Scott; sorry for my delay in getting back to you but I was in the library researching the “Origins of American Fascism” yesterday, in going through Buckley biographies. And doing yard work of the kind us "Middle Class Americans” do ourselves. Unlike our elitists, scheming to promote the interests of our Oligarchs of the US/Israeli “Military Industrial Complex,” like Peter Thiel and Charles Koch.
But happy to see you take at least some notice of me pointing out the changed political character of your magazine. Which as near as I can put it, coincided with changes of editors around 2014-2016, when I first noticed it, and expressed my concern to my friend Jon Utley. And had my suspicions confirmed when one of the new Editors expressed to me his all-out support for Guantanamo when I gave him a ride to his hotel after a post-Salon dinner with the Committee for the Republic! Nearly causing my head to explode, once having been under the impression that TAC was on “my side” in condemning that war crime. And giving me a “we’re not in Kansas anymore” feeling.
With that change seeming to coincide with reports that Charles Koch became a funder (rebuttable of course, but I’ll share later). So I get the feeling you disapprove of my use of the term “fascism?” As I suspect most others here do as Americans who “bristle” when that term may be applied to our Regime. Which has now killed how many human beings since the so-called “End of the Cold War?” While setting up a martial law military tribunal system (which your one-time Conservative Editor approved of!) to even charge Americans for their “expressive activities” (Sec. 1021, “speech”). As an Obama DOJ attorney admitted, and as Trump expressed so much enthusiasm for. And as Conservatives and some libertarians (Thomas Sowell for one) always advocate for. But, “Ain’t no Fascists here,” I hear people say!
BLUF: "Other future leading lights of the neocon movement were also initially Trotskyites, like James Burnham and Max Kampelman—the latter a conscientious objector during the war against Hitler, a status that Evron Kirkpatrick, husband of Jeane, used his influence to obtain for him. But there is at least one neoconservative commentator whose personal political odyssey began with a fascination not with Trotskyism, but instead with another famous political movement that grew up in the early decades of the 20th century: fascism. I refer to Michael Ledeen, leading neocon theoretician, expert on Machiavelli (TP-like Burnham! As if fascists just can’t get enough of Machiavelli!), holder of the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute, regular columnist for National Review—and the principal cheerleader today for an extension of the war on terror to include regime change in Iran.” (TP note; as did the Trump administration, but couldn’t overcome military realties!)
(TP note; I recall well how an economist here once expressed the opinion that AEI was only about “sound economics!” Which is why I pay no attention to economists with their narrow “econoministic” viewpoint when they express opinions on “Politics,” as political theory. And even less attention when they’re libertarians, on either subject!)
But here’s a response to your article link below which you generously shared (emphasis in original):
Title: "I Am a Jewish Student at Columbia. Don’t Believe What You’re Being Told About ‘Campus Antisemitism’
"Smears from the press and pro-Israel influencers are a dangerous distraction from real threats to our safety.”
Quote: "I am wary of a hysterical campus discourse – gleefully amplified by many of the same charlatans who have turned “DEI” into a slur – that draws attention away from the ongoing slaughter in the Gaza Strip and settler violence in the occupiedWest Bank."
From Scott’s article:
"There was, notably, a new ethnic composition to the protests. I haven’t seen a detailed demographic breakdown of protestors or their leaders, but it seemed that in almost every instance the campus leaders quoted in press reports were of Arabic origin—meaning they were foreign students or descended from families of recent immigrants. Mass immigration has changed the American political culture since the time of Clinton and Obama presidencies, probably nowhere moreso than regarding the Mideast. According to the Arab American Institute, there are over 3 million people of Arab origin in the U.S.; if one surmises that one percent of these are young people ready to participate in militant anti-Israel demonstrations, that would explain how quite a few major American cities now have a large cadre of people available to shut down highways, bully “Zionist-owned” businesses, and shout menacing slogans. The non-Arab Muslim population, which hardly existed forty years ago, is at least that size.”
I’ve been at protests here in Minnesota, and if one group is disproportionately represented, it is Jewish Voice for Peace. Whom Conservatives/Republicans denounce as anti-Semites! But don’t let facts get in the way. Nor note that so many Arabs/Muslims are here only because they’ve been driven out of Palestine, and the other mideast countries TAC would at one time have recognized as the consequence of our US/Israeli Wars on non-Israeli Mideasterners! As Yoram Hazony essentially called for as “The Jewish State!”
But, in line with our mutual interest in history, mine of the sort that Bill Polk studied, TAC’s now more in line with a generous “airbrushing” out of uncomfortable facts, in promotion of Trumpism, and sanitizing of “Traditional Conservatism,” to fit Trump into a revisionist category of that, as a “Right-wing Peacenik,” here is a combination panegyric/apologia, for Charles Koch, but with tidbits of actual history, which I took the liberty of highlighting:
Quote: "Amid the tumult of the 1960s and the Vietnam war, the cadres of the nascent libertarian movement were shaking off their submergence in the Cold War right of William F. Buckley Jr. and National Review and harkening back to an older tradition: the libertarian anti-interventionism of 1930s conservatism.
(TP note: Omitting, as Justin was sometimes, and Conservatives, always, good at, the Republican Banana Wars, of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover!) This current had practically faded out of existence as McCarthyism swept the 1950s and the Buckleyites recruited rightward-moving Trotskyists like James Burnham and former Stalinists like Willi Schlamm. (TP note: And former Trotskyite Willmoore Kendall, and former Stalinist Frank S. Meyer.)
These leftists turned militant anti-Communists were the ancestors of today’s neoconservatives, (TP note: Now, Traditional Conservatives.) who finally emerged in great numbers during the 1960s as “Scoop Jackson Democrats”—named after the hawkish Washington senator—(TP note: And Ronald Reagan Republicans, as I know personally) battling the children’s crusade around Eugene McCarthy, the 1968 peace candidate of the left. . . . But under pressure from their war-mongering base and a constant stream of denunciations from National Review, JBS founder-leader Robert Welch changed his position to “Victory, Then Peace,” as Schulman points out.
. . . having abandoned third-party politics, he (Charles) and David (Koch) undertook an “entryist” strategy that involved influencing the larger conservative movement and the Republican Party in a libertarian direction. (TP-in economics, but still the same old militarism). A brace of front groups were set up: Americans for Prosperity (initially called Citizens for a Sound Economy) and others with anodyne-sounding names.
. . . Charles’s strategy of muting libertarian principles in pursuit of a “popular front”-style campaign was basically unchanged from the early days of the Kochtopus. Only instead of trying to pass off libertarianism as “low-tax liberalism,” his new tactic was to pass it off as a subset of conservatism. Charles began organizing regular meetings of well-heeled conservative donors, including major funders of neoconservative groups, in a characteristically single-minded pursuit of his goal: defeating Obama. Every cog in the Koch political machine was mobilized to carry out the mission.
. . . The charge was that Charles and David wanted to drag Cato into politics by providing “intellectual ammunition” to the array of action-oriented nonprofits, like Americans for Prosperity, they were readying for an assault on the White House.
. . . “We got to do better with primaries,” David declared—as if giving the Ron Pauls of this world less opportunity to expose the hollowness of the establishment would somehow increase the Republican Party’s appeal to the public."
So with Peter Thiel, the Adelsons, the Mercers and Steve Bannon, they turned to Trump!
But where would I come up with such an absurd claim that TAC has anything to do with “fascism,” Israeli or American? Not being as well educated as Scott, who surely knows of the “Identity Principle” in Logic, and being of humble middle-class and Midwest background, I only know the “mid-American” logic that if it “looks like a duck, …). Or, if it looks like Israeli fascism, promotes Israeli fascism, and is an essential partner/co-belligerent with it, “it is . . . “
Here’s a piece which appears in , per Todd, one of platforms of the Israeli fascists and their US national conservative allies.
You can probably sense the writer’s genuine ambivalence on the issue.
On May 14, 2024, at 7:28 AM, Todd Pierce via Salon <salon@listserve.com> wrote:
Highlighted sections below are to emphasize why it’s “all hands on deck” for Israeli fascists and their U.S. National Conservative/Republicans, and right-wing media platform/think tank, allies to get Trump back in as POTUS, by a relentless “Cognitive Campaign” promising that Trump will “end the endless wars.” Omitting that that entails unqualified support for Israel’s fascists and another massive U.S. military spending increase and buildup of offensive capabilities, as as called for by the Heritage Foundation. Which is for wars against China, Iran, and Russia, acting through, in the case of the latter, expansion of support for Poland’s right-wing President leading the way for increased funding of NATO by its members so the U.S. can dedicate more for its Asian Wars. With organizations funded by U.S. Oligarchs, like Peter Thiel and Charles Koch, serving as Trump propaganda platforms in the forefront of supporting Israel’s “Military Industrial Complex” and its current genocidal war of which Thiel and Koch profit from as essential elements in that war. And of the Israeli Military Industrial Complex!
To facilitate withdrawal from Gaza, Bush pledged the U.S. would ‘lead efforts’ against terrorism.
That’s why a letter of commitment bearing the presidential seal played a crucial role at a turning point in Israel’s history 20 years ago. In the spring of 2004, Prime MinisterAriel Sharonencountered obstacles trying to advance his plan for a total withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.At the time, Gaza was home to thousands of settlers and several divisions of the Israel Defense Forces.
The concerns were twofold: first, that the precedent of a withdrawal to the 1967 borders in Gaza might eventually be applied to Judea and Samaria, creating indefensible borders for Israel, and second, that the move would be interpreted as a retreat under fire, strengthening terrorist groups in the Gaza Strip.
President George W. Bush came to Sharon’s aid. He dispatcheda letterthat helped win the support of Israel’s ministers and Knesset members that Sharon needed.Many recall Mr. Bush’s implicit promise in the letter to Sharon—“It is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949”—meaning that Israel would be able to retain the parts of Judea and Samaria where the settlement blocs are.
In recent discussions with high-ranking officials in Israel and the U.S., I was surprised to learn thatsome had forgotten another, far firmer commitment in the letter: “Israel will retain its right to defend itself against terrorism, including to take actions against terrorist organizations. The United States will lead efforts, working together with Jordan, Egypt, and others in the international community, to build the capacity and will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism, dismantle terrorist organizations, and prevent the areas from which Israel has withdrawn from posing a threat that would have to be addressed by any other means.”
This principle, as outlined in the letter, was ratified byboth houses of Congresswith overwhelming majorities, lending additional weight to the commitment as follows: “Whereas Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorism, including to take actions against terrorist organizations that threaten Israel’s citizens.”
When President Obama took office in 2009, he quickly erased the commitment to recognize the settlement blocs. WikiLeaks documents reveal that officials in his administration were instructed to assert that this document wasn’t binding, all the while urging Israel to withdraw to a distance only a 15-minute drive from Tel Aviv’s main intersection.
Over the past 20 years, the U.S. has failed in the efforts it pledged to uphold: to fight terrorism and prevent Gaza from becoming a threat to Israel. When Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007, the U.S. did nothing.In the summer of 2014, President Obama withheld Hellfire missiles from Israel during its military operation against Hamas. InMay 2021President Biden pressured Israel to discontinue another military operation in Gaza.
Now, with his announcement to halt the delivery of weapons, Mr. Biden has shredded Mr. Bush’s letter to Sharon. The consequences will be catastrophic even if Israel prevails in Gaza. The entire region and the world are closely watching leaders renege on commitments and strategic partnerships.
An American statement used to be like the U.S. dollar—universally coveted and esteemed. But times have changed and the dollar’s value, much like presidential assurances, has diminished. It should come as no surprise that countries such as Saudi Arabia now have a new list of demands for Washington, from a nuclear reactor to a defense alliance.
Now, instead of delivering promised support to an ally, the U.S. is hindering efforts. By halting the shipment of weapons to Israel, it is effectively sending Hamas the most potent weapon of all: hope.
Mr. Segal is chief political commentator on Israel’s Channel 12 News and author of “The Story of Israeli Politics.”
WSJ Opinion: Did the Palestine Protesters Win?
WSJ Opinion: Did the Palestine Protesters Win?
Journal Editorial Report: Biden hits "pause" on a U.S. ally. Image: David Ryder/Reuters
