I’ve said this before but one more time, as against the Right-revisionists here so heavily populating this list. With my limited intelligence, as you keep reminding me and this List of Tom, I see your answer as a “distinction without a difference,” and always has been. Except for when NeoCons finally came into existence in the 1970s as Scoop Jackson Democrats (differing little from Truman Democrats), with Irving Kristol (heralded in Bacevich’s book on Conservatism) cheering them on, but hardly the ideological founder (see Kendall and Burnham for that, below). And only differed from the genuinely segregationist Conservatives of National Review magazine on the position of Civil/Voting Rights for brown-skinned peoples, in being for them (they said, and not "ag'in ‘em.” As National Review and Buckley proclaimed they were, repeatedly, as “those people” (paraphrasing) weren’t quite “developed” enough yet to merit such rights. As Buckley would later apologize for, however insincerely. But that isn’t the issue; the issue is that they shared their ultra-militarism with their like-minded co-ideologists; the "Traditional Conservatives” of National Review magazine, which they’d founded. Long before the latter became known as “NeoCon.” But always in its history (but even more at the beginning, even advocating preemptive nuclear war under Kendall, Buckley, and Burnham), the ultra-militarists promoting the Military Industrial, et al., Complex, and Wars of Aggression, as begun with its founding! Which the self-described Democratic Party Neocons (Goldwater Democrats), only coming along in the 1970s in opposition to their party’s “McGovernism,” coalescing around Barry Goldwater’s close friend Scoop Jackson as “Scoop Jackson Democrats.” Who had to support civil rights, however insincerely, due to their party’s constituency. But “Traditional Conservatives” John East, Jesse Helms, and Strom Thurmond seamlessly transitioned to Republican Party Conservatives from Democratic Party Conservatives, when the Democrats dropped their opposition to civil rights, and they joined a more compatible party, on “National Security,” with both even denouncing Reagan himself for being “soft!” In line with earlier iterations of the “New Right,” the first self-named by the founders of the Conservative Movement, through National Review magazine as their propaganda organ, the current “New Right” of Trumpism/DeSantism, lined up with the ultra-militaristic Heritage Foundation, continues in that “tradition.” With the first iteration denouncing Eisenhower for being “soft on communism,” and both he and the “Liberal,” George Kennan, for their “Containment Strategy.' Instead of the “Roll-back Strategy" they demanded, even with preemptive nuclear attacks on the USSR and Red China they called for! Or in today’s “New Right" (3 0f 3) terms; the Right-wing Peaceniks.” Seen in the “Ultra-extreme proponents of inciting war against China.” Just like their predecessors Joe McCarthy, Robert Taft, and their disciple, Goldwater, did as “Asia First Conservatives” With the issue of race the only real distinction for NeoCons, from the so-called Traditional Conservatives of National Review magazine who upheld their segregationist, anti-civil rights, views right into the 1980s. But no “NeoCon” was ever as militaristic and warmongering than the original theorists of Conservatism, as were Buckley, Meyer, Burnham, and Kendall. With each of the latter three all out of either Trotskyism or in the case of Frank Meyer, right out of the Communist Party. The classic characteristics of “Neoconservatism.” Except only the latter was Jewish, which for Traditional Conservatives of today, seems to be the defining characteristic of Neocons, with immunity from the charge for the even more militaristic non-Jewish “Traditional Conservatives” of Buckley, Burnham, and Kendall. So Kendall’s Trotskyism has been previously covered, before his “conversion” to Francoist Fascism, and Straussianism. But here is an accurate rendering of Burnham, with both Kendall and Burnham heralded as Trumpism’s antecedents. Kendall more than Burnham, explaining the zealous defense/promotion of Kendall by zealous Traditional Conservative supporters of Trumpism, and its sub-branch, DeSantism. "Shouldn’t we laugh at James Burnham, who started out lecturing Leon Trotsky on revolutionary strategy and ended up running a rogue CIA operation with mobster Frank Costello to kidnap American Communists and pump them full of sodium pentothal? (This actually happened — you couldn’t make this stuff up.) "Alas, there’s nothing funny about the 1953 coup in Iran that Burnham helped orchestrate, his ensuing efforts to advance the preemptive bombing of the Soviet Union, his campaign to deploy biological and chemical weapons in Vietnam, and his alliances with segregationists and colonialists. . . . "For all the wacky elements of Burnham’s constantly moving ideology, his political career did not consist of drunken flirtations and reckless hookups. (Like Willmoore Kendall’s.) . . . "The next year, he left New York University and joined the Central Intelligence Agency’s covert action arm. Yet in these years, the CIA leadership was still regarded as liberal and Burnham was treated with suspicion for being soft on McCarthyism. In 1953, he was forced off the editorial board of the Partisan Review for the same reason, and a year later he resigned from the American Committee for Cultural Freedom (which he had helped found) because he felt it was weak on domestic communism. "Burnham left the CIA and began identifying as a conservative, though never with the far right. He was always more preoccupied with fighting communism than with defending free markets. "From 1954 until his retirement in 1978, Burnham mentored William F. Buckley, serving as senior editor, columnist, and foreign policy oracle for the National Review." Tom Cotton? Besides both Cotton and Hawley being students/mentorees of East Coast Straussian Supremo Harvey Mansfield, and favorites of the West Coast Straussian Claremont Institute/Hillsdale College, and the now West Coast Straussian/National Conservative propaganda platform, The American Conservative magazine (there’s only so much evidence I can put into one email, so this will have to do), and now, as always, united with the Republican Party in defense of Israeli fascism, why is he distinguished as a “NeoCon,” when there is no difference between him, and Trump, except being better educated? Trump now admits, as do former administration officials, that we escalated war against Russia, even while conducting a ruse with a lot of fallacious wordplay that beguiled the ignoramuses on both left and right, even while he completed the encirclement of Russia with Poland’s Duda, https://www.theamericanconservative.com/tom-cotton-further-positions-himself-as-trumps-heir/https://www.theamericanconservative.com/conservatives-at-a-crossroads/ (by Josh Hawley, April 2023) BLUF: "And the truth is: Nobody has done more in the last fifty years to fuel conservative ideas than the Heritage Foundation. And at this time of challenge—in this time for choosing—the Heritage Foundation has never been more important.” "I say “choosing” because that’s where we are. A time where we as conservatives must choose what we are about." . . . "Do we have what it takes to face the challenges before us? We face a rising adversary in China.” I hate to share these TAC articles because I will hear a “Three Cheers” for Hawley and Cotton, as they’re both masterful propagandists, as one would expect from students of Harvey Mansfield, and know how to “push the right buttons” for their Conservative audience, as Goebbels once did, with no apologies for that example. So help me out here Tom: please distinguish for all of us on this List; the NeoCons, the NatCons, the TraditionalCons, of Trump and DeSantis (hereafter, “ZioCons), and even the libertarians who join up with Charles Koch in supporting his wars of choice, as listed here as supporting the “Great Anti-War, Anti-interventionist, Restrainer, Heritage Foundation of Kevin Roberts,” |
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
Here is a classic, of fascist (Conservative) propaganda, which I’d read a lot of over the years, once as a gullible ignoramus of what was really being said, and more recently, as having been “awokened” (with no “Marxism” involved) to what the likes of Willmoore Kendall, Buckley, and Burnham, really meant, with their anti-constitutional screeds denouncing the Bill Of Rights! "The Constitution is still the greatest achievement in justice and ordered liberty in the history of man. The Bill of Rights still protects us from the schemes of politicians. And we are still right to celebrate both. "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.” And right-wing politicians still denounce and eviscerate the Bill of Rights! Especially Free Speech (including right-wing Goldwater Democrats). With “overwhelming strength” guaranteed to work as well for us, as it did for Germany in the 1930s. Until countries began resisting their depredations, as we’re seeing today in opposition to our "Global War on Peer Competitors,” as Trump and Heritage are in the forefront of. Read Project 2025, and read Mein Kampf, and tell me the substantive difference. Except now it’s Palestinians, Chinese, Iranians, and, again, Russians, targeted. By the Right, especially Trump, as he now admits.
|