If the US has been controlled by globohomo since the early 20th century, how come it fought the USSR and communism so hard during the Cold War? Why did they try to suppress liberal movements like the hippies?

submitted by FriedrichLudwig from self.debatealtright

Also, if the US is controlled by hostile elites that want to rewrite history and facts to promote their ideology and destroy western civilization (like most here, I know this for a fact), how can we know what they say about the USSR/communism is accurate? I mean, the alt-right questions the official account about WW2, but what about the USSR? Asking in good faith, I'm curious what your take on this is.

all 8 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]antireddit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If the US has been controlled by globohomo since the early 20th century

Who said this? Globohomo really began to take shape after WW2 and only really solidified it's power since the fall of the USSR. Some of its roots happened earlier to be sure, but it's really been since the fall of Communism that it has achieved total domination of the west.

As for asking why it opposed the USSR, I dont really understand why that would be confusing to you? Globohomo is capitalist, so why wouldnt they oppose the USSR? The Neocons(basically the most militant and pro zionist wing of globohomo) hated the Soviet Union because Jews were no longer able to dominate it after Trotsky was run out of town. Stalin did use plenty of Jews as willing executioners, before also turning on them when he felt they became too powerful and threatening, but after Stalin the Soviets took active measures to curtail Jewish domination and it infuriated many Jewish Marxists, who then became anti communist Neocons.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Who said this? Globohomo really began to take shape after WW2 and only really solidified it's power since the fall of the USSR.

It depends on what exactly you mean by "globohomo". As far as I am aware, the term refers to "global homogenisation" and in that case the active effort towards this dates back to the sixties and no earlier. If you are looking at the ideology or power behind this drive, however, you will find that the USA has been a center of "globohomo" for far longer. I assume that OP is using the second interpretation.

[–]Courbeaux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The alt-right should question the anti-USSR propaganda but it doesn't. Instead it promotes "muh Holodomor" and hates "Duginists" and "NazBols".

[–]VraiBleuScots Protestant, Ulster Loyalist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

and hates "Duginists" and "NazBols".

No it doesn’t? At most we’re divided on things like that.

As for holdomor & anti-USSR propaganda, you can hardly expect people to spend ages digging up information to defend a state/ideology that were/are our enemies. I’ve seen a lot of evidence that the propaganda against NASDAP Germany was largely false, do you have any evidence that holdomor & other mass purges & genocides alleged against the USSR are wrong too? Genuinely curious.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

At this point I feel like your aggressive shilling is really just an attempt to undermine the reputation of the side you claim to defend.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If the US has been controlled by globohomo since the early 20th century, how come it fought the USSR and communism so hard during the Cold War?

Liberalism and communism are two different and conflicting visions of materialist egalitarianism. They will always be in bitter conflict against one another, anarcho-communist larpers excepted. You should also keep in mind that the rich elites behind liberal materialism will nonetheless be unable to retain anything at all under communism, even if they were hypothetically accepting of the ideology - the practical side of this conflict mustn't be overlooked.

Why did they try to suppress liberal movements like the hippies?

This can be explained in two ways. The first is that the American Republic was and to some extent still is an Enlightenment project. While the Enlightenment is still antitraditional, it offered a worldview and certain preferences to its adherents. These were in obvious conflict with the more anarchist and socialist conceptions of the state, so the old school liberal elements tried to resist that type of reforms. Another thing to keep in mind is that several groups of more or less rightist orientation were still caught up in parts of the US state apparatus and tried to rally all of their influence in order to respond to this new challenge. They failed, as is to be expected given the circumstances.

Also, if the US is controlled by hostile elites that want to rewrite history and facts to promote their ideology and destroy western civilization (like most here, I know this for a fact), how can we know what they say about the USSR/communism is accurate?

By and large, they don't. This doesn't mean that communism is good, of course, but it's bad for entirely different reasons than the ones liberals list. If the communists had won the Cold War I strongly doubt things would be as bad, but that doesn't really mean much given the present situation.

[–]FriedrichLudwig[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks for the detailed response.

This doesn't mean that communism is good, of course, but it's bad for entirely different reasons than the ones liberals list.

What's the difference between the anti-communist arguments used by liberals vs the right?

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It depends on who you ask. I am a lot more economically left than most so I go quite far. Generally, however, most people on the right can agree that materialism is the real problem behind communism, not this or that system of economic management or at least not just the system of economic management. As you may know, Marxism reduces everything to a progressive arc of economic development, meaning that things like ideals, creeds, causes, nations, religions, the family, cultures, institutions and values are all just economic tools designed with the purpose of extracting "surplus value". Marxist materialism does not even recognise the consciousness in any meaningful way. To many, many people, that is an utterly abhorrent, put aside inaccurate, worldview.

There can also be disagreement on the nature of the economic problem, but again, it depends on who you ask. A lot of people double or triple down on the liberal argument about "communist misery". There is certainly some truth to it in certain respects and especially during certain times. The early Soviet industrialisation and urbanisation had some very disgusting side effects, for example. Similarly, while the "bread lines" argument is a total joke for almost all the existence of the USSR, during and immediately after the civil war and the second world war there was genuine starvation and profound misery. Food shortages were also troublesome during the final years of professional idiot Gorbachev's leadership, although ironically the phase of liberalism that followed was far more destructive than anything even he could achieve.