(I have no illusions that anyone here has any interest in this email, whether long or short, nor will anyone take the time to read this, with possibly one or two exceptions. But consider this, as Ernst Fraenkel described his book “Dual State” as his “contribution against Dictatorship,” my “Contribution against Dictatorship,” as Bill Polk had encouraged me to write as a book. Knowing that no one even reads an article anymore, let alone a book, especially with very dry subject matter, which I make even “dryer,” and with the US now having passed the “tipping point” into a “Total Warfare State,” with predictable results eventually coming to us similar to what Germany got after Stalingrad, with our our figurative “Stalingrad” maybe just being a “Suicide on the Installment Plan;” with that realization, I only research, and write only a bit, as a retirement “hobby.” So stop right here if you got this far, and “Trash” this if you choose. To reluctantly use a fascist slogan, and echoing everybody’s favorite National Conservative here, Giorgia Meloni, "Me ne frego.” But I choose to try and echo Fraenkel, Bill Polk, Sheldon Wolin, and Chalmers Johnson, who was in the intellectual line of Polk and Wolin, and Sophie Scholl, all of whom made “Contributuions against Dictatorship." Which comes into existence with the defeat of the “Rule of Law,” as is advocated by TAC’s and Yoram Hazony’s National Conservatives, of whom Trump, Meloni, and US Conservatives, all are a part of. Read Hazony’s book on Conservatism as Ex. A for this point.) I’ve heard it said by so-called “non-interventionist Conservatives,” and libertarians, that Trump "didn’t start any new wars,” and wanted to "end the endless war,” even going up against the “Blob” to do so! As if "Low-intensity Conflict,” as “clandestine wars," as the Trump/Netanyahu “network” of US politics, that is, “Conservatism,” began against Iran as soon as Trump took office, and the heightened Israeli War against the Palestinian in which Trump took the US into as a full “co-belligerent,” don’t count as “war. “ Even more egregious for stupidity, and/or duplicity, is Conservative’s, and libertarian’s, diverting attention from Trump’s massive military build-up, on all “fronts,” the Venezuelan, Iranian, but most particularly, the “Eastern Front” with the advancing of the encirclement of Russia (see Camp Trump, but include in this the Democratic Party and Never-Trump Republican collusion in perpetrating Trump’s lie he was "ending the endless wars,” though they meant it as harsh criticism), and even more so on the Indo-Pacific Front with advancing at an accelerated rate the encirclement of China, as war with "China First" was always the highest priority of the Trump/Bannon Presidency. A wild guess is that at least some Russian and Chinese intelligence officers can read English and subscribe, as I do, to some of our Defense Industry publications, so would know of all the war preparations of Trump, and are intelligent enough, unlike US “experts” on war, of the so-called “Left," and more so, of the “Right,” to understand that “war is never an isolated act,” but requires preparation and buildup of the forces what will fight the war. Specifically I have in mind those gullible, or duplicitous, Trump supporters, who would replicate and amplify all Trump “disinformation” memes, such as came from the micro-targeting of that minuscule few in the Republicans who did actually want to "end the endless wars,” and were stupid enough to believe that Trump was sincere when he said he would. Notwithstanding all the counter-evidence. But Trump’s lying meme was belied as we can see by taking a stroll down those halcyon years under the Trump reign with this article when Trump and his minions were all out in force working for “peace,” in the Roman Empire/Spartan manner we all celebrate today as American Militarists (or as Andrew Bacevich calls them, approvingly, “Conservatives”). All the while in an accelerated “Phase Zero” of the war against China, using all those instrument of warfare which the USG calls “true war.” That is, economic war (sanctions=blockades), information war (which we’re the Masters of), and strategic military positioning by the forward deployment of US military forces, and pre-positioning of assets, meaning power projection platforms, such as military bases, and their equivalent, US Navy Fleets, logistics bases, etc. All of which are under the militarist Biden today and his Democratic Party co-conspirators, though the “conspiracy” began under Bush I by Cheney, with the Cheney Doctrine, as explained below. And always includes Trump, et al., for waging aggressive war out of the same bi-partisan pro-war “network” of which the Republicans are always the senior partner in. So with what should be an expansive understanding of “war,” as beginning in Phase Zero, as the WW I opponents understood as each, and their rivals, prepared for their “Offensives” as coming out of their shared “Ideology of the Offensive,” we must look at this current "Phase” of US Perpetual War in a more expansive manner. Which begins with recognizing the "National Ideology” of the US today and especially of the National Security State, “the State within the State,” ideologically founded by the CIA officers founding the Conservative Movement (see attached files on their view of nuclear war, and the willingness for that as the division line between “Liberals,” and Conservatives), of the US State. And an expansive understanding of war must include an expansive “time horizon,” as Clausewitz recognized as “war is never an isolated act.” So it should be apparent to all but the most obtuse Trumpites, National Conservatives, and even the most obtuse of all, the “non-interventionist Conservatives” who ate Trump’s lies “with a spoon,” that immediately upon assuming office, “Trump took the US into “Great Power War,” as Phase Zero, against both Russia and China, as necessarily allied with each other given the US threat to each. While one can go back to 1991 as the start of Cold War II when the Cheney Doctrine was developed, as is was revealed when leaked in 1992 (but not changed in substance according to its actual co-author, Zalmay Khalilzad); and Gingrich’s “Declaration of War” against Russia in 1994 with the Contract for America calling for expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders, with such electoral success and Conservative support that Clinton adopted the same policy; and then the Republican’s serial withdrawing from nuclear war averting treaties under both Republican administrations of Bush and Trump, the “War on Russia and China” actually began under Trump, with the measures taken by Trump as “war preparation,” in the form of forward deployment, etc., and the withdrawal from seeking diplomatic solutions to legitimate concerns. As the Japanese did before Dec. 7, 1941 (with other issues of Japanese aggression in China clouding that, just as our multiple fronts in our Perpetual War clouding today’s issues. And to be clear, Obama was a full participant in that Perpetual War, just not having taken it to the level that Trump would, and now as Biden has, in the continuous “Monkey See, Monkey Do, circus of US bi-partisan politics). But my argument is that under that “Conservative Movement's” NSS Ideology, as expanded to the Democrats with the Scoop Jackson Democrats, though it was alway present in the one-time Southern Democrats (to include from “Little Dixie,” as the author of the attached files was) who for the most part moved to the Republicans in the 1960s-1970s, especially under the influence of the Arthur Finkelstein/Nixon “Southern Strategy,” here is the “Great Conservative” claimed to be the model of how we all should view the world, advocating exactly what is present in both parties today. Which my good friend Jim Bovard might want to give some thought to when he denounces (for good cause) the Democrats; except he fails to note they’re following the path set by the Conservative Movement of the 1950s, which he’s allied with in too many ways as a “libertarian,” speaking as a friend. And when we get their current, most extreme, manifestation back in power, that “parchment barrier” of the real Constitution, and not the fabricated one that this “political theorist” and his ideological clone Yoram Hazony, and the “Originalists,” have made up, that real “Constitution” will be but a cinder, with Conservatives having put a zippo to it as much as any Marine ever did to a Vietnamese village, with the same result. But that "Radical Right Constitution,” being “Conservative” only in the sense that for propaganda purposes, “right-wing fanatics” chose that term to try and place themselves, and their extreme Right ideology, in the “tradition” of the US. But read attached file and try and think for yourself how “conservative,” this author is, as far as “conserving” our Constitution. And whether history, with the benefit of hindsight for us, though more “Liberal” people, so denounced in the article, like Bill Polk was, didn’t need “hindsight” to see the danger such fanaticism as articulated and epitomized in “Basic Issues” below, carried within it. Nor do we today to see how the author of the two attached article’s, with his fanatical anti-Constitutionalism, and fanatical militarism, must be denounced even more strongly today, as in Trumpism, and Hazony’s and TAC’s National Conservatism, and carried over into the Democrat’s right-wing militarism, these ideas are prevailing, as ideas first articulated in 1920’s Germany by the “Conservative Revolutionary Movement” would come to prevail, though by a different party. With “individual freedom of thought and speech” its first casualty, as designed. Which as we sit on the precipice of nuclear war, we might want a renewed appreciation of those individual rights which Kendall and his Sancho Panza fought so bitterly against. But what follows must be read “critically" (gag on that word, Conservatives :-), as the author sets up a “straw-man” in his false binary opposition,” as he denounced “Moderates,” like Eisenhower, as much as he did Liberals, and both almost as much as Communists, though holding the former two as worse than the “Communists” themselves, and laying out the Birchite argument against Eisenhower first. Attached also are two chapters by George L. Mosse, on the “Volkish” idea, which is directly applicable to today’s “Conservatism,” of both the US and of Israel, with Mosse the only historian of Fascism who understands its deeper ideology as originating in war and militarism, as we see in both Israel and the US today. |
Attachment:
Basic Issues Between Conservatives and Liberals.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
Attachment:
5-The Corporate State and the Conservative Revolution in Weimar Germany.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
Attachment:
4-The Influence of the Volkish Idea on German Jewry.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
Here is Kendall: "The Liberals take seriously the so-called disarmament negotiations with the Soviets, and take them seriously because they favor disarmament-would, if the Russians too would only be serious about disarmament, actually disarm the U.S.; the Conservatives regard the disarmament negotiations as essentially fraudulent, and would not think of disarming even if the Russians were willing. The Liberals dream dreams of out-lawing war, of establishing an international authority empowered to prevent war, of an indefinite future in which the nations will live side by side in peace and unity; the Conservatives dream no such dreams; they regard even the existing United Nations organization with suspicion, would not hesitate to challenge its authority if ever it tried to call the United States on the carpet, and take it for granted that wars have quite a future on this planet just as they have had quite a past-in short, Conservatives dislike the orientation of American foreign policy toward pacifism and world government. The Liberals have nightmares about the future nuclear holocaust and, meantime, about nuclear fallout, and, naturally enough, favor such measures as the nuclear test-ban treaty; the Conservatives are given to no such nightmares: they face the nuclear age with, so to speak, strong stomachs, dislike the test-ban treaty, and demand that the United States maintain overwhelming nuclear superiority over the Soviet Union.” And: For my third basic issue, we must again shift gears. I am going to call it the issue of the "Open Society", and I think of it as the issue that underlies (and renders unavoidable) Liberal-Conservative differences on, for example, McCarthyism, the House Un-American Activities Committee, the censorship of allegedly indecent or pornographic books and films, loyalty oaths, and many another problem involving, in one way or another, individual freedom of thought and speech. Just as my first issue, Equality, boiled down to an issue as to the meaning we are going to give in America to the words "All men are created equal", that is, to a form of words handed down from the past, so this one boils down to an issue as to the meaning we are going to give in America to the First Amendment of the Constitution. The Liberals see that amendment as a guarantee of certain individual rights-the right of each to think and say what one pleases, the right of each to the free exercise of one's religion even if that religion be irreligion, the right of each to live under a governmental system that in no way favors one religion over other religions or even religion-in general over irreligion. Some Liberals, indeed-Mr. Justice Black for instance-go so far as to say that these rights are absolute, so that no governmental agency in America can infringe or limit them in any way by indirection. |
Attachment:
pdfns0ShO0zW3.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
|
|