"Russia Did It" - The Last Stand Of Neoconservatism

Tyler Durden's picture

Via GEFIRA,

In 1992, at the end of the Cold War, an American political scientist infamously proclaimed "the end of history:" liberal democracy and the capitalist system has won, the rest of the world will eventually embrace western ideas as superior to theirs because only they are able to provide peace and prosperity.

This line of reasoning has since become the West’s dogma in international relations, and so under the pretext of spreading human rights and parliamentary democracy all over the world the West perceives itself to be on a mission. For a while, it worked. Most of Eastern Europe readily embraced Western democracy and capitalism and even Russia seemed to follow.

Some intellectuals brought it to a new level: the rest of the world will have to embrace capitalism and liberal democracy voluntarily or else they will be forced to. It was the birth of neoconservatism in the United States and it would spread across the Atlantic. The Neocon vision had other implications, listed in the likewise infamous “Wolfowitz Doctrine”, and these are:

  • American supremacy, which translates into active prevention of the formation and rise of any power that could challenge it;
  • unilateral intervention;
  •  pre-emptive action;
  • undermining Russia, by taking out from its sphere of influence the former Soviet countries which had not embraced western values yet, like Ukraine;
  • forcing the Muslim world to accept the Israeli state on the latter’s conditions.

By the 2000s, Neocons had taken over the Republican Party in the US and the Labour Party in the UK and could count on allies in Italy (Berlusconi) and Spain (Aznar). In the following decade, Neocon ideology spread virulently, substituting for the failed experiment of military intervention to overthrow non-cooperating governments with covert operations funding and/or arming local groups in Libya, Syria,Tunisia Egypt, Georgia, and Ukraine.
Neocon adherents took over the US state department, and their grip on it was strengthened by the appointment of Barack Obama as assistant to Victoria Nuland, Secretary of State for European affairs, wife of Robert Kagan, who is in turn a top Neocon ideologist alongside Paul Wolfowitz. They also created the narrative spread and reinforced by the mainstream media, which expose the alleged crimes of non-cooperating regimes in Syria, Russia and Libya, while ignoring the anti “democratic” behavior by friendly dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia’s kings.

The mission however never changed. What changed is the mood of Western citizens about the government changes and state-building projects of the Western leadership; as the economic and human cost grew endlessly, the Western public opinion has become fed up with interventionism around the world.

The British Labour party was the first to face the malcontents: Blairites are being ousted in favour of anti-NATO, sworn pacifist Jeremy Corbyn.

Then Donald Trump won the US election with his “America First” i.e. a policy of “non-interventionism and protectionism”, defeating Hillary’s hawkish one, publicly endorsed by Kagan and Wolfowitz; Sarkozy and Juppè were defeated in the primaries in France by Fillon, who is advocating the end of the trade war against big bad Neocon target Russia. The Neocon-backing Western establishment is facing political upheaval all over Europe and the US. These revolutions are not mere popular movements. Trump’s election is the handing over of power from one influential group to another because a part of the establishment has become fully aware of the problems Europe and the US are facing.

After a fourteen-year war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq the bloodshed spilled over into the streets of Paris and Berlin. The killing of civilians in the streets in Europe was not supposed to happen after the eradication of Al Qaeda and the alleged elimination of its leader Osama Bin Laden. Or should we rather say European insanity is spilling over, as the European establishment is simultaneously bombing a country and importing the country’s inhabitants? What do the Western leadership expect to have on their hands? Meanwhile Russia is reemerging as a more successful international actor.

China has become a production hub, building its own financial institutions and will become more and more independent of the US and European financial systems. In 2015 China launched its alternative CIPS for the SWIFT system, which had been for more than 30 years the center of international financial transactions.

The rapid and dramatic demographic changes cannot continue unnoticed by the establishment. The white population in the United States has decreased from 79.6 percent in 1980 to 61.9 percent in 2014. The percentage of Latino Americans has risen from 6.4 percent to 17.3 percent over the same period, while both the African American and Asian American populations have gone up. Europe is facing a multicultural quagmire and downward spiral of violence. The African and Muslim communities are hostile to Western societies and openly threatening to kill Westerners in endlessly numerous music videos posted on the internet.

The German establishment is in a complete state of denial, and the French Republican Party leaders believe they can regain control with some harsh words directed at the Muslim community on the one hand and unprecedented austerity measures dished out to the French population on the other.

In the US there are people like Richard Haas, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who are strongly advocating a change in the Middle East policy. Haas would like to see America using its diplomatic and military power for gaining influence in South East Asia and deal with nations rather than tribes in Syria; he would also rather the US restored order at home than resolve the problems in Mosul and Fallujah in Iraq or Sirte in Libya.

The Neocon world peaked and is now crumbling at record speed. And what is the Neocons’ reaction? A failure to topple governments may have been taken into account, but the electoral defeats in the West were unexpected. In a bid that looks like a mix of anger and desperation the Neocon machine is using the US State Department and the mainstream media to mount a gigantic offensive putting the blame for its own failures on the battered Russia: so without having much evidence, neocons created a narrative that Russia has helped Donald Trump win the elections.

But of course, why stop there? Thus Neocon Blairite remnants in the UK are joining the crowd and claim that “Russian hackers caused Brexit’’.

What else? Gustav Gressel of the European Council on Foreign Relations claims that Russian secret services (rather than European open borders refugee policy) are behind the epidemic of sexual assaults committed by migrants in Germany7) attempting to weaken Merkel’s credibility for the next year election. Whenever something doesn’t go according to plan for the Western establishment, it’s Russia’s fault. Expect to see more.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ACP's picture

80% to 60% in 35 years?

Gotta be the fastest dilution of any gene pool in human history.

CuttingEdge's picture

Until you see Germany Islamify in years to come, you aint seen nothing yet.

Not sure who are more evil - the nutjob islamists or the libfucktard politicians enabling them. Probably a toss up.

lhomme's picture
lhomme (not verified) CuttingEdge Dec 23, 2016 6:04 AM

WRONG!

W Bush: "Dad, what's a neocon?"
HW Bush: "You want names or description?"
W: "Description."
HW: "Israel."

http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/israel-is-the-problem/

rmopf2010's picture

It's raining in my city. God dam those Rooskies!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jmack's picture

the libfucktard politicans are the warm damp condition, the islamists are the black mold.

HippieHaulers's picture

Third wave feminism is a one way ticket to demographic collapse.

JailBanksters's picture

Well they could always take it to the World Court, take all your evidence along in a Mack Truck or a Box of Tick Tacks which ever fits.

Bwah Ha Ha

Bay of Pigs's picture

90% of Americans have no idea who Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan or Victoria Nuland are.

enfield0916's picture

Also, 90% the world does not know what Rothschild Zionism and Greter Israel are.

 

Events orchestrated in the Middle East by the Zionist whores from DC to London and beyond, are masterminded by our Zionism overlords.

Koba the Dread's picture

90% of all Americans have no idea who anybody is except for their current squeeze and their drug dealer. Yo, man!

Tactical Joke's picture

It honk you're giving them too much credit. Try 99% and you may be getting close.

Squid Viscous's picture

that's why they deserve everything that's coming their way,

Santa Stein is Coming to Town, sing it sheeples!

Walter_Sobchak's picture

Simply put, Europeans are being genocided by jews.

the global scrutiniser's picture

Completely accurate.

The zionist disease is rife in euroland, it's epicenter  the putrid  goyim slave office in Westminster, London.

Batman11's picture

It's failed because its fundamentally wrong.

The same solution has been used by Central Banks around the world and led to “secular stagnation” aka “the new normal”, it doesn’t work.

It is the solution provided by today’s economics which is why everyone uses it.

There was one nation that used fiscal stimulus rather than monetary stimulus, China. China was the engine of global growth after 2008 and its insatiable demand for raw materials caused other emerging economies to do very well too. Fiscal stimulus works in a way that monetary stimulus just doesn’t.

China also uses today’s economics but in this case followed the work of Richard Koo who says fiscal stimulus is the best way to get out of balance sheet recessions. Using today’s supply side economics has led to massive inequality with China and with almost no welfare state everyone is saving for a rainy day, it has never been able to develop sufficient internal demand due to this economics, so when fiscal stimulus ended there was nothing to keep it going.

We think privatising previously public companies, austerity and cutting Government spending is the answer to all problems. The IMF and World Bank have been doing this for 50 years left a trail of disaster through South America, Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and now Western Europe with Greece.

It is the solution provided by today’s economics.

Today’s economics was first tried in Chile and led to vast wealth for a few and widespread poverty for the many, it has never been any different.

Today’s economics is fundamentally different from the economics that preceded it and I would suggest, fundamentally wrong.

Neo-liberalism, and its underlying neoclassical economics, rely on debt to paper over the cracks, when debt. maxes out it stops working.

A system that re-cycles the surplus can carry on working indefinitely.

With Thatcher and Reagan we bought in a new type of capitalism and changed most of the fundamental assumptions.

Francis Fukuyama in 1992 said it was “the end of history” and Capitalism had been the only successful economic system to stand the test of time.

But we had just changed the fundamental assumptions about capitalism.

1) 40 years ago, most economists and almost everyone else believed the economy was demand driven and the system naturally trickled up.

2) Now most economists and almost everyone else believes the economy is supply driven and the system naturally trickles down.

These assumptions are the total opposite of each other.

When we believed the economy was demand driven and trickled up, we used strong progressive taxation to compensate for the inherent trickle up of capitalism.

Inequality reached its lowest levels in recorded history in the developed world; there were no demand side problems.

Now we believe the economy is supply driven and trickles down, we lowered taxes on the wealthy and inequality soared; the demand side problems grow worse as the sticking plaster solution of debt. maxes out for individual consumers.

When we believed the economy was demand driven and trickled up, we thought fiscal stimulus was the answer to get the economy going again as it created jobs and wages to be spent into the economy and trickle up. We are just getting back to this way of thinking.

Now we believe the economy is supply driven and trickles down, we thought monetary stimulus was the answer to get the economy going again as the money given to the banks would trickle down to everyone else. After eight years we are just starting to realise this didn’t work and are heading back to fiscal stimulus based on assumption one.

Keynes said that monetary policy wouldn’t work in a severe recession and would lead to a “liquidity trap”, this is the Central Banker’s “savings glut”. 

1) 40 years ago, most economists and almost everyone else believed income was just as important as profit. Income looked after the demand side of the equation and profit the supply side. 

2) Now most economists and almost everyone else believes maximising profit is the only thing that matters.

The IMF, Larry Summers and others are commenting on the chronic lack of demand in the system, it looks as though assumption one was right all along. We had been relying on the sticking plaster solution of debt to keep assumption two working but this maxes out.

This is the source of “secular stagnation” aka “the new normal”.

1) 40 years ago, most economists and almost everyone else believed Capitalism tends to polarise and you need to recycle the surplus

2) Now most economists and almost everyone else believes capitalism naturally reaches stable equilibriums

Wealth is polarising at an alarming rate and demand is suffering.

2016 – “Richest 62 people as wealthy as half of world’s population”

Keynesian capitalism used strong progressive taxation to compensate for the inherent trickle up of capitalism.

The sticking plaster solution of debt maxes out, recycling the surplus can keep the whole thing going forever.

When Keynes was involved in putting together the new international order after the Second World War, mechanisms to recycle the surplus were put in place in the Bretton-Woods agreement.

When the Euro was designed we assumed the Euro area would naturally reach a stable equilibrium and there are no mechanisms to recycle the surplus.

The Euro-zone is polarising and the poorest nation, Greece, has collapsed under its debts and the other Club-Med nations are heading that way.

The sticking plaster solution of debt maxes out, recycling the surplus can keep the whole thing going forever.

Neo-liberalism was rolled out across the world, only debt has kept it running and the world is now maxed. out on debt.

The problems with the Euro, the global debt level, secular stagnation and the new normal all stem from today’s economics.

It’s failed, because it’s fundamentally wrong.

 

Elco the Constitutionalist's picture
Elco the Constitutionalist (not verified) Batman11 Dec 23, 2016 3:24 AM

Really thoughtful post, Batmann. With a little editing for clarity, it would make a great article.

Manipuflation's picture

What the hell kind of post is that Batman for a fake news operation such as ourselves?  Holy shit, it appears that you actually read a great deal and comprehend what you are reading.

Good post.  You will become an enemy of the state if you keep on reading too much though.

wacky47's picture

some pretty profound thinking and analysis here..............

Kidbuck's picture

Demand and supply are not either or propositions. There is no single entity called an economy to stimulate. Using the word economy as an aggregate is only useful for central planners to fuck over the plans of individuals. Where the fuck is the word economy in the constitution?

devnickle's picture

Put simply. If the masses can't afford to buy your widget you won't sell any, and will be filing chapter 11.

foxenburg's picture

I remember those days when we were always reading about the terror on the road from Baghdad Airport to the Green Zone......the way that any Iraqi (which meant Sunni) vehicle that came too close to a coalition vehicle got a snot squirt of .50 calibre lead..... it was obvious it was going to create a whole lot of very pissed-off citizens with a grudge that would last generations.

And verily, it has come to pass.

HowdyDoody's picture

Plus the sacking and blacklisting of all the Iraqi military. Some pissed off dudes with military skills are gonna find money somewhere - ironically as a terrorist proxy force funded by the same US that sacked them in the first place, first in Iraq, then Libya and now Syria.

It is almost as if it was planned (Wesley Clarke 2001 - 'we are going to take out 7 countries in 5 years' - cough, cough)

Byte Me's picture

I'm getting sick of seeing this kind of crap:

so without having much evidence, neocons created a narrative that Russia has helped Donald Trump win the elections.

FFS..

so without having much evidence, neocons created a FICTION that Russia has helped Donald Trump win the elections.

 

How fucking hard is it to call "narratives" that are unsubstantiated for what they are?

Or have we lost another innocent word to the proggies?

Swamp Yankee's picture

Since when is The Hildabeast a 'con' of any description, neo or otherwise?

devnickle's picture

"CON" artist fits perfectly. 

Manipuflation's picture

It is always is entertaining to live with my Russian wife if you are me.  We still laugh together about shit like this after all these years.  We can't even believe how piss poor the quality of the propaganda effort is these days.  We pine for the days of yore when we were truly lied to.  

 

monad's picture

I think the Mayflowers sold us out. - Butterfinger

Freedumb's picture

Was about to comment on how atrocious a sentence there was up there in bold, but then if you go to the actual article they've revised it to "Neocon adherents took over the US state department, and their grip on it was strengthened by the appointment in the Obama administration of Victoria Nuland, Secretary of State for European affairs, wife of Robert Kagan, who is in turn a top Neocon ideologist alongside Paul Wolfowitz."

People looking to discredit articles will hone in on things like that.

Freedumb's picture

Still a bad sentence, though. I think there should be a higher standard on Zerohedge in terms of republishing things, it should at least be professional, it does not take much effort but it will make a difference in convincing people who might reflexively dismiss something based on a few bad sentences or shit formatting. Clean it up yourselves in [ ] brackets, you don't even need to deal with the original authors or sources.

caesium's picture

ZH's more moronic regulars keep the neocon project going by quoting Nuland's : "Fuck the EU" comment. Like America has so many friends thanks to its brown noseing of Israel.

Fireman's picture

Spit it out...you can say it...go on.... the sect slash tribe slash neocohen Bolshevik jews that own the lying media and most of the political whores are fucking desperate and the Ruskie card is all that's left and that ain't working!

 

Boycott Israhell and all things zionazi.

 

Barcodes 500, 729 & 871 mark the supremacist beast in occupied, apartheid Palestine.

Barcodes 7219 & 7912 mark the filth of the squatters in the infected bits of Palestine.

 

Get ready for mass Ruskie organized hairy goat muzz rape of German women! Wuff wuff wufffffff!

http://russia-insider.com/en/german-tabloid-putin-will-organize-arab-rap...

IronForge's picture

Don't forget the Liberal Radicals:

Secretary Clinton, the DNC, Brzezinskis, and the Nuland-Khagans are all blaming it on the Russians.

 

Cassandra.Hermes's picture

Russian had problems as well, the explosion this week in Moscow for example, 6% of ISIS fighters are from Russia, the ambassador...
The Russian mastered the art of Advertisement bots in Ukraine and they are applying it to destabilize Western world, you can see it in Holland right now, we saw it during Italian referendum, in Bulgaria election, you can see it Poland and Germany as well,just reading the news about berlin's terrorist in Spiegel.de few minutes ago, I had anti Merkel meme on the side bar...

Swedgen's picture

ahahaha, "destabilizing the west" with an anti-Merkel meme. I don't know if y'all are more stupid than you are insane, but either way at least the liberal-neocon mass media zombies are good for a laugh. 

General Titus's picture
TROTSKY, STRAUSS, AND THE NEOCONS
War Party's leftist and elitist roots exposed

Justin Raimondo

The War Party is playing defense these days, and for good reason: in Iraq, there is no sign of those "weapons of mass destruction," and in Washington, Congress is getting ready to launch an investigation into who lied about what – and why. Meanwhile, one American soldier is getting killed every other day, on average – weeks after Bush's declaration of "victory." This is what old King Pyrrhus had in mind when he said: "One more victory such as this, and we are done for."

Worst of all – from the War Party's perspective – is that the neocon meme is really getting out there. Every day, it seems, there is a new article in some periodical not only pointing to them as the driving force behind the rush to war, but also detailing their ideological odyssey from left to right – and this is driving the neocons craaaazy. The result is that, within less than 24 hours, no less than four major polemics appeared denouncing this level of scrutiny as evidence of (what else?) "anti-Semitism."

First to weigh in was Robert Bartley, in the Wall Street Journal, who approaches the problem by floating his own sort of conspiracy theory: the whole brouhaha, he avers, is a plot by Lyndon LaRouche and his kooky followers. The evidence: a pamphlet put out by the LaRouchies, luridly entitled "Children of Satan." Bartley is apparently a LaRouche afficionado – or, at least, interested enough to claim, with a knowledgeable air, that

"It does seem to be true that the LaRouche screed was first in line in thrusting Leo Strauss, author of such volumes as Natural Right and History, into the middle of the debate over the Iraq war. The theme was later sounded by James Atlas in the New York Times and Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker."

This is absolute nonsense, on two counts:

1) As anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of how to use Google could discover in a moment, the neocons' enemies have long been aware of Strauss's cult and its baleful influence. Libertarians are naturally horrified by the Straussian devotion to the benevolent dictatorship of a self-appointed elite, and we at antiwar.com have not spared Strauss and his followers their fair share of abuse. While Shadia B. Drury's 1999 book, Leo Strauss and the American Right, provided a critique of Strauss's influence from the left, paleoconservatives such as Paul Gottfried were among the first to raise the alarm. But I'll leave it to my old friend Burt Blumert to capture the essence of the antagonism that has long existed between the followers of Strauss and the Old Right gang centered around LewRockwell.com:

"Neocons, as ex-Trotskyites, are bad enough, but those who follow the pro-pagan Leo Strauss are deadly. He advocated the Big Lie. Forgive me for all the gory details, but these people – with their other leaders like Bill Buckley and Irving Kristol and the help of the CIA – perverted the American right into loving the welfare-warfare state."

And that was in one of Burt's fundraising pieces. Help save the world from the evil Straussians, he warned over a year ago. They want to drag us into war with their Big Lie technique – it all seems pretty prescient to me.

2) Bartley seems to believe that if LaRouche says the sky is blue, it must be red, or perhaps some other color. But establishing such a LaRouche Standard, whereby we must rule out anything and everything the LaRouchians aver – aside from constituting a new category of logical fallacy – would lead Bartley to disavow his newspaper's avid support, over the years, for such projects as the "Star Wars" missile defense, which the LaRouchians really were the first to propose and lobby for.

If one believes, like most conservatives, that ideas have consequences, and that philosophy has an enormous impact on the conduct of foreign policy (or any government policy), then you belong, according to Bartley, "in the fever swamps" with the LaRouchies. But the punch-line for this joke of an argument is here:

"This is the ugly accusation an alert reader should suspect in encountering the word 'Straussian,' or these days even 'neo-conservative' in the context of the Iraq debate. Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle find their Jewish heritage a point of attack. But George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are gentiles. Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell don't look Jewish to me, but they also helped draft the basic statement of the Bush Doctrine, the September 2002 'National Security Policy of the United States.'"

In the Orwellian world of the neocons, where a new form of political correctness frames their every utterance, the language is contracting. Because the goal of totalitarian thought control is to make the expression of political incorrectness impossible, the goal of this Neocon Newspeak is the abolition of many now-common words. In this context, words are used, not to make debating points, but to end all discussion. There are no Straussians, we are told, and even the word neoconservative is to be flushed down the Memory Hole, along with shelves full of books, articles, and even one incredibly boring film detailing their intellectual and political evolution in minute detail.

The idea that the major media have been taken over by neo-Nazis, and that the campaign to identify who and/or what got us involved in an unnecessary and ultimately futile war is all part of "the new anti-Semitism," is the rather implausible theme of the neocons' defense. In a polemic that has all the hallmarks of having been written by an awful drunk – i.e., not only entirely lacking in logic, but also relentlessly subjective and anecdotal – Christopher Hitchens reveals the ultimate evidence for this worldwide anti-Semitic plot in all its sinister "undertones." Once again, the use of certain words – or, in this case, their correct pronunciation – is the issue at hand:

"'Yes that's all very well,' said the chap from the BBC World Service, 'but what about this man Vulfervitz who seems to run the whole show from behind the scenes?' For the fifth time in as many days, and for the umpteenth time this year, I corrected a British interviewer's pronunciation. You see the name in print, you hear it uttered quite a lot in American discussions, you then give a highly inflected rendition of your own. ... What is this?"

To any normal person, it is nothing at all. A simple mis-pronunciation. A defective ear. Perhaps Hitchens, through the thick syrupy haze of alcohol and self-regard, could not hear what this anonymous "chap" was really saying. But, no:

"This is not quite like old-line reactionaries going out of their way to say 'Franklin Delano Rosenfeld.' Still, I don't think I am quite wrong in suspecting that a sharpened innuendo is in play here. Why else, when the very name of Paul Wolfowitz is mentioned, do so many people bid adieu to the very notion of objectivity?"

It is Hitchens who has bid adieu to objectivity. He details all the various travails suffered by the hawkish Defense Department deputy secretary, but nowhere mentions the supposed ethno-religious factor until the very end of his rambling screed:

"Coming back to where I began, though, I think that there's genuine cause for alarm in the current vulgar conflation of 'Kabbalah' with 'cabal,' and with the practice of what, if anyone else were to be the target, the left would already be calling 'demonization.'"

The problem with this argument is that Hitchens is the only one making such a far-fetched conflation, but boozy narcissism is what usually takes the place of logic in the alcoholic mind. Hitchens' contribution to the neocon counteroffensive, then, is to add his own nominee to the growing list of forbidden words: Straussian, neocon, cabal…. Their campaign to constrict the parameters of political debate by eliminating words marches on.

Arnold Beichman was next up at bat, with his own nominee: in any discussion of the neocons and their influence, he wants any reference to Leon Trotsky or the influence of Trotskyism to be strictly verboten. Writing in National Review Online, Beichman is outraged at Jeet Heer's National Post piece detailing the Trotskyist roots of leading neocons, whose cocktail party chatter evidently includes abstruse references to Max Shachtman and the factional history of the Fourth International. I wrote about the Heer piece the other day (scroll down to "Notes in the Margin"), but, alas, the saga continues. Beichman contemptuously dismisses the ex-Trotskyist Hitchens' alleged influence at the White House. Apparently in response to ex-Trotskyist-turned-neocon Stephen Schwartz for affectionately referring to the killer of Kronstadt as "the old man" and "L.D.," Beichman launches a magnificent attack on the crimes of Trotsky, unfairly ripping into Heer for giving Schwartz a platform and for bringing up the Trotsky connection at all:

"But there is something more sinister at work here: to rob the Coalition, which destroyed a terrorist haven and an inhuman dictatorship, of the moral victory it represents."

Schwartz responded the next day in National Review with what I think is the last word on this subject: his article is the definitive text that proves how right we paleos have been all along about this troublesome sect known as the neocons. Schwartz denounces "a group of neofascists" who supposedly claim that "neoconservatives are all ex-Trotskyists," but defends Heer's piece as serving another aim, that of describing "the very real evolution of certain ex-Trotskyists toward an interventionist position on the Iraq war" – i.e., his own evolution and that of his friends and associates in the neocon movement. It is okay for certain people to talk about the Trotskyist influence on neoconservatism, just as long as they have the right ideology:

"The U.S. neofascists who have thrown this accusation around use the term 'Trotskyist' the same way they use the term 'neoconservative:' as a euphemism for 'Jew.'"

But when he writes how "many of the original generation of neoconservatives had a background of association with Trotskyism in its Shachtmanite iteration" it's somehow not a hate crime. Schwartz is even allowed to observe, as I did in my 1993 book Reclaiming the American Right in some detail, that "the Shachtmanites, in the 1960s, joined the AFL-CIO in its best Cold War period, and many became staunch Reaganites." The point of Schwartz's rebuttal, however, is that he is proud of his Trotksyist past. He even gathers his co-thinkers together in proclaiming, in true Trotskyist fashion, that they constitute a semi-official faction, which some editor at NRO deemed "Trotsky-cons":

"The second issue at hand involves the actual ex-Trotskyists who engaged with the issue of the Iraqi war. I call this group, to which I belong, the 'three-and-a-half international,' which is an obscure reference I won't explain fully. But I use it to indicate three main individuals: Christopher Hitchens, myself, and the Iraqi intellectual Kanan Makiya, who all did indeed march under the Red Flag at some point…."

Here is where Schwartz descends into sheer hilarity, given that the best humor is always unintentional. He not only defends dear old Trotsky against Beichman's calumniations, but also red-baits Beichman, reminding him – and NRO's by this time utterly baffled readers – of Beichman's Stalinist past. Beichman was a fellow traveler of the Communist Party in the 1930s, when he worked for the pro-war, pro-FDR left-wing newspaper PM. It's all too funny, but one can only wonder what ordinary, garden-variety, un-prefixed conservatives think of all this sound and fury.

Here, after all, are the ex-Commies of yesteryear re-enacting the Stalin-Trotsky split in the pages of National Review – even as the magazine continues with its ridiculous campaign denying the very existence of neocons as anything but plain old vanilla conservatives. The magazine's online readers, such as they are, may be mystified by Schwartz's argument that Trotsky has a lot to say to the neocons of today, because his analysis of the Moscow Trials somehow impacts on the neocon analysis of Peter Arnett. (Say, what?) But I, for one, particularly enjoyed Schwartz's contention that the Beichman jeremiad represented an effort to "exclude Hitchens and myself from consideration as reliable allies in the struggle against Islamist extremism," or, as he proudly avers:

"Because we have yet to apologize for something I, for one, will never consider worthy of apology. There is clearly a group of heresy-hunters among the original neoconservatives who resent having to give way to certain newer faces, with our own history and culture. These older neoconservatives cannot take yes for an answer, and they especially loathe Hitchens. But nobody ever asked Norman Podhoretz to apologize for having once written poetry praising the Soviet army. Nobody ever asked the art critic Meyer Schapiro, who was also a Trotskyist, to flog himself for assisting illegal foreign revolutionaries at a time when it was considered unpatriotic, to say the least. Nobody ever asked Shachtman or Burnham, or, for that matter, Sidney Hook, or Edmund Wilson, or a hundred others, to grovel and beg mercy for inciting war on capitalism in the depths of the Great Depression."

Holding that Red Banner high, Schwartz declares war on the ex-Stalinists in the neocon movement – of which there are plenty, as he correctly points out – and proclaims his "Third and a Half International." It is almost too farcical to be taken seriously, but then the "conservatism" upheld by National Review since the purge of John Sullivan has never been serious, and this just underscores the sheer absurdity of its claim to be some kind of final arbiter.

Schwartz raises a perfectly legitimate point: if the ex-Trotskyists have to apologize for importing their particular brand of militarism into the neocon movement, then why don't the ex-Stalinists have to "grovel," too? I say let them both apologize for supporting some variant of mass-murdering commie totalitarianism, or stop pretending to be "conservatives."

The ideas that energize the neoconservative movement have little if anything to do with traditional conservatism. That this suspicion is now widespread among traditional conservatives, as well as journalists, is not to be undone by lame accusations of alleged "anti-Semitism." Paring down the permitted language of political debate is not going to work, either. It is clear beyond the need for further proof that the War Party bamboozled the American public into taking that first fateful step on the road to empire. We know who they are, and what they believe: it is not a "conspiracy," as the detractors of this theory insist, because there is nothing secret about it – and because the same people are urging us onward, to Iran, Syria, and beyond.

The esoteric elitist Strauss, the Leninist elitist Trotsky, Schwartz and his mock-operatic "Third and a Half International" re-fighting the inter-Commie faction wars of the 1930s with a gaggle of ex-Stalinists – this is the official "conservative" movement of today! No wonder Commissar Frum and his fellow neocons felt compelled to attack us antiwar, limited government types as "unpatriotic conservatives," going so far as to declare that they "turn their backs" on us. They turned their backs on authentic conservatism some time ago.

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

Smearing antiwar conservatives is not the exclusive prerogative of the neocons: leftists like to get in on the act, too. Thus we have a news story in the Washington Times reporting on a peace group having a meeting in Washington D.C.:

"Stephen Zunes, chairman of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco, said politicians will produce excuses on why they do not support peace.

"'I've heard [Hill] staffers say off the record that the boss agrees with the peace movement, but he needs Jewish money to get elected,' he said. 'If we don't challenge Israel's policies for the right reasons, we leave it to the Pat Buchanans to challenge it for the wrong reasons.'"

So what are the "right" reasons? Zunes hauls out the oldest, basest canard of the anti-Semites, and attributes Congressional support for Israel to "Jewish money" – and Buchanan is challenging Amerian foreign policy for "the wrong reasons"? Zunes should pipe down, and pack it in, before he discredits himself completely.

– Justin Raimondo

 

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j061303.html

August's picture

Anyone who slams the "conservatives" at National Review a friend of both peace and freedom.

Go, Justin, go!

Escapeclaws's picture

The neocons date back to the Bolsheviks. Part of their "latest con", ie, "neo-con", has been the devilishly clever strategem to rebrand themselves as rightwing conservatives, a camoflage if ever there was one, which enabled them to insinuate themselves into conservative bastions and to eventually take them over and to radicalize them. This radicalization has led to a path of destruction from Libia to Syria in which millions have died and whole countries have been sacked and left in ruins. Meanwhile, America has truly become the great Satan in the eyes of the world and our internal politics has also become radicalized, personified in the most destructive and warlike candidate ever to run for president, Hillary Clinton. Their latest project is to demonize Russia and Putin and to expand NATO up to Russia's borders, installing anti-missile bases there, missiles that can easily (and surreptitiously) be equipped with nuclear warheads.

In all probability, they are currently experiencing a small bump in the road. With all this "fake news" brouhaha, it seems clear that they intend to go after freedom of speech and to censure the internet. Their bastions like facebook are already doing just that.

GET THE NEOCONS OUT OF GOVERNMENT

Reaper's picture

Neo-con is the same stupidity as master race, chosen people, exceptionals, or a noble ruling class.

paint it red call it hell's picture

Keep a close eye on the labeled 'Alt Right' movement. It suspiciously smells as if the neocons are trying to create the meme to reseed themselves.

http://www.counter-currents.com/

paint it red call it hell's picture

I could stand and salute as neocons go down.

I however think it more appropriate to go relieve myself then symbolically send them off in a vortex of time.

Able Ape's picture

Neocon -> Neocan't.... the extinction of a vile species...

Posa's picture

Far too early to declare NeoCion doctrines dead. The neoCons themselves may be sidelined, but their dogma is hardly dead.

On one front alone, nuclear weapons arsenals, Drump has already announced a huge build-up on top of Obama's $trillion additions to the arsenal, while Putin is doubling down himself on his nuclear stockpile.

Drump has loaded his cabinet with pro-Israeli hawks eager to confront Iran ... meanwhile tensions are ratcheted up with China. The US, especially Drump himself has yet to acknowledge Chinese security needs, which means the Chinese will treat the S China Sea as a Chinese Lake the way the US treats the Caribbean (in fact the whole Western Hemisphere) as an American Lake.

Not at all clear that Drump has repudiated the WOLFOWITZ DOCTRINE... some his rhetoric sounds like Wolfie on steroids.

konadog's picture

I agree. They took some stinging defeats recently with Brexit, Trump, and other similar events unfolding in Europe but when you have as much money as the Rockefellers, Soros, Rothschilds, et al it would be delusional to declare this human excrement dead. They still control public education, the MSM, the food supply, allopathic healthcare, banking and many other facets of our daily lives. They have created generations of mental snowflakes who are fat, sick, lazy and dependent. Many can't hard boil an egg by themselves. They are the perfect useful idiots that can be easily manipulated to put this scum back in power. Obollah has already announced in so many words that he plans to work on that very thing as soon as he and the first tranny leave office.

Faeriedust's picture

Hard-boiling an egg is a fairly tricky little piece of kitchen magic; one can survive for decades without that particular skill.  Otherwise I'd be long in my grave.

Lest you forget, Alexander himself was an absolutely horrible cook.  If he volunteered to cook breakfast -- as he did occasionally in his habitual efforts to prove that a King wasn't too high-and-mighty to get his hands dirty -- you could be certain that the oatmeal would be congealed and sticky on one side and burned solidly to the pot on the other.  I've yet to see him boil an egg to this day, although he can now make a passable green curry.  Nevertheless I would hardly classify Him as a "useful idiot".  At the very least he remains a top-notch trail rider and field medic.  Nor is he easily manipulated by any political shell game.

I do however know several people who CAN boil an egg quite reliably, and are utterly naive in the face of political scumbags.  So you see, the two talents really have nothing to do with one another.

Snípéir_Ag_Obair's picture

“The machiavellian threefold game of the neoconservatives”

'...
The neoconservative apologist Murray Friedman explains that Jewish dominance within his movement by the inherent benevolence of Judaism, “the idea that Jews have been put on earth to make it a better, perhaps even a holy, place” (The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy, 2006).

Just as we speak of the “Christian Right” as a political force in the United States, we could also therefore speak of the neoconservatives as representing the “Jewish Right”. However, this characterization is problematic for three reasons. First, the neoconservatives are a relatively small group, although they have acquired considerable authority on and within Jewish representative organizations, including the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. In 2003, journalist Thomas Friedman of the New York Times counted twenty-five members saying, “if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened”. The neoconservatives compensate for their small number by multiplying their Committees, Projects, and other think tanks, which certainly give them a kind of ubiquity.

Second, the neoconservatives of the first generation mostly came from the left, even the extreme Trotskyist left for some such as Irving Kristol, one of the main editors of Commentary. During the late 1960s the Commentary editorial staff begins to break with the liberal, pacifist left, which they suddenly find decadent. Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary from 1960 until his retirement in 1995, was a militant anti-Vietnam dissenter until 1967, but then in the 70s became a fervent advocate of an increased defense budget, bringing the journal along in his wake. In the 1980s, he opposed the policy of détente in his book The Present Danger: in the 1990s, he calls for the invasion of Iraq, and then again in the early 2000s. In 2007, while his son John Podhoretz was taking over as editor of Commentary, he asserted once again the urgency of a U.S. military attack, this time against Iran.

John Hagee -- Evangelical Christian preacher
Third, unlike evangelical Christians who openly proclaim their unifying religious principles, neoconservatives do not display their Judaism. Whether they’d been Marxists or not, they appear mostly non-religious. It is well-know that their major influence is the philosophy of Leo Strauss, so much so that they are sometimes referred to as “the straussians”; Norman Podhoretz and his son John, Irving Kristol and his son William, Donald Kagan and his son Robert, Paul Wolfowitz, Adam Shulsky, to name just a few, all expressed their debt to Strauss. Leo Strauss, born to a family of German Orthodox Jews, was both pupil and collaborator of political theorist Carl Schmitt, himself a specialist of Thomas Hobbes and advocate of a “political theology” by which the State must appropriate the attributes of God. Schmitt was an admirer of Mussolini, and the legal counsel of the Third Reich. After the Reichstag fire in February 1933, it was Schmitt who provided the legal framework that justified the suspension of citizen rights and the establishment of the dictatorship. It was also Schmitt, in 1934, who personally obtained from the Rockefeller Foundation a grant for Leo Strauss to study Thomas Hobbes in London and Paris, and then finally end up teaching in Chicago.

https://mycatbirdseat.com/2013/06/the-machiavelian-threefold-game-of-the...

...'