« FAZ's Dishonest Smear Targets Malkin - Bloggers | Main | Tragicomedy in the Bavarian Alps »


EXACTAMUNDO Professor Markovits!!

Please, everyone, click on the link and read the entire article. The snippet provided here doesn't begin to cover how sweeping his condemnation is.

I've printed it so I can read it more thoroughly.

I agree with Professor Markovitz’s premise, but not his explanation.

The professor’s explanation is that Europeans identify themselves has being the non-America....the alternative culture.....the Un-Cola. This premise may be true about our friends to the North, but not Europe.

A large part of Canadian national identity is that they are the other Anglo speaking country in North America. They may talk like us, drive cars that are made in Detroit, and easily assimilate into US culture (Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Mike Meyers, Dan Ackroyd....ect) but they pride themselves in having a different form of Government than the U.S. After all, they are the decedents of British loyalist who remained true to the crown during the American Revolution.

Europe, on the other hand, has a different premise for anti-Americanism. Europe’s collective problem is that they are trying to form a United States of Europe, by turning the European Union into a superstate. Europeans have not thought this completely through. This is why both Denmark and France have rejected the new European Constitution.

In reality, the Europeans are scared as hell of giving up their national sovereignty to Brussels. They see the U.S. asserting itself, rejecting Kyoto and the International Court. Instead of being angry that the U.S. has actually rejected these controversial treaties.....after all, Germany and the rest of the EU do not seem to be upset that they are not making their present Kyoto bench marks...they are angry that the U.S. is able to make sovereign decisions and reject bad treaties. Something they will lose when their national governments finally bow to the EU.

It all comes down to collective penis envy! In the matter of Europe vs the US, Europe is jealous of America’s sovereignty.

There is a dynamic that Markovits alludes to but does not clearly recognize. His anecdotal evidence of being cautioned for his behavior or spelling due to its 'quasi American' nature speaks to a mentality that views the individual as merely an atomized representation of a collective.

He is correct that anti-Americanism is fundamental to European identity.
But what am I to make of Markovits' understanding of this identity ,"which I have always longed for and continue to support vigorously, although I would have preferred to witness a different agency in its creation".

Where do I start? Anti-americanism is no part of the genesis of any European identity and most certainly not of the EU, which must be considered the vector for European identity (ask the Turks). While Markovits appears to be conversant with the evolution of anti-Americanism in Europe, he seems to have not made the acquaintance of Jean Monnet.

Back later - real world stuff summons.

I agree somewhat with George M.. Old Europe is jealous of the sovereignity and power that the US exercises. The problem is that they never had a comparable status of power maybe with the exception of the British and Spanish Empire. And they never will have as long as they are not willing to pay the price. The price is giving up national sovereignity to a EU that it's worth it, not the crap we have now. Spending more on defense and formulating global political goals. If this happened, Europe would realize that it has the same interests as the US. As of now Europe is just another Canada...

@George M

"...they are angry that the U.S. is able to make sovereign decisions and reject bad treaties."

That's right. The Leftists in Brussels want more than just European integration. They want to spread their Leftist rapture over the entire globe. Who needs free and fair elections when they already know what is good for everyone? In this respect, demonizing the U.S. makes perfect sense: It unites Europeans against a common enemy -- who, in the eyes of the Leftists, truly is the main obstacle to their vision of paradise.

Anti-Americanism has deep roots in Europe that go back much farther than the European integration process. It did not arise as a necessity for the European integration process, but is just another tool that has long been wielded (not just in Europe) by misguided politicians with no other way to promote their bad policies. The problem with the approach is that is ultimately backfires. Two German politicians, Adolf Hitler and Gerhard Schroeder were experts in using a mix of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism to acquire and maintain power. Both left their country in a mess.

Further hat tip Scot at USA Erklärt

I'd like to bring attention to a sardonic remark by Freud in his Civilization and its discontents. He brings up the status of the Jews in European history as the glue holding together European identity by contrast, saying that by their centenary persecution they "have rendered a most useful service in this sense". This was written in 1929.
Since then, the Europeans having pretty much all collaborated in the Semi-Final Solution (Markovits brings this up in this or a previous article of his I read a few months ago- unfairly leaving out the exception of the Danes), they are left without this useful service. Enter America, notoriously under the command of shady Jews and the State of Israel. Voila', new glue.
No, Europe does not have a common vision or a common identity. I repeatedly see that Europeans are more focussed on the US than on other European countries. It is as if we were to be obsessed by Spain or Germany or Denmark instead of thinking about other states. We don't, we follow the weather in Florida, the recovery in the Gulf states, healthcare reform in Massachusetts. Europe doesn't really care about Europe, and until it does, anti-Americanism will continue as an obsession with the psycholgical function of distracting their attention from their own (very great) problems.

There can be no doubt that many disastrous and irresponsible policies by members of the Bush administration, as well as their haughty demeanor and arrogant tone, have contributed massively to this unprecedented vocal animosity on the part of Europeans toward Americans and America. Indeed, they bear responsibility for having created a situation in which anti-Americanism has mutated into a sort of global antinomy, a mutually shared language of opposition to and resistance against the real and perceived ills of modernity that are now inextricably identified with America.

Policies are fair game. They are issues of substance that belong in the public sphere of debate and judgment.

But haughty demeanor and arrogant tone? Chirac, call your office. We hear this calumny constantly. The very first time I heard it was an article printed in the Guardian, written by Charlotte Raven.
'A Bully with a Bloody Nose is Still a Bully'.

If you didn't like it then, there's no reason why you should have to pretend to now. All those who see its suffering as a kind of absolution should remember how little we've seen that would support this reading. A bully with a bloody nose is still a bully and, weeping apart, everything the US body politic has done in the week since the attacks has confirmed its essential character.

What did the 'body politic' actually do?

When America speaks from its heart, it retreats into a language that none but its true-born citizens can begin to understand. At the root of this is an overwhelming need to control meaning. America can't let the world speak for itself.[] the US struggling to regain the right to control its own narrative.
It did this by declaring war.
It would rather have a virtual victory than submit to someone else's agenda

Please note the date of this article. September 18 2001, exactly one week after the attacks.

So I would say to Professor Markovits that there is very little Bush could have done differently by policy or demeanor that would have made a difference. The responsibility does not belong to the Bush administration but to the deeply dishonest construct of America in the European mind. Not to mention the postmodern decontructivism this witless twit has been persuaded is a mark of intellectual fecundity. Yes, Jacque Derrida is busy deconstructing Hell.

It could be argued that sometimes newly born entities define themselves in a first stage by what they are *not*, rather by what they are and what they stand for. The process of asserting an identity is a long one and it unfolds in stages, and one of the first stages is negating the characteristics of the dominant entity. Only later in the process are the definitory traits being crystalized.

As far as I am concerned, this is not quite a healthy process. Building something, to a great extent, on negating that which is "different" may be tempting or even necessary in the beginning, but it's also a potential trap in which one could get stuck forever. I guess one of the best examples of this is Canada; oftentimes Canadians will happily define their Canadian identity by what makes it non-American, rather by what makes it Canadian. They don't even realize it anymore, they don't find anything odd in this. It can be a very strange experience.

The Canadians have mastered the art of being defined partly by negations and they haven't really overcome them. No one knows the direction in which the new EU identity will move, but all the signs point to the "Canadian model". Not really constructive, but useful.

This is almost as old as the colonization of America.

The late Phillipe Roger, The American Enemy - History of French Anti-Americanism

Our Oldest Enemy - John Miller and Mark Molesky

Started around 1650.


The new model isn't the Canuck model, it's the EUSSR model, mutated monarchy, unelected 1, unelected brusselsprouts.

To Andrei S. Markovitsds’s essay the comments made by Lawrence Henry can be added:

“After World War I, Europe was lost. The great monarchic lights had been snuffed out, the map re-drawn, and an entire generation bled of a significant portion of its young men. Depression and inflation made for hard times. Then in Germany arose a triumphalist nationalist movement, and a man, Adolf Hitler. From the very bosom of the most civilized nation in Europe, the nation of Goethe and Schiller and Beethoven, burst a monster, like in the movie Alien. This monster consumed Europe from the heart and soul outward.”

“Europeans still feel the shame and horror of that monstrous bursting. And they are terribly afraid it may happen again. So they have turned against every aspect of the Nazi movement, throwing the cultural baby out with the rotten bathwater: Pride, patriotism, religious fervor, the confident projection of power.”

“Where in the world today do you find pride, patriotism, religious fervor, and the confident projection of power? In the United States. Ergo, America-hating. And those qualities, indeed, are the ones of ours they hate the most.”


Juck Science is posting:

Reluctantly then, here is the link to our archive copy of the second-order draft of IPCC Working Group I Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. The second-order draft was distributed in 2006, 5 years into what has so far been a 6 year process and these copies were archived last May.


Anti-Americanism existed before WW2. I think the feeling that we owe those "dumb" Americans our freedom (and we do) and the fact that the American way proves to be more sucessful than our Euro-Socialism only adds to the amount of Anti-Americanism. As long as the Communist threat was perceived as real, many Europeans didn't dare to show their attitude. But now, as they think that we don't have enemies anymore (and they couldn't be more wrong), they show their true feelings.

By the way: Today is the birthday of Ronald Reagan. Rest in Peace Mr. President, and my deepest gratitude for what you and your country did for Germany.

When I read this, my suspicions were confirmed:

"That widely voiced indictment accuses America of being retrograde on three levels: moral (America's being the purveyor of the death penalty and of religious fundamentalism, as opposed to Europe's having abolished the death penalty and adhering to an enlightened secularism)"

Actually, with the exception of Italy, where the Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty seems to have had a major impact, when polled Europeans aren't that different from Americans in their views about the death penalty. It's the European elite that's so hostile to the death penalty for the obvious reason that, between Nazism and Communism, all too many of them have done things for which they should have been hung. That's precisely why Germany led the way in abolishing the death penalty. It didn't want to see its mass killers hung by those "cowboy" Americans.

Sadly, this Andrei Markovits, despite having lived in America for almost half a century, remains fundamentally a 'cultured European." (Note his pride in his accent.) For such people, the opinions of the elite are the only acceptable ones. And that, incidentally, explains why, at the popular level, American culture, even in its most tacky aspects (i.e. Santa) remain popular. What ordinary Europeans aren't doing is what they've always failed to do--take charge of their country. At the practical level, Europe continues to be divided between lords and serfs. The lords rule and the serfs obey.

When I visited the Israeli Museum in Jerusalem, I was struck by a sad thought. Much of the museum is devoted to the culture of an Eastern European Jewry that no longer exists. Much the same thing is happening to European culture with one startling difference. The Jews were killed or forced to flee to Israel, They had no choice. In contrast, by refusing to have children and by refusing to recognize their spiritual heritage, the Europeans are destroying themselves. They are committing suicide. It's hard to feel sorry for them.

When I visited England in 1978, over and over the English would tell me that London was no longer England, that it was being taken over by immigrants unwilling to become English. I fear that by 2100, Europe itself will no longer be European. It will become something even more unpleasant than the current, unappealing blend of arrogance, anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. It isn't completely impossible that in 2100 Iraq will be a vibrant democracy while France is crushed under Sharia law. Given all the France tried to do to keep Saddam in power, that's France reaping what it has sown.

At any rate, when I read nonsense like this:

"Far from harming Europe and its interests, anti-Americanism has helped Europeans gain respect, affection, and — most important — political clout in the rest of the world. Anti-Americanism has become a European currency whose value fluctuates greatly, but whose existence does represent a chip that Europe will cash in with increasing gusto. By cultivating an anti-American position, Europe feigns membership in a global opposition of the downtrodden by America."

I think of the horrors of Saddam in Iraq and how little Europeans cared about the country's "downtrodden" in comparison to their thirst for its oil. What the Europeans are doing is lending legitmacy to all the tyrannical regimes in the world who don't want to see their people democraticized. In comparison to the Europe of today, the US remains a remarkable beacon of freedom and goodness, a 'city set on a hill.'

I fully recognize that Europe once contributed much to the world. But except for a little technology and science here and there, I failed to see any positive contribution most of Europe (Denmark excepted) is contributing to making our world a better place. There is no blood-thirsty tyrant the French and the Germans won't arm or defend at the UN to keep the oil flowing and their morbid welfare state economies alive.

I close with words that G. K. Chesterton wrote in September of 1914 as Europe descended into war. They'll be in a book I'm editing, Chesterton on War, due out in a couple of months.

"We have had many reasons for liking Germans and many reasons for disliking them. Many of us could hardly live in a world without their music. Many of us could not live in the same house with their metaphysics. I know more than one Englishman, Mr. Titterton for instance, who would rather live in Munich than in heaven, but who would rather live in hell than Berlin."

The problem is quite simple. What Chesterton called Prussianism has won. Europe is becoming more like Berlin and less like Munich. And arrogance is the distinguishing feature between the two.

--Michael W. Perry
Editor of Dachau Liberated.

OT: Via Bros Judd:

Germans seek greener pastures
Best and brightest increasingly leave


@Inkling - You can see the echoes of Prussianism in communist Korea. The goosestepping, the architecture, the exterritorial trains and all the rest of it. On the other hand it is up to your imagination what the Kaiser would have felt about the Loveparade. If you want to your a finger on the pulse of Prussianism follow the Kurt Tucholsky controversy.

The - if you want to describe it in these terms - monster is still alive, and most vibrantly so in places where it can assimilate the fervor and energy of Islam. What is the historical prototype for these Teheran missile parades, as far as I disinterested infidel know the Quran says nothing about goosestepping?

I for one do not agree with the assertion that Prussianism was essential for the emerging identity of Europe. Instead the right question would be how can Zimbabwe, or Burma, or Venezuela develop the essentials in their identity without the influence of this historical force? The answer to this will then suit for Europe as well.

As to the European identity, when a Constitution masquerades as an international treaty, and if in the course of the installation process changes have to be made, how do you change a treaty already ratified by some of the parties? The EU administration did not want do see this problem so they did not see it coming. A legitimate treaty could only regulate how much state sovereignity would be given up in favor of a higher echelon of government, while a true Constitution has to be a separate document with separate modalities of legitimation.

BTW, the Tucholsky document also is instructive with regard to the question when to use the "Du" address and when to say "Sie" in the German language.

Inkling, I don't understand why you consider this 'nonsense'.
"Far from harming Europe and its interests, anti-Americanism has helped Europeans gain respect, affection, and — most important — political clout in the rest of the world. It's a true statement and I did not read it as though Markovits is happy about it.

The first sentence of the penultimate paragraph reads For the time being, there seem to be no visible incentives for Europeans to desist from anti-Americanism.

Well, yes, there is one incentive that is growing ever larger on the horizon. It's called Eurabia.

Eurabia is not only an incentive to ammeliorate European anti-Americanism, it is the most obvious area in which anti-Americanism truly harms Europe. I'm surprised he didn't address it, but of course the scope of the work any writer chooses to produce is up to the writer.

The notation at the end of the article notes this essay is based on his just published book, 'Uncouth Nation: Why Europe Dislikes America'. I pulled it up on Amazon to see if Eurabia may be addressed in the book. Based on the Table of Contents, it isn't.

I ordered the book anyway. ;)

Fundamentally, the European views about America have little to do with the real America but much to do with Europe. Europe's anti-Americanism has become an essential ingredient in — perhaps even a key mobilizing agent for — the inevitable formation of a common European identity, which I have always longed for and continue to support vigorously, although I would have preferred to witness a different agency in its creation. Anti-Americanism has already commenced to forge a concrete, emotionally experienced — as opposed to intellectually constructed — European identity, in which Swedes and Greeks, Finns and Italians are helped to experience their still-frail emotive commonality not as "anti-Americans" but as Europeans, which at this stage constitutes one sole thing: that they are "non-Americans."

I think this point of Prof. Markovits should not be underestimated. Especially if we focus on Germany. What is German identity? It is perfectly for an American to be patriotic. It is not for a German. Nazism, in a way, had its roots in the combination of Nietzschean nihilism with Wagnerian bombast. These two streaks combined resulted in a hypernationalism and collectivism.

The defeat of Nazi Germany destroyed this, fortunately. What remains? There are positive things associated with Germany, but they are forever overshadowed by the gate of hell in Auschwitz. If you do not have a positive identity, you necessarily choose one that does not say what you are - but what you are not. Some quotations from relatives and colleagues:

"America has double standards. It assumes to be pious, but has the largest porno industry."
"You'll go to jail in America when your kids play naked in the garden."
"America is very dangerous because everybody can wear guns."

The schizophrenia is that these people hate Bush, but love Sex and the City. They despise fat Americans, but love McDonalds. "Americanisation" of the economy is seen as a curse, but yet they perceice that the state is not capable of pampering every jobless citizen.

The benevolence and gentlesness of America towards Japan and Germany after WW2 is felt by some as if you've been smacked down by the hugest guy around the block - and instead of killing you, he says "YOU take your own decisions now." The fear of freedom and responsibility, the irony of hating somebody for giving you freedom and the chance of a new start when you have terribly failed. How terribly restricted the human mind can be.

These points aside, I agree with Pamela that Eurabia is probably the strongest reason for rejoining the US with full force. Again - thids would mean that a only by having a common enemy, Europe would fully side with the US again.

Prof. Markovits concentrates on Europe, however, he does not fully spell out why Antiamericanism makes europe popular in many regions in the world - just look to Venezuela or Russia (don't be fooled - I was in Moscow last year and had the chance to talk to many citizens - they are firmly against the US). But this is probalby worth another essay.

Thanks, Pamela, for posting this article by Andy Markovits. He's a very sharp observer of anti-Americanism in Europe, and I look forward to reading his new book.

By the way, this morning's "New York Times" carries this:

(Begin Quote):

A Clash of Europe and Islam


Award nominations are generally occasions for exaggerated compliments and air kisses, so it was something of a surprise when Eliot Weinberger, a previous finalist for the National Book Critics Circle award, announced the newest nominees for the criticism category two weeks ago and said one of the authors, Bruce Bawer, had engaged in “racism as criticism.”

(End Quote)

Please see the NYT site for the full article. Bruce Bawer also comments on the Book Critics imbroglio on his site.

Racism as criticism?

I was alluding to a previous article by Markovits from about a year ago, called: Twin Brothers: European anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism at http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-markovits-06.htm.
I was not saying that anti-Americanism began after WWII. I said that it gained additional impetus as a cohesive factor after the disaster of two self-inflicted world wars and the unavailability of the usual scapegoats.
For a prime example of "old" anti-Americanism, see Charles Dickens' truly vicious portrait of America in his novel, Martin Chuzzlewit.

Paul, I didn't post the article. The h/t goes to Fred, I believe. I saw that NYT article this morning with my morning mocha. Based on what I've been reading online, it seems to be a fairly balanced account of what's been happening. Although apparently Weinberger hasn't read the book. The real criticism is directed at Europe - and a devestaing criticism it is.

Cynthia, thanks for the link, I'm off to read it now. I've been wondering if Markovits has ever been singled out as a Jew as he has been as a quasi-American.

Sorry Cynthia, apparently the link is no longer active. I got a page not found error.

After reading Markovits' article and feeling a mixture of rage and depression I stumbled on to this forum (in German). Apparently there are many Germans who have not been brain-damaged by the local MSM...and they are headin' west if they have not done so already. The messages on the forum provide needed relief from all the negative reports which are exposed here on DMK.


drats, broken link hell!
Try accessing the other article by googling "markovits twin brothers". It's well worth reading, and related to your citation.

Good lord, Cynthia! 32 pages?.

Back later. Much later.

When you have finished the 32 pages, I have some more required reading (by the way, it appears that this citation is a draft that has become Chapter 5 of M.'s new book, published by Princeton, I think). So; your next assignment, the spanking new book by Nick Cohen, What's left?, about my increasingly loathsome fellow (?) leftists. Here'e part of The Independent's review:
"Cohen is keen, in the first instance, to demolish the idea that the left is, basically, a "happy family", which believes itself to be entirely populated with "decent people". It is entirely healthy that he has disabused himself of this weird delusion, and has joined the rest of the world in observing that the left is widely characterised, with much accuracy, by its intractable internal contradictions, its comic and stultifying self-righteousness, its sulky, tiresome, embarrassing, didacticism, its dull, stubborn, sentimental "comrades", and its simple-minded adoration of a played-out old speech that it has heard a hundred times before."

My mistake. 26 pages and <6 pages of *(^&(^ footnotes!

This piece has started a kernal that's been hibernating in my head to begin to sprout.

Given M's thesis that
- those perceived to be weak are exempt from criticism as they are 'good'

- therefore the strong are 'bad', else they would not be strong

In one of my comments above, I abjured attributing responsibility for anti-Americanism after 9/11 to Bush et. al. Now I'm wondering if the attack of 9/11 itself was the actual catalyst. I'll have to work on that.

One interesting thread that is mentioned only obliquely here - in the footnotes - is that polls show Europeans dislike their Muslim immigrants more than they do Jews. I wonder if that will be enough given that Muslims are still placed into the 'weak' category.

BTW, I ordered Cohen's book about a week ago, but the turnaround on it is a month or so.

If you want a pee-in-your-knickers funny read, try Mark Leonard's "Why the EU Will Rule the 21st Century". He used to be an advisor to Tony Blair (mentored by Madame Cherie, I suspect). His analysis of why the EU is superior to the US is breathtakingly stupid. And when he writes about how and why the business model for Airbus is a metaphor for the superiority of the EU model, you can laugh until your teeth crack.

Almost forgot this part:
Any criticism directed by the extreme Right and extreme Left toward their own governments at home is often restricted to denouncing their supposed "vassal status" vsi-a-vis Israel and the U.S.

Shades of Gunter. Ha!

"This piece has started a kernal that's been hibernating in my head to begin to sprout."
Pamela- unless "kernal" is a kind of bear, you mean kernel. Please do not mix metaphors on this blog or you will end up defenestrated like Gunter.

"Given M's thesis that
- those perceived to be weak are exempt from criticism as they are 'good'

- therefore the strong are 'bad', else they would not be strong"

-Is this what M. says or is this what M. says the bad guys say? This is an old fallacy, dear to the so-called Left. It was already addressed in Plato's Gorgias and Bertrand Russell wrote an essay on it. Lot of good that did.

"In one of my comments above, I abjured attributing responsibility for anti-Americanism after 9/11 to Bush et. al. Now I'm wondering if the attack of 9/11 itself was the actual catalyst. I'll have to work on that."

-I think those who are anti-American are actually cowards, and cowards like to kick those who are down. They were surprised and outraged after Afghanistan and Iraq that we weren't so down.

"One interesting thread that is mentioned only obliquely here - in the footnotes - is that polls show Europeans dislike their Muslim immigrants more than they do Jews. I wonder if that will be enough given that Muslims are still placed into the 'weak' category.

BTW, I ordered Cohen's book about a week ago, but the turnaround on it is a month or so.

If you want a pee-in-your-knickers funny read, try Mark Leonard's "Why the EU Will Rule the 21st Century" ... His analysis of why the EU is superior to the US is breathtakingly stupid."

-Good joke about EU, the struggle between "Anglo-Saxons" and Continentals. They're examining a major problem. The Brits have done feasibility studies, gathered stats, established prototypes. But then the French (maybe the Germans) say: OK, it works in practice, but can it work in theory?

But then the French (maybe the Germans) say: OK, it works in practice, but can it work in theory?

Definitely the French, the Peugot being eternal proof.

Is this what M. says or is this what M. says the bad guys say?

Bad guys. It's M's theory of their world view.

EU will rule the 21st century? Ha Ha

The Europeans spendable income is declining by leaps and bounds. When you read the German paper all is Doom and Gloom. They are predicting 15000 heat related deaths per year, productivity decline due to heat, Sahara type conditions in Germany (I guess they need to import some camels fast), etc.

The Media is preparing them for another round of huge tax increases while attempting to signifiantly raisintheir incomes. Of course most of that will be devoured by taxes, fees, etc. After that the price increases will take the rest.

They pride themselves oneing the country of Schiller and Goethe, but Goebbels and Marx are still having a greater influence than those two ever did.

raise in their income. sorry

Well that was fast. I ordered Uncouth Nation yesterday and it's here already. Yes, Cynthia, the Twin Brothers piece is the basis for chapter 5.

Chapter 6 appears to be based on the article DMK linked to.

EU will rule the 21st century? Ha Ha

No, actually it's


Off to read.


That kernl that sprouted in my head - the sprout being that the attack of 9/11 was actually the catalyst for the outpouring of anti-Americanism is actually addressed in Chapter 3 with this example:
For the philosopher Jean Baudrillard, the destruction of the Twin Towers was "the absolute event, the 'mother ' of all events." It fulfilled a long-desired dream, and the "fantastic pictures" of the planes flying into the Twin Towers brought "immense joy" to "our" hearts. "We had all, "without exception," dreamed about the attack on the Twin Towers for years. The whole thing was a dramatic realization of the "terrorist notion" the inevitably "resides" in all of us and provides all of us with a psychologically redeeming answer to the dominance of the environment surrounding us, which is ruled by the gegemonic power of the Unites States. The terrorists gave us a "gift" with their actions that disrupted the "discours" of the "banality of American everyday life." In doing so, "the [the assailants] did it, but we wished for it"

emphasis in the original, the original being Jean Baudrillard, "L'esprit du terrorisme", Le Monde, November 3, 2001; see also Baudrillard, The Spirit of Terrorism (London: Verso, 2002)


So, for some, the attack just busted open the dam and released the flood of their most heartfelt desires. Not for all. For far too many, though. They're still swimming in it.

As to my earlier noted concern that Markovits seems to not have made the acquaintance of Jean Monnet - well, he has but the mention is not made until page 222 of a 223 page book.


Jean Monnet, maybe the most significant of the aforementioned founding fathers, seems also to have believed strongly in the notion that a common adversary and object of antipathy can induce political and emotional coalitions among diverse nations who otherwise would not find their common ground so easily.


Ok, Guten Abend.

Well, speaking of identities, EU Referendum is hoping Germany develops one.

Decades have passed and there is now only one Germany but her problems remain central to Europe and European developments. In brief, those of us who believe that the European Union is a cul-de-sac for Europe, need the development of a German national identity; we need a Germany that accepts her own history, good and bad, who is proud of her many achievements, having overcome the many serious problems and is ready to take up her role, discarded in the first half of the twentieth century, of being the central power of Europe. Only then will there be the slightest possibility of the “European project” being abandoned and some kind of a free network of democratic states created.

Re Baudrillard. Walker Percy, in his novel The Second Coming, stated that all French intellectuals since Pascal have been crazy. I would have said Descartes instead of Pascal. There are some exceptions such as Camus and Glucksmann.

As for what Pamela says about Jean Monnet, it seems to be the same thing Freud was alluding to above. It is possible that Monnet got it from there, as it is a very well-known work.


Don't know whether the EU will "rule" the 21st century, but what you're saying about the state of German economy is just wrong. They are doing extremely well right now and if the government hasn't entirely forgotten about Keynes they will hopefully use the tax money to increase consumer spending (like the US has been doing successfully over the past years). The two reasons why the situation is perceived worse are for one that Germans always tend to be pessimistic (whining) about their financial situation and second that the government has been trying to comply with the 3% limit for new debt (which is a bit too rigorous). Fact is that they are booming big time (more so than the US right now), don't get fooled by your negative sentiment for the German government ;)

It is always amusing when the morally superior such as Hans get all giddy when the Fatherland has a bit of good news.

Wow, I tripped across this site and what an intelligent group (a few vocabularly show-offs, but that's OK). Michael W. Perry, Sandy P, Chesterton quotes -- you guys are blowing me away.

Anyway, I was getting all excited that maybe Europeans don't universally hate the U.S., but then I see the heading of the blog "Politically Incorrect Observations." Is this just some kind of fringe group????

Just kidding. Love and kisses from a dumb American that still believes we're a force for good in the world. Right or wrong, name the last world power that took over a country and then tried to give it back (but having trouble, obviously). And this dumb American definitely does not believe everything we do automatically has the blessing of God behind it and guess what, neither does Bush (Christians, above all, know that).

When push comes to shove, the US protects its interests like anyone else, but we do try to do "good" as a country - we believe that. And as I tell my European motorcycling buddies, "What we lack in intelligence, we make up for it with enthusiasm..."

Again, just kidding. Please carry on and thank you all for having a brain PLUS perspective.

Thanks for the Markovits article.

My message to the European masses who are ambivalent about Anti-Americanism: Don't be afraid of Americanism--try it you'll like it.

I know the European elite will shutter at such an idea. After all, their whole social class system and "civilization" is at stake. The European nobility and aristocratic class system is very freightened by American middle class parvenue.

Those Europeans are so much more "civilized" than the crass Americans. Right? Well, the Europeans better HOPE they're more civilized, because if not what else are they superior at?

The truth of the matter is America is hated not because it's an empire but rather because it has become the leading knowledge based civilation in the world. While europe is still stuck in industrial nation state status.

I understand Markovits idea that European attempts at unity are largely based on anti-Americanism, but I will make a startling prediction: With European fertility rate decline and radical islam knocking at your door, European future survival rests on Americanism NOT the EU.

I am a proud european and don't feel anti-american at all in order to have my 'european identity'(whatever that means!).I've been to the usa(florida) many times and love it.I find most americans to be very nice and friendly. because most europeans don't agree with america's foreign policy makes us a bunch of anti-american bigots?? what a load.
to californiajohn:you define the height of ignorance. based on your comments about europe, you know nothing about it.

sorry, the PS on my previous post was addressed to the ignoramus by the name of mystic7.

The comments to this entry are closed.


The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

April 2023

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29