Let there be no mistake: feminism is a fundamentally decadent belief system, is inherently destructive to whichever society it embeds itself in, and has been directly or indirectly responsible for the misery of millions of families throughout the world. Furthermore, it is undeniably true that in some countries, particularly in the post-Christian West, men suffer political and legal setbacks as a result of the insidious infiltration of feminism into every aspect of daily life, and that feminists are responsible for many of the culturally imperialist overtures in the deveoping world. We cannot ignore that, for instance, in Sweden, the Left Party (Vänsterpartiet), attempted to impose a so-called “Man Tax,” or that in the same country, a “gender-neutral” pronoun has been artificially introduced to the language by politicians who want to enforce the notion of equality.

We live in an age of where, women are now claiming a very anarchistic and individualistic notion of ‘personality’ and ‘freedom,’ with liberal regimes which sadly, reflect the desires of those women to the detriment of society as a whole. Many MRAs have felt the effects of this, either personally or legally. For instance, it is a well known fact that divorce and custody hearings ultimately favor women, and one can argue that many men are justifiably aggrieved by such happenings.

While this is one of the more prominent concerns of MRA’s, it is not merely enough to oppose the legalistic aspects of feminist legislation, for in fact, such legislative actions on the part of secular-liberal governments the world over are nothing but symptoms of the underlying problem. If it was possible to prove that certain pieces of legislation were nothing more than procedural abnormalities, then perhaps such action would be enough to achieve the purported equality that some MRA’s desire. However, feminist-oriented legislation of the last 40 years has in fact been part of a protracted attack on both family and religious values that resulted in the subsequent emasculation of nearly all social institutions in the industrialized world.

The fundamental problem is with the Men’s Rights Movement, is therefore not that they sometimes engage in legal battles with feminists, but rather that on matters of ideology, they have been too willing to compromise with feminists in the name of equality. While the average Men’s Rights Activist (MRA) claims he opposes the effects of feminism, he also agrees with the feminist agenda by openly stating that his goals are essentially the same as the theoretical goal of feminism: namely developing an egalitarian society with regard to gender. Some Men’s Rights Activists go so far as to clamor for the destruction of patriarchy as being oppressive to men or saying that society should be gender neutral.

While most MRA’s seem to be libertarian in their political orientation, this is even true of the MRAs who would consider themselves to be “conservatives” in the Western sense. We must consider that not a single “right-wing” party in all of Europe or the West, with perhaps the exception of the newly-emergent Golden Dawn of Greece, truly can be considered to represent authentically Traditionalist principles. On the one hand, the liberals constantly remind us of the need for equality, whilst secretly pushing for the disenfranchisement of males. On the other hand, so-called “respectable” conservatives at best engage in the conceit that old forms of relating between men and women can be supported despite the fact that the legal and social infrastructure underlying these has been dismantled since the French Revolution.

Men’s rights activists gather in the city of Kasaragod in the Indian state of Kerela

The current social and political state in many developed nations mean that so-called “liberal values” are now being propagated across the world as a new form of imperialism. Because the liberal regimes of the world do not tolerate dissent, and immediately suppress those who disagree with the establishment, only a revolution or a revolution-like movement is capable of destroying it. Feminism, being part and parcel of a post-Christian imperialism, therefore must be fought on all fronts, beginning on the ideological front, meaning that one cannot compromise with feminists on any point. Moreover, the current condition necessitates that any attempts to resist attempts at globalization or attacks on the cultural independence of nations, must completely and fully advocated the utter and absolute destruction of the liberal order, by revolutionary means if necessary.

One certainly cannot hold the same ideas as his enemy, yet expect different results, and it is even more foolish to pursue the same ends as one’s enemies because one imagines that there is common benefit for both parties. The fact is that there is no desire on the part of our enemies to compromise with us, and behind their seemingly benign talk is severe animosity, which in this case is directed towards the family structure and men in particular. Therefore, there can be no circumstances under which we can support anything which our enemies support, and no circumstances under which we can oppose anything that our enemies oppose.

Moreover, many MRA’s are insistent upon taking upon the role of the victim, and playing upon the emotions of one’s “rights”. Therefore, rather than embodying the true spirit of a Conservative Revolutionary, he is merely playing by the rules and board designed by secular humanists and liberal democrats who only discuss politics of victimhood and demands for more “rights”. Like Occupy Wall Street, such a movement is ultimately doomed to failure, precisely because it lacks the proper grounding.

In order to truly defeat feminism, the first step to be taken is the resurrection of traditional family relationships.

The response of MRA’s thus far has not sought any viable replacement. It does not seek to replace feminism with anything other than that which is essentially a “mirror image” of feminism. For example, with regards to feminist individualism, rather than criticizing the rampant, materialistic, and empty individualism of the modern world as being socially destructive, many MRA’s attempt to imagine a separate male independence, which not only ultimately achieves the same goal as feminism, but is just as damaging to society. Similarly, many refuse to realize that liberalism based strictly upon blind egalitarianism is a corrupt system, and instead desire to work within a system which has already ab initio considered such them to belong to a previous era.

We can clearly note that the goals of the MRM (Men’s rights movement) are therefore a “part and parcel” of the modernist worldview, and have nothing to do with a traditionalist remoralization of society. Traditionalist society is not based on the nihilistic notion of equal rights, but rather, upon the preservation of hierarchy and eternal values. Rather that seeking to dignify men by rejuvenating patriarchal gender roles, and defending the traditional family, many MRA’s are now either advocating defeatism or becoming unwitting collaborators with feminists.

As Traditionalists, we should not be taken in by mere appearances.  As stated earlier, feminism is a rebellion against the natural order, but the MRM alone will not necessarily overcome feminism in its entirety.  Fighting legal battles might provide a temporary respite from the advancement of second and third-wave feminism, but it will never overcome feminism so long the goal is to provide mere equality under a democracy. The truth is that, in the Traditional world, the “absolute man” and the “absolute woman” can never truly be “equal” in the modern sense of the world. Rather, to the Traditionalist, they are complimentary and have their own virtues: Man is represented by the sky, godliness, form, and chivalry. Woman is represented by the earth and the waters, nature, matter and submission. The feminine force is centrifugal with its tendency to chaos, but when aligned the masculine stability, a synthesis results. Thus, the masculine principle must become more fully itself, while the feminine becomes aligned with the masculine.

In conclusion, while the MRM cannot be completely dismissed as a negative force.  While Traditionalists should oppose feminism, the current state of the MRM is as yet ideologically and politically unsound.  Nonetheless, as a growing movement, and one which is opposed to one of the most scared calves of liberalism, it does offer a glimmer of hope, however dim it may be.  If they are willing to turn away from playing the defeatist game of modernist politics, then and only then, can they become valuable allies.

Such a notion of freedom, vague and arbitrary as it is, is not taken as a logical conclusion derived from reason, but rather taken to be a zero-point idea; a truism from which all other conclusions must be derived.  Indeed, when a new issue arises, and the worshipers of freedom can invoke such a principle, they never fail to do so.  In fact, it is quite obvious that to such people, laws and public affairs must not be decided by moral values, but democratic ones.

Therefore, in modern times, we see many instances of Man leading his life in a manner where the “freedom of action” seems to be the paramount consideration.  He dresses, eats, and trades as he pleases, spends his earnings however he likes and entertains himself in whatever way he desires and so on.  In such a state, Man today cherishes his unrestrained freedom and will readily and quickly oppose whatever limitations are imposed upon it, unless he, in the first place chooses to agree to such limitations. In so doing, Man believes that he, whether individually or as the member of a democracy, knows best what is good for him and how best to regulate his affairs.

Khalil Gibran, critiqued such a worldview:

“At the city gate and by your fireside I have seen you prostrate yourself and worship your own freedom,
Even as slaves humble themselves before a tyrant and praise him though he slays them.”

The notions of “freedom” became enthroned by the Americans, with the Bill of Rights promising “freedom of religion,” and “freedom of speech.”  The Declaration of Independence was heralded by the ringing of the “Liberty Bell,” now a national relic and shrine.  Subsequent documents, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights list “freedom of conscience” and “freedom of the press” as great goods to be guaranteed. Norman Rockwell, after the suggestion of Franklin D. Roosevelt, portrayed the four great freedoms: freedom from want, freedom from fear, freedom of worship, freedom of speech. Upon the shores of the quintessentially American city of New York, stands the anti-Colossus of the times, known as the Statue of Liberty.

The Historical Context of Liberty and Freedom

To any Traditional society, the idea that freedom is something which is bestowed upon Man by a secular government would have been laughable.  In the ancient world, “freedom” was more often applied to a spiritual state, rather than to a socio-political one.  Indeed, according to the Aryan worldview of the Rig Veda, one finds that the way to complete liberation is through dharma, which literally means ”that which is firm,” and by extension, the ethos or Divine Law.  Therefore, in the traditional worldview, liberation encompasses not absolute freedom of action, but rather the fact that through dharma — the supreme Law — one becomes liberated from the baser instincts of the flesh.

This is to say that Man is not “liberated” by governments which permit certain behaviours as ends in themselves, but rather through discipline.  The notion that true freedom is achieved by going along the path of self-discovery and self-abandonment is not uncommon in a religious sense.  In fact, the Apostle Paul exhorts the Galatians:

For you, brethren, have been called unto liberty: only make not liberty an occasion to the flesh, but by charity of the spirit serve one another…I say then, walk in the spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh (Epistle to the Galatians, Chapter 5).

The notion of freedom as that which is attained by the permission of the Divine, rather than from earthly rulers is also reiterated by Imam Abu’l-Qasim al-Qushayri, a Sufi mystic.  Al-Qushayri, states succintly: “Freedom is that a slave ceases to be a slave of created things and that things of the world cease to hold authority over him.”  In this sense, we see the that the Traditional concept of freedom differs quite vastly from the modern one.  Evola articulates this dichotomy thusly:

[I]t is important to distinguish between the freedom to do something and the freedom for doing something. In the political domain, the former is a negative freedom that corresponds to the absence of bonds while remaining itself formless. It generally culminates in arbitrariness and in anomie, and where it is granted to everybody, in an egalitarian and democratic fashion, it becomes an impossibility. Where there is equality there cannot be freedom: what exists is not pure freedom, but rather the many individual, domesticated, and mechanized freedoms, in a state of reciprocal limitation.

Passing to the political sphere, in ancient Greece, free status was identified by a set of various rights and privileges.  At the same time, it was inseparable from the concepts of duty and honor.  Even Aristotle, whose ideas later influenced the modern concepts of liberty, made no claim to the freedom to licentiousness that one sees today.  Indeed, consistent with the concept that the individual is but part of the larger organism of the sate, Aristotle sees the even the “free” individual as needing to be subordinate to the state in certain matters.

La Culte de La Raison was in a sense, a complete religion, with “temples,” and acts of congregational worship.

All of this, however, was overturned by the time of the eighteenth century in Europe.  This time period, as those well-versed in history can attest to, was a century of revolution, freemasonry, naturalism and rationalism.  On the one hand it was the century which proclaimed, perhaps even more fervently than the Bolsheviks a century later, that beyond the horizon of the bloody revolutions of the present was a sort of deistic, democratic, and egalitarian utopia.  On the other, it was the century of violent repression in the name of progress.  In short, it was the century that took the dark secularism of the Renaissance and Reformation to their logical and bloody conclusions; it was the century that saw the birth of the “Far West” in the shape of the American and and French revolutions.  In short, the eighteenth century was the century of intellectual rebellion against order and hierarchy.

Thus, out of this intellectual rebellion one saw the birth of a cult of liberty and freedom, la Culte de la Raison, which was intended as the new faith of humanity; a new religion of freedom and democracy was to supersede all previous forms of governance and all previous ideologies.  In the place of faith and honor, were put democracy and liberty, and the guiding principle of the Culte was the exercise of so-called Reason.  It implied that somehow, there had been only tyranny, especially embodied by the Catholic Church and its various monarchs, which needed to be abolished.

Nevertheless, the supposed overthrow of the “old order” came at a cost.  As Guénon says:

“Those who wished to overthrow all dogma have created for their own use, we will not say a new dogma, but a caricature of dogma, which they have succeeded in imposing on the western world in general; in this way there have been established, under the pretext of “freedom of thought,” the most chimerical beliefs that have ever been seen at any time, under the form of these different idols…”

It had been obvious until this point in history that human beings should be free in those areas which are truly indifferent, but constrained with regard to those things which are necessary.  Thus, there have always been laws which pertain to the common good and consequently civil governments legislated against the transgressions of these laws.  Hence murder, which disrupts civil order, is outlawed by civil law.  On the other hand, civil governments would exceed their authority were they to attempt to dictate to citizens practices which are not necessarily linked to the common good.  Thus it could be said that all previous governments had allowed a measure of freedom.

But the worshipers of freedom were not content with this.  Nor were they even content with the freedoms that were given by such revolutions.

Is the cult of freedom the desire to free man from the excesses of government in regulating the lives of the citizens?

The answer to this is a resounding “no”: such people only want the government to not “interfere” where it would stop them from enjoying their lives.  The facts of history and of our current situation already disprove such a notion.  Since the  rise of secularism, the abolition of the monarchies, and the rise of democracies, the common man, the family and business have been subject to tyrannical oppression, emaciating taxation, as well as economic and social “engineering” which affects every aspect of life. The democracies of the past two hundred years, and the ideologies they bear, make the most dictatorial monarchical regimes look tame in comparison.

The effects of this cult of liberty are disastrous. For as long as the American people were naturally conservative, moral, and religious, they agreed enough about moral and religious issues at least to hold back the tide of most serious evils. It is these days, the days before the 1960’s, or even better before Roosevelt, that most American conservatives dream about when they form their political views. But those days are over. We now live in the reign of Quantity, in which people have handed themselves over to indescribable debauchery, wanton disregard for the laws of God and even of the natural law, and to a selfishness and cold-heartedness that justifies the killing of unwanted babies. There is no possible way in which this godless population is going to put back in place the restrictions which were in place fifty years ago. The only thing that the conservative can hope for is a moral reawakening of the United States.

The world has never known more oppressive governments than those which profess to be the staunchest defenders of democracy and “freedom of action” or “freedom of thought”.  And moreover, those who most loudly tout the notion of “freedom” do so only selectively in order to promote their cause.  For instance, while Europeans boast of the free speech given to atheists and homosexual activists, they readily imprison those who question the official versions of history, or those who question the dogmas of modernity in the name of “defending democracy”.  Such is perfectly illustrated when in 2004 when the Italian politician Rocco Buttiglione was forced to resign as a European commissioner when it emerged that he supported the Vatican’s line on certain social issues.

The fact that the modern world has built up around such secular freedoms a system of ethics, and even a psuedo-religion is proof positive of the cult-like status that people today attach to the mere notion of freedom.  In many nations, this has progressed to the point where there is not a single political force which is both significantly Traditionalist (that is to say, normative) and not decried as being reactionary by its opponents.  In Europe, for instance, the so-called far-right parties are in fact, at best those which follow a distorted model of classical 17th century liberal idea, yet ascribe to the unique faith of freedom, equality, and liberalism.

The Cult of Freedom: Recipe for Decadence and Moral Breakdown

Excessive and boundless freedom can only lead to decadence

So far, the only thing which the Cult of Freedom has perpetuated is the complete destruction of our continued values.  In some countries, they have lead to massive demographic shifts, while keeping those immigrants in squalid conditions and fomenting social unrest.

On both sides of the Atlantic, the constraints of law that were in place in the United States or in other countries even fifty years ago have been abolished in the name of choice.  In the name of freedom, abortion now takes place on demand, and every sort of perversion occurs in abundance, and even even when freedoms have been taken away, such laws have always been done in the name of freedom.  In the 1920’s for example, a druggist could be arrested if he sold birth-control devices or chemicals. Now he might be arrested if he does not, and these wicked instruments of the devil are advertised on television alongside everyday items.

In the name of “freedom,” the United States promoted decadent artwork, and to this day, promotes decadence and moral decay in every country that dares to oppose it.  Like modern-day crusaders, the believers in Freedom have scurried about the world, dressed not in cassocks and not with the Bibles and relics of the Church, but wearing sharp suits and deceiving with fast words.

Conclusion

The modern notion of “freedom” has been used to justify all sorts of excesses, while at the same time suppressing that which is most noble and sensible in mankind.  Modern “freedom” is thus a contradiction in and of itself: it claims to pursue an egalitarian and open society, while imposing constraints against those who do not fulfill its tenets.  In this sense, it is truly a blind faith, although it claims to be founded upon reason: anything and everything that does not appeal to certain ad hoc conclusions is rejected without further debate.

Freedom has truly become the idol of secular times, and a faith for the faithless.  Those who have lost all hope in any divine power or even in the rallying power of a national identity all flock towards a lukewarm “Deism of progress,” filled with the false hope that their salvation lies in such.

It is obvious that the various aspects of our modern society’s sociopolitical chaos are linked back to the cult of freedom, and there is no real way to effectively oppose them other than by returning to the origins. To go back to the origins means, plainly and simply, to reject everything that is connected to the principles of the French Revolution, and to oppose it with the hierarchical view, in the context of which alone the notion, value, and freedom of man as person are not reduced to mere words or excuses for a work of destruction and subversion.

At the same time, it is commonly said today that one should not to judge a book “by its cover”.  In the context of modernity, this should seem ironic, since those same people who voluntarily don a certain mode of clothing, do so consciously with the intent of flaunting their connections to a certain movement or subculture.  It is true that in ancient tradition one often sees the wise old man or hermit represented as appearing as a beggar, but these exceptions had purpose in and of themselves.  However, for those of us who constitute the majority, the fact is appearance does matter, whether or not we pretend otherwise. Just like one can determine the ripeness or rottenness of a fruit based on its appearance, one can usually draw conclusions on one’s inner character from how they present themselves.  Indeed one can certainly see the decline of social values and cultural vitality in the declining standards of dress. To quote James Cutsinger’s Advice to the Serious Seeker:  Beauty does not produce virtue, but “it favors in a certain way a pre-existing virtue”.  If nothing else, dress reflects one’s inner character and the degree to which on guards his appearance has been a topic that has been touched on by many societies.

President of the United States in public – present day

Since the 1960s, the proverbial man in the gray flannel suit and hat was seen as a sign of the stuffy, repressed conformity of the 1950s and all the decades prior. The disregarding of standards of dress was seen as breaking this conformity and “expressing our individuality” in line with much of the other social movements of the time. Books and film have often showed a man removing his tie or not wearing a suit as a sign that he no longer was in “bondage to the system”. While there certainly is truth to the notion that there was conformity before this time, there is uniformity today as well; the uniform of today is sloppiness. Careless and immodest appearances, tacky hair styles, unisex outfits and disorderly fashion trends characterize the appearance of the modern person, especially in the post-Christian west, and are a wonderful reflection on the chaotic, dissolute nature of modern society. “Breaking with conformity” in modern times never extended beyond changing one uniform for another. One can go to nearly any westernized country in the world and find people dressed uniformly in sloppy, western style undershirts with advertisements on them, blue jeans or running pants, sports jerseys and shorts. Women no longer wear skirts and feminine clothing, except for the most formal occasions and even then there are now masculine “pants suits” for women which in any other age would have been seen as cross dressing.  Moreover, even 50 years ago one could travel to different parts of the world and find unique styles and forms of dress in every nation or region, yet today one can travel far and wide and in most places traditional dress has either disappeared or now become a “folk costume” or “national dress”, reserved solely for some particular cultural festival. If dress reflects on the inner character of a people and a society, what does our dress say about us today? Walking billboards and distracting pictures and advertisements clutter our clothing. This again, is but one symptom of a deeper illness, but it demonstrates the decline in and disregard of uniqueness and the falseness of our praise of “non conformity”.  There can hardly be an argument raised with the statement that the world today is an uglier place than it was years ago, both inside and out.

Still, there is truth in the criticism of dandyism and over emphasis of fashion, the fetishism of designer clothes and brands is certainly nothing more than decadence at its worst. Every year our trends become more vulgar than the trends of the year before with more revealing, vulgar clothing.  Even a quick perusal of the clothing -catalogs of the previous decade would be sufficient to demonstrate this fact.  Going back even further, a breadline during the Depression era or even family photographs from the times of our grandparents and great-grandparents generations juxtaposed with a photo of a crowd today illustrates the point perfectly well. People generally dressed more appropriately in public, regardless of their social standing or economic class. They made the effort to look put together, despite the fact  that doing so was far more difficult in their era than in ours. There was more pride in appearance, and this extended beyond class lines. There were always vulgar trends then, just as now, but these were by and large on the sidelines and not nearly as accepted or widespread at the turn of the last century than now.

A mugshot from Sydney, Australia in 1924 shows a man who was clearly of the lower class, yet undeniably dressed more appropriately and decently than most men today. One can see examples similar to this in virtually any old mugshots.

Men waiting on a line at a soup kitchen in the 1930s demonstrating proper dress despite their circumstances.

In a previous article, we touched upon how dress can affect how people perceive one’s ideas. A labcoat or a military uniform convey knowledge or authority in our subconscious, to the point where paid actors often don the former in commercials to endorse a product. Their qualifications are irrelevant, as the viewer already connected them with knowledge. Since we strive to distinguish ourselves from the democratic way of thinking, we should consider dress and presentation the best advertisement for our views. Distracting pictures and sloppy clothes advertise only chaotic, democratic thinking, rather than the sort of aristocratic message which we support. Let our clothing reflect our thinking and inner character, orderly, neat, and traditional, we are the best advertisments for our ideals.

Hugo Chavez first shot to prominence leading a failed coup against the Perez government in 1992 and won a landslide victory in his bid for Presidency in 1998. This victory echoed a dramatic change for Venezuela, as Chavez veered his country on an independent path, instituting social programs to benefit the poor of his own country rather than line the pockets of the rich and won their love.   Before the Chavez government in 1998, Venezuela was a poverty-stricken nation.  21% of the its population was malnourished. The Chavez administration sought to make Venezuela agriculturally independent, reducing the amount of imported food, and establishing subsidized food distribution. During his 14 years in office poverty was reduced by 44 % and medical care was nationalized, with the help of Cuban doctors and the quality markedly improved. Education was made free for all and Venezuela has one of the highest percentages of university graduates in the world.  Food imports were reduced by 60%, strengthening Venezuela’s ability to survive on its own.

Chavez completely overhauled the foreign relations of his nation, and stood as a staunch opponent to neoliberal globalist imperialism., and denounced the global status quo as a mortal threat to humanity. He pursued friendship with Cuba and attempted to build a coalition in Latin America and abroad that would be counteract the pressures from Washington.  Moreover, at a time when many Western nation betrayed Serbia, Chávez said that Venezuela will not recognize an independent Kosovo, warning that the southeastern European nation’s separation from Serbia could spark war in the Balkans.  His generous assistance is one of the factors that has eased life in Cuba after the difficult period following the collapse of the USSR. He also maintained good relations with Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Libya under Qaddafi, Iran, Belarus and other states under pressure from the west. His outspoken support won him the scorn of the United States and the UK who sought to court the opposition and considered his government a threat.

An attempted coup against Chavez in 2002 failed as the people came out and rallied support for their imprisoned leader- the United States government quickly recognized the coup government before backtracking when it became clear it would fail.

Chavez was a rarity amongst modern leaders, a man who genuinely believed in his cause and stuck to his guns, with principles. When Qaddafi was being abandoned by his erstwhile friends during the NATO attack on his country, it was Chavez who defended him, refusing to renounce the Libyan leader even while others sought to curry favor with the NATO backed rebels, and did the same for Syria now that Syria is enduring the same situation. He stood by Serbia on the Kosovo question and Cuba against the pressure of the embargo and was the only head of state to visit Iraq after the first Gulf War. He never wavered in his support for the Palestinian people.

Some traditionalist minded people may question our support for leftist governments like that of Venezuela and Cuba today, but such support is necessary, and opposition is nitpicking. As Chavez himself told a reporter in 1998, “I am not a communist, not a fascist. I am a Bolivarian, whose ideology exists as an ideology of liberty.” Chavez was one of the few leaders who had the bravery to stand for an alternative to American neo-liberalism in South America.  His government (as with any government) was not perfect and there certainly were errors made, and he certainly wasn’t a Traditionalist to be sure. His movement could be described as socialist or Third Positionist. He was not shackled to materialist ideology but rather he did what he believed was best and right for his country. In today’s day and age, when politicians simply line their own pockets and do the bidding of international finance, Chavez stood out as one of the few who would not bow down- he will not be forgotten. We pray his successor has the strength and will to carry on his program and honor his memory. Rest in peace Presidente!

]]> http://www.ridingthetiger.org/2013/03/08/riding-the-tiger-remembers-hugo-chavez/feed/ 5 http://www.ridingthetiger.org/2013/03/08/riding-the-tiger-remembers-hugo-chavez/ http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ridingthetiger/gOqR/~3/L34cSl54xmw/ http://www.ridingthetiger.org/2012/12/20/el-lanzamiento-de-cohetes-coreano-y-la-disuasion-nuclear/#comments Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:28:23 +0000 William van Nostrand http://www.ridingthetiger.org/?p=1686 La República Popular Democrática de Corea lanzó con éxito el cohete Unha-3 y se colocó un satélite en el espacio. Esta es sin duda una gran victoria para el pueblo coreano, y una bofetada a la cara a los intereses imperialistas y globalistas.  Este logro demuestra lo que un pueblo decidido puede hacer aun frente de aislamiento, las sanciones y las amenazas.  La prensa controlada en los países occidentales no podía dejar de regodearse con cualquier fallo o retraso en este lanzamiento, y absurdamente predijeron un fracaso.  Sin embargo, a pesar de las sanciones económicas y la amenaza constante de la guerra, la RPDC fue completamente exitosa.  El lanzamiento exitoso del satélite es también un hito histórico en el desarrollo de la ciencia, la tecnología y la economía, por el ejercicio pleno de derecho independiente a utilizar el espacio con fines pacíficos.

Medios de comunicación occidentales se han apresurado a acusar que misma tecnología se utilizaría para lanzar armas nucleares.  Los gobiernos occidentales y sus brazos de propaganda están constantemente clamando con desesperación frenética por la amenaza imaginaria de la adquisición de armas nucleares por parte de los “estados canallas” y “no proliferación” de armas nucleares o de armas de destrucción masiva. Al mismo tiempo, ellos mismos continúan la investigación en estas áreas y dar tales armas de destrucción masiva a sus estados títeres y aliados.  Las pruebas de armas nucleares pacíficos por parte del Ejército Popular de Corea en 2006 y 2009 hizo sus enemigos muy temerosos sobre el potencial de desafiar la hegemonía de EE.UU. en la península coreana.  Aunque dicen que esto es una provocación, o un acto que “desestabiliza” la región, es importante examinar el motivo de estas pruebas y la importancia de la disuasión nuclear. La RPDC está siendo constantemente manchada en los medios como un “estado aislado y empobrecido dirigido por una dictadura”, pero la verdad, por supuesto, no es tan simple, ya que la RPDC ha logrado mucho debido a los actos de guerra contra ella.

Mission control diligently prepares for the launching of the DPRK’s Unha rocket (Courtesy KCNA)

Que no olvidemos la historia, deberíamos recordar que 600,000 toneladas de bombas fueron arrojadas sobre Corea durante la Guerra de Corea, más de un tercio de la cantidad que fueron arrojadas durante toda la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Millones de coreanos fueron dispersados, y millones más asesinados. La península ha estado dividida desde entonces, con tropas americanas varadas junto a la frontera, la frontera más militarizada del mundo. A pesar de todo esto, y en la cara de sanciones mundiales que intentan debilitar el gobierno de la RPDC, bajo el liderazgo del General Kim Il-Sung, la nación Coreana logró superar todas las desgracias de la guerra para construir una nación basada únicamente en el principio del Juche. Desde el final de la Guerra de Corea, las tensiones se han encendido, y la acechante amenaza de otro conflicto no ha cesado. Dado que el gobierno surcoreano recibe apoyo tremendo del gobierno americano y no sufre ninguna restricción, no es sorpresa que el Sur está en mejor forma económicamente el día de hoy. Esto además del hecho que está en tierra mucho mejor, que la mitad montañosa y menos cultivable del norte, y tiene una población mucho mayor; lo cual vuelve los problemas de la RPDC más comprensibles. Los dos bandos siguen técnicamente en guerra, y hay ejercicios militares en ambos lados de la frontera, de manera que la RPDC ha sido obligada a movilizar una gran porción de sus recursos en armas convencionales y al ejército a las expensas de bienes civiles y lujos. Teniendo armas nucleares podrían permitir detener invasiones y amenazas, liberanado algunos de los recursos y fuerza laboral que usa en sus armas convencionales para buscar programas civiles que puedan beneficiar a la población.

Cualquier discurso de la desnuclearización de la Península Coreana, o de algún estado no denominado “gran potencia” por el Occidente debe ser tomado con precaución, si no ignorado inmediatamente como retórica imperialista. Es un hecho claro que un estado con armas nucleares es tratado con más respeto que uno que no los tiene. El Presidente de Bielorrusia, Alexander Lukashenko, mencionó en una entrevista reciente como su país se desnuclearizó después de la caída de la URSS, y cómo este aparente gesto de buena voluntad sólo abrió su país a amenazas de sanción y similares cuando buscó un camino independiente hacia el crecimiento económico. En 2010 anunció que Bielorrusia guardaría el uranio enriquecido producido durante la Era Soviética en respuesta a sanciones de Occidente. Este movimiento fue sabio, en tanto refleja el principio del derecho de una nación a defenderse a sí misma, y cómo la cooperación con Occidente no paga por ningún país que busque buscar un camino independiente a medias. El destino de Qaddafi y Libia son grandes ejemplos de esto. Después de la invasión de Irak en 2003, Qaddafi anunció que abriría sus instalaciones de armamento a inspectores, y cooperar con el Occidente sobre el terrorismo. Por algún tiempo pareció que Libia era uno de los pocos éxitos de la “guerra contra el terror” en la que el gobierno de Qaddafi “volteaba la página” y cooperaba con el gobierno Americano. Esto no salvó al gobierno libio en 2011 cuando el gobierno Americano y sus aliados de la OTAN empezaron a atacarlo en acciones militares bajo el pretexto de “defender civiles”, a pesar del hecho de que estos ataques costaron miles de vidas. Los gobiernos de la OTAN rápidamente olvidaron el voto de amistad extendido por el gobierno de Libia, y al final Qaddafi y sus seguidores han sido masacrados. ¿Quizá el occidente hubiera manejado la situación de forma más delicada si Qaddafi hubiera mantenido un arsenal nuclear?

Que no quede duda, las armas nucleares son terribles, destructivas y peligrosas más allá de cualquier arma convencional conocida.  De ningún modo abogamos por su uso y condenamos totalmente la guerra nuclear, que sería desastroso para el mundo entero. Idealmente, estas armas no existirían en ninguna parte, y la única cosa que decidiría quien gana una guerra sería la valentía en el campo de batalla. Pero el tiempo no puede retrocederse y estas armas están aquí nos guste o no. Simplemente queremos ver un campo de juego justo, en lugar de uno dominado enteramente por los intereses de las finanzas internacionales y una clase política corrupta. No hay hipocresía más grande que la que vemos ahora donde el occidente amenaza Irán por una perfectamente legal búsqueda de poder nuclear para uso civil, mientras se mantiene completamente silencioso en las reservas nucleares de Israel, o la hipocresía de las amenazas de Estados Unidos contra naciones con armas nucleares cuando sigue siendo la única nación de la historia que haya arrojado armas

Everyone has been the butt of a joke in the schoolyard, or the subject of bullying at least a few times, and for most of us, this is a fact of life. We grow up, we move on, no worse for the wear. Children have far less of a filter over what they say, so the fat kid is going to be made fun of for being fat, the scrawny kid for being scrawny, and the one with freckles will get it for having freckles. If not that, it will be some other characteristic; maybe they weren’t athletic enough in gym class, maybe they were overly shy. Children bully each other and this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it is just a fact of life.  It’s normal behavior, and prepares children for a world in which they won’t always be receiving praise and positive attention.  Learning to deal with this is a crucial part of building one’s self esteem and developing a thicker skin. Some people cannot deal with this bullying, or have a thin skin and emotional problems that most likely go far deeper than a few schoolyard pranks, and one cannot blame a bully for the reaction that someone with serious mental health issues has to a few unkind words.  To demand young people interact with only the most delicate of terms is to create a sterile environment devoid of any social complexity, and create a generation too fragile to handle criticism.

This idea extends far beyond our education system, but reflects our  “victim politics” mentality, where rather than attempting to best one another in positive competitive ways, we are mired iwith identity politics, be it “women’s rights” or “LGBT rights”, or whatever ethnic or racial group we are insisting is the most oppressed, or suffered the most, as if there was a prize for being the most downtrodden! There are cases of obese people complaining about discrimination against them as well, everyone seems to be hopping on board the victim wagon! We are creating a society which is so afraid of criticism, so weak willed and sanitized that it is cut off from reality entirely. It is the story of the Emperor’s new clothes, played out on a global scale, where even ugliness must be looked upon as beauty simply to avoid hurting feelings or offending. Weakness, feeble mindedness, sexual perversity, mental and physical abnormalities are things to be pitied or corrected, not celebrated.   Great societies make monuments to their triumphs and achievements, not their defeats and disgraces.

What we are doing now is, for lack of better terms, creating a society of thin skinned sissies and cry babies who cannot handle the slightest criticism, who are offended by the slightest politically incorrect gaffe, and instead of offering sympathy for the people who jump off a bridge or kill themselves over some prank or bullying and leave it at that, are quick to point fingers and “demand justice”. The recent case where a nurse, Jacintha Saldanha, taking care of the Princess of Wales committed suicide on account of shame over a radio show prank led to an outcry, with calls for an end to radio pranks, and punishment for the disc jockeys. I’m not entirely familiar with their program, but the two hosts played a harmless prank, nothing more. That they are being blamed for her death, the outrage in the media, is complete insanity, no one forced Saldanha to take her own life except she herself! Before this there was the case of Tyler Clementi, the Rutger’s student who jumped off a bridge when he was outed by his roommate Dharun Ravi on a web camera. The roommate has been charged with murder and hate crime, and while he certainly broke the law with regards to invasion of privacy, he didn’t toss Tyler Clementi off the bridge. Clementi did that himself, and that Saldanha did it herself as far as we know, and they have no one to blame but themselves, they made their choices. In these and many other cases, there was a media lynching and blame game that was entirely uncalled for.

Of course I am not going to pretend that every case of bullying is not a big deal or every prank should just be laughed off, there are certainly cases where bullying or pranking is taken too far, and at that point sure, parents or teachers should step in, but this shouldn’t and doesn’t require and specific legal framework. These cases are special cases, and should be dealt with individually. Much of the actual focus of the “anti bullying” campaigns though, is more related to the gay agenda than anything about typical schoolyard bullying, as most of the cases in the past few years to create attention (the Clementi one is certainly a major example) have been tied towards homosexuals committing suicide. The attention given to these gays is disproportionate by far to both their numbers overall but the media and upper echelons of our society have a far higher proportion of sexually dissolute types who use their resources to push for the gay agenda as best and as often as they can.

The world can be a cruel place, and children especially can say and do hurtful and mean things to each other, without even realizing the effect it has. But this bullying is a normal part of growing up, and sheltering our children from the harsh realities of the world is only doing them a disservice in the long run. The only way to address bullying is to encourage young people to overcome it themselves and leave it at that. Identity politics in the same turn, only harm everyone, including the groups they purport to help, as they teach us to rely on others, mainly a government handout or legal  privilege to “save us” from real or imagined oppression. It is a mindset which sees a chance for political gain in every defeat and debasement and exploits every tragedy for a political agenda.

Western media have been quick to launch accusations that this same technology could be used to launch nuclear weapons. The Western governments and their arms of propaganda are constantly clamoring with frantic desperation about the supposed threat of “rogue states” acquiring nuclear weapons, or “non proliferation” of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, even whilst themselves continuing research in these areas or giving such WMD’s to their puppet states and allies.  The nuclear weapons tests by the DPRK in 2006 and 2009 had its enemies greatly concerned over the potential to tip the balance of power in the Korean peninsula. While Westerners may believe the media and see this as a provocative act, or one that “destabilizes” the region, it is important to look closer at the reason for these tests and the importance of the nuclear deterrent. The DPRK, is constantly being smeared in the media as an “isolated, impoverished state run by a dictatorship” but the truth of course, not that simple and in many ways the DPRK has accomplished a great deal given the acts of war against it.

Mission control diligently prepares for the launching of the DPRK’s Unha rocket (Courtesy KCNA)

Lest we forget history, we should remember that 600,000 tones of bombs were dropped on Korea during the Korean War over one third as many as were dropped in World War II in its entirety. Millions of Koreans were displaced, and millions more were killed.  The peninsula has been divided ever since, with American troops posted along the border, the most heavily militarized border in the world.  Despite all this, and in the face of world-wide sanctions which were intended to cripple the government of the DPRK, under the leadership of the General Kim Il-Sung, the Korean nation managed to overcome all the ravages of war to build a nation based uniquely on the principle of Juche.  Since the end of the Korean War, tensions have flared up and the looming threat of another conflict have not ceased. Given that the South Korean government receives tremendous support from the American government and suffers no restriction, it is no surprise that the South is in better shape economically today. This on top of the fact that it also sits on far better land, than the less arable, mountainous northern half and has a far larger population, the DPRK’s troubles become far more understandable. The two sides are still technically at war, and there are military exercises on both sides of the border, so  the DPRK has been forced to allocate a large portion of its resources on its conventional weapons and standing army at the expense of civilian goods and comforts. Having nuclear weapons would allow it to deter invasion and threats and free up some of the resources and manpower it uses on its conventional arms for the pursuit of civilian programs that would benefit its population.

Any talk of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, or of any state not called a “great power” by the West must be taken with great caution, if not dismissed outright as imperialist rhetoric. It is a matter of fact that a state with nuclear weapons is treated with greater respect than one without. The President of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, mentioned in a recent interview how his country denuclearized after the fall of the USSR, and how this seeming goodwill gesture only opened his country up to threats of sanction and such when he pursued an independent path towards economic growth. Indeed, in 2010 he announced that Belarus would be keeping the enriched uranium produced in the Soviet era in response to sanctions by the west. This move is wise, as it reflects the principle of a nation’s right to defend itself, and as cooperation with the West does not pay for any country which seeks to pursue an even halfwise independent path.  The fate of Qaddafi and Libya are a prime example of this. After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Qaddafi announced he would entirely open up his weapons facilities to inspectors, and cooperate with the west on terrorism. For a time it seemed Libya was one of the few successes in “the war on terror” in that the Qaddafi government seemed to be “turning a new leaf” and cooperating with the American government. This did not save the Libyan government in 2011 when the American government and its NATO allies began targeting it in military strikes under the pretext of “protecting civilians”, despite the fact that these strikes cost thousands of lives. The NATO governments quickly forgot the token hand of friendship extended by the Libyan government, and in the aftermath Qaddafi and his supporters have been massacred. Perhaps the west would have treated the matter far more delicately had Qaddafi maintained a nuclear arsenal?

Let there be no doubt, that nuclear weapons are terrible, destructive and dangerous beyond any conventional weapons known, and we in no way are advocating their use or nuclear war which would be disastrous to the world as a whole. Ideally these weapons would not exist anywhere, and the only thing that would decide who wins a war would be bravery on the battlefield. But time cannot be rolled back and these weapons are here whether we want them or not. We merely wish to see an even playing field, rather than one entirely dominated by the interests of international finance and a corrupt political class. There is no greater hypocrisy than the one we see today where the west threatens Iran over a perfectly legal pursuit of nuclear power for civilian use, yet remains completely silent on Israel’s rogue nuclear stockpile, or the hypocrisy of the United States’ threats against nations with nuclear weapons when it remains the only nation in history to have dropped nuclear weapons, destroying two Japanese cities and leaving hundreds of thousands dead!

Therefore, it is undoubtedly true that Hollywood has become one of the main players in the multi-pronged propaganda offensive. Hollywood movies glamorize ideas which producers find attractive, and demonize ideas and people who producers dislike; an especially noticeable trend is that in the last several decades, film media has become increasingly more liberal and has become used as the vehicle to push all sorts of decadent and immoral ideas on the general population by disguising subconscious indoctrination as entertainment.  Today, just five major American media conglomerates (Viacom, Time Warner, Disney, Comcast, and News Corporation) command an overwhelming share of the U.S. Hollywood market, and are thus poised in a position of great influence.  All six of these conglomerate essentially share an identical ideological motivation, both at the current time and in a broader historical context.

The ideology of Hollywood and its motivations are currently not in dispute, and will even be admitted to by the most stubborn of American academics.  On the one hand, Hollywod cinema treats domestic issues with a strong bias towards the ultra-left or bourgeois libera stance.  Douglass Kellner, an American professor who is in many ways sympathetic to Hollywood’s message, confesses that: “Many 1960s films transcoded the discourses of the anti-war, New Left student movements, as well as the feminist, black power, sexual liberationist, and countercultural movements, producing a new type of socially critical Hollywood film”.  On the other hand, when dealing with foreigners, they take an imperialistic stance.  For instance the 1997 film “Red Corner” (released during a tense period of U.S.-China relations) was considered — even by American standards — to portray the Chinese government in a “hackneyed” and “xenophobic” attitude (link).  Likewise, “Seven Years in Tibet,” which was released the same year, put onto the silver screen one of the pet-causes of Hollywood celebrities, and portrays the Chinese officials as narrow-minded villains, while giving an almost super-human quality to the Tibetans.  More recently, films like “300″ and “Argo” have been criticized as attempting to drum up anti-Iranian sentiment (link).  The latter, which sports a friendly face in the form of the fashionable actor Ben Affleck (who was also its director), could not be released at a more convenient time for the Obama administration, and will undoubtedly be promoted by the same ties which connect Capitol Hill to Hollywood.

Regarding the American film industry, the noted French historical scholar Robert Faurisson recently remarked:

A well-known facet of the ideology propagated by this film industry is the basic division of the world between the Good and the Bad. The Good are the United States and the Bad are those whom the United States decrees as such. The Good are fundamentally Good and the Bad are fundamentally Bad. The United States is always in the right and always wins, whilst the “Bad Guys” are always in the wrong and always lose.

Inglourious Basterds, a movie termed “torture porn” by many, nonetheless was nominated for – and given – many awards by the Hollywood movie industry

Of course, this should not come as any surprise, since one of the objectives of any drama (of which modern film might be considered a descendant), is to instruct its viewers and instill in them some idea which the writer wants to communicate. This kind of instruction can be quite obvious in a number of politically-oriented dramas, from “Judgement at Nuremberg” (1961) or “Inglourious Basterds” (2009). Alternatively, it can be more subtle, for instance in the way that certain characters are typecast. For instance, Catholics and Arabs are regularly subjected to a propagandistic onslaught in films, as are Italians (typecast as unruly mafiosi) and Russians (as devious spies). By contrast, modern Hollywood film rarely casts African-Americans, Israelis, or homosexuals as villains, but as victims with whose endeavours we must sympathize. There are a myriad more examples of this, but these should suffice for now.

The German composer Richard Wagner said in an essay, “As Man stands to Nature, so stands Art to Man”.  In other words,  the ideal artistic endeavours are  indispensable to a fully human life.  True cinema, like any artwork — whether it be literature, music, drama, or poetry — speaks to the soul of a people and must be in accord with their tastes.  Rather than being mere pointless luxury, a true artwork must be engaging, appealing and encouraging.  Films whose purpose are to subconsciously indoctrinate a people with a corrupt ideology, in essence subvert a sense of beauty and honor, cannot truly be considered works of art.

True art must speak to the soul of a people, rather than for those trying to subvert it.

However, even in so-called “light films,” in which the ideological element is minimal, the artistic value of Hollywood films also leaves something to be desired. Though Hollywood can be traced back to the same category of entertainment as classical drama and literature, the former all too often lacks the Apollonian elements that make the latter enjoyable and reputable.  Gone are the classical notions of aesthetics (as exemplified by Aeschylus), replaced instead by special effects and expensive props. Instead of instead employing a truly engaging story involving interesting persons, modern Hollywood movies resort to sensational and flashy editing, absurd plot twists, and lifeless, one-dimensional characters.  These are merely done in the hope of evoking meaningless exclamations of wonder, but are ultimately incompatible with art created for the people.  Such movies value quantity over quality, and neglect the essential content of life, while only considering scale of a production.  At other times, scenes are often fabricated at the whim of directors or editors, and cannot depict life truthfully because they are either outright absurd distortions of reality, or merely ridiculous situations meant to garner a cheap a laugh.

Wagner was critical of the composers of his day who did not “in the least conceal the fact that they have no other ambition than to satisfy [a] shallow audience”.  The same might be said of modern producers and studios, who promotes a few ‘popular stars’ to curry favor with the audience because they value profit margins above all else.  While this system reaps great rewards for the studio bosses and even the actresses (who themselves are beholden to hypersecularist mafiosi), this quantity-over-quality mentality is in essence what robs Hollywood of its genuine creative spirit.

Man’s enduring legacy is his creativity, intelligence, and ability to transmit lasting values and ideas.  Not only does Hollywood fail to do this in a meaningful way, it often does exactly the opposite: it indoctrinates innocent minds into believing in decadence and idle foolishness. This is not a matter that can be trifled with; indeed, there is no greater power in our time than that wielded by the manipulators and re-writers of public opinion in America, of which Hollywood plays an integral part.  Perhaps not even the legions of Caesar could have imagined the power that is now held by today’s controlled media.

What is clear is that as formidable and daunting as such a task might be, the influence of Hollywood and “Hollywoodism” must be curtailed at all costs.  Just as brave anti-imperialists the world over are now standing up to American guns on the front lines of battlefields, so too, must we stand at the front lines against Hollywood on the front line of the cultural war.

It must be noted that the United States was never an “Imperial” power in a traditional sense as the other European powers were.  It certainly had its sphere of influence, but its colonial possessions were insignificant in comparison to the vast possessions of the British and the French, who controlled empires on which the “sun never sets”.  The United States eschewed the usual planting of the flag, and the dramatic flare of colonial governors or viceroys, preferring to maintain their dominance through puppet governments which had nominal independence but by and large functioned under the direction of American interests.

“From Capetown to Cairo” English cartoon from 1892 titled the “Rhodes Colossus”

The European imperial powers were driven by the philosophy of mercantilism and the hunger for natural resources.  They were interested in economic gains from their colonies, but their colonial expansion were as much about social pride, grandiose designs, and the prestige of having an “empire” as it was in profiting from exclusive access not only to the said resources, but cheap labour, and in many cases, control of strategic points on the globe.  Indeed, after the Berlin Conference in 1884, the colonial acquisitions were made without even proper exploration; territories were carved out by the great powers without any actual knowledge of the resources or value of the land, much of which was useless. Such a notion would have been completely abnormal to one of purely economic outlook, as the prestige of gaining vast tracts of land was offset by the financial burden they would ultimately present. This pomp and prestige, the imperialism of pith helmets and titles was not suited for the American mindset which had no use for them.

While it had been recognized before World War II that these colonial acquisitions were a burden, it was only after the war that the “anti-colonial” movements truly began to gain traction, with the Soviets backing anti-colonial nationalists across the Third World, and the United States recognizing that the continued presence of European powers in the region would be great rallying point for the Soviet infiltration. Europeans themselves (with the exception of Portugal) recognized the need to gradually withdraw, but also wished to guarantee these regions remained firmly in the anti-communist camp. At the same time, many nations realized that they simply could not maintain these colonies at a loss, so independence was granted to former colonies.  But this independence came at a price, as most of former colonial subjects found.  Independence did not treat these newly independent states well, and they became afflicted with endless civil wars, corruption and incompetence.

Neo-imperialism may be a term mostly seen in Marxist discourse.  While Marxists may bandy about this accusation haphazardly, it takes a narrow mind to discount it because of who makes it rather than on its merit.  This is seen in the system of “banana republics” propped up by the American government in South America, and the “friendly” dictatorships and corrupt governments backed by the West in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. It doesn’t take much to realize that a slave is more content when he believes he’s actually free, and most of these nominally independent nations have seen over the last century just how limited their“freedom” actually is. This form of imperialism is far more insidious, and far more damaging to the third world.  After World War II especially, most nations have been left with a choice of being an appendage to the western NATO camp or the Soviet Warsaw Pact camp. Unfortunately, that is not much of a choice at all, and many a leader who grew too independent in their thinking or actually placed faith in the Wilsonian principles of “right to self determination” and “independence” found out the hard way how hollow that rhetoric truly was. This has led to a situation in which anti-communism is not necessarily pro-nationalist, or pro-traditional in any way.  It has also caused the third world nations to become exposed to the social ills of consumer society.  In many cases, this is deliberate, for today’s modern “humanitarians” attempt to force Western, secular customs on former colonial subjects with no less zeal than did the missionaries of old, and in a tone which echoes the old “white man’s burden”.  The aim is precisely the same, with different goals: IMF restructuring demands, threats of bombings, and color revolutions, except now it’s a native puppet rather than a foreign colonial administration!

The Marxists usually focus on the exploitation of material, natural resources, and cheap labor in their discourse on “neo-imperialism,” but neglect to speak of cultural imperialism.  Indeed, there are a number of cultural Marxists who go so far to support American imperialist ventures precisely because of the fact that Western regimes force Third World countries to alter their laws regarding moral and family issues, from sodomy, abortion, and feminism to “hate crime” legislation and separation of church and state.  At the same time there is an influx of American cultural products, including films, music, and clothing (all of which is inappropriate, vulgar and ruinous to healthy, functioning societies).

Ugandans protest Obama and Western interference in their cultural affairs- specifically promoting homosexuality as acceptable behavior.

This is even happening in the West, where the situation has already reached way beyond a turning point.  For example, one has to go out of their way to find a venue that plays Irish music in Ireland.  Most of the radio is plays American pop staples.  The effect on the local music scene is profound as almost anywhere one goes, traditional music and art forms are relegated to the background, while decadent music, be it rap or dance music is ever-resent. Hollywood films are probably some of the most widely distributed worldwide, as they have been financed by huge banks, and have the capital to churn out larger budget productions than anything the European or Asian film industries can hope to produce. These films, by and large, are empty of substance and glamorize the most degenerate and disturbing behaviours.  Moreover, the entire artificial “teen” culture, promoted heavily in the media for decades has entirely taken root in Europe and the United States, where now a child did not grow into a man, but rather had an ever extending in between phase, celebrated in pop culture as a time of “rebelliousness, experimentation” etc. Essentially the “teen culture” sows the seeds of discord with the family, driving young men and women into empty hedonism, and stunting them emotionally.

Our political class and the captains of finance certainly wouldn’t be content to keep all these social ills to our corner of the world.  They are eager to spread it, so all over the world one can find young people deluded by a glamourous, hedonistic and nihilistic image of American life, totally devoid of responsibility, respect and honor. This is more dangerous and harmful, than all the “regime changes”, NATO bombings, and pilfering of resources possible as it makes a discontented youth, less able to connect with their own heritage and nation than with rootless, consumerism. It guarantees that the future generations will be simply too apathetic to care about ideals.

For some of the organs of propaganda in the West, and egalitarian “humanitarians”, there is a genuine belief the people actually benefit from this influence. At the end of the day, they wish to destroy the ideas of kin, faith, and traditions, or at the very least, relegate them to the background, either to be regarded as cultural-folk niche entirely disassociated with daily life, or to be sneeringly mocked by the majority of people.

For those in the West who remain apathetic to imperialistic cultural penetration in the third world, or concern themselves entirely with their own “backyard” regarding these issues, the great social collapse of Western civilization did not happen in a bubble, and unfortunately the same forces are at work across the world. Still, on the surface, the West is militarily and economically far stronger than their competitors despite the recent economic troubles. Non-westerners who mistakenly believe emulating the West will make them stronger would best remember that the Roman Empire was still winning great victories, even two decades before its physical end. There is little hope of things changing in the West as its entire traditional life has been completely uprooted, but every victory against the forces of secularism, “progressivism” and the like anywhere in the world is a victory for Tradition everywhere. Perhaps “western imperialism” and “neo colonialism” are misnomers, since the views and ideology emanating from the west today are as foreign to our own traditions as they are to the traditions of those around us. We must keep this in mind, as the world we inhabit in the west would be unrecognizable culturally from the world our ancestors inhabited only a few centuries ago. Today we stand isolated and surrounded by a materialistic anti culture, atomized entirely be extreme individualism. Today, the man who stands for something beyond material gain and profit finds himself very much alone in today’s world, but he stands as a beacon of light.

The interview can be heard by pressing the “play” button in the Flash plugin below.

Alternatively, you can hear the interview by visiting the Counter-Currents Website, by clicking here.

Topics discussed in the hour-long interview include:

• Traditionalism vs. conservatism
• Southern agrarianism and self-sufficiency
• The consequences of losing the landed aristocractic class in favor of a rootless, capital-accumulating class
• Chivalry and the role of men
• Playing the “victim game” as a losing strategy
• Conservativism as a losing strategy
• Left-wing hypocrisies
• Sincere grassroots activism vs. trendy liberals
• Local culture and regionalism vs. globalist pop culture
• European anti-Muslim leaders and movements, the failure of many to defend European identity, and their pro-Israeli stance
• The prospect of an alliance between Traditionalists and Muslims
• Why we need to target the system that promotes non-white immigration instead of targeting the immigrants themselves
• Occupy Wall Street
• Decadence, social mores, and the pros and cons of censorship
• Environmental preservation vs. civilization