14 August, 2006
“Bail Us Out, You Dirty Anti-Semitic Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkey,” Cry Hypokikes, Rubbing Their Sore Asses
Posted by alex in France, loxism at 4:31 am | 
Permanent Link
Gotta luv the kikes hoping the French will bail them out. Don’t do it, France. You have no idea how much time the jews operating our media spend mocking you.
France is a great nation. It has problems just like ours, caused by the exact same jews. “Cheese-eating surrender monkeys” is loxism.
14 August, 2006 at 10:16 am
The French have balls.
Cheese-eating surrender monkeys
Posted by SuperFrenchie
in Bashed in America (March 1, 2005 at 5:45 am)
–
Groundskeeper WillyNothing annoys me more than being called a “cheese-eating surrender monkey†by Americans. To me, there’s no question that it is a racial slur. The fact that this slur is now being used in mainstream media without any restraint is amazing, considering the very high level of political correctness used in the same media.
A recent example of that was on October 1, 2004. John Kelly, a daily columnist for the Style section of the Washington Post, wrote this in his column:
“Havre de Grace. Pronounce it the way a cheese-eating surrender monkey would“.
John Kelly did not create the expression “cheese-eating surrender monkey†(The Fox TV show The Simpsons did), or the first columnist to use it (Jonah Goldberg of the National Review was), but it certainly was the first time I saw it used in the Washington Post, and in a non-political article. Regardless, the fact that a slur has been used elsewhere by other people does not justify its use, and does not make it any less of a slur. Would he use the word “Hymie†in an article to describe Jews just because Jessie Jackson has used it before him?
There are two parts to this slur. One is the use of the word “monkeyâ€. It is on par with being described as “rats†(Christopher Hitchens), “weasels†(New York Post) or “worms†(Rupert Murdoch newspapers). Using animal names as a means of character assassination is nothing new. The word “monkey†has often been used to describe black people. Would Mr. Kelly consider that fair, and would he use it in a column about African-Americans?
The other part is the reference to surrendering, likely an allusion to France’s defeat in 1940 during World War II. 4.5 millions Frenchmen died in WWI. Some of them in my family. That’s almost a quarter of the male population of the time. Subsequently, France was much weakened when Hitler, who had been able to reconstitute the German army despite the provision in the Versailles treaty prohibiting it (in part because the US did not wish to enforce it). Yet, 600,000 more Frenchmen died in WWII. I did not get to know them but I am sure of one thing: they did not die with their hands up. They also did not have the luxury of an ocean between them and the Nazis, or the luxury of declaring themselves neutral as the US did when the war began. Anyone visiting France would see monuments to the dead of both World Wars in every town and villages, usually dozens of them.
Further, even if one considers that the French in World War II surrendered and were cowards (and some definitely were, French collaboration with Nazi Germany was shameful), how does that make me or my family cowards? Those events happened almost 65 years ago. Anyone who would have made a meaningful decision during those times would have to be 90 years old or older, or, more likely, dead. Does the fact that America had racist policies 60 years ago give me the right to call every American a racist?
Jacques Chirac disagreed with the US on going to war against Iraq. So did 10 other countries on the UN Security Council, 6 G8 countries, Canada, Mexico, many other countries in the world, and a large proportion of Americans. It is fine with me to criticize the wisdom of that decision, and to criticize Mr. Chirac’s policies. But insulting an entire people for it is, to me, simply wrong.
If Mr. Kelly had used a similar slur against, say, Mexicans, Vietnamese, or Jews, it is my belief that he would have lost his job the next day under a public outcry. Why the French is the only people that it is alright to slur in the mainstream media is beyond my comprehension.
I did write an email to Mr. Kelly. Here is his response:
“You will not be surprised to hear that I don’t think my off-hand remark was as egregious as you suggest, nor as odious as a remark about a real ethnic minority would be. But I can tell from your well-argued comments that you were offended, and for that I am sorryâ€.
Articles showing “cheese eating surrender monkey†as a slur:
http://www.fact-index.com/l/li/list_of_ethnic_slurs.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese-eating_surrender_monkeys
Besides that, I don’t really mind the cheese-eating part :D
11 Responses to “Cheese-eating surrender monkeysâ€
1. Yanker Extraordinaire… Says:
March 1st, 2005 at 3:28 pm
Us idiot Yanks think we’re pretty funny. The one saving grace to shows like the Simpsons and South Park is that the people they poke the most fun of is us yankers.
The more I read your blog, the more I want to sincerely apologize for what wankers us yankers are.
What is really stupid is that Americans complain about how they’re treated when they travel to France.
Take care,
Pete
2. SuperFrenchie » Do Frenchies hate America? Says:
April 12th, 2005 at 8:58 am
[…] ns hate the French a lot more than the reverse. So much so that the very racist expression “Cheese-eating surrender monkeys†has become a very acceptable way to describe the French. While the w […]
3. SuperFrenchie » Bush is a monkey Says:
August 16th, 2005 at 8:24 pm
[…] s a monkey. I find that repugnant. I hate it just as much as when the French are mocked as cheese-eating surrender monkeys. I don’t see the difference. But at the same time, and unlike George Bush, I […]
4. Craig Says:
September 21st, 2005 at 11:26 am
Bush does resemble a monkey. It’s pretty funny actually; the amusement I find in the similarity helps ease the pain I feel when I cringe everytime he speaks. I love that confused look he gets when things stray from whatever is written down for him. I suspect some species of monkey are actually probably more intelligent :)
5. Flocon Says:
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:31 pm
Qui donc avait inauguré la longue série des commentateurs me demandais-je? Yanker extraordinaire? Y fait pas partie de l’équipe de Frappadingues ou du moins son équivalent américain? Petite poussette dans la montée du départ on va dire alors…
6. SuperFrenchie Says:
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:42 pm
Flocon: yes, it’s Yanker Extraordinaire: he is a US mountain-bike buddy:
http://ausoe.blogspot.com/
7. Baba Rum Says:
December 15th, 2005 at 10:39 am
Racial slur? The french are a race?? Which race is it a separate ‘white’ race I presume?
Well, at least there some relief, they didn’t surrender during the recent riots.
8. SuperFrenchie Says:
December 15th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
Baba Rum (#7): Why don’t you read this thread before coming in and saying absurdities:
http://superfrenchie.com/?p=357
9. What the f—? » from freedom fries to freedom fires Says:
April 10th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
[…] so…. we mock them as “surrender monkeys” because of our self-congratulatory mis-telling of World War II events…then, dig up this image to ridicule them for not supporting our Iraqi invasion…but when it comes to actually standing up to one’s own government, and fighting for one’s rights, it would seem that the French just took our asses to school. we now have been schooled on standing up against election fraud by the Ukranians, who not only fought against the Russian’s rigging of their 2004 Presidential election, but just spanked the candidate they did elect in their recent parliamentary election for not making good on his campaign promises….Liberia reveals itself to be centuries ahead of U.S. in terms of gender politics. This nation, formed by freed ameriKKKan slaves in 1820 during the “get the hell back to Africa” movement, boasts the first elected female head of state of any African nation… any bets on how many decades until we move past our own national machismo, and can claim the same?yet somehow, we persist in representing ourselves as “leaders of the free world”… somebody out there, please write in and explain what that means anymore… […]
10. jimbo Says:
June 30th, 2006 at 10:30 am
just found this http://www.cheeseeatingsurrendermonkey.com
11. tifab Says:
June 30th, 2006 at 10:53 am
Excellent!!
http://superfrenchie.com/?p=8
14 August, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Fighting defamation is something we have worked on for the last 15 years, and the key is to do these five things:
1) Never bother to explain why the term is a slur beyond that it is supremacy-driven (or else why would the speaker claim the right to name the other), divisive (obviously), and contemptuous (obviously).
2) Move right away to shift the inquiry or discourse to the nature of the pathology of the speaker; never go on the defensive. Do not use national origin-based slurs back, but feel free to inquire into the pathology affecting the speaker in as much humorous detail as you wish.
3) Never, ever claim that the slur is offensive. Anyone can find a slacker to claim, “But it doesn’t bother me.” Just go for the throat of the speaker on the above grounds. Remember…it’s not our feelings about the slur that count, it’s what the slur reveals about the mind of the speaker that matters.
4) Try to inflict pain through ridicule whenever possible, and send blind copies of the email correspondence to as many of his/her co-workers as possible. They’ll make fun of him at work.
5) Follow through in a month or two to bash the speaker again, and send blind copies to his/her co-workers again.
If you want, we can send examples of how this works.
14 August, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Yids like that goldberg-ape are nasty people that cause hatred among nations out of the sheer blind Evil impulse.
15 August, 2006 at 7:33 pm
The Frenchman who wrote that article is right in pointing out that it’s odd the Politically Correct media suddenly will use labels against an entire nation. It shows once again that crying “prejudice” is just a tactic the Jews use; when it suits them, they’ll use prejudice as much as they want, thank you very much. Anything is allowed against those who oppose Jewish plans. Facts and truth go out the window.
The Frenchman demonstrates that himself with this:
Yet, 600,000 more Frenchmen died in WWII. I did not get to know them but I am sure of one thing: they did not die with their hands up. They also did not have the luxury of an ocean between them and the Nazis, or the luxury of declaring themselves neutral as the US did when the war began.
Did not have the luxury? But it was France that declared war against Germany, not the other way around! They had been launching unsuccessful raids across the border for almost a year before Germany finally struck back.
But that’s right: all truth goes out the window when it comes to those who oppose the Jews….
15 August, 2006 at 9:19 pm
Carpenter… same for Poland…. Britain, France and Poland instigated and escalated WW II with the sheenies working it all in the background
20 August, 2006 at 5:42 pm
I work in ‘defense’ (or as Zappa called it ‘offense’). A lot of folks bitch about the Frogs. I remind them that the Frogs were instrumental in supporting the formation of this nation (and the jews got them back for it), they have won their share of wars, and for 1000 years they were the center of civilization. We wont last another 800 years. Probably not even 80.