"Mr. Trump’s main thrust, however, was a more mixed prescription for the Israeli right: Israel should finish the war in Gaza — “You have to get it done,” he said — and then move on quickly to “peace,” in some form, because “Israel is in trouble.”
Bottom Line Up-Front: There’s more to be released from this interview but here is part of it, with this a central point: "Trump, who recently secured the Republican nomination for president, is leading in the polls but has given only a few interviews since. However, he agreed to grant an interview to Israel Hayom in the library of his estate, where he spoke at length on the race against his successor. Trump harshly attacked Biden over his treatment of Israel. (TP-What we can expect as POTUS favors to Israel Hayom owner, Miriam Adelson, when her’s and Netanyahu’s efforts, and their allied US "New Right’s, get Trump elected again.) . . . "Trump touted the many historic steps he took as president in 2017-2021 for Israel: The Abraham Accords between Israel and four Arab countries, recognizing the Golan Heights as Israeli sovereign territory, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and moving the embassy there. According to Trump, "The biggest thing I did was the Iran nuclear deal. I ended it." From the NYT below: "Mr. Trump did not embrace the rhetoric of expulsion, but he told the Israeli interviewers that he planned to meet with Mr. Friedman to listen to his pitch that the United States recognize Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank, which has been occupied by Israel since 1967.
That’s the kind of “lecture" a German Dictator might have given an Italian one, over Ethiopia. But only because it interfered with larger Plans!
I am as critical of Biden as anyone for his role in Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians, and signed an amicus brief to that point! But to put that in “context,” one needs to see what Biden’s opposing candidate, Trump, pictured below with friend/political mentor Roy Cohn (there is a POTUS political campaign underway, and has been since 15 Nov 2022, isn’t there? I lost a one-time, libertarian, friend who vigorously chewed me out for my criticism of the role that MIC Oligarch Charles Koch had in electing Trump in 2016!), has to say on what US policy with Israel should be. But here is a short piece on the “political theorist” whom is credited with being the ideological precursor to Trumpism by so many on the "Right,” including our own "Traditional Conservatives” adhering to Kendallism: "Despite his lack of name-brand recognition, there is evidence that we’re in the cusp of a Kendall revival.” One must note that this is not to condemn all self-described “Conservatives,” nor those, like me, who recognized the totalitarian nature of the USSR during the Cold War, and opposed it. With ample cause for that seen in the subjugation of Eastern Europe and the denial of any human rights. But that was true of those Conservatives, labeled correctly by Peter Viereck as “Thought-Control Conservatives,” as he was a conservative who opposed them. And had their “political theory” been better known for what it was, and recognized more correctly as Authoritarianism, as Burnham’s and Kendall’s were, they might have gotten the scorn they truly deserved as latent fascists. But their fellow Conservatives, and libertarian allies as “Fusionists,” were either too ignorant to recognize that, or too loyal to them to acknowledge that, so in the name of “Conservatism,” fascist ideas and political theory gained an undeserved “legitimacy!” And now we have the “New Right,” misleadingly celebrating themselves as “Right-wing Peaceniks,” even while they clamor for war with Iran, China, and in fact (see P2025), with Russia. Given so much agreement on the relevance of Kendall today, from the “Right,” and a few non-Rightists, such as Jett Heer, and myself, it would be “dereliction of duty” by anyone involved with the Committee for the Republic, educated in political theory, with first-hand knowledge as a one-time Conservative, to not reveal the inherent Authoritarianism of this claimed progenitor as a Political Theorist of “Trumpism.” And as that is representative of DeSantis as well, as a fellow Israeli Settler backer National Conservative, New Rightist, it applies to the “New Right” in general, much of them willingly listed as the Project 2025 Advisory Board. In that, they reveal their “true nature.” As I know from first-hand experience with some of them. BLUF: "Kendall’s war against the CIA consensus was an important precursor to later right-wing efforts to politicize intelligence gathering, notably the late 1970s Team-B project (which radically over-estimated the Soviet military threat, fraudulent claims about Iraqi WMDs in the Bush/Cheney era, and Trump’s battle with the Deep State (best understood as an attempt to subdue the bureaucracy). (TP-replacing it with his own Loyalists, see Project 2025) "Kendall’s critique of the CIA was part of his larger war on the liberal elite. The running theme of his attacks were that liberal were so committed to the cult of expert knowledge that they lost touch with fundamental democratic values. Dedicated to following the proper legal and bureaucratic procedures, liberals lacked the instinctive knowledge of common folks who knew that America had serious enemies that meant to destroy it. During these years, Kendall was so worried about the supposed Soviet threat that he repeatedly called for the United States to launch a preventive war against the U.S.S.R. – a policy which, had it been enacted, could easily have led to a nuclear holocaust." (Suitable for framing for you Trumpites!) |
Trump and his political mentor Roy Cohn. For what this New Republic article at the link below says about Kendall’s view on “Intelligence,” is enough for me to denounce that war fanatic to my dying day. And as Heer pointed out, it can be said he was the “father” of Team B, and of the Iraq War, and the pending, "Great China-American War” (World War III) as promoted by the ultra-militaristic Heritage Foundation in their Project 2025. Which has something for both Democrats and Republicans respectively; war against Russia first, then China, and the reverse for the Republicans (though in fact, as “war” works, neither country is so stupid to believe we don’t intend to attack each as all their intelligence services need do is read Project 2025!) |
Attachment:
Heritage Foundation Total-War Militarization of America Plan.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
Talk about channeling Kendall and Burnham (and Generals Goldwater, Bombs Away LeMay (see Dr. Strangelove), General Thomas Powers; war fanatics all, and now representative of both party’s leadership (though to be fair, more so the Republican, for whom Heritage is writing for, though only by a sliver, with Democrats always following Republican militarism). As the foregoing always held, there’s "no such thing as too many nuclear weapons,” as Heritage and its supporters agree (see Advisory Board list). This is something almost all of this list agrees on, it seems, as logically follows from support of the provocations the US routinely employ to generate a casus belli for war to sell to its ignorant “masses.” So who can be against this:
Kendall’s views on politicizing Intelligence: Quote: "The conventional view of intelligence, set forth in Sherman Kent’s 1949 book Strategic Intelligence, which became the handbook for a new generation of analysts, was that data-gathering shouldn’t be tainted by policy concerns. Kendall, who reviewed the book for the journal World Politics, countered that without the guidance provided by political theory, the CIA would be condemned to mindless fact-grubbing. In the 1950s, Kendall went farther. As his friend and fellow political theorist George W. Carey recalls, (link, see in original) Kendall suggested to students that an intelligence agency could be justified in massaging the facts if necessary to get policymakers to accept a necessary course of action. "Kendall’s critique of the CIA would echo for decades to come, as conservatives have repeatedly argued that the agency lacks a sufficient awareness of the true cunning of America’s enemies. These same conservatives have shared Kendall’s belief that it is okay to manipulate intelligence to achieve the desired outcome. By now, it should be apparent, I would hope, how opposed to US Authoritarianism I am. With that first articulated ideologically post-WW II, by the disaffected CIA founders of the Conservative Movement, the “Traditional Conservatives,” with Willmoore Kendall and James Burnham, in the forefront. And Goldwater adhering to them, and McCarthy, as did Robert Taft, as a fellow “Asia Firster” with McCarthty. Disaffected because they were willing to risk, and even advocated, preemptive nuclear war against any and all of our “Enemies.” Just like “Conservatives” (not defined by economics, but by Militarism) of both parties are willingly risking today. While Eisenhower was willing to overthrow a few governments, he was a bit hesitant about blowing up the world. Unlike the Traditional Conservative fanatics, to include Barry Goldwater, who were the original Team B, and and saw willingness to risk nuclear war as the sine qua non of what was a “Conservative,” as Willmoore Kendall wrote. _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Despite this writer’s claim Yass’s and Koch’s brand of libertarianism won’t work in Israel, he’s not taking into account that it will, when coupled with Israeli “Conservatism” (fascism)! |
