This is a bit longish but it takes a few words to explain as I am only one of a very few analyzing and criticizing the “New Fascist” National Conservative Movement. And attempting to counter their propaganda, or in more contemporary terms; Cognitive Operations. And their dreams of a “Red Dictator” (Republican, not Communist), allied through Israeli Settler Yoram Hazony with Ben-Gvir and Smotrich as just shared here in a Patrick Lawrence article, quote here: "Here is some of what they said when addressing their far-far-far right parties on New Year’s Day. Ben-Gvir:
"And from Smotrich the same day: I can’t do anything about Israeli genocide against the Palestinians, unfortunately. But I can put my education, military and civilian, in International Law and Law of Armed Conflict, and Psychological Operations to use in denouncing Israeli genocide. And from my education in Political Theory, revealing the ideological “Origins” of Gvir’s and Smotrich’s co-ideologists of their “New Fascism” shared with U.S. Conservatives. In both country’s “Conservative Revolution” underway. Of which I include the Democrat’s Right-wing, almost at the same point on the “Right” as the Republicans on a scale measuring “Militarism,” and not economics policy. But none more so than the “National Conservatives,” fully allied with Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who on that same scale, are equal to any “fascist party,” with the only exception to that, so far, though not by much, the Nazi Party. I know. I’ve extensively studied the Nazis and their political theory, as I did the same with “Fascism.” And their precursor political theorists. And in the same category; National Conservatism. All virtually identical in any political theory comparative analysis. Not to make this a biography but only as an explanation of my methodological approach to an analysis of “National Conservatism,” that is, the “New Right,” or hereafter: “New Fascism,” this is for context: As a lawyer, retired Army JAG Officer, Guantanamo Defense Attorney, with an M.A. in history and political theory completed in 2018 for the purpose of understanding as political theory what I had seen at Guantanamo and the “legal theory” behind the Military Commissions, I was compelled to try and understand how such a fascist legal system had come into existence as part of the USG. And how the overthrow of the U.S. Constitution was so readily achieved with 9/11, by right-wing ideologues hostile to the U.S. Constitution. As well, my Psychological Operations training and experience with the Army-Air Force Center for Low-Intensity Conflict influences my perspective on today’s Cognitive Warfare tactics. Especially as used domestically in political campaigns; most dramatically in getting Trump "elected” by Miriam/Sheldon Adelson, Charles Koch, and Peter Thiel, and a few other Conservative Oligarchs in 2016. And by US/Israeli “New Right Conservatives” continuing to incite Total Genocide against the Palestinians. When I criticize “Conservatives,” that should be read as what “Conservatism” has come to mean today, in its full embrace of what (small “c”) conservative Peter Viereck had described and criticized as “Thought-Control Conservatives.” Meaning at the time in the 1950s, the “Founding Fathers of the Conservative Movement;” particularly Willmoore Kendall. Now “celebrated” by “Traditional Conservatives” as a precursor to Trumpism. As this was raised by a correspondent, when I use capitol letters at the beginning of a word, it's to denote a self-designated categorical title. A “conservative" would be someone like Peter Viereck, having a conservative predisposition. A “Conservative” is a self-designated "Movement Conservative,” with it not being an over-generalization to attribute to such, “Movement” ideological attributes. Since Trump came to Office, I’ve been the “beneficiary” of a “Traditional Conservative” clueing me in on “Tradtional Conservative” political theorist Willmoore Kendall. And as a one-time, self-described “conservative,” I haven’t recovered yet from having learned that “Conservatism” included such a “Radical-Right” proponent and fan of Franco and Trujillo, generally recognized as full-fledged “fascists.” But it showed me the light to see there really is an “American Fascist Tradition,” self-described as “Conservative,” as a faction of American Conservatism. And having seen “fascism” from the “belly of the beast;” Guantanamo, the Pentagon, and the Heritage Foundation, it scares the hell out of me knowing how close we are to “Total Fascism.” Going beyond the “Partial Fascism” we have today, while being led into “Total” by the Heritage Foundation and its allied “publicists.” As these two examples show of the so-called “Right-wing Peaceniks,” or “Restrainers,” so celebrated by The American Conservative magazine and Quincy Institute, as here: "Former Trump defense secretary Christopher Miller asserted that the Pentagon budget could be cut “in half” if the Pentagon moved to a “smaller, more nimble force” (but read Miller’s Project 2025 contribution calling for dramatically increasing military spending). Kevin Roberts, the head of the Heritage Foundation took to the pages of the American Conservative to call for long recommended cost saving measures like closing excess military bases and eliminating older, legacy weapons – measures that have been consistently blocked by Congress on a bipartisan basis. Unlike Roy and Jordan, Roberts seems to be in dead earnest:” (read P2025 to see how absurd that is!) And this: So filled with “Double-talk,” it’s hard to pick out a single quote as most egregious but this will do: "Senator [Josh] Hawley (R-Mo.) gave an excellent speech at Heritage yesterday. He was supportive of at least one of the military packages to Ukraine, if my memory serves, and he, I thought, put it really well. We want the Ukrainians to win, we want Putin to lose, and we want to make sure that we're not wrecking our budget and paying attention to the much more present threat, which is Chinese aggression all around the world. (What parallel universe did this come from? "Because this is not a natural fit for Republicans on national security and war policy, at least in the past.” Only for the past 126 years, since McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, and every Republican since kicked US Military Imperialism into high gear!) But the Israeli Genocide operation has lifted the mask off these war fanatics! https://www.jns.org/heritage-foundation-president-antisemitism-is-not-even-human-its-evil/ [Trump’s definition, “critical of Israel]; https://www.c-span.org/video/?531295-4/rep-chip-roy-us-israel-alliance - "Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) joined a discussion with Jewish and Israel policy advocates on the U.S.-Israel alliance during an event hosted by the Heritage Foundation.” (You know who the most fanatical of “Conservative Zionists” are; they’re the ones touted as “Right-Wing Peaceniks, by “New Right” think tanks, funded by Peter Thiel and Charles Koch.) So having been a self-described “conservative” in the 1980s and into the 1990s, and loosely associated with the Claremont Institute and Larry Arnn (now Hillsdale College President) in Minnesota, I am compelled to explain further this ideology, and its proponent's objectives. Especially in defense of the actual U.S. Constitution that we live under. Not the so-called “Philadelphia Constitution” so beloved by Conservative Movement Founder Willmoore Kendal and his associates, which did not include the Bill of Rights. Which Kendall made a career of denouncing, and created the legal theory of “Conservative Originalism,” of which Trump AG Bill Barr made clear in a speech at the Straussian Hillsdale College, did not include the Bill of Rights, in full agreement with Kendall. So going to the bottom of this email, lengthy as it is, which I expect no one to read, I can at least say I took a stand against the Total Fascism of the “New Right.” What this is about, with this Intro, from https://www.americanmoment.org/the-straussian-in-a-suit-would-like-you-to-wake-up-feat-michael-anton/ (see below), is in regard to Michael Anton: "A senior fellow at the Claremont Institute and a professor at Hillsdale College, a careful student of Leo Strauss by way of tutor Harry V. Jaffa as well as a dedicated scholar of Niccolò Macchiavelli, Anton is considered by many as the leading thinker of the ‘New American Right’." With this explaining his influence on the “New Right: BLUF: "In a discussion of possible responses to this conspiracy theory, he wrote that the “New Right now often discusses a Red Caesar, by which it means a leader whose post-Constitutional rule will restore the strength of his people”. . . . The idea that the US might be redeemed by a Caesar – an authoritarian, rightwing leader – was first broached explicitly by Michael Anton, a Claremont senior fellow and Trump presidential adviser. . . . “Thirty years ago, if I told you that a bunch of billionaires and intellectuals on the right are waiting in the wings to impose a dictatorship on the United States, you would have said that I was insane,” he said. “But it’s no longer insane. It’s now real. There are those people out there,” Linker added. “The question is: will they get their chance.” (Emphasis added.) The answer to that is yes, if "New Rightists,” or as explained below, “New Fascists,” get their way. And get by with their lies and deceptions on various issues, with "false dichotomies, red herrings, and straw men” arguments. Each containing a particle of what appears as “common sense” to a current political issue, with a “thin analysis.” But when looked at closer with a “thick analysis,” one sees the underlying authoritarianism inherent to fascist thought. And not coincidentally, an ideological loyalty to the “Jewish State of Israel,” meaning its “Right-wing.” Consistent with Israeli Settler Fascist Yoram Hazony’s “National Conservative Movement.” Which I don’t hesitate to call “fascist,” in that Hazony’s language, particularly in “The Jewish State,” tracks Fascist theorist Giovanni Gentile’s “actual idealism,” with his emphasis on the “battleground of ideas” in creating and maintaining the “state.” Hazony writes: “Only an idea can move a people. But an idea can move a people - and this means that the present, difficult circumstances of the Jewish state may be altered by the same kind of effort that brought them about.” This was written in 2000, and in the context of the book, and his denunciations of any Jew left of Meir Kahane, is at least a clue he’s drawing upon fascist theory, even if he refers to it instead as “Conservatism.” Or more recently, National Conservatism. But this isn’t about “Jewishness." It's about “fascistness.” In both the US and Israel, and wherever Yoram Hazony’s “National Conservative Movement” has made inroads. Like Italy, India, United Kingdom, Argentina, to name just a few. While this is not on the subject, it provides a suitable quote: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44428910 False Dichotomies, Red Herrings, and Straw Men: Overcoming Barriers to Facilitating Learning Quote: "Perhaps it is not a problem of false dichotomies, red herrings, and straw men, as enjoyable as these terms are to say. Perhaps it is a problem borne of another term also learned in junior high: "the repeated lie.” The Committee for the Republic sponsored an important event with Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro recently, in which Rabbi Shapiro didn’t hesitate to use the “f-word,” fascist, in describing the Israeli-Right. Which I do too, and take it another step to recognize, that to do that, but to then exclude their US allies, Jewish and non-Jewish (Trump, DeSantis, Ramaswamy, Matt Gaetz, et al.), would be a form of anti-semitism, one could say. That is, by the principle that "if it walks like a duck, . . . .” As I’m not anti-Semitic, except in the way the foregoing Republicans define it, as “any critic of Israel,” as Trump made so clear in Executive Orders and DeSantis does in his shutting down of any critics of Israel in Florida, I must group both US and Israelis of the same political ideology in the same category. So I recognize both the Israeli “Conservatives” and their US like-minded allies as the same; as 21st Century “fascism” (along with their militaristic counterparts in the right-wing of the Democratic Party, almost right alongside of Republicans in demanding Perpetual War, the very hallmark of “fascism”). But it's not exactly the same fascism as in the 1930s-1940s as times and circumstance have changed. A friend suggested the other day the term “Post-fascist,” to make that clear, that it differs in some way. But, in thinking about it more, and in line with their own terminology of “New Right”, and speaking as a one-time Conservative who actually studied it in the 1980s and into the 1990s, under the tutelage of the likes of an Associate Professor at the Voegelin Institute, Wayne Allen, and Straussian Larry Arnn of the Claremont Institute, I will use the term, “New Fascism.” Especially as it befits the latter exactly, who exemplifies it (in my opinion). And something I’m still atoning for, is that I introduced him to some people in MN who are still carrying on his Straussianism, and his extreme Zionism :-( As TAC is in the lead in promoting the “New Right/National Conservatism/New Fascism,” they provide ample evidence of what I assert, and have since about 2015, with their one-time “anti-interventionism” becoming more and more sparse, as if only enough to string along some older readers. But this goes far in showing the “New The American Conservative” magazine, as media platform for the “New Right": (Quote: "The political trends variously called the New Right, populist right, National Conservatism, or whatever you might prefer, remains a new phenomenon. Precisely because of this novelty, it lacks a unified ideological and conceptual foundation to help define the strategic direction of this movement of new populist conservative parties around the world. "One of the intellectuals making a conscious effort to make sense of this political moment and to build a coherent philosophical system for it is Agustín Laje, an Argentine political scientist and authors of books . . . . In practice, what we can call the “New Right” is an effort to articulate three sectors that in principle would seem incompatible, but that in the framework of the 21st century are becoming more and more compatible. These three sectors are libertarians, conservatives, and sovereigntists or patriots. . . . you also have Donald Trump. They are disruptive leaderships that have nothing to do with the restraint and meekness typical of the right wing of the 20th century. . . . This New Right has a revolutionary ethos, as opposed to a left that is beginning to embrace a conservative ethos.” When I hear “old men” of my boomer generation, like me, and like David Stockman, still talking a decade behind the times with references to “Neoconservatives” as the cause of our wars, and the Israel Lobby, the _expression_ “Ok, Boomer,” comes to mind. As does the song lyric, “something is happening here, but you don’t know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones.” As the so-called “Lobby,” only need work with Democrats today. Republicans are the Likud/Kahanist representative in the U.S. Government, and in the White House, should any Republican take office as POTUS again. With the Heritage Foundation like the U.S. campus of the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies. I think Rabbi Shapiro would agree with me that right-wing favorite Ben Shapiro, and his close colleague, Yoram Hazony (another TAC favorite, and author of The Jewish State, and other fascist promoting books), constitute a form of fascism, given his implication he doesn’t care for Ben Shapiro. Furthermore, he didn’t hesitate to analogize some Israeli practices, to Nazism, as I don’t, while I also include so much of what the US does as well. Under both parties as our “National Security State.” But here is Rabbi Shapiro (not Ben), and a big thanks again to the Committee for the Republic for sponsoring him: For “balance,” here are the counterpoints from Ben Shapiro and Yoram Hazony:
|
Attachment:
Contributors to Total War-Authoritarianism .pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
Attachment:
Heritage Foundation Total-War Militarization of America Plan.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
But here "New Right” (see above) favorite Michael Anton and Curtis Yarwin lay out their “New Fascist” vision for a US Caesarite dictatorship:
|
Attachment:
The Right’s American Philosophers - Intercollegiate Studies Institute.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
“[J]ust as Machiavelli establishes intimacy with his readers by causing them to commit his blasphemies, you establish intimacy with your readers by causing them to commit the acts of piety to which you seek to lead them.” —Willmoore Kendall, letter to Leo Strauss, January 24, 1960 Quote: This is not to say that Kendall’s take on America was uncontested. He contested it, exuberantly, with his longtime antagonist and friend Harry Jaffa. Energetically but cordially, they disputed the theory of the American Founding, the meaning of equality, the legacy of Abraham Lincoln, and all manner of subsidiary questions. These intellectual battles only strengthened their mutual admiration and friendship, which they carried on through many long-distance telephone conversations often lasting late into the night. Of course, disagreement on any subject is only possible on the basis of a more fundamental agreement about the possibility of reasonable dialogue. On one very significant issue, the two friends were nearly perfectly aligned: the limits of free speech and the illusion of the completely “open society.” In chapters three, four, and six of The Conservative Affirmation (“McCarthyism,” “Freedom of Speech in America,” and “Conservatism and the ‘Open Society’”) Kendall rejects the phony, “value-free” neutrality of the liberal establishment. (And called for the denial of free speech/press rights, and even denounced “freedom of thought!) And here is the celebrity Straussian himself, Michael Anton, so beloved by all the “New Right,” laying out his fascist vision, and leaving no doubt of what he and National Conservative, and TAC and Quincy Institute fave, Saurabh Sharma, stand for:
|
|