Haha! 🤣 What a great, belated, April’s Fool’s joke! Starting with this line: "We, as elected representatives, welcome a debate and the opportunity to demonstrate why realism is ascendant and reflects the growing majority in the Republican Party, challenging a quarter-century neoconservative consensus.” I know this is intended as a joke, as these war fanatics stand against every principle that Chas Freeman stands for, as he expresses here: https://chasfreeman.net/the-sino-american-split-and-its-consequences/, which The American Conservative, with the sole exception of Doug Bandow, now stand against as well with their assorted staff Straussian’s/ National Conservatives,” always pushing for war against China. As this Luna/Davidson article gets around to admitting with their "incitement of hostility” against China. Thus, we can see the meaning of TAC’s “Realism,” given the following are Republican Party “National Security Leaders,” promoting what Republicans and The American Conservative magazine touts as “Realism,” as here with Lindsey Graham (it’s worth watching if only as evidence of how the collective IQ (Insanity Quotient) of the U.S. is reaching astronomical levels: https://www.foxnews.com/video/6324257199112 and Michael McCaul: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xtkcg_qVJ0 (citing to Peter Thiel favorite Josh Hawley, the “anti-war Republican” [it ain’t war if its against "people of color,” I guess is the “principle,” Hawley upholds); And Mike Gallagher, head of the “War on China House Committee, https://www.politico.com/newsletters/huddle/2023/02/28/congress-vs-the-world-00084715 "Tied together: Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) says that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the threat posed by China are inextricable, “you just can’t isolate them from each other,” he said Monday night. (TP-exactly, making it so duplicitous when New Right “Conservatives” call for war against China, knowing that includes war against Russia, and of how other warmongers call for war against Russia, when they should know as well that includes against China. In other words, there’s bi-partisan agreement for WW III, as Lindsey Graham calls for!) "Gallagher, chair of the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, is gearing up for the panel’s first primetime hearing tonight where he plans to lay out “Why the Chinese Communist Party is a threat why someone in Northeast Wisconsin should care about.” And of course Matt Gaetz, whom a one-time sound commentator/book author, “soiled himself” over, with an article almost a year ago entitled "Republicans return to their roots as the antiwar party.” Which was intended as a total fiction and satire, I would hope, after this author had written such sound non-fiction books of Republican/CIA wars/coups that occurred during the Cold War. But here is the “antiwar Gaetz,” as I have been railing about now for years, over his rabid “Sinophobia,” driving us toward war with China: "While Matt Gaetz, like his political mentor Donald Trump, sometimes opportunistically criticizes other right-wing factions such as “neocons,” he pushes a similarly hawkish imperialist foreign policy. "One constant in virtually all of Gaetz’s speeches is his obsessive demonization of China. He strongly advocates for a new cold war to contain the Asian superpower. "While many neoconservatives and liberal-interventionists push for an aggressive policy against Russia, Gaetz’s message is essentially that China is the real threat to the United States, not the Kremlin, and that Washington should seek war with Beijing instead of war with Moscow.” (Could someone pass this on to Stephen Kinzer, whom I’d once had so much respect for, until he “soiled himself” over Gaetz, and the Neo-Hamiltonian Republicans who led the U.S. through much of the Banana Wars, up until 1933, and then down through the Cold War/post-Cold War, to the present, with Republicans demanding massive military spending increases in every single epoch that they have existed?) And this on Gaetz, with his “U.S. War Criminal Full-Employment Office:” https://theintercept.com/2023/03/29/matt-gaetz-aide-war-criminal/ Luna, author of this satirical piece below, whose “biography” seems to closely resemble George Santos, including their mutual love of the AR-15 as the weapon of choice for mass killers, and Davidson, give themselves away as to their "true intent” of deception (in my opinion), with this quote: "We are both veterans and understand the need for a peerless military and martial readiness. We also understand our history and core strategic interests. American history, as well as wisdom from our founding fathers, explicitly warns against permanent entanglements that might lead to forever wars. The current and emerging geopolitical scenarios make it imperative to focus on multiple challenges, most importantly, our trillions of dollars in debt, a fragmented culture dependent on an all-volunteer force, the rise of a potential peer rival in the East, and a broken immigration system to our south. Prioritization of strategic theaters is therefore key to a prudent grand strategy and inevitably leads to trade-offs. America’s grand strategy must recognize that China is our main grand-strategic challenge, and an urgent prioritization of resources and areas of active engagement is in order. Guess what? That’s not a call for any kind of “restraint,” though it is an accurate statement on what “Realism” really means for these war fanatics, as this chapter from "The Soldier and the State” by Samuel Huntington shows of the Republican "Neo-Hamiltonian” tradition, as I shared earlier: |
Attachment:
Chap. 10 The-Soldier-and-the-State-Neo-Hamilitonians .pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
Here’s Davidson, a West Point graduate, and co-author of this piece of journalistic flim-flammery (in my opinion), in 2021: |
"The Biden foreign policy team needs to keep the pressure on China's leaders. Multiply allies rather than multiply enemies by uniting EU, African, South American, and Pacific nations to join America to confront these abuses by the CCP.” Well, the Biden administration is doing that, just not as much as the Republicans (and National Conservatives, like Josh Hawley) demand. This incitement of “hostile feelings” (a predicate to war, according to Clausewitz, as recognized by Goering in describing the ease of taking a country to war) is called “Realism” by The American Conservative, in its promotion of “New Right” political deceivers, with that list too long to name and shame here. But here’s a snippet of Rep. Santos’, I mean, Luna’s biography: |
Not hard to see why Daniel Larison was “terminated” from The American Conservative magazine, when they went to Straussian/Bannonite editors connected to the Claremont Institute and Hillsdale College, given he spoke the truth about Trump and the Republicans in general and their love of extreme militarism (Mussolini had a name for that, with Democrats now “mimicking them,” given Trump’s electoral success as “Warfighter/Torturer Supremo.”): https://daniellarison.substack.com/p/republicans-rally-behind-the-stupidest BLUF: "We saw a lot of this in the ‘90s when Republicans that were generally a lot more hawkish than Clinton used the Balkan interventions as occasions to complain that he was ignoring the “real” threats, by which they usually meant Iraq or Iran. We see some of it again today when quasi-skeptics of U.S. policy in Ukraine are quick to remind us that they want the U.S. to gear up for a much bigger direct conflict with China. They are deeply concerned about being in the frying pan because it will prevent the U.S. from jumping straight into the fire. "The problem here isn’t just that there are hardly any consistent opponents of senseless and unnecessary military interventions in the Republican Party, but that these politicians follow through only on their threats of escalation. You can’t trust that Trump will ever get the U.S. out of any war, but can believe him when he says he wants to “bomb the hell” out of this or that target. When it comes right down to it, the antiwar talk from these people is just empty talk, but their threats of escalation are in earnest. If Trump and others are agitating for launching attacks inside Mexico, we should assume that they intend to act on this if they get the chance.” Now that’s the Republican Party I know and despise, even though the gap in warmongering between them and the Democrats is much less now than what it once was. But just as the so-called "Missile Gap” with the USSR was in fact in our favor, so too is the “Warmonger Gap” between the Republicans and Democrats still in the Republican’s “favor” (see above). Or see the links below, especially Hawley and Kevin Roberts at the Heritage Foundation with Robert’s only last summer being gushed over by TAC, QI, and their Trumpite colleagues "Mollie Hemingway, editor-in-chief at The Federalist; Saurabh Sharma, president of American Moment; Emile Doak, executive editor of the American Ideas Institute" (TAC’s parent organization), for joining the so-called “Realism and Restraint” gang, for promoting war against China, I guess: One of the finest demonstrations of a domestic “Cognitive Operation,” PsyOp, one could find in my opinion, and stands for what TAC has become, in my opinion. But here is the “real” Kevin Roberts and Heritage Foundation, teamed up with extreme militarist, Teddy Roosevelt idolater, Josh Hawley: Graham never stops pushing war of course and call him if you prefer a “Neocon” but just as John McCain got Barry Goldwater’s support as fellow militarists, so too would Graham have had the support of his Senate seat predecessor, Goldwater friend, and fellow “Conservative,” Strom Thurmond, for this and all the other “Conservative” positions Graham has carried forward these many years: And Graham said on Fox that he would even accept WW III over it. These guys would positively adore Graham if they were alive today: "On the eve of Nixon's departure to China in 1972, the indefatigable Judd, then 73, announced the formation of the Committee for a Free China. Among its founders were several representatives and two senators, Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) and Goldwater. Later they were joined by, among others, Buckley, who was defeated in 1976, Carl Curtis (R-Neb.), who recently retired, and Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), still going strong." |
One more here who would fit in with the Conservatives named above is Republican favorite and the one whom the New Right considers, “almost” a non-interventionist, not counting wars against non-white people like the Chinese and Iranians as “wars,” as they don’t seem to do, is Tom Cotton, who never saw a U.S. war he didn’t like: |
China’s recent military exercises around Taiwan prove yet again the Biden administration’s policy of “competition, not conflict” won’t deter Xi Jinping.
Joe Biden needs to send a clear message the U.S. will defend Taiwan against the CCP. In that, Cotton is following in the tradition of that other Southern pre-fascist, Andrew Jackson, whom Trump idolizes, as does Hillsdale College’s Bradley Birzer, as I shared in my previous email today. And Quincy Institute idolizes John Quincy Adams, quoting him religiously for the proportion that “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy,” as he said in 1821 when ocean going ships were still pretty rudimentary, and hardly capable of ferrying a large invasion force anywhere. That aside, if one looks at what JQA was up to in 1821, it is plausible to believe that that quote got abbreviated from what it started as, with a second clause adding: “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy; not when we have so many “redskins” right next to us to slaughter.” Meaning the Conservative Free Beacon has the true meaning of that quote more correct than does the Quincy Institute: Having no illusions that anyone here reads any of the academic papers I share, with a preference here instead for TAC’s, National Conservative's, and Republican's/Democrat’s, and government, falsehoods, it appears, here is another academic papers which serves as rebuttal to Bradley Birzer’s TAC panegyric to Andrew Jackson, and to QI’s misreading of JQA’s quote, with the latter part of JQA’s life “awakening” him to what he and Jackson had done, and how odious had been there policies toward Native Americans, with JQA turning into Jackson chief accuser! |
Attachment:
pdfB4Jd9wExZN.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
BLUF: (pp. 346-348) "Nor had matters changed by 1818, the year of the furor over Andrew Jackson's war against the Seminoles in Spanish Florida. As President Monroe's Secretary of State, Adams again saw himself carrying the same burden he had carried at Ghent, and once more he was alone among his associates in the President's cabinet, most of whom desired disciplinary action against Jackson.22 Adams' view, which eventually prevailed, was that the General's apparent violation of his orders and his execution of prisoners without trial should not be allowed to obscure the fact that European powers-in this case Spain and possibly Britain-were using the Seminoles and their runaway slave allies to threaten the security of the United States, and all other matters should be subordinated to that consideration.23 Adams was well aware of the weaknesses of Jackson's-and his own-case. He noted that the General's actions toward the Indian prisoners were "without due regard to humanity," and that he himself was "not prepared for such a mode of warfare."24 Nor was there any doubt of Jackson's violation of orders not to attack or occupy Spanish forts. Whether Adams was also aware that the war was the result of white attempts to deny sanctuary to escaped Georgia slaves, as demonstrated many years later by William Jay and Joshua Giddings, may be doubted.23 In any event, Adams' official defense of the Seminole War to the Spanish and British ministers was a model of its kind, illustrating, as George Dangerfield put it, the principle that "when one's position is morally unsound it is better to at- tack than to defend."26 Placing the blame for the affair on Span- ish inability or unwillingness to control the Seminoles and the "banditti of negroes" who were their allies, Adams presented a highly inaccurate picture of the events which led to Jackson's invasion of Florida. He concentrated on the "barbarous, un- relenting, and exterminating character of Indian hostilities," and even concealed-or abandoned-his reservations over the execution of the Indian prisoners. "Contending with such enemies," he told the American Minister at Madrid, "although humanity revolts at entire retaliation upon them ... yet mercy herself surrenders to retributive justice the lives of their lead- ing warriors taken in arms.... ."27 In a more restrained mood, Adams later told Gallatin, at that time American Minister in Paris, that the deterrent effects of the invasion "will be the greatest benefit ever conferred by a white man upon their tribes, since it will be the only possible means of redeeming them from the alternative otherwise unavoidable of their utter extermination."28 In later years, when the temptation must have been very great, Adams never wavered from his earlier support of the Seminole War and of Andrew Jackson. In early 1830, perhaps the lowest psychological point of Adams' life, a pamphlet appeared which attacked both Adams and Jackson over the Seminole affair, and suggested that Adams' defeat for reelection as President in 1828 by the very man he had defended was a form of divine punishment-an idea especially wounding to Adams. Written by the Virginian Benjamin Watkins Leigh, the pam- phlet also demonstrated that Adams had played fast and loose with certain passages from Vattel which he used to justify the execution of the Indians.29 Adams dismissed Leigh's contentions as "lawyer's arguments." "Scruples of law and constitu- tion with such enemies," he continued, "are like the scruples of the Jews butchered by their enemies rather than violate the Sabbath by self-defense." To his son, Adams melodramatically proclaimed that "were it to go over again, I would do the same, should the retribution reserved for me, instead of that which I endure, be crucifixion."
|