Americans have always had a conservative sense about themselves. Even in the torment of its founding, an optimistic
belief in the principles of individual freedom moved colonists to create a nation based upon natural rights. Our Declaration
of Independence embodies universal ideals, in a revolutionary statement. The inherent populism within our heritage declares
that people matter and a healthy distrust of the State is prudent. Limited government, free enterprise and non intervention
in foreign affairs is our tradition.
As the last century unfolded, internationalism crept into the halls of policy. The transfer into a country
of perpetual intervention and permanent entanglements is best reflected in the corridors of power, known as the Council on Foreign Relations. The definition of “The Establishment” reads - CFR. In contrast to this entrenched group and culture
of elite power manipulators, a crowd that claims the label neoconservative, emerged to infiltrate and usurp influence from
the institutional policy makers. These NeoCons assert they are different, while they preach and act in similar fashion. So
what exactly is their history?
In an exemplar essay, An Introduction to Neoconservatism by Gary North, the backdrop of those who populate this mindset, emerges as a portrait of perverse conservatism.
The CFR has always championed a Wilsonian internationalism, a FDR New Deal and a MAD cold war mentality. As Dr North writes:
“Liberal foreign policy officially has always been "butter and guns." Guns have always followed butter, but this has
been seen as the unfortunate result of unexpected complications. Neoconservative foreign policy officially is "guns and butter."
Butter always follows guns, but this is regarded as the inescapable price of American regional presence abroad.”
Those of us who share a committed devotion to traditional conservatism, part company with the charlatans who
looted a noble name and penetrated the seats of official policy. You already know many of the usual suspect, as the North
article fills in the blanks for the who - with the when, where and why. Patience and diligent persistency are traits of the
Fabian Socialists. The NeoCon fit the collectivist model to a tee. When they chastise “The Establishment” or acknowledge
the failures of government involvements, they weasel their way into the positions of authority and predominance. All along
the way, the principles of conservatism are distorted as much as any demented cold war warrior. Before long the CFR will fuse
into an ooze of an even more rabid jingoist.
When Dr North states in his column: “that war is the health of the state, and a foreign policy based
on non-intervention is necessary for keeping the state shrunk to non-messianic levels”, we have the essential insight
that the NeoCons reject. For when these aspirant emperors loose their clothes, their Marxist sympathies are exposed. They
are reduced to avid Statists and would be Fascists.
Authentic conservatives have long been opponents of the Council on Foreign Relations. The one worlders didn’t
deserve the cover of a conspiracy to conceal their goals and conduct. Their policies and intentions were always publicized
in such publications as “Foreign Affairs”. Only the most gullible of the public buys into the ‘good intentions’ of this cabal. Only the most
submissive of the sheeple will bow obediently to their policies. And only the most deranged fool will defend their tragic
record of betrayal and deceit.
Now we have another dialectic to take the scam to the next level. The subtle merging of the mainstream CFR
elites with their Trotskyists and subrosa NeoCon cousins, continues. Both are part of the same scheme - an enemy of America.
In order to grasp the repulsive nature of this union, one should review the thinking of Stephen Schwartz, a resident polemicist for Horowitz’s NeoCon - FrontPage. "I see a psychological, ideological and intellectual
continuity," says Schwartz, who defines Trotsky's legacy to neo-conservatism in terms of a set of valuable lessons. By his
opposition to both Hitler and Stalin, Trotsky taught the Left Opposition the need to have a politics that was proactive and
willing to take unpopular positions. "Those are the two things that the neo-cons and the Trotskyists always had in common:
the ability to anticipate rather than react and the moral courage to stand apart from liberal left opinion when liberal left
opinion acts like a mob."
For paleoconservatives like ourselves, the ruse that an imaginary conflict exists and an immense struggle
between the bulwark of “The Establishment”, namely the State Department and the NeoCons is laughable. The
supposed clash between Powell soft-liners and the Rumsfeld-Cheney-Wolfowitz hardliners that resulted in the dismissal of Mr
Schwartz from his post as an editorial writer for The Voice of America, is a bogus deception. Like feuding ‘commies’,
both factions are but mere branches of the same diseased tree.
Gary North is right-on when he cites this example: “I recall a 1963 essay by novelist and anti-Communist
Taylor Caldwell, in which she complained loudly against the ex-Communists who were taking over the intellectual leadership
of the fledgling conservative movement. She was greatly annoyed. She reminded her readers that she had never succumbed to
the siren call of dialectical materialism. She basically labeled the newcomers as Johnny-come-latelies.”
So too does this same insight apply to the phony differences between the CFR and the NeoCon pretenders. The
real alternative is the Old Guard Conservatism that is our true American heritage. The only moral courage neoconservatives
demonstrate is that of the slave master wiping a chained captive. Our country has been ruled under a foreign invader for well
over a hundred years. Those aliens who command their army of occupation, may have been born on our shores, but certainly were
not delivered by our universal mother - Liberty. The demise of the unholy union of elites and impostors, is the first
order of business in restoring the spirit of our original Republic.
SARTRE - June 11, 2003