It’s a Red, Red world 5

Why did the West fail to claim an ideological or moral victory at the apparent end of the Cold War?

Did the West really even win the Cold War? 

Diana West asks these questions. She goes on:

If we go back in time and listen, we hear no consensus click over signs that an unalloyed US-led triumph over communist ideology had taken place; nor do we find a sense of national thanksgiving for the forces of good – or, at least, for the forces of better – in their triumph over the forces of a non-abstract evil as manifested in Gulag or KGB or famine or purge history. “Mustn’t gloat” was about as joyous as the White House of Bush No. 41 ever got.

The inability to proclaim victory loud and clear derives from the Christian injunction to be humble.

Almost everything that handicaps our civilization comes from its Christian legacy; and everything that drives it forward to discover and innovate, to attain greater prosperity, longer life – whatever  general conditions are needed for such happiness as we may individually be capable of – is the legacy of the Enlightenment, the awakening from the long dark nightmare of “God’s” reign, the rise of reason. It only  happened to the West. Reason and its children Science, Freedom, and the United States of America, made the West great; not, as those  lovers of the darkness, the god-worshipers, like to intone, the “Judeo-Christian” tradition.

All religions are the ideological enemies of the West. But yes, the Red ones,  Communism and its conjoined twin Environmentalism, are the most dangerous at present. They suffuse and weaken our culture and our civilization.

They are the New Christianities.

Diana West is right to diagnose Communism as the transforming blight.

Was the official non-reaction due to that “crisis of confidence” we always hear about — specifically, that “politically correct” failure to believe in the worth of the West? I used to think exactly that and no more. The self-loathing West, failing to see anything of value in itself, was simply unable to take satisfaction, let alone pride, in the demise of its mass-murdering nemesis. “After all,” the PC catechism goes, “Who’s to say the Western system is ‘better’ than any other?”

But there is far more to it. At a certain point, it becomes clear that what we are looking at isn’t a West that fails to appreciate itself anymore, but rather a West that isn’t itself anymore.

Decades of subversion by communist infiltrators and American traitors, collaborators and “useful idiots” have helped make sure of that. So, even if the military enemy went away after the dissolution of the USSR on Christmas Day 1991, our ideological enemy never even had to break step.

Cold Warriors might have prevailed abroad, but America lost the ideological Cold War at home. 

This helps explain why our college campuses are outposts of Marx, our centralizing government is increasingly invasive and dictatorial, and our culture is one of metastasizing decadence …

President Obama’s recent speech in Brussels, headquarters of the European Union, reveals the chasm between what we have become and what we are supposed to be. Wearing his “Leader of the Free World” hat, Obama made the case against Russia’s annexation of Crimea by conjuring a Manichaean split between free societies and dictatorships. But does it fit? 

According to the president, there are free societies where “each of us has the right to live as we choose,” and there are dictatorships where the rule is “ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs.” Americans confronting government-mandated health insurance would do well to wonder exactly which society they live in.

Obama continued: “In many ways, the history of Europe in the 20th century represented the ongoing clash of these two sets of ideas.” That contest, he explained, swerving wildly away from historical fact, was won “not by tanks or missiles, but because our ideals stirred the hearts” of Eastern Bloc anti-communists.

Omitted was the fact that these revolts were mainly crushed without US aid. Omitted also was the decisive role that President Reagan’s “tanks and missiles” – and missile defense – played in the military contest.

In this post-World War II era, Obama declared, “America joined with Europe to reject the darker forces of the past and build a new architecture of peace.”

Russia’s annexation of Crimea, in sum, is an attack on that “architecture,” and, as such, is bad.

On closer examination, however, that same US-EU “architecture” doesn’t support the free-society paradigm so much as what the president calls the “more traditional view of power” – the one that sees “ordinary men and women (as) too small-minded to govern their own affairs.”

This latter view aptly describes the “soft” tyranny of the EU nanny state, whose early lights, after all, were Belgian Socialists and Nazi sympathizers with visions of a unified pan-European welfare state. In Brussels, their political progeny – unelected bureaucrats – increasingly dictate political and social norms across a “United States of Europe”.

In the US, the medical totalitarianism of Obamacare – not to mention Obama’s serial usurpations of power (not enforcing legislation he doesn’t like, making up and enforcing legislation he does like) – makes it all too clear that this president has a dictatorial temperament.

This is unsurprising when you consider that his political baby, his engine of transformative change – state-mandated health care – happens also to have been an early program of the Bolsheviks, and had as one of its earliest US boosters a noted Stalinist named Henry Sigerist. This seems like as good a moment as any to remind readers that the UN and the IMF, those leading institutions of globalist infrastructure, were fostered into post-World War II existence by a pair of notorious American Soviet agents – Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White.

Truly, it’s a Red, Red world.

  • liz

    Yes, sadly, we thought we were defeating Communism, but it just snuck around and came in through the back door.
    It’s one thing to fight a military force, quite another to fight an infiltration of ideas. They don’t die, they just morph into new forms.
    Obama is the perfect vehicle for the latest “morph” of this insidious lie.
    I sometimes have to wonder if he isn’t run by remote control, and they just turn off a switch and hang him up in a closet at night.

    • Don L

      LOL!!! I suspect you are right!

  • Roger

    I give this article an up arrow! There are so many good points made. We became complacent after the cold war, and slowly but surely, one step at a time, our sovereignty, and the Constitution were eroded. The Soviets said it a long time ago that they would defeat us from within. It is a war of ideas, not one of weapons. The cold war was made possible because of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), which ironically, gave them the luxury of time. While we focused on defeating the Soviet empire, they infiltrated our universities and government. Our current “leader” is a Marxist, and he has appointed Marxists or useful idiots to run the bureaucracy. Stacking the courts will insure his “legacy” lasts a long time. It will be difficult to unravel.

  • Don L

    He was such a jackass as a person, but McCarthy was right. Commies were evreywhere and are today!

    Well, here I go again…LOL…follow the money:

    We didn’t win the cold war as much as the Soviet/communist/socialist/Marxist economic sytem was never a system. The icon of 20th century free-market capitalism wrote about how exactly the Soviet sytem would fail back in 1920: “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth” – free:

    In fact, as early as 1893…1893….30 years before any country ever conceived of adopting socialism, a novelist foresaw the failure and horror of such a proposed economic idea; it’s free: “Pictures of the Socialistic Future” – Eugen Richter:
    The Soviet Union collapsed within 70 years. 30 of those years were because the west’s prices for goods and services were available

    • Roger

      Don, I appreciate your tenacity on the fed and fractional banking system. I agree with you. I was once a gold advocate, but I’m not sure anymore. If Fort Knox is empty, and China has been accumulating gold for decades now, would it be a Chinese or international gold-backed currency? If so, what does that do to our sovereignty? Would a “basket of commodities” be a better way to go? The immediate question after ending the fed would be, what are we going to replace it with? Should we allow for competing regional or even local currencies? I think that might be worth considering. What do you think?