The American Conservative, the Claremont Institute, and the Heritage Foundation self-describe below as “realists,” as well as by others as “Right-wing Peaceniks.” To see what that means, read Heritage "This piece originally appeared in The American Conservative" So what is the “Right-wing Peacenik” Heritage Foundation’s scheme? BLUF: "By far the most significant danger to Americans’ security, freedoms, and prosperity is China. China is by any measure the most powerful state in the world other than the United States itself. It apparently aspires to dominate Asia and then, from that position, become globally preeminent. . . . "The United States and its allies also face real threats from Russia, as evidenced by Vladimir Putin’s brutal war in Ukraine, as well as from Iran, North Korea, and transnational terrorism at a time when decades of ill-advised military operations in the Greater Middle East, the atrophy of our defense industrial base, the impact of sequestration, and effective disarmament by many U.S. allies have exacted a high toll on America’s military. . . . "In this light, U.S. defense strategy must identify China unequivocally as the top priority for U.S. defense planning while modernizing and expanding the U.S. nuclear arsenal and sustaining an efficient and effective counterterrorism enterprise. U.S. allies must also step up, with some joining the United States in taking on China in Asia while others take more of a lead in dealing with threats from Russia in Europe, Iran, the Middle East, and North Korea. "The reality is that achieving these goals will require more spending on defense, both by the United States and by its allies, as well as active support for reindustrialization and more support for allies’ productive capacity so that we can scale our free- world efforts together.” STOP
Check out their war incitement in the chapter for destroying the Dept. of State as well, with their “Third Force” Plan to take us even deeper into all-out hyper-militarism. But relevant to the links above, here is news which will bring happiness to Right-wing Peaceniks, with the declaration by Republican HASC members that "any hostile unprovoked attack on Taiwan will result in a resolute reaction from the U.S.” So top that Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden! BLUF: "Know that any hostile unprovoked attack on Taiwan will result in a resolute reaction from the U.S.,” said Rob Wittman, vice chair of the House Armed Services Committee, in a speech, ahead of meetings with President Tsai Ing-Wen. . . . "Wittman of Virginia, along with Carlos Gimenez of Florida and Jen Kiggans of Virginia, arrived Thursday for a three-day visit to Taiwan. The three Republicans are meeting with Tsai and the head of Taiwan’s National Security Council Wellington Koo.” So how well does this go with leading Republicans as “self-proclaimed realists?” Perfectly in sync with them! How do we know? They tell us so! Here is Vivek Ramaswamy being held up by The American Conservative magazine as a “Realist.” So what does he say, which can then be used to “define” a TAC Realist? https://www.theamericanconservative.com/on-vivek-the-rights-state-of-play/ BLUF: "Vivek Ramaswamy’s foreign policy op-ed, “A Viable Realism and Revival Doctrine,” has generated quite the buzz since we published it on the TAC site Monday. Ramaswamy is willing to explicitly break from “the bloody follies of neoconservatism and liberal internationalism,” as he wrote, in ways few other candidates are. . . . As Sohrab Ahmari pointed out on this week’s TAC Right Now, Ramaswamy’s position on Taiwan—a move from ‘strategic ambiguity’ to ‘strategic clarity’ and then back once economic independence has been achieved—is in many ways a noteworthy outlier in a Republican primary that has seen near-uniformity on the issue.” . . . But he and his fellow self-proclaimed realists—a cluster of activists and thinkers at places such as The American Conservative, the Claremont Institute, and the Heritage Foundation—are responding to a genuine, if dismaying, phenomenon in the American electorate. “Wall Street Journal & National Review” vs. “TAC, Claremont, & Heritage” seems to be a fairly accurate way of describing the state of play. Fortunately for us, the voters are overwhelmingly on our side.”So what does “our side” (theirs) stand for? Thankfully, they don’t hesitate to tell us, if one deciphers their “neuro-linguistic programming” writing. Starting with what "A Viable Realism and Revival Doctrine," https://www.theamericanconservative.com/a-viable-realism-and-revival-doctrine/, says: BLUF: "Our foes abroad have sowed discord in our home hemisphere. Waves of leftism have roiled Latin America and created economic instability. . . . A safe Western Hemisphere makes for a safe America. To our foes who wish ill upon us and our hemispheric partners, I say keep your distance or you will be made to regret it. When I make that promise, I look especially at our U.S. Navy, which has fallen into sad decline but will be a key target of strategic investment for my administration. Meanwhile, to our hemispheric partners, I say, now is the time to invest in your own security and prosperity so that your people will have no desire to migrate.” It gets more ludicrous than the U.S. Navy in a "sad decline”: "A good deal requires all parties to get something out of it. To that end, . . . in exchange for Russia exiting its military alliance with China. I will end sanctions and bring Russia back into the world market. In this way, I will elevate Russia as a strategic check on China’s designs in East Asia.” As if neither understands that a U.S. target isn’t on both their backs and they need each other for mutual security. Against what the U.S. made crystal clear in 2002 in doctrine and 2003 with our aggression which was our hegemonic plan for the world, with control of Eurasia at the top of that list! The Great “Realist” goes on: "Let us start with our great power rival, China, and the jewel of their near-abroad, Taiwan. We have operated in strategic ambiguity with regard to Taiwan for far too long. I will move to strategic clarity, by which I mean that China must understand that I will defend American interests in Taiwan. (TP-not “Democracy,” but our “interests,” in Taiwan!) If Taiwan wants any partnership in their defense, then they will need to raise their defense spending and military readiness to acceptable levels. Meanwhile, I will commit to making sure Taiwan has the weapons they need for that defense, both from a sea-borne invasion, and in future, for a long-term insurgency against any occupying foreign force, if needed.” (TP-“fight to the last Taiwanese.”) . . . "Elsewhere in Asia and Oceania, we must encourage other allies like Japan, the Philippines, and Australia to expand their defense budgets. . . . France and the U.K. both retain possessions in the regions, and I will encourage them to reposition their naval forces and permanently garrison their Pacific protectorates with manpower and assets. If we are to stand with the Europeans on their continent, then we should feel no compunction in asking them to stand with us in Asia.” (TP-in “defense” of US interests!) So that’s The American Conservative magazine standing with Ramaswamy’s variety of “Realism,” otherwise known as “War Preparedness/Incitement/Provocations.” As in the Republican’s prodding for the US to get into WW I, as against Wilson’s reluctance. The Claremont Institute, the “West Coast Straussians” so beloved by Trumpites and Traditional Conservatives (sorry to be repetitious, but the “other side” is, and I assume there may be new list members who may have heard the “Big Lie” of the “Right-wing Peaceniks,” as “TAC, Claremont, & Heritage” asserted to be. So here is a quote of Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation, writing in TAC: "The only way to revive and reunite the American right—and reaffirm American exceptionalism—is by rebuilding our movement from its foundation: from our principles up rather than from our politicians down.” . . . "As such, our posture toward national defense emanates from the vibrancy of our belief in the American nation-state. The first question of our national security policy must always be, “What is in the best interest of Americans?” (TP-this from a current TAC article. Where are they to be found? In Taiwan, of course, and Beijing, and Moscow, following the direction of this foreign policy to its logical conclusion, and with what Heritage and Kevin Robers himself says. Furthermore: "The global adventurism which has reared its head occasionally in recent history has no roots in conservatism. Quite the contrary: A conservative national defense policy is one rooted in overwhelming strength—brought to bear virtuously, overwhelmingly, and, yes, sparingly." So who/what is the Heritage Foundation? Notwithstanding some claims they were once a sound "defense analysis” think-tank, that was never the case, as they led the charge for increased military spending from the beginning, funded by Oligarchs like Joseph Coors and Richard Mellon Scaife (TP-I know what they were “selling,” as I was “buying” it at the time: "Much like Trump’s, Heritage’s constituency is equal parts donor class and populist base. Its $80 million annual budget depends on six-figure donations from rich Republicans like Rebekah Mercer, whose family foundation has reportedly given Heritage $500,000 a year since 2013. But it also relies on a network of 500,000 small donors, Heritage “members” whom it bombards with millions of pieces of direct mail every year. The Heritage Foundation is a marketing company, a branding agency — it sells its own Heritage neckties, embroidered with miniature versions of its Liberty Bell logo — and a policy shop rolled into one." While this link below goes to the Heritage scheme to eliminate (privatize) the USPS, in agreement with libertarians I know, it is exactly on point with the Oligarchical scheme to “capture" all our essential services to monetarize them for the further enrichment of our Oligarchs: |