Subject: Traitor Jane Fonda
| Humbling Hanoi Jane - Washington Times 7/20/11 Fonda whines when dissed by capitalist system she once condemned..... By Jeffrey T. Kuhner - The Washington Times 7:41 p.m., Tuesday, July 19, 2011 Hanoi Jane has been humbled. Recently, the home shopping channel QVC canceled a scheduled appearance by Jane Fonda. The actress was supposed to discuss her latest book, "Prime Time." She is shocked and angry that QVC disinvited her because of mounting public opposition. "The network said they got a lot of calls," Ms. Fonda wrote on her personal blog, "criticizing me for my opposition to the Vietnam War and threatening to boycott the show if I was allowed to appear." She added: "I am, to say the least, deeply disappointed that QVC caved to this kind of insane pressure by some well-funded and organized political extremist groups." QVC is right. In fact, they should never have invited her in the first place. Ms. Fonda did more than oppose the Vietnam War: She actively aided and abetted the enemy. Like many in the anti-war '60s left, she was a traitor who openly supported the North Vietnamese communists. For years, Ms. Fonda has sought to cynically and mendaciously obfuscate her moral culpability. The great liberal myth - the basis of the modern new left - is that the '60s represented a triumph for freedom and social justice. All of the "liberation" movements - homosexual rights, multiculturalism and radical feminism - stem from that turbulent decade. Yet, at its core was opposition to the Vietnam War. For peaceniks, America's involvement in that conflict reflected the country's profound sins: racism, imperialism and militarism. Only a humiliating defeat could cleanse the United States of its chauvinistic, evil nature. This is why anti-war activists, such as Ms. Fonda, championed a victory by the Viet Cong. They celebrated North Vietnam's Marxist dictator, Ho Chi Minh, as a "peasant reformer" and "nationalist" who sought only one noble goal: to reunify his nation free from imperial domination. The '60s left even referred to him as "Uncle Ho" - a beloved elder patriotic statesman. According to Ms. Fonda and other radicals such as Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Noam Chomsky, the war marked the defining event in the crisis of capitalism. The burgeoning peace movement would act as the catalyst, the vanguard for utopian socialism. "Bring the revolution home," went the slogan. Hence, Ms. Fonda was not just an activist, but a self-styled revolutionary. She went to Hanoi in 1972, publicly praised the workers' paradise and sat on top of a North Vietnamese ant-aircraft gun - one that was targeting U.S. planes and U.S. boys. She cheered the murder of Americans. Her actions gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Her intention was to demoralize American public opinion and discredit the war effort. In the end, the left succeeded. America pulled out, the war was lost and South Vietnam fell to the communist North. Vietnam has been over for decades. Liberals romanticize it as the heroic struggle of the '60s. Their Orwellian narrative - false as it is malevolent - is that U.S. withdrawal led to regional peace and security. The very opposite occurred: The victory by North Vietnam unleashed a holocaust. Rampaging communist forces summarily executed more than 100,000 civilians. Vietnam's ethnic Chinese community was exterminated. A totalitarian state was erected. More than 1.5 million boat people took to the high seas - many of them drowning in dangerous waters. Hanoi would wage a war of aggression against Laos, wiping out the Hmong tribe. The declension of American power also resulted in Cambodia's fall to communism. The Khmer Rouge - initially armed and supported by Hanoi - massacred more than 2 million Cambodians. America's defeat led to the "Killing Fields." Ms. Fonda bears significant responsibility for these atrocities. She urged U.S. withdrawal. She glorified the murderous North Vietnamese communists. She misrepresented the true nature of Ho's regime and of the war itself. Rather than being a struggle for national liberation, Vietnam signified the Marxist conquest of the South. It's akin to Stalinist North Korea having defeated South Korea in 1953 - a significant setback, not a victory, for human freedom. To suggest otherwise is to engage in dishonest propaganda or pathetic self-delusion. The Vietnamese have had to live with the tragic consequences of Marxist-Leninism. Ms. Fonda, however, hasn't. She couldn't last a day in communist Vietnam. Instead, she went on to become a Hollywood actress and sell millions of workout videos. Like most new leftists, she gorged on American capitalism while simultaneously demonizing it. She mouthed revolutionary socialism but made millions catering to shallow consumerism. Ms. Fonda embodies the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the '60s left. Its seminal idea boils down to one impulse: hatred of "Amerika," which was spelled with a "k" to suggest its fascist undertones. New- age liberalism represented the politics of illusion and self-loathing - the refusal to acknowledge that, for all of its flaws, the United States has been the greatest force for good in modern political history. Her treasonous behavior and shameful past are why viewers did not want Ms. Fonda on QVC. This boycott should continue until she stops peddling the false image of a misunderstood, aggrieved and noble peace activist. There was nothing noble in what she or her fellow radicals did. Just ask the people of Vietnam. Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute. http://www.washingtontimes.com |
Posts
31 comments:
Ah, the joy of the Dolchstoß Republicans. There is no greater crime than being *right* about the futility and mendacity of an American war.
I consider myself lucky that I'm too young to nurse a grudge about what a war protestor said about an unpopular war 50 years ago.
The right can never forget their failure In Vietnam nor can they take any responsibility for it. They did, however learn somethirg from it. We no longer try to fight wars of choice with draftees and higher taxes, risking the wrath of the masses. we no longer have free media coverage of war, and rarely see the dead and wounded and grieving families. Some would say they learned the wrong lessons from Vietnam.
All of the "liberation" movements - homosexual rights, multiculturalism and radical feminism - stem from that turbulent decade.
Damn queers, darkies and womenfolk! Why can't they just know their proper place in the shadows/background/kitchen and get they hell back there! How dare they demand things like "respect" and "equal treatment" and "freedom"? The nerve of some people!
"For peaceniks, America's involvement in that conflict reflected the country's profound sins: racism, imperialism and militarism."
I don't know how you could draw that conclusion, seeing how we were fighting an unpopular war in a country thousands of miles away to support a corrupt dictatorship with a lasting legacy of colonial rule, while denying black people the vote in the U.S. at the same time.
"They celebrated North Vietnam's Marxist dictator, Ho Chi Minh, as a "peasant reformer" and "nationalist" who sought only one noble goal: to reunify his nation free from imperial domination."
Except that's exactly what they were doing. Ho Chi Mihn would have won any free and fair election in a landslide in July of 1956. Fearful of communist domination of SE Asia, we decided to get involved. Notice a pattern here?
"Rampaging communist forces summarily executed more than 100,000 civilians."
Ever wonder how many civilians we killed with our aerial bombing of the north? No? Good for you.
"Vietnam's ethnic Chinese community was exterminated."
This is false, and obscures the fact that China and Vietnam, you know, went to WAR in the late 1970s.
"Hanoi would wage a war of aggression against Laos, wiping out the Hmong tribe."
Which would not doubt be an interesting revelation to the Hmong still living in Vietnam.
"The Khmer Rouge - initially armed and supported by Hanoi - massacred more than 2 million Cambodians. America's defeat led to the "Killing Fields."
Actually, we initially supported the Khmer Rouge to pit them against the newly-victorious Vietnamese, and condemned Vietnamese aggression in the area, even though the Vietnamese were trying to put the kibosh on the whole thing.
Face it. The war is long over. Vietnam has long since moved on. We failed in our objectives, which were in any case wrong. We emerged from the 1960s a freer and more open society than we had been in the past. The rest is just sour grapes.
Oh shit, I was going to comment but everyone before me was just epic.
Ok, what the hell...
Conservatives: just GET OVER IT ALREADY.
But, of course, if you could get over ANYTHING, you wouldn't be dinosaurs, now would you?
One thing more.
By supporting a corrupt dictatorship with a lasting legacy of colonial rule, we deserved what happened to us.
Capitalism is a global system of exploitation and oppression.
The freedom and advancement of the American people is closely tied to the freedom and advancement of all working people and the oppressed around the world. Remember “People and Nature Before Profits."
In the early days of the war in Vietnam, Progressives were among the few who openly opposed the war. Their pioneering work helped build a huge peace movement.
There I feel better now.
gruaud said...
Besides, What's wrong with Jane Fonda?
Can't you teabagging idiots comprehend what she did was good for you?
She tamed the raging beast that is unfettered
Capitalism and made it work with us, not
against us.
Join me and take a stand today against the stupid RW!
http://www.cpusa.org/join-us/
She apologized, fake-dummy-gruaud.
This is why your side shouldn't ever govern:
You're assholes.
Un-fucking-believable fake gruaud.
We should put you all in a concentration camp and let you rot.
The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is over - and that Jane Fonda won
A few notes for you. A communist utopia would be, like, the greatest
thing ever.
The simple fact is that communism provides help to
those who need. it.
As all of the citizens in a nation are helped, than
the engine of capitalism can succeed in providing
a higher standard of living for everyone. This
was proven in decisive manner by the liberal
policies of the Roosevelt administration.
Right wing thinking regarding communism is based
on two assumptions which have repeatedly been
demonstrated to be wrong.
1) By helping people, you take away their will to
be successful. False. Everyone has been helped
at one time or another. I'm pretty sure most of
you are successful.
2) By helping people, your piece of the pie gets
smaller. This is also false. Your piece of the pie
only gets smaller if your are one of the elite 10%.
They already have 9 out of 10 pieces of pie, the
pigs.
Current RW thinking is espoused by the elite
in order to keep ALL of the pie. We call this
'greed'. Pretty it up all you want; that's all it is.
We need to control these RW assholes and start taking from the rich!
Join me!
http://www.cpusa.org/save-the-nation-tax-corporations-tax-the-rich/
Now dipshit is going back and cherrypicking my old posts.
You want to debate socialism vs capitalism?
Sack up and pick your own identity. I know you won't, because you know I will mop the floor with you.
fake gruaud
If you want to debate socialism vs capitalism:
Capitalism is a global system of exploitation and oppression and nothing more.
It forces people, through a false concept of private property, to pay for the goods they already have the right to own.
This pressures the masses to work for a living instead of organizing and destroying the bourgeoisie.
Socialism is a progressive political system that takes the power away from wealth creators and gives it to wealth distributors.
Wealth distributors are typically a class of highly trained government bureaucrats who are being watched by a class of political commissars,
who, in turn, are being watched by a class of secret police, all of whom are banded together by shared progressive morals.
Because progressive morals are relative by definition, a certain measure of absolute propaganda is necessary to encourage collectivism
and discourage counter revolution. Since such propaganda is delivered through mass media, arts, and schools, a degree of ideological monopoly,
uniformity, and censorship is also required in those fields.
The resulting mass enthusiasm creates a vibrant state-subsidized culture,
leading to great economic successes and technological breakthroughs, e.g., in North Korea.
I know you are too much of a coward to talk to me openly about this.
You RW tool.
Ha! Ha!
Best Troll EVER!!!
LOL
Ha! Ha!
Best Troll EVER!!!
LOL
Meh, not really
And even if he were an entertaining troll, it would still be a troll. That's like saying he's the best smelling piece of shit. Which would be fitting, because he's pretty full of it.
Sounds like gruaud is more of a communist than anything else.
Sounds like gruaud is more of a communist than anything else.
Nope. His name stealing troll tries to make him sound like one, but he doesn't even do a very good job of that. Too over the top. To much of a caricature of what idiot right wingers think communists actually are like.
His name stealing troll?
I looked at his response to the fake gruaud.
If you want to debate socialism vs capitalism:
Capitalism is a global system of exploitation and oppression and nothing more.
Again he is supporting communism.
If this site wants to support the progressive movement, it would be best not to confuse it with communism. That only give the GOP more to hurt us with.
-Nancy
I dunno 'bout the rest of you, but I sure as hell hasve no trouble telling the real gruaud from the fake.
Hey, Dumbass Troll: You SUCK at immitations. And if you think yo're doing "parody", you also suck at that. Parody only works when you know what you're doing, and actually have asome sort of accurate concept of what you're trying to parody. You don't.
Please just stop embarrassing yourself.
Again he is supporting communism.
Decrying the evils of capitalism is not the same as supporting communism.
If this site wants to support the progressive movement, it would be best not to confuse it with communism. That only give the GOP more to hurt us with.
Fuck the GOP. They'll call anything communism, or facism, or socialism, or whatever their word salad de jour is, regardless of the facts of the situation.
Oh lord, this was funny.
The best part?
My imitator never took a distinct identity and debated me, which pretty much proves my point. If your ideology is utter crap, you must distract and obfuscate.
A social-democracy takes the best of both worlds and helps all citizens. And that's a good thing, except to reactionaries.
guraud's fake troll is a scaredy-cat unwilling to assume his/her own identity and stand on his/her own two feet. Similar with my own fake identity ferschitz troll, who shows up periodically.
Guess these conservatives have learned from their tin-pot "gods" like Rush how to not fight fair bc they are too scared to admit to their own identities.
Oh well.
These diatribes about Jane Fonda are so oooolllldddd and boring and dull. Get over it. This is old news.
Viet Nam, like Iraq & Afganistan, was huge mistake. Jane Fonda did something wrong, but she apologized for it a long long time ago. If some true Viet Nam vets wish to nurse a grudge against her, well, ok, they are entitled to it because, ya know, they did put their lives on the line (even though it was for a stupid "cause" ginned up by the Military Industrial Complex to, as usual, make money for the mega-rich).
The rest of these arm-chair keyboard conservate warriors need to get over it. Ancient history and old news.
Just so everyone knows, Jane Fonda was never a member of any communist party.
She was solidly in the new left camp. This whole Fonda is a commie trope is simply another part of the Dolchstosslegende.
The whole god-fearing patriotistical 'murcans vs godless heathens lefties thing doesn't work if you allow yourself to see beyond black and white, grey areas and other colors. Thus the ongoing insistence that she was a communist, and the excessive use of straw men.
It's funny how little all of you in the comments section know what you are talking about. Go read a non-biased (emphasis on non-biased) book on this war.
I've read these:
Vietnam: A History - Kamow
A Bright Shining Lie - Sheehan
A Rumor of War - Caputo
Winners and Losers - Emerson
And, most recently, Matterhorn - Marlentes.
Recommend something instead of just bitching.
@Anon
Into the Mouth of the Cat - McConnell
Can't remember the title but another technical book on the Secret Forward Air War in Laos
Nixonland - Rick Perlstein
The Things they Carried: Tim O'Brien
Currently working my way through Caro's LBJ biographies. I have Matterhorn that guarad mentioned on my "to read list".
Other books about war I recommend: The Face of Battle, The Guns of August, Helmet for my Pillow, Trafalgar, The Forever War, The Harlem Hellfighters, Gates of Fire, The War in the Pacific, US Grant's Memoirs.
@ Anon
Forgot to mention: the idea of an "unbiased" book about a war, any war, is laughable. But even biased account can be factual, unlike this email forward.
Bonus rec: War is a Racket, by Major General Smedley Butler (only person to ever win 2 Medals of Honor and the Marine Corp Brevet Medal!)
http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2011/03/22/3170335.htm
Not to mention that my good friend and former next door neighbor was an Australian War correspondent in Viet Nam. I knew a lot of Viet Nam Vets when I lived down under some years ago, and I listened to their stories (as well as those of my USA cousin, who was an officer in Viet Nam).
It's nifty how conservatives want to castigate "liberals" as if we have no clue or never talked to someone who was conscripted and fought in Viet Nam.
Here's a book that I've read about Viet Nam from the Aus perspective:
http://www.amazon.com/Vietnam-Australian-War-Paul-Ham/dp/0732282373
Very good, anon.
Nixonland sits on my bookshelf. Excellent read.
And I've read all your other recommendations, although Forever War is Vietnam disguised as science fiction.
Hell, we might as well recommend Catch-22 and M*A*S*H.
Hey anon, how we doing?
Yeah, we'll never see you again, that is certain.
@ gruaud
I think we're talking about different books. My "The Forever War" is by Dexter Filkins, its an account of his travels in war torn Iraq and Afghanistan.
Speaking of which, how could I forget to mention Thomas Ricks's "Fiasco"? Excellent book, well worth a read.
Thanks for setting me straight.
I'll put this in my queue this weekend.
Post a Comment