We must all worry about Barak Obama dragging us into the
middle of the Syrian conflict.
This globalist politician has justified this possibility with ‘human
rights’ rhetoric. Knowing the difference
between nationalist and culturist foreign policy, on the one hand, and
globalist human rights policy, on the other, will aid our efforts to stop
America’s entry into this Muslim civil war.
Obama has been discussing attacking Syria’s government because
we should not tolerate the violation of “international norms.”[i] His ally, the Prime Minister of
the UK, David Cameron, said the “world should not stand by” as the Syrian
government uses chemical weapons against its own people.[ii] As globalists – equally
concerned with all parts of the planet – both Obama and Cameron want to fight
in Syria to protect human rights and internationalism.
The looming strike on Syria could be denounced from both
nationalist and culturist premises.
The American nationalist perspective is a fine doctrine wherein we only
fight when America’s national security is threatened. Culturist foreign policy would have us protect our friends
as well. In this culturism is
slightly more belligerent than nationalism. But, the ‘human rights’ foreign policy justification that
Obama suggests requires us to go to war every time someone’s ‘human rights’ are
violated.
‘Human rights’ is a vague phrase; it certainly doesn’t refer
to American interests; it doesn’t even refer to the survival of the West; in
fact, it is culturally neutral.
Whereas globalist human rights advocates see no borders, culturists see
the world as divided along cultural lines. Furthermore, culturism sees these sides as being in
competition. Syria, from a culturist
perspective, is on the Islamic side; whereas America is on the western side.
Culturism, again, flatly rejects globalism while augmenting
the nationalist perspective. From a purely nationalist perspective, America and
Britain have nothing in common. From a culturist perspective, these two nations share a
common identity as a part of the West.
Thus culturism provides the West with a parallel concept to the Islamic
concept of “Ummah,” (meaning larger Islamic community that transcends nations);
culturism transcends our national borders.
Culturist foreign policy is based on protecting the
West. If Australia, for example,
were being attacked by an Islamic nation, strict nationalists would argue that
America stay neutral (Australia and America are different nations). From a culturist perspective, western
nations should protect each other as they are culturally linked. Additionally, western culturists argue
that when Christian minorities in Islamic nations are being killed - if we have the means – we should
consider protecting them. Thus,
culturists would have American nationalists consider “western interests.”
In reality, culturists and nationalists often agree upon
American interests. Whereas strict
nationalists might stay isolationist as Muslims attacked another western
nation, many nationalists would not.
But globalists’ human rights foreign policy is anathema to both American
nationalists and culturists. Human
rights globalists would have us disregard parochial considerations such as
American or western interests.
Again, this very week globalist politicians are seeking to draw America
into a Muslim civil war to protect human rights.
Culturists and nationalists must unite against the proposed
globalist war in Syria. American
nationalists must tell the public that Syria’s civil war has nothing to do with
our nation. America cannot go
further into debt to protect non-American “global citizens.” Culturists must remind the
powers-that-be that Muslims are our enemies in the clash of civilizations. Moreover, culturists must point out
that the Syrian rebels have been attacking Syria’s Christians.
United, American nationalist and western culturists can stop
the proposed globalist military action in Syria that Obama is launching in the
name of global human rights.
[i] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/29/obama-advocates-for-shot-across-bow-in-syria-as-congress-says-wait/
[ii] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23883427
No comments:
Post a Comment