This was shared here earlier today as the latest on Settler Terrorism, and of Ben-Gvir, Israel’s other preeminent “National Conservative,” along with Yoram Hazony who’s so favored here: |
Attachment:
JewishTerrorismWarning.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
If the U.S. abided by its own laws, various "New Right/National/Traditional-Conservative" politicians, think tanks, media platforms, and their “Political Network” supporters should be “shaking in their boots” in fear of prosecution for Material Support for Terrorism, under the precedent of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holder_v._Humanitarian_Law_Project, But obviously we don’t abide by our own laws, when it comes to prosecuting war crimes, ours, or our “allies." But if one is going to meaningfully understand “Settler Terrorists,” or, "Israel’s Radical Right,” as that term is used in an Israeli book on the subject, as the attached files are from which I’ve shared in the past, I suggest a “Social Network Analysis” is called for, as described in the Introduction below, and here: https://www.hsaj.org/articles/171 |
Attachment:
Front Matter.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
Attachment:
Introduction.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
Chapters 3 & 7 (sending by separate email to reduce size) are also very valuable in that they are revealing of the takeover tactics of U.S. Conservatism by the “New Right,” of Trump and Vance, working off the “National Conservative” playbook of Yoram Hazony in the Meir Kahane "School of Fascism Tradition.” With "one of their own,” J.D. Vance, possibly our next VP! As an aside, I rediscovered a book on my shelves on M.E. Bradford, the “Southern Conservative” closely allied ideologically with Willmoore Kendall who’d selected Bradford to teach at Kendall’s “Straussian” Politics Department at the University of Dallas (there seems to be only one person in the world who denies Willmoore Kendall was a Straussian! :-). Reading that book is revealing of how it seems readily apparent how much the young “Conservative” Yoram Hazony learned from M.E. Bradford who had a spurt of popularity in the 1980s amongst Young Conservatives/Republicans, who hosted him on his campus tours. As I well remember when hearing a Young Republican gushing over him at the time. It might have been Bradford who first called for “returning” to the legal thought of Britain’s “Common Law” attorneys whom Yoram Hazony promotes as true “Conservatives.” And whose “legal theories” were what we, the U.S., revolted against! But as has become clear with my study of the “Thought-Control Conservatives” who are credited as “Founding Fathers” of Movement Conservatism, as distinguished from those “non-Thought-Control Control Conservatives” whom the former despised, and even denounced as “Liberals,” such as Eisenhower was by Buckley, Burnham, and Kendall, duplicity legitimizing authoritarian “political theory” is what they have always been about. Just see Willmoore Kendall’s life-long assault upon the Bill of Rights! I hope I’ve been seen here as the most hostile critic of Settler Yoram Hazony’s "National Conservative” form of fascism, and the ideological accoutrements which go with it. To include its U.S. “Social Network” branch identifying as the “New Right,” of Trump, DeSantis, Ramaswamy, Vance, et al., and the think tanks/media platforms which have promoted them most vigorously making them part of the Settler Terrorist Network, under the precedent of Holder. As applied by the DOJ in other cases in providing “Material Support for Terrorism to Israeli Settler Terrorists, which can be just “moral support.” Especially, in my opinion, though they can go unnamed, those featuring articles such as this: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/national-conservatism-a-statement-of-principles/). And what is obviously one of their two main think tanks, which has so zealously promoted Hazony’s“New Right/National Conservative” politicians like J.D. Vance and Vivek Ramaswamy for years now as “experts” on “Foreign Policy” issues, as can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVzoZwoU_RY, and here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-7LmiP_VnI. With the other one here, also promoted heavily by the other: https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/the-case-nationalism-and-religious-revival "On this week’s episode of “The Kevin Roberts Show,” we’re joined by Yoram Hazony, author of the new book, “Conservatism: A Rediscovery.” Anyone who denies fascism hasn’t arrived in the U.S. as a combination of Kendallianism/Hazonyism, is just not paying attention. Or, is celebrating it in panegyrics to both, as Daniel McCarthy does in his promotion of each! It would not appear to be an accident that only about a month after Vance and Ramaswamy spoke at an event of the first think tank, the two of them then were keynote speakers at the Settler-founded National Conservative Conference (NatCon4) in D.C. As if they were a “warm-up act” for the Main Event, Republican Speaker Mike Johnson’s invited guest to Congress, Netanyahu, following shortly thereafter. With so much interchange between the two organizations which sponsored and heavily promote J.D. Vance and Ramaswamy (and Trump), and National Conservatism, it’s never easy to distinguish between them! That’s notwithstanding a belated, and mild, recent criticism of them on Responsible Statecraft (https://responsiblestatecraft.org/national-conservatism-conference/) which, only a few weeks after hosting National Conservatives J.D. Vance and Ramaswamy espousing their insane support for Israel’s fascist coalition's policy of Palestinian extermination, stated: "But the National Conservatism conference, founded by the Edmund Burke Foundation under the tutelage of Israeli nationalist Yoram Hazony, should not be confused with the America First foreign policy now being debated in conservative circles today. After three days of programming, that much is clear. "There were a few counterbalances — a thoughtful discussion about the future of NATO, which included realist Sumantra Maitra, and remarks from Elbridge Colby, a self-described conservative realist. During a plenary speech, he said U.S. foreign policy must be rooted in the goals of preserving fundamental American interests of freedom, security, and prosperity, and cast in the lens of prioritization and power balancing." How can the two not be “confused,” when the two are made up of the same people! Both sides united in absolute support of Israel’s fascist Coalition, and both in agreement of the “necessity” of confronting the “existential threat” of China. “Existential” as manufactured by each of them, being of the same “Experts!” As can be seen below: Quote: "I actually do believe Russia is a revanchist power. . . . If you can go back to 1989 it’s going to be very good. The Germans had 12 divisions at that point of time. Let Germany pay for those 12 divisions in NATO and we wouldn’t have this conversation tomorrow.” Quote: "China is the greatest threat posed to the US in the latter’s history, according to Dr Sumantra Maitra, director of research and outreach at the American Ideas Institute. . . . Maitra’s work has gained influence in Donald Trump’s circles, and some have speculated that his calls for a “dormant NATO” could make their way into the former president’s agenda. This would mean gradually removing American troops from Europe as continental powers increase their defence spending while maintaining nuclear protection from the US. In the event of a second Trump term, that could lead to a shift in America’s focus from Europe to Asia.” Left unsaid by Maitra, it would seem, was “and I’m doing everything I can to incite it!" Just like Elbridge Colby is, as is made clear here: And, Quote: "For about a decade, Elbridge Colby has been making a single argument in and out of government: that America can’t afford Chinese hegemony in Asia. He has also been saying that this outcome is narrowly preventable, provided Washington renews its industrial base and stewards its existing military capabilities – rather than waste them on Europe and the Middle East." Israeli Settler Terrorism is so embedded in Trump and Trumpism, and the so-called “New Right,” that the major Settler Political Theorist, Yoram Hazony, is fully entitled to be called one of “Trumpism’s foremost theorists: https://www.vox.com/21355993/trump-israel-yoram-hazony-nationalism-tikvah And that’s the “Settler Terrorist's Network.” Working together as they are, in lockstep, with Israel’s fascists, to advance Israeli Settler Terrorist’s “Interests,” and to utilize those connections to bring the same “mindset” to the U.S. as the culmination of the original “Thought-Control Conservative Movement’s Authoritian/ultra-militaristic Plan.” Which can be seen here as a Rousseauist "Totalitarian Democracy” political theory (even Claes Ryn acknowledges Kendall as a “Rousseauist” :-): BLUF: "They have, in giving their consent, promised to obey the laws of the society as, in Rousseau’s phrase, commands that they give to themselves; they have, by a free act of their own wills, embraced as their very own, the principles upon which, tacitly or explicitly, the society is founded: they have, in a word, so situated themselves that if, on some later day, one of them is tempted to say “Look, all this is proving more costly than I had expected it to,” or “Look, you are asking me to go along with things that, in my view, contravene the principles we have embraced”—if on some later day it comes to that, his fellows can turn to him and say, say, moreover, with good conscience, “ah! But you promised—in the very act of giving your consent you promised—and we call upon you now to keep your promise, that is, not begrudge the sacrifice that our kind of society, with this form of government and this purpose, or set of purposes, now demands of you.” He is, if I may put it so, stuck with that earlier act of consent; and if, subsequently, he refuses to fulfill the relevant obligation, and his fellow citizens—as fellow citizens are wont to do—take it out of his hide for his refusal, he has no one to blame but himself. (They are, as Rousseau put it, forcing him to be free; nor, I think, has America ever viewed the question differently from Rousseau.)
|