Leo wrote:I make no bones about it and I state my position with the utmost of respect. It was the US who saved the world from plunging into the moral darkness which was being enforced on humanity by both Nazism and Japanese imperialism. I believe that it was during the Cold War afterwards that the US lost its moral compass and gradually degenerated into just another imperialist aggressor in its own right. I don't equate the motives of the US with those of these earlier chilling doctrines but to many of the poorer nations of the world the outcomes have not been substantially different than if they had been. The real question is what the fuck to do about it, because in my view the US still has much to offer the world as a global superpower. I remain cautiously optimistic, despite the trend of current events which seems to suggest otherwise.
If Europe had a History Channel this would surely be a primary tenet. But it is canned thought really, little more. It is an historical view that has been determined by bias and by convenient and easy predicates.
A sheer Maciavellian power-analysis may indicate that the American Civil War, with the violation and destruction of an underlying constitutional agreement, allowed a plutocratic clique to assume power and which - quite rapidly - transformed the US Federal entity into an imperialistic interest. As soon as it gained sufficient power it entered the world with force.
This notion of 'saving the world' is the root of an absurd way of thinking. US Federal power is predicated on the idea that the Federal power 'freed the slaves of the southern US' but this is a false narrative. And the very notion that a nation with impossibly huge economic interests could be interested in 'saving' anything in the sense implied, is flatly absurd. If one desires to believe idealistic and propagandistic views (and these have a function) one can certainly go ahead with that. But if one wishes to approach 'truth' and 'understanding' one must look at things with a more caustic eye.
Richard Weaver, an American philosopher and one classified as conservative, wrote about an essential and present corruption evident in American culture as the US ventured into the second European war. To think and to 'believe' that the US represented some lofty principles is a false-notion. Overall, the decision by an astoundingly powerful economic ruling class to enter and to win the war was a policy decision based in straight power principles.
And it should also be pointed out that the villification of European radical and defensive conservatism, as it may be called, though it is also labeled 'fascism' which naturally rules out any considered analysis of what it is and what it represented, has been and still is intimately bound-up with public relations and propaganda campaigns of a large scale which have established, literally, the lines of thinking and the parameters of 'thinkable thought'.
What is the relevance of such insinuations? I think it has to do with a simple fact but one that rapidly becomes complex: Who is qualified to interpret the world? And on what basis do they construct their interpretation? And then ultimatley what is 'Truth' in a mental and intellectual environment where people have been trained to *see* through established lenses of perception?
I wish to attach as it were these political speculations to those of the organisation of political ideas generally, to the polarity that exists between the so-caled Left and Right, and to the function of the 'popular mind' as one little capable of seeing the world. To 'see the world' - to really see and understand it - is that not infinitely harder?