Posted under Conservatism & Interventionism & NeoCons
If you haven’t kept up with the meltdown of the pro-war, any-war crowd, you’ve been missing some of the grandest entertainment on the ‘net (see here, here, and here, for example).
Seems Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, though he was all for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, can no longer tolerate his conservative allies who also want to halt Third-World immigration in order to preserve Western, Christian culture. Johnson, of course, is the more logically consistent here — Bush & Co. always justified their wars as egalitarian, globalist crusades aimed at crushing backward (traditional) cultures, with just enough fabrications about protecting Americans from attack to justify a pre-emptive war. Patriotic conservatives who blindly followed the president and supported his aggressive wars have recoiled from Johnson’s accusations that they’re “racist” and “white supremacist.” They counter by accusing him of betraying conservatism and having mutated into a leftist.
The conservative bloggers are wrong — again. Charles Johnson hasn’t changed. What’s happened is that they were fooled. In fact, now that DC’s splendid little wars aren’t fun anymore, the unnatural coalition that backed them is falling apart. What else but a nation-building crusade wrapped up in patriotic language could induce well-meaning, patriotic Americans to do the bidding of lefties such as Christopher Hitchens, Charles Johnson, Hillary Clinton, and Irv Kristol?
The Iraq and Afghan adventures were conceived as classic leftist projects to destroy traditional societies and reconstruct them into models of egalitarianism. The Neocons, who’re nothing but body-snatching leftists, were going to accomplish what LBJ failed to do with his Great Society/Vietnam campaigns. The Neocons intended to impose their world democratic revolution at home and abroad — that’s why they supported amnesty for illegal aliens at home while American soldiers died trying to remake the Middle East. Those wars took more resources away from Americans and placed them in the hands of the central government, as all wars do. The additional powers our handlers in DC have appropriated, including domestic spying and “preventive detention” for enemies of the government, are now in the hands of Obama and his cronies.
The party’s over, the bill has tripled the deficit, and folks like Charles Johnson have woken up with what they consider coyote-ugly bedmates. No wonder he’s chewing his arm off.
mikefromwichita on 21 Sep 2009 at 1:00 pm #
An incredible statement of truth
Americaneocon on 21 Sep 2009 at 2:15 pm #
“The conservative bloggers are wrong — again. Charles Johnson hasn’t changed.”
Well, that’s only if you accept the totally warped theory advanced here. So, neocons were Trotskyites, so that makes a firm foreign policy leftist? Hmmm. And was Barry Goldwater leftist? The father of modern conservatism.
Actually, it’s the paleocons who are in bed with the leftists, illustrated again and again by the demonic paleo-neo-communist antiwar allliance … and I CAN support that with evidence.
mikefromwichita on 21 Sep 2009 at 2:26 pm #
“So, neocons were Trotskyites”
Yep, history pure & simple.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 21 Sep 2009 at 2:41 pm #
Americaneocon,
This is from National Review:
“And the fact is that many of the original generation of neoconservatives had a background of association with Trotskyism in its Shachtmanite iteration — that is, they belonged to or sympathized with a trend in radical leftism that followed the principle of opposition to the Soviet betrayal of the revolution to its logical end. The Shachtmanites, in the 1960s, joined the AFL-CIO in its best Cold War period, and many became staunch Reaganites.
This path had been pioneered much earlier by two Trotskyists: James Burnham, who became a founder of National Review, and Irving Kristol, who worked on Encounter magazine. … The second issue at hand involves the actual ex-Trotskyists who engaged with the issue of the Iraqi war. I call this group, to which I belong, the “three-and-a-half international,” which is an obscure reference I won’t explain fully. But I use it to indicate three main individuals: Christopher Hitchens, myself, and the Iraqi intellectual Kanan Makiya, who all did indeed march under the Red Flag at some point …”
That’s the actual genealogy of your alien and anti-American ideology, DD. From the mouth of one of your own.
The Neocons’ agenda of “global democratic revolution” came directly from Trotsky’s vision of “permanent revolution.” Of course, permanent war means a police state at home, and the Neocons have enthusiastically promoted that with their citizen surveillance programs and “preventive detention” (Obama’s continuation of that unconstitutional policy).
And naturally, the Neocons’ Open Borders agenda dovetails nicely with existing leftist goals of reconstructing American society. That’s why they’ve both supported so many common projects together.
Truly, a marriage made in Hell.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 21 Sep 2009 at 3:01 pm #
mikefromwitchita,
Yes, it’s history, plain and simple! But they keep lying about it! Might have something to do with Strauss’ concept of the “noble lie” that the enlightened, which Americaneocon fancies himself to be, have to use to control the unwashed.
As Daniel McCarthy has observed:
“It’s also worth noting that the neoconservative preoccupation with exporting social democracy abroad through war and mercantilism reflects the original split between Trotsky and Stalin. Trotsky argued that there could not be “socialism in one country” but rather that the revolution had to be truly international. And so the neoconservatives push for “human rights” and social democratic governments to be imposed on Serbia, for example, by force of arms.”
pimpernel on 21 Sep 2009 at 3:09 pm #
@Americaneocon: “Actually, it’s the paleocons who are in bed with the leftists, illustrated again and again by the demonic paleo-neo-communist antiwar allliance … and I CAN support that with evidence.”
Bring it. (Yes, those paleos love Obama.) BTW: “demonic … antiwar” — nice.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 21 Sep 2009 at 3:14 pm #
Americaneocon,
Sounds like today’s AntiWar.com editorial is about you:
“To my knowledge, the late Irving Kristol was the only self-admitted neoconservative in existence. With his death, at the age of 89, does this mean the species is extinct? Far from it. In spite of the odd tendency of neoconservatives to deny their ideological heritage, there is no escaping it. The title of Kristol’s 1999 book pinpoints the problem: Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea. …
What the neocons did was simply switch allegiances from the old Soviet Union to the United States, taking their hotheaded Trotskyist temperament with them – and finally aspiring to lead a world revolution with the United States government at its head. When George W. Bush announced the launching of what he called a “global democratic revolution,” he was merely echoing the neo-Trotskyist rhetoric of his closest advisers and the intellectual movement from which they sprang. “
HarrisonBergeron2 on 21 Sep 2009 at 3:24 pm #
pimpernel,
I’m afraid Americaneocon has us this time. Yes, we paleos secretly want big government, massive deficits, an end to constraints on government spying, and Open Borders. And Americaneocon has the evidence — which he’s about to spring on us any moment now — wait for it — here it comes …
Filmer on 21 Sep 2009 at 3:52 pm #
Actually, I’m not sure but I think Americanneocon might have been conceding the historical reality that the original neocons were former Trotskyites. I think his point was that that doesn’t mean a modern “firm foreign policy” is leftist. The problem is that he and his type do not just support a firm foreign policy per se. A foreign policy could be firmly non-interventionist. By firm he means bellicose and willing to be backed up by unilateral American force. He is partially right. Force is illiberal. If his policy was we should use force so we can exploit weaker nations for our own benefit, then that would be illiberal means to illiberal ends. But what he wants is to use force to usher in benevolent American global hegemony. That is illiberal means to a liberal end.
Paleos on the other hand use illiberal reasoning (America First, American self-interest, Christian and Western particularism, decentralization, etc.) to justify an illiberal end, particularism as opposed to universalism and globalism.
Filmer on 21 Sep 2009 at 4:11 pm #
Charles Johnson admits to being left-of-center prior to 9/11. He drifted to the pro-war “right” after 9/11. He is simply reverting to form. CJ is a snob. He is an elitist, anti-religion bigot. (Otherwise why would he rant away against Intelligent Design and for evolution so much?) And like so many of his type (it is really an identifying trait) he is always on the lookout for “extremists” who might taint his respectability. He would rather shout down an “extremist” to his right than take it to Obama. Now that War fever does not seem so primary he finds himself uncomfortable with the yahoos in flyover country that he was formerly making common cause with.
Some people think this whole elitist vs. yahoo thing is over done, but I don’t think so. It is behind so much of the current dynamic. Both left and right and intra-right.
The LGF meltdown is as much cultural as it is ideological. I don’t go there much, but I went there a while back when CJ was defending the Homeland Security (lifted from the SPLC) smear job. I saw he was ranting away about Intelligent Design and evolution. I said to myself then, “He is going to lose his audience.” The pro-war elitist anti-religion snob contingent isn’t exactly busting at the seams.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 21 Sep 2009 at 7:12 pm #
Filmer,
You’re giving Americaneocon way too much credit. By “firm foreign policy,” he means the kind of foreign policy Yosemite Sam would approve of.
Not sure how you’re using the term “liberal” here — I suspect you’re equating it with the principles of the Enlightenment, or maybe just “freedom” in the abstract.
As for Charles Johnson defending the SPLC-based DHS report on right-wing extremists, well, yeah, that figures. If anything, people like CJ are government supremacists who despise the traditional and voluntary.
Bede on 21 Sep 2009 at 7:54 pm #
Harrison,
Great post!
Americanneocon,
It’s a historic fact that most of the neocons were Trotskyites in the 1970s or before. Looking at their continued egalitarians crusades, it’s easy to surmise they still are.
Bede on 21 Sep 2009 at 8:03 pm #
Americanneocon,
Actually, the leftists support an invite the world / invade the world (via international coalitions) mentality.
Neocons support an invite the world / invade the world mentality.
Only paleos realize that terrorism is primarily an immigration – not a foreign policy – issue. If you want to stop terrorism, deport possible terrorists, end illegal immigration, and end all legal immigration from the Third World.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 21 Sep 2009 at 8:40 pm #
Bede wrote,
“Only paleos realize that terrorism is primarily an immigration – not a foreign policy – issue. If you want to stop terrorism, deport possible terrorists, end illegal immigration, and end all legal immigration from the Third World.”
So sad, and so true. But I think even some lefties are FINALLY grasping this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/us/21terror.html?_r=2&hpw
HarrisonBergeron2 on 21 Sep 2009 at 8:48 pm #
Meanwhile, we’re still waiting on Americaneocon to come up with the evidence he threatened us with. Still waiting …
Maybe he’s missing in action! We should put out a wanted poster.
Filmer on 21 Sep 2009 at 11:32 pm #
I’m not sure what good it would do Americaneocon to deny that many of the original neocons were former Trotskyites other than damage his credibility. This is a well documented fact. Almost to the point of being common knowledge. It is certainly common knowledge to educated poli sci folks.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 22 Sep 2009 at 11:26 am #
Filmer,
Never underestimate the blinding power of ideology.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 23 Sep 2009 at 12:57 am #
Filmer wrote,
“It is certainly common knowledge to educated poli sci folks.”
Right. So why would Americaneocon know about this?
mikefromwichita on 23 Sep 2009 at 12:12 pm #
Nor is LGF the only place where the neocon jihad is waged. Hannity forums IMMEDIATELY comes to mind as does an excreable place called conservativeunderground modeled on and obcessed with democratunderground.
roho on 23 Sep 2009 at 10:59 pm #
HB-2………………..Bravo!………….Bravo!
I assumed it was comon knowledge that neoconservatism was built on the foundation of Trotsky?
Only a marxist fool would leave the fort to attack, with the back door to the fort bolted open!(Immigration.)
Tom Piatak on 24 Sep 2009 at 1:02 am #
An excellent post.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 24 Sep 2009 at 1:57 am #
roho, Tom Piatak,
Thank you, gentlemen. You’re very kind.