| I was sorely disappointed in Stephen Kinzer after he’d written such excellent histories previously, when he adopted the Quincy(Koch) Institute/The American Conservative propaganda meme they successfully “gaslighted” us with. That was originally conceived by Charles Koch, Peter Thiel, and Sheldon Adelson to “reinvent” Conservative/Republicans in 2015 after having lost two POTUS elections in a row running their usual war-fevered candidates, but now to be fraudulently reinvented as “Right-wing Peaceniks.” Or “Restrainers” as they misrepresent themselves as. All while inciting war against China/Iran/Palestinians. Most egregiously was this line of his: "Most intriguing about this political turnabout is that it does not represent a new departure for conservative Republicans, but rather a return to form. Over the past century and more, Republicans have repeatedly emerged as powerful voices opposing US intervention abroad. Today’s antiwar Republicans are calling the party back to its roots.” B.S.! As was this PsyOp by QI/TAC: https://quincyinst.org/events/the-new-right-ukraine-marks-major-foreign-policy-shift-among-conservatives/ Compare that to Kinzer’s own writings on the Dulles brothers, U.S. Republican sponsored coups, etc., and even Pat Buchanan’s ready acknowledgement that it was Republicans who launched our (further flung) Overseas Imperialism. Though he omits in this that from 1921 - 1933, the Republicans were at the peak of their “Banana Wars,” which Kinzer should be able to remember something of. And in the midst of supposed “Conservative” opposition to entering WW II, were a lot of “Conservative \Libertarian Fascist sympathizers,” like Bill Buckley, Sr. (even taking a detour to visit Italy in 1939) of the former and H.L. Mencken of the latter! And then in the 1950s, a “Conservative Movement” arose in opposition to Eisenhower’s relative sanity/moderation, with Bill Buckley, Jr., James Burnham, and Willmoore Kendall (Tradtional Conservatives) even calling for “preemptive nuclear war” against all of the USSR, China, and any “Red” country that was on our nuclear bomber flight-path, like Albania! When Cold War movies presented nuclear apocalypse scenarios like Dr. Strangelove and FailSafe, those characters demanding U.S. nuclear attack represented voices of the aforesaid “Conservatives,” which is readily to be found even of one can’t remember them. And are far more accurate history than the right-revisionist history Charles Koch/Peter Thiel funded-think tanks/media platforms are now feeding us to create a false impression of a “Conservative Peace Tradition” Trump/Vance are part of, and which Kinzer fell for! |
Attachment:
10. Splendid Little War.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
Attachment:
11. The New Imperialists.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
Buchanan Quote: "The leading Republicans of this era were unmoved by some gauzy vision of a world without war or altruistic idea of what was best for mankind. They made decisions based on what would enhance U.S. power and glory. McKinley and TR were imperialists, not globalists; unilateralists, not multilateralists. Throughout the years prior to and during the Great War, Theodore Roosevelt would strive to make clear how different was his internationalism from that of Wilson and Bryan . . . " But in “Right-Revisionism," such as from Quincy(Koch) Institute/TAC, war-mongers like Bill Buckley, Jr., become “Restrainers,” if only on their death-bed, as related here: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/william-buckley-foreign-policy/, by James Carden: Quote: "Indeed, thanks to the Iraq War and the mendacity of his old allies, the neocons who promoted it so ardently, the scales appeared to have fallen from Buckley's eyes. As Jeffrey Hart wrote in the American Conservative, “Buckley had expressed doubts about the Iraq War from the beginning ... During the last two years of his life, Bill Buckley understood the facts about Iraq and their implications.” . . . "It is arguable that on matters of war and peace Buckley ended up holding positions closer to those held by his nemesis Gore Vidal than the Republican standard bearers in 2008 and 2012. Which is to say that by the end of his life, with regard to U.S. foreign policy, Buckley was getting it right.” B.S.! Here is the real Bill Buckley! Quote: "I said ten days ago that if I had known back then in February 2003 what we know now I would not have counseled war against Iraq. That statement struck some as disloyal to a cause, some others as prime bait for exploitation by such as Senator Kerry. (TP-"I was for the war, before I was ag'in it.”) . . . "The single missing component here is what was implied in President Bush’s speech to the National Security Complex: that a dramatic show of U.S. military strength was necessary to fortify the U.S. presence in the world. If it is true that Qaddafi came around because of what he had seen in Iraq, that point is carried. It is strengthened further by reasoning that North Korea may have been terminally persuaded not to proceed on an apocalyptic course by reason of the fate of Saddam Hussein. This does not vindicate the war as we have engaged in it. Knocking off Saddam Hussein was one challenge. A second was to devolve the responsibility for rebuilding Iraq politically. This we now know keenly should have been done by others, with support from the United States. This point the president will need to focus on in the days ahead. (TP-“Peace Through Strength” - like Trump/Vance on Ukraine: support war against Russia, but let Europe fight and pay for it as we have "bigger wars to fight” with China (and stay of of the way of Israeli genocide!) And this is what Buckley actually said, with his “Conservative postules” spurting all over the world, with he himself both “Father of Traditional Conservatism,” and the same with its off-shoot, Neo-Conservatism. Leaving no distinction except the original difference of "Traditional Conservatives” as the dead-enders on Segregation as Buckely was long past its “expiration date.” Like TradCon favorite here, John P. East, who with his fellow "Far-Right Traditional Conservative,” Jesse Helms, even opposed Caspar Weinberger as “too liberal!” With those of the Scoop Jackson/Barry Goldwater Democrats attaching “neo” to themselves, to distinguish themselves from these “Crazies,” on domestic issues of race. Quote: "The accompanying postulate was that the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymkers to cope with insurgents bent on violence. This last did not happen. And the administration has, now, to cope with failure. It can defend itself historically, standing by the inherent reasonableness of the postulates. After all, they govern our policies in Latin America, in Africa, and in much of Asia. The failure in Iraq does not force us to generalize that violence and antidemocratic movements always prevail. It does call on us to adjust to the question, What do we do when we see that the postulates do not prevail–in the absence of interventionist measures (we used these against Hirohito and Hitler) which we simply are not prepared to take? It is healthier for the disillusioned American to concede that in one theater in the Mideast, the postulates didn’t work. The alternative would be to abandon the postulates. To do that would be to register a kind of philosophical despair. The killer insurgents are not entitled to blow up the shrine of American idealism. So Kinzer ask: "So which course would Trump choose as president — their militancy or Gabbard’s restraint? Given his mercurial mindset, there’s no way to know. You would think Kinzer as a historian would have some trust in the predictive power of past history (if one doesn’t distort it), but he’s put that aside in the Trump era it seems, or he might look to Trump’s ultra-militaristic history, such as this: |
Attachment:
WebPage.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
Democrats, unfortunately, with their own “cognitive war campaign” of portraying Trump as a “peacenik,” have done more to falsely portray Trump as intending to “end the endless wars,” as if that’s a bad thing, than even Trumpites like QI/TAC. But this is what the Trumpites, as part of Project 2025, actually have in mind!
|