw the writing on the wall and made a choice. Don't buy into this "superior wisdom of Europe" and Americans are all hayseeds garbage.

But, yes, Carter was, and even more so now with his friends like Michael Moore, a nutjob.

To Mission Impossible

Eisenhower (Dien Bien Phu, Suez) and Kennedy (Algeria) both intervened to block European efforts at maintaining remnants of their ex-colonies out of fear such policies will only push these regions into the hands of the Soviet Union. There was a reason for the madness. Rather, Europe is far from blameless.

"Often, the most hurtful advice can only be given by your best friends."

Well, Ive already posed the question. Does anyone have an answer? Surely there must be numerous French citizens who are desperate to change the course of events in their country. Is there a site with an English message board? My French is limited at best.

When mentioning the American mistakes, don’t forget the disastrous mistakes of Jimmy Carter. His blunders directly led to the current mess in the Middle East. It was Carter, who pulled the rug out from under our loyal Iranian ally, the Shah of Iran.

The Shah was deposed and replaced by the Ayatollah Khomeini. The American embassy was taken over in 1979 and Carter stood by and watched this happen. This led directly to the radicals taking power in other oil countries.

We now remain, attempting to clean- up the mess left by Carter, a person who never met a dictator he didn’t like.

The same thing is happening in the USA, and will have the same results as it has had in Europe. American's have basically the same media as you in Europe. The leadership of both parties is entirely disconnected from the people and constitutional checks and balances are being eroded. All this is happening while the voting of Americans is being diluted by the massive stream of leftist propoganda aimed at the gullible and immigrants who know nothing about American values. The main difference with the Europe situation is the will and unity of Americans when there is a crisis. The primary leftists control the mass media so they have power to disrupt any unity.

I fear that the control will be too great for the willing to become unified by the time of the real crisis. Individuals are having to look out for themselves and can have trust in few others as our population is mobile and scattered. Previously, the power of the state could be roughly matched by the collective power of armed individuals and family unity. I don't know if that collective power is there at present.

Flanders Fields wrote: Leftism was not hatched in one place and then moved to another

If leftism had been hatched in one place, it could have been in france, during the 1789 revolution. But I agree that we should stop putting the blame on the other continent for encouraging leftism. I think what has helped loony ideologies develop everywhere is the disappearance of traditional society. People are psychologically weaker. Besides, society used to rely on direct relations between individuals. Now we rely more heavily on organizations. And organizations are more likely to behave erratically than individuals.

Leftist ideology is so far-fetched that it makes us wonder who put those crazy notions in people's heads. Everybody thinks it must have come from somewhere else! In the same way, in france, 40 years ago, you heard a lot of complaining about the "americanization" of society. When the divorce rate kept increasing, it was described as another example of americanization, even though it had nothing to do with America. And now, in the third world, the muslims complain about "westernization".

You keep hearing the voices of the left because that is the only radio in Europe that has speakers. We have some different channels in the USA.

I'm glad you have a few local conservative radio stations in the United States, but it doesn't seem it has made a big difference. Immigration madness remains to be stopped.

In France and Britain, it is true that we have very little in the way of conservative radio. The administration has a semi-monopoly on the air waves. And we do not have American style local democracy with parliaments, local politicians, local radio stations and newspapers. Everything is centralized in London or Paris and we have no counterpower. Unfortunately, our centralized governments have endorsed the leftist immigration ideology, and the leaders of formerly right-wing institutions have been replaced with crazy immigration supporters.

About his criticism of America, Mission Impossible wrote:
"Often, the most hurtful advice can only be given by your best friends."
 
Let's get this straight:  we are not best friends.  We were allies of convenience throughout much of the 20th century.  Now we are stuck being your babysitters.  A friendship would have to be truly unbalanced and dysfunctional to work like the relationship between the United States and Europe does.  I, for one, do not want to be your friend.  I want you finally to take responsibility for your own national security.  The next time a crazed European leader indulges in ethnic cleansing, I want you to bomb the hell out of his country rather than demanding that we do it for you.  Perhaps at that point we can consider becoming friends.

Mission, statements you and other Europeans make criticising the US, while not making clear your support for its positive values, are detrimental for those of us who are trying to make changes in the left dominated atmosphere of our media and political leadership. We don't need any more "friends" who are critical and don't contribute to our efforts.

America is a fine word, as we are Americans. The United States of America is alright, too, although the rights of states are severely curtailed. We are comfortable being Americans whether others like it or not.

Leftism was not hatched in one place and then moved to another. It has spread while continuing to consolidate control where it has been in order to enable advancement to other areas. It entrenches before advancing, as it has in Europe, which is obvious to we Americans and to all except the most obtuse of Europeans.

Europe was the consumer of anything "sold" by America. We had a supply available of two distinct goods. Europe chose to buy the goods on the left and reject those which were traditional. There is a huge marketplace and we vendors of the traditional right don't want your cries for a refund after you chose to consume, glorify and reorder the goods of the left.

If you have a clear understanding of the goals of the groups you mention, you may be the only one. I find it too confusing and not helpful to recognize schisms in a more specific way than leftism and the right, the latter being actually centrist moderate although the media refers to that as far right or reactionary. The latter is actually everyday Americanism. The post-war policies of America and Europe are actually cooperation between leftists of each continent and we Americans had as much to do with most of it as you British, French, German, Italian, or other Europeans had with those of your own governments. We Americans recognized after a time that the policies were wrong and have awakened belatedly. We think that the European public overslept. We wish we could help you, but we have our own problems to deal with first.

You keep hearing the voices of the left because that is the only radio in Europe that has speakers. We have some different channels in the USA. We continue to pick up static from Europe while listening to channels which are not leftist that sound like leftist background noise. We welcome those voices that recognize a common problem, but have little use for static.

I understand your criticisms of America. I agree with much of it. I don't care for what's coming out of our crappy pop culture and I avoid it like the plague. (But what's wrong with Microsoft??? I love it! HA!) Besides, Madonna lives with you now, so she's your problem. (just kidding!).

I wish we would fix all those ills quickly, and the universities ARE a major problem. The media is another. But there is growing dissent in the universities. Conservative students are rocking the boat, and there is increased criticism directed against those leftist communist type academics and the schools which hire them. Conservative talk shows and radio dominate the airwaves, while liberal "Air America" just went down like the Titanic. More and more parents are homeschooling their children so that they are not indoctrinated by the political correctness which infects public schools. A constant barrage of criticism from bloggers and conservative pundits exposing their bias has put the New York Times in record low circulation. The same is being experienced by the national networks: CBS, NBC, ABC are all suffering from defectors who are relying more constantly on alternative news sources now.

There's a lot of work to be done. But we're not giving up. We are also watching what's going in Europe with great interest, as many conservatives here see the problems there as an emerging picture of our future if we continue down the same self destructive path of political correctness and multiculturalism coupled with suicidal immigration policies.

Fortunately for us, we have some things in our favor, one being TIME. The other is our stable fertility rate, which is projected to actually increase in the future (And I don't mean among the Hispanics. There is a growing trend to have larger families among the "white" affluent folks here.) I have optimism that the tide will turn, however I'm also fairly certain that the "turn" will require something radical to happen, like the detonation of a dirty bomb to go off in a major American city. It's not a matter of if; it's a matter of when. And when that does happen, the rest of sleepy America will wake up and the ball will start to roll.

Let's roll.

Gentlemen, I am not anti-American. But, there is no religious edict against criticising America.

As America is a continent, I have never felt comfortable using this word. I usually want to specifically criticise or ridicule New York (++ environs) plus California, for it is these areas that harbour the attitudes that lie at the root of our ills. I don't enjoy insulting the good people of Texas, the southern states generally, and the Mid-West, when I use the generic word "America." I have visited both Texas and NY State, so I know how much they differ.

Roots of Communism & Marxism? We had this debate a short time ago, remember? We all agreed (I think) that nearly all communist & marxist luminaries were of European extraction. In other words, these theories represent a distinctly European phenomena. What we failed to agree on was what happened next. It was my contention (I used the garden centre analogy) that these movements were transplanted into the fertile soil of America, sometime between 1930 & 1945, where they were encouraged to thrive. They then shed their economic bias, and instead took on a distinctly cultural sheen. Cultural Marxism was a cake that was baked (or perfected) in America. Its recipe may not have been conceived in America, but that is where it was first served up.

What many of you missed (my fault, I didn't make it clear) was that I was focusing on the post-war years. It is these years (1945-1995) when American cultural influence was overwhelmingly decisive and influential. I contend, that much of this influence was effected through 'Soft-Hard-Left' policies. In other words, cultural ideas born of hard left thinking but delivered in soft packaging, for easy consumption. This is why I was berating America.

'Sidewinder' mentioned the Rothschilds -- we are all aware of their hidden influence. The internet already carries many websites dedicated to spreading conspiracy theories about them. But, there is no smoke without fire. Just how significant their's, and the Bilderburg group's influence is upon western affairs remains unclear to me. Whatever, most of the post-war policy errors are still stamped "Made in USA."

Example. Eisenhower's decision to pull the rug from under the feet of the British, French, and Israeli tripartate force in Suez led directly to: the nationalization of all British and French banks in Egypt, the international glorification of Nasser, the rapid expansion of Arab nationalism, the murder of Young King Faisal II of Iraq (plus his family & Foreign Minister) during a Nasser-inspired military revolution (which led to Saddam Hussein), the rise of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (started by Nasser), and the establishment of Russian influence in the Middle East.

Eisenhower & his advisers were fools. Their idealistic attempts to protect the independence of a former colony (Egypt) even though they had just stolen legally French assets, along with Washington's disdain for European power in 3rd world countries, led directly to the subsequent decline of western influence from Pakistan to North Africa. And for all your short-sighted efforts, you are now witnessing your own loss of influence after only 40 years, despite almost bankrupting yourselves whilst trying to bribe Arabs (with handouts, aid, and other generosities) so they will be nice to you.

Therefore, it is high time you accepted you screwed up, and big-time. Even Eisenhower has regretted (privately) his Suez policy. And Suez is just one example of many total failures your State Department (and CIA) has contrived over the past 50 to 60 years. Reminding you of this isn't anti-Americanism ... it is simply shocking you out of your self-induced arrogance and stupidity. I am not saying you cannot reform yourselves, but accepting there is a problem is a necessary first step.

And what about the sorry state of your leading Universities? Freedom of speech but only if you follow the leftist party line.

When I wrote: all you've given the world is multiculturalism, cultural relativism, high-rise apartments, trash television, bubblegum, Microsoft, mass 3rd world immigration, outsourcing, deindustrialization, a collapsing currency, Madonna, Islamic extremism, and all the other ills that currently plague us; part of this was supposed to be funny.

Why else would I include Madonna, bubblegum, and high-rise apartments?? I might have mentioned baseball caps worn the wrong way around! I know, British humour can be a bit strange, but we like to throw irony into the mix, just to make reality more palatable.

We know The New York Times doesn't speak for the majority of Americans, but it is still the voice we keep hearing the loudest. Until you replace such malignancy with something that better represents the real America, then you are going to suffer from association.

Often, the most hurtful advice can only be given by your best friends.

The people of Europe are not going to just sit by and turn their ass over to Islam, no way. Europeans are going to hit the panic button, and the panic button is the right-wingers. They are going to hit the panic button for one reason, and that is out of FEAR.

Pierre Legrand said:

‘The original infection came from America, and it's high time Americans got off their fat buts and cleaned up their communist & feminist infested Universities (look at the mess in Harvard and Columbia) because that is the breeding ground and nursery that supplies battalions of left-wing indoctrinated idiots who, once graduated, are free to cause mayhem out in the big wide world.’

Sadly I think you are right. Few American university professors are not radical liberals. Most of them have never had a job outside of a university. They begin as eighteen- year olds being indoctrinated into radical thinking. They graduate, go to grad school, become Assistant Professors, all the while being ‘mentored’ by more senior radicals. Then they become tenured Professors and they can’t be fired. The older members of this group then bring in the next generation to replace them.

I have seen how they bring in a ‘wounded comrade’ and slip this damaged person into their university. They are a close knit group and loyal. One person had brain damage due to having had a ‘tire iron’ bent over his head. That did not keep him from being hired at a new university, brain damage or not.

"Since the year you emerged relatively unscathed from the Second World War (a conflict you did everything to distance yourself from for 3 years) all you've given the world is multiculturalism, cultural relativism, high-rise apartments, trash television, bubblegum, Microsoft, mass 3rd world immigration, outsourcing, deindustrialization, a collapsing currency, Madonna, Islamic extremism, and all the other ills that currently plague us. Not bad for 50 years of leadership, eh?"

Wow! I dont recall voting in any European elections. Some of the problems you mentioned are silly; Bubblegum, high rise apartments, Microsoft and Madonna? These are major problems for you? Outsourcing? Increased global trade results in increased specialization which results in greater quality and cheaper costs, which means more afforable goods, as long as there is peace this will only increase the standard of living for most everyone involved despite hardships for some.
In America, even most of those living below the poverty line (as it is defined here) have t.v.'s, cable or satellite service, cell phones, dvd players, game systems and never miss a meal. Indeed, many of them are obese.

Mass 3rd world immigration? Nations set their own immigration policies. This is not the fault of the U.S. Islamic extremism is not the fault of the U.S. either and television has always been cruder in Europe than the U.S. I also wonder whether Europeans would volunteered to travel across the pond in the 30's to fight with us against a S. American dictator? I wonder if you would have stuck around to help rebuild our society afterward?

We have leftists and you have leftists, the difference is they encounter greater opposition to their ideas here than there. I would posit that in many cases our leftists take the lead from your leftists, especially on social and judicial issues.

Here is an example: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=the_left_and_crime&ns=ThomasSowell&dt=08/23/2006&page=full&comments=true

Frank Lee said, Clearly, America is not a European country

Yes it is !

that does not necessarily justify our membership in NATO or other military alliances

You are right. I think we should abolish NATO and let Russia invade Western Europe, and hopefully save us from more immigration. It would be a big relief for me. But I'm afraid the Russians are no longer interested in invading anyone. I don't know what is the use of NATO.

I'm not sure I can agree that the U.S. government has "organized" the mass immigration. It just happens.

Like rain? In fact, mass immigration happens because your government has stopped enforcing border control, immigration laws, and laws against illegal work. If Mexico decided to do the same and abolish immigration control, they could easily end up having mass immigration from Africa, but they won't let that happen. Your government could easily make it impossible for most illegal immigrants to use public services and keep their undeclared jobs. But instead, illegal Mexicans are allowed to send their children to American public schools, and Bush is preparing another amnesty law for them. As Mission said, the federal government also runs a lottery system to pull in more 3rd world immigrants.

true, the U.S. government has not resorted (often) to draconian measures to stop it

It sounds like understatement humor. Are you English ?

"but I'm not sure that public opinion, when it really comes down to it, supports such measures."

Try a Google search on the VDare website with the keywords:
immigration polls consistently site:www.vdare.com
The VDare team says that immigration polls have shown consistently that Americans do not want mass immigration, even though they are brainwashed by the media and public institutions.

" [the fence] seems to placate everyone "

It doesn't.

Mission Impossible: all you've given the world is multiculturalism, cultural relativism, high-rise apartments, trash television, bubblegum, Microsoft, mass 3rd world immigration, outsourcing, deindustrialization, a collapsing currency, Madonna, Islamic extremism, and all the other ills that currently plague us.

See what I mean...

Bob Doney

Good evening, MI.

I'll stop posting my "endless cycle of nit-picking critiques" when other contributors stop posting logical fallacies, historical inaccuracies, factual and statistical errors, eugenic and racist claptrap, and all the other stuff that sometimes characterises the "debate" here. In other words no time soon.

This is an intelligent website which accords its visitors freedom to say what's on their mind, and I respect that. Consequently I try to remain courteous and polite, but I am not going to stop posting just because it makes some folk feel uncomfortable to have their views and opinions questioned.

Bob Doney

So then Marx was from New York City? Lenin a Bronx boy? This sort of blanket condemnation of everything American only serves the common enemy. Trust me when I say that I am not a leftist. Trust me when I declare which side I will be on when the shooting starts in the United States...and yes it will come down to shooting.

Since 1945, America has basically f*cked up the Western World, so methinks all thinking Americans should be a little more honest and reflective when offering criticisms of Britain and Europe. The original infection came from America, and it's high time Americans got off their fat buts and cleaned up their communist & feminist infested Universities (look at the mess in Harvard and Columbia) because that is the breeding ground and nursery that supplies battalions of left-wing indoctrinated idiots who, once graduated, are free to cause mayhem out in the big wide world.

If someone were out to win a war against natural allies they couldn't do it better than what we are seeing here with blanket attacks against masses of Americans who do not come close to fitting the profile of the small but very vocal minority of cowards manufactured by some Universities. The United States is huge...it is tough tough tough to make generalizations like you are doing.

We are complacent, of that there is no doubt. But that doesn't mean we have forgotten what is right and what is wrong. But to rise up from the couch and start shooting will require more than we have endured yet. But it will come...perhaps sooner than anyone of us understands.

I imagine that when the first Nuke goes off in the United States, first the Muslims will be cleared out, then the left will suffer as they have never suffered before.

Our armies will be released and we have the best most battle hardened soldiers in the world. The revenge will be terrible and truth is I pray that we don't get to that point.

I am open to suggestions on how to clear out leftists barring some wholesale murder of Americans.

Pierre Legrand
The Pink Flamingo Bar

Armor said:
"Americans are European. By culture and mentality, no one is closer to the Americans than old world Europeans. Of course, things will be different once all of us have been replaced with Mexicans and Arabs."
 
Clearly, America is not a European country, as the Europeans reminds us, rudely and arrogantly, all the time.  And even if, as you say, no one is closer to the Americans than old world Europeans, that does not necessarily justify our membership in NATO or other military alliances.  Clearly, Ireland, Sweden, and France are North Atlantic nations, but they are not members of NATO (not REAL members, in France's case).  Clearly, France is a European nation and no one is closer to the French than Western Europeans, yet it served France's purposes to leave the military alliance and remain only in the political alliance (whatever that means).
 
Armor also said:
"The American government has been organizing mass immigration from third-world countries for about 40 years in spite of American public opinion. That's why you are now a minority in American elementary schools. American judges and the American media are not interested in public opinion either."
 
That's an interesting point, but I'm not sure I can agree that the U.S. government has "organized" the mass immigration.  It just happens.  And, true, the U.S. government has not resorted (often) to draconian measures to stop it, but I'm not sure that public opinion, when it really comes down to it, supports such measures.  The goofy legislation that does pass -- such as the law calling for a fence to be built along the Mexican border -- is largely ineffective and therefore symbolic, and that seems to placate everyone.

Mission, I have to agree with you on many of your statements, but you seem to be forgetting where the problem originated and where a bulk source remains. I'm sure you must be aware of it or you wouldn't be writing with the knowledge that you show you possess. Why are you making a knowledgeable post into another trite anti-American vendetta?

American "communism" and WestEuro "communism" are brothers, having sprung from the writings of several lazy bums of the 1880's, including Marx, Engels and Lenin. Some of the primary financing was done by Cecil Rhodes(whom Rhodesia-now South Africa was named after and the founder of De Beers diamond co.), who forsaw Englands erosion as a colonial power and that there would have to be a replacement for the income and power being lost. He sought a more secretive masonic order than that of the masons and with the aid of others began a movement which is referred to as Fabian socialism, probably by reference to Jesuit influence. This movement roughly centered around the University of Oxford.

This movements impetus in England was centered around the RIIA(the Royal Institute of International Affairs). Later, near the turn of the century, a splinter of this group established in the USA, under the name of CFR(the Council on Foreign Relations). In both instances, the membership was not the lower levels but the high level industrialists and financiers. Opportunities for expansion of their influence opened when they were able to "volunteer" the services of themselves or others within their employ or control for assignments within government. That control remains to a large extent and has spread explosively within government and all the new institutions it was able to establish within and outside of government. Charitable or other trusts and Non-Governmental Organizations are primary avenues for spread of their power. They were a major influence for establishment and filling UN positions. Their control is a top/down control and obedience is expected even if not expressed.

There was substantial communication from financial and industrial titans in the US with their "cousins" in the Soviet Union. Soviet communism was a grass-roots militant type, where the West has a top-down indoctrination by gradualism structure. No area of the world is free of the influence or outright control, including, I feel certain, the Middle East.

Bill Clintons favorite history teacher, Carrol Quigley, wrote a book that details some of his knowledge and experience while a member of the CFR. I think portions of it have not been suppressed and may be available somewhere. I think it was named Tragedy and Hope or something like that. Be careful if you research as this area is filled with both well meaning but erroneous info and info that is planted by representatives of the power groups to keep the medias loony label applicable to those expressing it.

They are the ones who created the Progressives who stole our economic freedom in America called the Federal Reserve System. They are not Jews, but atheists. They use the Jews of Israel to finance their wars for profit. They want to create a War of Religions in the manner of the apocolyptic World War Two. They are AL QAIDA. Sept 11 ended their evil reign in America. They have a fierce new enemy, the United States Military. God Damn Rothschild. God Bless The World. 
Live Free Or Die.

Re. Armor: The American government has been organizing mass immigration from third-world countries for about 40 years in spite of American public opinion. Absolutely correct. They even run a lottery system to pull in more 3rd world immigrants. Open a newspaper anywhere in the Middle East and you will see the daily adverts.

During the 1930s and early 1940s, America became a refuge for European Communists fleeing Nazi Germany. Several were given high profile tenures in leading universities, including Marcuse.

We know that Franklin D. Roosevelt, and his wife Eleanor, were both closet communists.

The United Nations started out life with known Communists/Marxists in key positions. One or two were even Soviet agents.

During the early 1950s, things got so bad a witch-hunt (McCarthiism) had to be organized to flush the communists out of the movie industry.

The 1960s was America's left wing revolution. All the cultural poison that has infected all western countries since the early 1970s can be traced back to that American cultural revolution.

President Jimmy Carter was a closet communist, and has since also proven himself to be somewhat of a nutcase.

Hillary Clinton, the first woman president of the United States (heck, you don't really believe she wasn't pulling those strings connected to her hubby's limbs do you?) is a known ex-Communist. If she is given a second term it will be a disaster for America.

Now, the Democratic Party is being funded by George Soros and has far-left mouthpieces called the Daily Kos, MoveOn.org, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. That is how far left the Democrats have moved. They also embrace scum like Cindy Sheehan. Can anyone take some idiot like Nancy Pelosi seriously? Yet, she is now the House Speaker. And you call America leader of the Western world? Blah!

Since the year you emerged relatively unscathed from the Second World War (a conflict you did everything to distance yourself from for 3 years) all you've given the world is multiculturalism, cultural relativism, high-rise apartments, trash television, bubblegum, Microsoft, mass 3rd world immigration, outsourcing, deindustrialization, a collapsing currency, Madonna, Islamic extremism, and all the other ills that currently plague us. Not bad for 50 years of leadership, eh?

What Europe and Britain are facing now is the (Mission Impossible) challenge of somehow finding a way to clear up the mess left by, and caused by, American Left-Wing theorists and dogmatists posing as free-economists; whilst somehow avoiding a melt-down in trans-Atlantic relationships; and all this whilst simultaneously combating Islamism. What a mess.

Since 1945, America has basically f*cked up the Western World, so methinks all thinking Americans should be a little more honest and reflective when offering criticisms of Britain and Europe. The original infection came from America, and it's high time Americans got off their fat buts and cleaned up their communist & feminist infested Universities (look at the mess in Harvard and Columbia) because that is the breeding ground and nursery that supplies battalions of left-wing indoctrinated idiots who, once graduated, are free to cause mayhem out in the big wide world.

Thanks Vanishing America and Mission Impossible for your comments.  I couldn't have heard from better than the two of you as you always have insightful comments.
 
 If you haven't read the link in my post on Conservative Thought, you would probably appreciate doing so.  I haven't explored that site very much since discovering it, but it seems to have some very good articles.  Here is a link to another one that seems appro for this column:
 
  http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/11/when_killing_is_enough_to_defe.html
 
Keep in touch.