A Must Read
A fantastic and mind-bending article by J.R. Dunn on the sick and deleterious movement by the Left in America and indeed in the West is a must read for all those who love their country and want to take it back for their posterity. Here is a few paragraphs to get you going:
Hegemonism is the doctrine holding that every American action on the international stage should be examined under suspicion of evil intent. And what does it foresee occurring in Iraq - and the Middle East at large - after the United States pulls out?
This is no trivial question. Hegemonist doctrine is a major factor in the rush toward abandonment of American responsibilities in the Persian Gulf. The hegemonist worldview is today dominant in American culture. With the effective collapse of the conservative consensus over the past half-decade, there is nothing to stand against it. It is the controlling ideology in the media, in the entertainment world, in the schools, and in the Democratic Party scheduled to take over the Congress next month. If asked to bet on the fate of American Middle East policy in the near future, the safe move would be to put money on general withdrawal before the 2008 election. The only thing opposing this outcome is the boldness and determination of George W. Bush himself - not a good situation in a democracy.
So how does hegemonism portray the near future?
This is not a speculative question either. The current situation is a carbon copy of that facing the U.S. in the spring of 1975, when this country ran out on our Southeast Asian allies in general, and South Vietnam in particular. In mid-April 1975 (I believe the date was the 15th, but I'm not absolutely certain) Sydney Schanberg, the New York Times' Cambodia correspondent, published an op-ed giving a seasoned reporter's view as to what would happen in the region now that the U.S. was out. Simply put, a blanket of peace not witnessed since Eden would descend across Southeast Asia. With the U.S. gone, all hostilities and violence would cease. The locals, peaceful folk all, would pick up the threads of their lives and, unmolested by arrogant Yankees, would create a society that would act as a shining example to the world at large, Americans in particular.
This is hegemonist doctrine in almost chemically pure form. The U.S. as a demon among nations, violence and depravity the sole results of its policies. The only such actor on the world stage, with all other nations serving as victims, with no course open to them beyond reacting to American provocations. With the U.S. removed from the equation, the world will then immediately right itself and roll on with not a single problem, conundrum, or challenge - at least not that any American need pay attention to. This was the doctrine as it stood in 1975, and if Nancy Pelosi's recent remark that, "If we leave Iraq, then the insurgents will leave Iraq, the terrorists will leave Iraq," is any indication, it has not changed in a single particular in the thirty years since.....
Read it all!
Hegemonism is the doctrine holding that every American action on the international stage should be examined under suspicion of evil intent. And what does it foresee occurring in Iraq - and the Middle East at large - after the United States pulls out?
This is no trivial question. Hegemonist doctrine is a major factor in the rush toward abandonment of American responsibilities in the Persian Gulf. The hegemonist worldview is today dominant in American culture. With the effective collapse of the conservative consensus over the past half-decade, there is nothing to stand against it. It is the controlling ideology in the media, in the entertainment world, in the schools, and in the Democratic Party scheduled to take over the Congress next month. If asked to bet on the fate of American Middle East policy in the near future, the safe move would be to put money on general withdrawal before the 2008 election. The only thing opposing this outcome is the boldness and determination of George W. Bush himself - not a good situation in a democracy.
So how does hegemonism portray the near future?
This is not a speculative question either. The current situation is a carbon copy of that facing the U.S. in the spring of 1975, when this country ran out on our Southeast Asian allies in general, and South Vietnam in particular. In mid-April 1975 (I believe the date was the 15th, but I'm not absolutely certain) Sydney Schanberg, the New York Times' Cambodia correspondent, published an op-ed giving a seasoned reporter's view as to what would happen in the region now that the U.S. was out. Simply put, a blanket of peace not witnessed since Eden would descend across Southeast Asia. With the U.S. gone, all hostilities and violence would cease. The locals, peaceful folk all, would pick up the threads of their lives and, unmolested by arrogant Yankees, would create a society that would act as a shining example to the world at large, Americans in particular.
This is hegemonist doctrine in almost chemically pure form. The U.S. as a demon among nations, violence and depravity the sole results of its policies. The only such actor on the world stage, with all other nations serving as victims, with no course open to them beyond reacting to American provocations. With the U.S. removed from the equation, the world will then immediately right itself and roll on with not a single problem, conundrum, or challenge - at least not that any American need pay attention to. This was the doctrine as it stood in 1975, and if Nancy Pelosi's recent remark that, "If we leave Iraq, then the insurgents will leave Iraq, the terrorists will leave Iraq," is any indication, it has not changed in a single particular in the thirty years since.....
Read it all!
posted by Bruce R. McConnell | 10:29 PM
2 Comments:
The author clearly did not bother looking up the word "hegemony" in the dictionary prior to applying the title "Hegemonist" to "the doctrine holding that every American action on the international stage should be examined under suspicion of evil intent."
hegemony (hĭjĕm`ənē, hē–, hĕj`əmō'nē, hĕg`ə–), [Gr.,=leadership], dominance, originally of one Greek city-state over others, the term has been extended to refer to the dominance of one nation over others, and, following Gramsci, of one class over others. Conflict over hegemony fills history from the war between Athens and Sparta to the Napoleonic wars, World Wars I and II, and the Cold War. Gramsci's use of the concept extends it beyond international relations to class structure and even to culture. (from the Freedictionary)
Linguistic misgivings aside, even in it's most liberal (no pun intended) application, one could not apply the term "Hegemonist" to ALL criticism of American foreign policy. The vast majority of opposition to this war has nothing to do with concerns about American cultural hegemony over the Iraqi populace.
Face it. Liberalism, "Hegemonists", Nancy Pelosi, and any other manner of bogeymen you'd like to dredge up, did not create this mess. A Republican President, under a Repulican House and Senate did. Or maybe this is Bill Clinton's fault.
I'm sorry, but the Left cannot escape culpability for their actions in the past 5 years regarding the War On Terror. The Left has done nothing but bitch and bitch and bitch about AMERICA'S RESPONSE to 9/11. No bitching about the enemy, however.
It is well known that the Left will side with their own enemies for the moment before they turn on other lefties and then themselves to seek complete domination in a society ie Communists in Russia, China, Southeast Asia, Cuba, Africa and so forth.
For the Left in America, contrary to leftwing cook conspiracies, it is THEY who are taking advantage of Islamic Terrorists to push their own agenda of a socialist/communist "utopia" or dare I say "hegemony" over America!
Yes, in fact it was the democrats/leftwing news networks and newspapers who created this mess. Iraq is a "mess" only in that we stopped moving forward at the Euphrates River. We should have CONTINUED the invasions into Damascus and Tehran after 2003 when Bagdhad fell to the American Army and Marines. Because we stopped, like a wave coming back upon us, we have been inundated with terrorists in the Iraqi capital. This would be akin to waging WWII until we reached Sicily in Europe or Phillipines in the Pacific and then decided to make "peace" with our foes because "too many of our troops are dieing".
Ultimately, it does go back to Bill Clinton as far as 9/11 is concerned. However, once again, its LEFTWING policies in general that resulted in fighting in South Vietnam in the first place and then leaving our allies high and dry for the communist hordes to devour after the left successfully became the propaganda morons for Moscow in the United States. Since Vietnam, we have been in retreat-mode both physically and mentally. This mode is a direct result of Hegemonist thinking goaded by the Left in Europe and Moscow.
Post a Comment
<< Home