The Second World War saw the victory of the liberal United States and the Communist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Most of the fighting was on the Eastern Front and the Communists essentially defeated Nazi Germany, to the benefit also of the USA (which also fought alongside the British Empire on the Western Front and against Japan). The USA meanwhile defeated Imperial Japan by being the only country to use the atom bomb (twice). The end of the war meant a new geopolitical settlement. In Eastern Europe and Russia this meant the temporary hegemony of the Communists over Eastern European countries and in the West the seemingly permanent hegemony of liberalism, with the British Empire defenestrated by the USA and the resurgent Germans reduced to a NATO colony.
For the West there were important cultural and political consequences. By allying with the Communists political liberalism and international capital secured their dominance in the West intellectually and economically. The CIA through Project Long Leash and MK Ultra, sought to shape the West as ultra-liberal, sexually open and culturally avant garde, thereby contrasting it in propaganda terms with Soviet conservatism. Before World War Two, Communism had been associated with gender and sexual liberalism, but to save the USSR from the Nazi threat, Stalin realised the cohesiveness of social conservatism was vital. The Cold War was different, to dismantle the Soviet Empire, the Western establishment decided Western culture should be dismantled too via the sixties cultural revolution with the aim that atomised individualism would infect the Eastern Bloc.
Lying behind this also was the victory of the post modernists in the Academy such as Derrida and Foucault, who were setting about a cultural revolution from the Left in their rejection of Stalin’s conservative Communism and orthodox Marxism. So-called Cultural Marxism and Post Modernism were used to reject Marxist structuralism and instead to introduce a chaotic meaninglessness, where all meaning, conservative or Marxist was seen as oppressive phallogocentrism. Heidegger was deliberately revised to justify Derrida’s decontructionism. The West became the champion of revolutionary social disintegration. The spirit of 1968 won out over the Gaullist nationalism that could have been a genuine alternative to American liberalism, Soviet Communism and defeated European Fascism.
The CIA sponsored abstract art and the use of psychedelic drugs to transform Western society into a revolutionary and individualistic society. The West reinvented itself as the anti-Fascist civilisation, whereby all taboos were regarded as nascent Fascism. Behind this deconstructionism was not only Derrida, but the writings of Adorno, who in his Fascist Personality linked the existence of sexual taboos and sexual suppression to the causes of Fascism.
As a result the West set fire to its heritage of virtues and ethics in favour of a return to Weimar degeneracy. Any form of authority was rejected as Fascist, by the Twenty-First Century it was to become impossible in the West to discriminate between virtue and vice as the trajectory reached its extreme. This was always there in Western philosophy, but victory in the Second World War led to a hyper-liberalism and a consequent social breakdown, with broken families, homosexuality, sexually-transmitted diseases, single parenthood and an all-pervasive anomie. Finally we now see gender dysphoria normalised and the masculine rejected as evil.
These are the consequences of a sort of runaway revolutionary liberalism drunk on its defeat of Nazism. There is a blindness here. First not to realise that such Weimar-style degeneracy causes a reaction in the form of a more authoritarian politics, Secondly, much as the modern Westerner would hate to admit it, Nazism with its social Darwinism, its eugenics in the camps and its focus on technological advance was the other face of Western modernity, not a return to pre-Enlightenment tradition. Nazism too was a creature of the Enlightenment. When all hierarchical values and God are rejected then Nazism becomes conceptually possible. Practically the West would benefit from Nazi science and would recruit Nazi scientists after the War. Morally there was little difference between Nazi eugenics and the aims of establishment liberals in the West such as H G Wells. The Nazis did their eugenicist dirty work for them. The fruit of the scientific knowledge gained therefore could then be consumed by the West, as a result of Nazis violating all normative and Christian morality.
Today the Nazi focus on eugenics is still being tacitly implemented, but disguised with the language of rights and individual autonomy, be that with abortion or assisted suicide. The Nazis conveniently did the research for the West on a range of scientific obsessions.
Contrary to the claims of the West there is far more in common with the social Darwinism of Nazism and our own disregard for the sanctity of life today. The key propaganda ingredient is the language of consent and rights, but the end result is people who are weak and infirm or are defenceless babies are still being killed.
Nonetheless, the political language about the “patriarchy” or racist oppression is all linked to the Second World War and the fight against Fascism. It means that oppression and authoritarianism are detected in any attempt to defend virtue or objective morality or even sanity as ideas about gender differences or protecting ourselves from mass-migration are seen as Fascist. Normal debate becomes impossible as all is defined in a hysterical way within the Second-World-War paradigm.
Jonathan Pageau, Orthodox intellectual and icon carver recently published a video in which he discussed the way our world is defined by the myth of the Second World War (to be found herehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vstNGNtl-B4). He discusses the deep symbolism of the Holocaust and the way we interpret the dropping of the atom bomb as well as the way the image of Hitler is used as a political insult in politics. He also touches on how the narrative of Churchill refusing to appease the tyrant has been used in every post- war conflict.
For example, with its unipolar moment after the fall of the other post-war victor the USSR, the USA used the moral claims of victory over the Nazis to justify an expansionist and violent foreign policy under the names of liberal interventionism and neoconservatism. Perhaps the consequences were foreseen, but apart from the massive number of deaths of civilians in “democratised” countries and the consequent growing of Islamist extremism, this policy also caused the migrant crisis which will eventually further weaken Europe and if Russia can be reduced mean the continent becomes a vassal of the United States.
Another foreign policy consequence has been the unquestioning support for Israel even at risk of our people’s interests. While Russia is condemned by the West in the Ukraine, a policy of full-scale slaughter by Israel, to which Russian intervention cannot be seen as a moral equivalent, is permitted with impunity. The whole mythos of the Second World War makes it impossible to criticise Israel and what criticism there is has been sidelined and syphoned off to the extreme Left, thereby discrediting any conservative criticism by association.
Jonathan Pageau’s claim that we can only understand our world in the context of a mythos about World War Two that hides the bad faith of allying with an equally horrific ideology in the form of Stalinist Russia is therefore true. Furthermore the victory of the so-called cultural Marxists from Marcuse to Adorno (who actually rejected true Marxism) is linked to the rejection of any concept of moral or political authority and this position is consequent upon anti-fascist propaganda. But this has not led to freedom. Instead we have found ourselves governed by the victors of the Second World War - global finance and the Wilsonian advocates of global governance. These technocratic globalist institutions are anti-fascist and define the term broadly. From the UN to the WEF a progressive agenda is promoted that very much has come to be at odds with the democratic wishes of American and European populations. Whether Trump, Brexit or the various right-wing parties in the European continent such as the ADF and National Rally there is a struggle for power between the demos attracted to populists who resist the globalists and the globalist technocrats who detect within any opposition the stirrings of Fascism.
And related to all of this is the situation in the Ukraine. This is both an old-fashioned geopolitical struggle and also an ideological one. To become part of the US empire the Ukraine must abandon any form of conservatism, throw away its Orthodox religious faith and embrace LGBT and woke ideas. Russia meanwhile is painted as fascist (ironically the very country that defeated Fascism and for which that victory defines its identity). Its move into the ethnically Russian areas of the Donbas is painted as a re-run of Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland. While literal Nazis fight the Russians and local military groups, the Western propaganda paints it as another battle against Fascism. Because Russia still maintains some traditional values it is categorised within the nebulous definition of Fascist and as an enemy of all the modern West stands for - open borders, no sexual borders and a rejection of any populist-democratic will (Zelensky unlike Putin - who won resoundingly - cancelled elections and now rules with no democratic mandate). Democratic opinion is supposed to be part of the New World Order, but only if it produces the answer the technocrats favour (see Romania and Georgia). Otherwise it is dismissed as populism, which we are told is the first step towards Fascism.
In the end we must understand who won the Second World War. Not the British Empire. Not the nation state. It was rather a global network of international finance and liberal internationalist political actors allied as a matter of convenience with Stalinist Russia. These groups have their own agendas favoured by the breakdown of traditional values and traditional social groups. Since the War this agenda has been implemented as an aggressive policy that has been implemented without democratic support. Any successful resistance to this unaccountable agenda that has caused such misery and anomie and broken lives must again re-establish ideas of authority, virtue, borders in morals and countries, orientation towards the transcendent and a rejection of enslaving hedonism and atomistic individualism.
No comments:
Post a Comment