Sunday, October 9, 2016

Ameriphobia

Ameriphobia - A fear of the United States of America. Because America is arguably the most powerful country with the widest influence in the world, many people fear their power. This fear is usually unprovoked, since America is a democracy and any idiots in power who screwed up (for all you Bush haters) will be gone by the next election, unlike dictators.

Because of this fear, people with Ameriphobia tend to become anti-American. These anti-Americans can form into groups, ranging from the typical radical muslim Al-Queda; to communist radicals, although they have lost power since the end of the Cold War.

You will never see a "Britiphobia" or a "Chinaphobia". The United States is the most powerful country in the world, and they will obviously receive the most criticism from around the world. Yet, the United States is also arguably the best country in the world, with a thriving economy and one of the highest standards of living in the world. They also commit to spreading democracy worldwide, so communist dictator shitholes like Cuba and North Korea cease to exist. So fuck off America haters.
kid 1: "Who's that one kid with Ameriphobia who went to the 'School of the Americas protest'?"
kid 2: "Oh, you mean John?"
kid 1: "Yeah, where is he, I thought they were supposed to be back a few weeks ago?"
kid 2: "I heard he went to some place called 'Guantanamo'..? It must be another protest location."
from the Urban Dictionary

20 comments:

Always On Watch said...

off topic

Thersites said...

To be "on" topic, try 7 threads down... ;)

-FJ said...

Roger Scruton is, IMO, an ass. He disparages Lacan's psychoanalytic theories and replaces them with Strawmen, as if they were Marxist dogma. Lacan was no "Leftist", and many of the thinkers of the Left, while not w/o their resentment, had points to make.

I understand the Left's "issues" with neoliberalism, they are issue I share. They are NOT incorrect in their polemical assertions about it's defects, it's corporatist globalist policies are serious need of reform.

But I do not consider myself a leftist by any stretch of the imagination. I simply no longer accept the paradigm that those on the right seek nothing but the preservation "as is" of neoliberalism. We actually seek to maintain the "liberalism" w/o all the big government enabling "neo" parts (special breaks for corporate elites).

-FJ said...

In other words, the "American" right seeks a Deleuzian economic rhizome.

And perhaps what Scruton fails to comprehend is that new situations REQUIRE new words to describe the issues and solutions associated with them. The Left HAS developed the vocabulary that the right needs.

-FJ said...

"His" resentment (and social isolation) prevents him from recognizing this fact.

-FJ said...

In the "Face in the Crowd" clip, Andy Griffith states that "you've got to be loved" if you are to sell your political "product". And the "way" in which you "Love it" shapes ALL political ideologies, Left & Right. Zizek and Lacan have given us the tools to "see this". This is why, as Zizek often states, we must "censor our dreams", so as not to impractically "love everything" and thereby achieve "nothing".

-FJ said...

...and if Scruton understood how the brain processes and compares information, he'd immediately retract ALL of his scoffing Strawmen surrounding the "Big Other".

Gert said...

"They also commit to spreading democracy worldwide, so communist dictator shitholes like Cuba and North Korea cease to exist."

Yawn.

Has the urban... erm, dictionary have an entry for "spheres of influence"?

Gert said...

"The Left HAS developed the vocabulary that the right needs."

Examples please?

Zizek is still calling himself a Communist (understandably when I hear him explain why), a very 'unsavoury' term to many. And his 'Communism' has little in common with more 'traditional Marxists/Communists'...

-FJ said...

Examples? Deleuze & Guatarre ("A Thousand Plateaus") rhizome - Who speaks of rhizomes in relation to the economy and/or the negative effects of "arboreal" structures? Who on the right frets a "society of control"? Who , other than Lacan and his New Left Lacanian Ink and Birkbeck Institute followers, understood the "nature" of the four discourses?

And Zizek calls himself a "Communist" because he see's the great problems of the 21st century (environment, genetic research, etc.) to be problems of the commons requiring (in the current global economy) a "supranational" solution and consensus.

-FJ said...

Yawn.

Has the urban... erm, dictionary have an entry for "spheres of influence"?


So, Britain is going to single handedly oppose "Capitalism with Asian Values"? Who knew?

-FJ said...

ps - National governments are the "ultimate" arboreal structures.

-FJ said...

How high is YOUR plateau going to be?

Gert said...

My reference to Zizek's Communism had nothing to do with AOW's EPPC fluff piece, which I'll get to later.

I do wonder whether AOW is reaching a little beyond her grasp with that piece, since as her (on before last) latest quotation was from the 'Daily Star'! And that generally any 'link', no matter from which lowlife site, is trotted out by AOW as confirmation of her worldview. Picky I would not use to describe her 'quotations'.

FJ, you don't seriously believe that the US's endless meddling in Latin America had anything to do with 'spreading Democracy', do you?

Gert said...

At Waterloo Napoleon did surrender
Oh yeah
And I Trump have met my destiny in quite a similar way
The history book on the shelf
Is always repeating itself
Waterloo I was defeated, you won the war
Waterloo promise to love you for ever more
Waterloo couldn't escape if I wanted to
Waterloo knowing my fate is to be with you
Waterloo finally facing my Waterloo

P

Enjoy, Stinker!

-FJ said...

FJ, you don't seriously believe that the US's endless meddling in Latin America had anything to do with 'spreading Democracy', do you?

Having spent 1966 through 1970 keeping the Cubans OUT of Venezuela, it certainly wasn't spent allowing the Russians to establish a "sphere of influence", I know THAT much.

-FJ said...

btw - If AoW needed her worldview confirmed, do you believe she could ever rely on the NY Times to confirm it?

Only the "party line" could ever be encountered there.

-FJ said...

The university discourse may be "consistent", but it is never "authentic". :)

-FJ said...

Authenticty can only be found in the voices ofthe Greek chorus... "In all these cases, although one might slightly prefer one side to the other, the ultimate stance should be the one of indifferences: there is no worse choice, both choices (Left/Right) are worse, to paraphrase Stalin. And it is here, at this formal level, that I see the ethico-political relevance of my rewriting of Antigone. The conflict between Antigone and Creon is for me also a pseudo-conflict: the only way to resolve it is to change the terrain and introduce another dimension (the intervention of the Chorus in my version). Exactly the same thing is needed in today’s struggle for emancipation: to move beyond our pseudo-conflicts—liberal permissiveness versus religious fundamentalism, et cetera—and to draw the coordinates of the true conflict which is, to put it bluntly, today’s form of what once was called class struggle. Who will be today’s Chorus? Refugees? Unemployed? A Chorus that I have in mind already appeared in what I consider the theatrical event of the 20th century, the Chereau-Boulez staging of Wagner’s Ring in Bayreuth [1976-1980]. What remains on stage after the twilight is the human crowd silently observing the cataclysmic event, a crowd which is left staring into the spectators when the music ends. To quote Chereau:

The Redemption motif is a message delivered to the entire world, but like all pythonesses, the orchestra is unclear and there are several ways of interpreting its message… Doesn’t one hear it, shouldn’t one hear it, with mistrust and anxiety, a mistrust which would match the boundless hope which this humanity nurses and which has always been at stake, silently and invisibly, in the atrocious battles which have torn human beings apart throughout the Ring? The gods have lived, the values of their world must be reconstructed and reinvented. Men are there as if on the edge of a cliff—they listen, tensely, to the oracle which rumbles from the depths of the earth.

There is no guarantee of redemption here: redemption is merely given as possible. Everything rests on them, the anonymous Chorus, without any guarantee in God or any other figure of the big Other—it is up to them to act like the Holy Spirit, practicing agape, or political love, as Terry Eagleton proposed to translate this term.
- Slavoj Zizek

-FJ said...

ps - Vis Trump... don't believe everything you read in the papers. :)