The “blowback” is the new fancy term coined by no other than Ron Paul to describe, rationalize or even justify blatant anti-Americanism from other countries. Once again, coming from Ron Paul, this concept is very idealistic, biased and with no anchor whatsoever in reality.
According to Ron Paul, if there is anti-Americanism in the world, it’s because America assaulted the “world” first and they are just defending themselves. It’s a very simplistic way of define these issues, and I’m sure that it fits perfectly the ethnomasochist mindset of most of our media.
To explain this concept he takes the examples of war in the middle-east. Not only does he blames our “preemptive” wars for the terrorist acts against America, but he even justifies them.
Obviously this is completely wrong, and the main reason of anti-Americanism in the world is that Americans adopted ethnomasochist views and rejected nationalism.
The same goes for immigration. In countries with strong national identity, the immigrants do everything they can to fit in, communitarianism only builds in ethnomasochist countries.
To get back to Ron Paul’s example of “blowback”, if what he was saying was true, how come the United States are the only ones touched by this “blowback” ?
Compared to some European countries, our intervention in the middle-east was fairly clean : no assaults on civilians, no lootings… Why is there no blowback for the Europeans ?
Does Ron Paul know anything about Al Qaeda ? They are said to target countries that oppose the charia laws.
But if that was really the case, why didn’t they target European countries who are much more islamophobic that the USA ? In the USA there is religious freedom, even the extremist Muslims can build mosques, wear religion symbols, not be discriminated by the judicial system due to their ethnics, and even burn American flags without being persecuted.
Moreover, the Wehrmacht and the Red Army have done much worse than the USA in eastern Europe, so why wasn’t there any blowback for them ?
The blowback is a joke and so is Ron Paul.
It is no mystery why foreign films know such a great success in the USA. What is not to love for a typical brainwashed American ? Bad/plagiarized scenarios, terrible acting, and even anti-American propaganda in some cases (I’m not implying that this type of propaganda doesn’t exist in American movies either).
Over the years, the anti-American and ethnomasochist media that govern us, and the use of the verb is intentional, we have witnessed an uncontrollable influx of anti-American propaganda.
The concepts of national pride, patriotism, ethnocentrism were gradually replaced by concepts such as worship of the foreign, anti-Americanism and ethnomasoscism.
Once again, we traded individual responsibility for collective irresponsibility.
When in other countries, the mere word “foreign” is severely demonized and badly connoted (“étranger” en Français, “fremd” auf Deutsch…), in the USA it is almost revered.
After replacing national pride by anti-Americanism in the masses, it is only logical that more adoration of the foreign must follow, and this until American culture is completely eradicated… and at the same time complain about “Americanization” of the society.
The sole concept Foreign films is inherently American, to a lesser extend in other English speaking cultures.
There is no word to describe foreign films in French for example. You could say “film étranger”, which is the grammatically correct way of saying it, but other than that it’s a nonword at best.
As a matter of fact, why would any country that takes pride in nationalism and the rejection of the foreign want to hear about such a concept ?
It is also funny how a lot of the foreign films promoted here in America, were in fact advertised as anti-American and nationalist, in their home countries.
If the United States of America want to be sovereign once more, it must reject such an attack on their culture (and economy).