American Neoconservatives Were Supposed To Save The World, But For Whom?

We are living in a political age of fear. Western governments continuously push fear-based propaganda of a shadowy network of terrorism while stripping individual liberties. In the USA, first came the dubiously named Patriot Act and then NDAA, which allows unwarranted spying on citizens and tracking of personal information such as financial records by law enforcement, and also allows citizens to be detained indefinitely for merely being suspected of a crime. In addition, it says that you are a potential terrorist if you “blame the government,” “travel an illogical distance” or “pay with cash.”

Then there’s Obamacare, giving the IRS power over your healthcare decisions and other measures which attack freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, including the introduction of the term hate speech into the public discourse which is nothing more than a thinly veiled attack on the First Amendment. Is there a real threat necessitating these measures? Or are governments only seeking to increase their power and authority over our lives?

Many of the cultural issues plaguing the West and now discussed on the manosphere have actually been playing out over the last 75 years or more in the political realm, hidden from the public but well known among political operatives.

This leads us to the introduction to one of the most important films of our generation, The Power of Nightmares by Adam Curtis. The film was originally produced for BBC in 2004, during the height of the politics of fear post-9/11. YouTube has been removing the film based on spurious copyright issues, but a Google search will turn up other places where you can watch it online.

The powerful introduction to The Power of Nightmares states the following:

In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this, but their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered their people. Those dreams failed and today people have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly, politicians are seen simply as managers of public life, but now they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us from nightmares.

They say that they will rescue us from dreadful dangers that we cannot see and do not understand. And the greatest danger of all is international terrorism, a powerful and sinister network with sleeper cells in countries across the world, a threat that needs to be fought by a War on Terror. But much of this threat is a fantasy, which has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It’s a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services and the international media. This is a series of films about how and why that fantasy was created, and who it benefits.

At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neoconservatives and the radical Islamists. Both were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world, and both had a very similar explanation of what caused that failure. These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way that either intended. Together, they created today’s nightmare vision of a secret organized evil that threatens the world, a fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. And those with the darkest fears became the most powerful.

The Birth Of Modern Islamist And Neoconservative Thinking

Sayyid Qutb, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood known in the Muslim world for his work on what he believed to be the social and political role of Islam

Sayyid Qutb, known for his work on what he believed to be the social and political role of Islam

The story begins with Sayyid Qutb, the founder of modern Islamist thinking. Qutb came to the U.S. in 1948 from Egypt, a nation that was rapidly Westernizing after World War II. He came on a scholarship to study the U.S. education system, but became disgusted with what he saw as the corruption of morals and values in American society caused by individualism, liberalism and materialism. He returned to Egypt in 1950 and set out to prevent these ideals from taking over his own country.

Qutb wanted to create a moral framework to stop the infiltration of American culture into Egypt and Islamic countries at large. He did this by becoming politically active and joining the Muslim Brotherhood. The group wanted Egyptian society governed by Islam rather than the secularism that was infiltrating from the West. The Muslim Brotherhood later supported a revolution against then Egyptian President Nasser based on these desires. Responding to this threat to his power, President Nasser formed an alliance with the CIA and Qutb was later arrested and put into prison.

While in prison, torturers trained by the CIA tortured Qutb. One of their torture methods was covering him with animal fat and unleashing a pack of dogs on him. This, and other types of CIA-influenced torture had a radicalizing influence on Qutb. To him, it only proved that Western culture was in worse condition than he had originally expected.

To Qutb, Western culture had fallen under jahilliyah—a state of barbarous ignorance. He believed the West had come to worship materialism over other philosophies, and that a dramatic change of course was needed to cleanse jahilliyah from Islamic culture, rapidly spreading in Egypt. His group wanted to kill government leaders they thought were infected by the West’s jahilliyah. Qutb was later hanged for plotting to overthrow the Egyptian government but his ideas spread, and they had a powerful influence on Ayman Zawahiri, the current leader of Al-Qaeda.

Leo Strauss, father of neoconservatism

Leo Strauss, father of neoconservatism

At the same time, Leo Strauss, whose political philosophy led to neoconservatism, was coming to some of the same conclusions as Qutb. He believed Western liberalism would lead to legalism, totalitarianism, and chaos because it questioned all moral values and all truths. This created a nihilistic culture where nothing is true and everything is permitted. Strauss feared this cultural nihilism and degeneracy would tear apart society.

Strauss said the prosperous society America had become contained the seeds of its own destruction. He believed powerful myths and necessary illusions were needed (echoing Reinhold Niebuhr) to keep the society from tearing itself apart. These myths would be promoted by government officials in public, while there was no need for the mythmakers to believe the myths themselves. These myths, Strauss thought, would keep individualism in check and the society from disintegrating.

Strauss’ Neoconservatism would influence the United States government starting in the 1970s through today.

Strauss Influences Neoconservatives

As a prosperous but increasingly detached from traditional values America began to run into serious problems in the 1960s, and later the Great Society dream seemed to end in violence and hatred, the big political question in Washington shifted to whether the liberal, individualist policies were causing the social breakdown. Irving Kristol, the “godfather” of neoconservativism, sums up the thinking of the time.

If you had asked any liberal in 1960, we are going to pass these laws, these laws, these laws, and these laws, mentioning all the laws that in fact were passed in the 1960s and 70s, would you say crime will go up, drug addiction will go up, illegitimacy will go up, or will they go down? Obviously, everyone would have said, they will go down. And everyone would have been wrong. Now, that’s not something that the liberals have been able to face up to. They’ve had their reforms, and they have led to consequences that they did not expect and they don’t know what to do about.

Strauss and other neoconservatives believed individual freedom was causing the chaos, as people pursued their own selfish interests instead of those which mutually benefit themselves and society, leading to conflict. The ideas Strauss had were studied by men who were to become very influential in the U.S. government: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Bill Kristol, son of Irving Kristol. They believed the philosophical grounds for liberal democracy had been weakened, and wanted to give the masses a new purpose by creating a new myth of America as having a unique destiny battling against evil in the world.

The myth they developed claimed America was the only force for good in the world, and it would spread this goodness through the world by spreading democracy. (Never mind that America was overthrowing democratically-elected leaders at the same time this doxy was being preached.) There was only one problem with this myth: neoconservatives needed to invent an ever-present enemy since the messages they would be giving to the masses boiled down to a battle between good and evil.

That enemy would first become the Soviet Union before becoming an obscure network of terrorists a generation later. While the Cold War had already been ongoing, the neoconservatives set out to maximize their power and influences by making the Soviet Union seem even more vicious and extreme than it actually was.

The neoconservative view was in stark contrast to the global interdependence championed by Henry Kissinger, but after Watergate and the defeat of the U.S. in Vietnam, there was a crisis of confidence in this school of thought. In a shift away from Kissinger’s ruthless but pragmatic vision of the need for a balance of power, the newly empowered neoconservatives wanted to move away from the idea of global interdependence and towards mythmaking.

Along came Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and Bill Kristol to spread the new ideology. Dick Cheney first came to power as Gerald Ford’s White House Chief of Staff, one of several neoconservatives in that administration. He would later become the Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush and eventually the Vice President.

The Strauss “Necessary Myth” Becomes “Truth”

Rumsfeld became Secretary of Defense in 1975 under President Gerald Ford. Rumsfeld wanted to create a more terrifying view of the Soviet Union and the prospect for nuclear war. His claim was whatever the USSR said publicly, its real goal was to conquer the United States. Rumsfeld gave an important speech in 1976 which incorporated many of the “good vs. evil” themes Strauss thought were necessary to provide the public with a good guy vs. bad guy scenario.

The Soviet Union has been busy. They’ve been busy in terms of their level of effort; they’ve been busy in terms of the actual weapons they’ve been producing; they’ve been busy in terms of expanding production rates; they’ve been busy in terms of expanding their institutional capability to produce additional weapons at additional rates; they’ve been busy in terms of expanding their capability to increasingly improve the sophistication of those weapons. Year after year after year, they’ve been demonstrating that they have steadiness of purpose. They’re purposeful about what they’re doing. Now, your question is, what ought one to be doing about that?

The CIA of the time said there was no truth to Rumsfeld’s claims, that it was complete fiction. As often happens in politics, reality has very little to do with policy making. Rumsfeld persuaded President Ford to set up a committee to investigate the Soviet threat. This committee was called Team B, led by Paul Wolfowitz, who claimed the Soviet Union had weapon systems that were later proven not to exist. Team B said the weapons were so advanced they could not even be detected. In eerie similarities to the later weapons of mass destruction claims that led the U.S. into a bloody war with Iraq in 2003, Plan B said there was an invisible threat from the Soviet Union even though there was no evidence for it.

Neocons would later go so far as to claim terrorism was coordinated by Moscow as an attempt to take over the world during the Reagan administration. They said all terrorist groups were part of a coordinated network of terror run by the Soviet Union. (If this sounds familiar, that’s because it is the exact same playbook used a generation later during the War on Terror!)

The CIA responded by saying the claim that the Soviet Union was behind a secret network of terror was another neocon fantasy. That is, until William Casey took over the CIA. Casey based CIA policy on The Terror Network book, which was full of black propaganda and was totally fabricated by the CIA. The neocons had to know the terror network didn’t exist, because the CIA itself had made the entire story up.

In a triumph for the neoconservatives, the fantasies created by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz became reality, at least as far as public policy was concerned.

Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld, spinning fantasies into reality

Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld, spinning fantasies into reality

Qutb’s Goal Realized: President Sadat Assassinated

Around the same time, Ayman Zawahiri became increasingly concerned about Qutb’s predictions about the corrupting influence of Western culture in the Middle East. Zawahiri was convinced it was time to overthrow the secular, Western-backed regime of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.

Zawahiri was particulary enraged by Sadat’s trip to negotiate a peace treaty with the Israelis, which Zawahiri claimed meant Sadat was no longer a Muslim and could be legitimately killed through jihad. Also, Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in 1979 as the First Supreme Leader of Iran. To Zawahiri, it meant his dream of creating an Islamist, non-Westernized nation in Egypt was possible. Ayatollah Khomeini talked about the corrupting influence of individualism and liberalism.

You who want freedom for everything, the freedom that will corrupt our country, corrupt our youth, and freedom that will pave the way for the oppressor—freedom that would drag our country to the bottom.

Sadat was later assassinated by Zawahiri’s group in an effort to create an fundamentalist state in Egypt. The assassination failed to establish an Islamic state, which only made Zawahiri take an even more extreme stance. Zawahiri was sentenced to 3 years in prison, and like Qutb, became even more radicalized by torture while in prison.

The Religious Right Makes Their Move

Echoing the desires of Qutb and Zawahiri to combine fundamentalism and government, the Religious Right was mobilized by neoconservatives and were in part responsible for Ronald Reagan’s landslide victory in 1980. Up until the Reagan era, neoconservativism had been a purely intellectual movement. Irving Kristol gave his opinion on why he thinks religion is necessary for a stable society. This gives us insight as to why the neocons embraced organized religion.

The notion that a purely secular society can cope with all of the terrible pathologies that now affect our society, I think has turned out to be false. And that has made me culturally conservative. I mean, I really think religion has a role now to play in redeeming the country. And liberalism is not prepared to give religion a role. Conservatism is, but it doesn’t know how to do it.

Religious leaders joined the chorus denouncing the Soviet Union as the force for evil in the world, while the U.S. was branded as the force for good in the world. In reality, neither country was purely good or purely evil.

Richard Pipes, one of the heads of Team B, the group who totally fabricated allegations against the Soviet Union, was appointed to Reagan’s administration. Neocons initially faced opposition from Reagan but he later adopted many of their ideals. The myths Strauss said were so desperately needed were now becoming public policy and political reality. Neoconservatives had successfully created the idea that America’s purpose was to spread democracy throughout the world. Meanwhile, Islamists were becoming ever more radical in their desire to eradicate jahilliyah from their society and create an Islamic state.

Part 2 of this series will focus on the developments through the rest of the Reagan and subsequent Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administrations. The neocons and Islamists team up in the 1980s, but when the Soviet Union collapses neoconservatives need a new enemy. As Islamists became more radical, the neoconservatives turn them into public enemy number one even though Al-Quaeda’s actual power and reach is vastly overblown by the American government.

Read more: The Real Nature Of Politics

266 thoughts on “American Neoconservatives Were Supposed To Save The World, But For Whom?”

  1. “Hate crime” sounds so much more dramatic than “an act of minor vandalism.”
    Fear is spread by the hateful via euphemism.

  2. “The Soviet Union more vicious and extreme than it really was”? The merits of the rest of this article aside, I’d call the forced occupation of Eastern Europe and the extermination of 20 million of your own citizens “extreme and vicious.”

      1. For a “minute” I’ve wrestled with the Cold War “thingy”, wondering of its merits. The opposition to the USSR was the right thing do. However, once the USSR collapsed, the game was over except the neo-cons refused to demobilize when they should have.

        1. As I recall, the Berlin wall fell, communism imploded and by the mid to late 1990’s America was rapidly implementing concealed carry (destroying gun control) and there was a bill passed in the House to eliminate, entirely, the income tax. Passed by a large margin I might add. People were starting to go out and be happy and enjoy life and shit was just all around good. Suddenly, and conveniently, 9/11 hits and we’re back to the same dark skies viewpoint, only this time without an actual visible enemy, and our freedoms are destroyed faster than shit. That of course begat the sneering Leftist legions, energized by anti-Bush zeal, who morphed into what we have now with SJW’s and uber-feminists.
          The whole 9/11 thing was a massive boon to the neocons, without it they would have disappeared within a decade. Traditional American-ism was starting to reassert itself, I can only dream of the world we could have lived in without “terruh-ism”.

        2. I remember that bill, FairTax. I fell in love with it. It was introduced in the mid-90s by a Democrat and Republican. The first time I heard of it was on Tony Brown’s journal. I fell in love with it. Now we have a department of Homeland Security, handjobs from the TSA, Obamacare, and mindboggling government intrusions into the economy that trip us into recessions.
          Something’s gotta give.

        3. The US military was literally throwing people out in 91′ and alot of units packed up for CONUS after the Gulf War and demobilized.

        4. Yeah, pretty frightening how quickly a campaign run on “compassionate conservatism,” no nation building, tax cuts and income tax credits, and No Child Left Behind (perhaps well-meaning but absolutely terribly executed idea) could morph into War on Terror, Patriot Act, TSA, and Common Core.
          Couple that with the eventual housing and ebusiness market bubble collapses being fast-forwarded and it’s a hell of a mess.

        5. This entire trajectory is bullshit and I think everybody but the 2% fanatics on “both sides” (same side, but you know what I mean) is starting to come to this realization. This was *not* how things were supposed to go. We have to get this shit in hand and under control.

        6. Agreed.
          We went from a nation dreaming of hoverboards and flying cars, longevity pills and space exploration/colonization to a nation of anti-social pawns spending all our time criticizing and destroying the great things we’ve built as if that were something to be proud of and distracting ourselves from the fact that we collectively suck with new shiny doohickeys that pile up in our landfills as soon as our whims change which is constant since we’ve more men who want to act like females and women who want to be drill sergeants. And politicians that promise more of the same and we just gobble it up and ask for seconds.

        7. The warmongering neocons live and die by the slogan:- War Is Peace. There are enough evidence the Bush administration knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks. But choose to do jackshit about it.
          And then comes along Patriot Act, a spurious legislation based on non existent terrorist threat. Further it was used to spy Americans money transactions, innocuous phone calls and etc.

        8. It’s always been clear, even to “normal” people, that the Patriot Act was written long, long before 9/11. That shit was just waiting for a disaster to take place, in order to be put into “law”.

        9. “There are enough evidence the Bush administration knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks.”
          Provide the evidence please.
          Are really going to rehash every leftist slur that was cast 10 years ago?

        10. Bill Clinton had 3 opportunities to have Osama, but declined everytime. When the Clinton team did the security handover brief to the Bush team, it was so vauge it had no substance to descern from. That was more about Clinton trying to cover his ass than provide any actual information that the next administration could use.
          Also, which documents do you think Sandy Berger (wiki that guy–class act) was sticking down his pants? Vacuuming up the Clinton fuckups. Glad he is dead.

        11. I said I’d be willing to entertain the thought, not that I’d accept the premise. Everything the left has on Bush regarding this matter is sketchy. We’ve pretty much caught Hillary with her pants down (go ahead and visualize that if you dare) and they want to act like it’s nothing.

        12. Of course they do. The left cheers on law breaking and lies if it is their side— by any means necessary!
          They do not realize once there is no more rule of law, by ignoring or enforcing it, then the whole structure falls and they all hang. I no longer have any legal or moral restraint from accomodating the charade.

        13. Not the first time either:
          Chinagate, Travelgate, Whitewater, Foster, Filegate, Cattle-futures (insider trading), stealing from the White House, and a few more “disappearing” bodies, etc.

        14. Wait, when did the idea that the government commits false flags to grow and become ever more oppressive become leftist? I don’t really give a shit if it came from left or right, the idea and its merits are what’s important, but in actuality this was more of a right wing conspiracy among the uber patriot types. And you know there was that memo.. “Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US” lol

        15. Blaming one party or another completely misses the point. Watch the documentary this article is about. It’s about things like communism and terrorism being used as tools to create fear and control the populace. If a “Clinton” or a “W” or an “Obama” removed Osama, that tool of fear would be gone. (If you believe the story of that silly raid in Pakistan, it was only done years later when no one was fearful or even talking about the guy anymore, and was more of a rah rah go team America! PR operation.)

        16. Your jimmies got rustled and you rushed to paint me as Leftist. Funny how hopeless idiots will resort to the very same name calling while all the time whining ceaselessly about the Leftist bully. Anyway it’s not my duty to provide evidence to complete Internet strangers. Pull up your lazy ass and do your own share of research.

        17. Occams razor. Muslims hijacked the planes and intentionally crashed them.
          “Truthers” are always waving straws to fit their narrative, so have at it.

        18. The shit that has gone down in the past 30 years makes Nixon look like a boy scout- spy on the competition? Sounds quaint in comparison to what goes on nowadays

        19. Some of those “tools” are actual threats. How you combat them is another story. Am I shocked civil liberties were violated under a survelience state for “our protection?” No. And I think it will get worse.

        20. There was the FBI agent who reported that these Saudi guys were at flight school learning how to take off in 747s but not land them (while there were also intelligence reports talking about planes being used as terror weapons). That was highly probable evidence to me that there was knowledge of these events. The FBI agent was told to STFU.

        21. Agreed. How can anyone bring up “evil” Nixon after the antics the Clintons got away is abusurd.

        22. Hmmm. The US Military also has contingency plans for invading almost every country in the world. Having plans that are available when the unthinkable happens isn’t out-of-the-ordinary.

        23. From your source:
          Much of the controversy stems from claims that President Clinton made in a February 2002 speech and then retracted in his 2004 testimony to the 9/11 Commission. In the 2002 speech Clinton seems to admit that the Sudanese government offered to turn over bin Laden..
          Clinton later claimed to have misspoken and stated that there had never been an offer to turn over bin Laden. It is clear, however, that Berger, at least, did consider the possibility of bringing bin Laden to the U.S., but, as he told The Washington Post in 2001, “The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States.”
          Correction: We originally answered this question with a flat ‘yes’ early this week, based on the account in “The Looming Tower,” but an alert reader pointed out to us the more tangled history laid out in the 9/11 Commission report. We said flatly that Sudan had made such an offer. We have deleted our original answer and are posting this corrected version in its place.

        24. Your source was interesting, so I educated myself. Who is Fact.Org? Well…
          “The Annenberg Foundation continues its historic programming focus, but is expanding to include enviromental stewardship, social justice and animal welfare.”
          Nice huh. I dug a little deeper:
          “…the ANNENBERG Public Policy Center (APPC), the sponsoring agency behind FastCheck.org, is itself supported by the same foundation, the ANNENBERG FOUNDATION, that Bill Ayers secured the $49.2 million dollars from to create the Chicago ANNENBERG Challenge “philanthropic” organization in which Barack Obama was the founding Chairman of the Board for and Ayers served as the grant writer of and co-Chair of for its two operating arms.”
          I find your source a bit… biased.

        25. Plans, no. Pre-drafted legislation, that doesn’t pass the smell test to me. I’m not a Truther, but I do think that they write these kinds of draconian things and just bide their time waiting for the “right emergency” to pull them out.

        26. And this is why the GOP is worthy of complete and total dissolution. They controlled the executive and legislative branches during most of the G.W. Bush Administration and they spoke not one, single, fukn word about Fair Tax nor any type of tax reform. It was at that moment that I realized that the GOP and Conservative Inc. were entities that had absolutely nothing to do with individual liberty, the common man, and limited government.

        27. No, the FBI agent might have followed through, but thanks to Jamie Gorelick and her “Wall” at the Clinton’s Justice department, the FBI probably didn’t have much to go on.
          I would recommend the book by Clinton’s FBI director Louis Freeh.

        28. yeah, we were all worrying about the millenium bug. Oh, no windows 95 thinks it 1900. Gonna have to reboot or something

        29. I remember back in 1999, I dressed up as the Y2K bug for Halloween. I had 6 bug arms, antennae, and a t-shirt with “Y2K” in big red letters on the front. Every single person asked me what I was supposed to be…. I thought it would’ve been fairly obvious.

        30. I was surprised to see that some conservatives claim that 9/11 was an inside job but that Bill Clinton was behind it. Obviously Hillary would have know too, but George Bush wouldn’t

        31. It was crazy we were all terrified about it. Then that sense of relief when it didn’t happen…and peace and love reigned supreme once more….for a year

        32. We went from being an outward looking optimistic culture looking to the horizon to being a tattle-telling autistic culture obsessed over where one relieves his bladder. Pretty sad.
          Moreover, outward expansion would be likened to the destruction of the Red Man and Manifest Destiny and you know we can’t have that. The SJW’s would accuse us of planned to shoah Martian microbes or something like that…

        33. That was in fact the “main worry”. Which looking back seems almost…I dunno…charming in a way.

        34. It really was a much more innocent age. I’m sad for a generation of kids today who have never known anything other than a culture of psychosis

        35. Didnt say that, they all practice CYA(cover your ass) so I take what people like that say with a grain of salt…

        36. I remember crossing Canada US the border with my student card back in the early 90’s, buying gas for 1/3 of what it costs now..
          No cel phones or internet certainly made for a lot less stress from work..

        37. theptember eleventh, theptember eleventh, theptember eleventh, theptember eleventh
          terrorithm, terrorithm, terrorithm, terrorithm, global terrorithm, terrorithm, terrorithm, terrorithm.
          weaponth of math dethtwuction!

        38. If there were two parties each time the balance of power shifted we would see numerous folks going to prison over their doings. But there aren’t so we don’t. What we get is a sort of reality television thing to get people to choose sides and argue with each other.
          In the 1930s General Butler wrote “War is a Racket” which is exactly what HRC and GWB did, operate rackets. If one seriously went after the other their own way of life, their rackets would be exposed as well. So what we get is this sort of circus sideshow.
          HRC might eventually get nailed on the email thing. There’s no greater racket put into jeopardy by it. It starts and ends with her. She does have enemies that may have enough power to push it forward. That’s the only way you’ll see such figures taken out. It’s some sort failing that starts and ends with them personally pushed forward by enemies powerful enough to do so.

        39. All people are capable of lying, so you need to recognize the truth from the BS. Read the book and make your own conclusions.

      2. But did you know that major US corporations and the US taxpayer funded it and built it up? Look up Anthony Sutton and his book “The Best Enemy Money Can Buy.”

        1. Yes. Chase Bank, Prescott Bush, amongst others were involved in financing the Soviet Union. Many of the weapons North Vietnam used against us were purchased from the Soviet unions through American financial establishments.

    1. How about introducing the element of food confiscation in Greater Romania ( Bessarabian and Bucovinan regions ) plus Ukraine. How about fucking the people so hard that they turned to canibalism ? The first documented acts of canibalism in Eastern Europe were under Stalin’s rule. We have to thank the bolsheviks for genocide and cannibalism in Europe. Find out who those people actually were and you’ll find a strong correlation with the people who paved the way to Europe’s destruction as well via muslim invasion.

      1. Yes. I don’t claim to have extensively catalogued their atrocities in my post, but these are also good examples. Any one of these alone would be enough to merit the terms “extreme and vicious.” Saying that we were overstating that is just delusional.

        1. Because the Soviets actively tried to promote and spread that ideology, just as we tried to actively tried to promote democracy. They succeeded in spreading it as close as Cuba (only 90 miles off our coast – close enough that people can cross it in makeshift rafts) before we clamped that shit down.

      2. Isn’t strange that the Soviet Union was able to so tightly control the borders in the 1930s in rural Ukraine with no technology beyond horses and rifles that they effected a terror famine that killed 7 million people yet the Left in the US claims with all the modern day surveillance and warfare technology that it’s impossible to protect the southern border and that the war on drugs is impossible to enforce? lolz

        1. that’s the effect of bolshevik terrorism i.e. bolshevik kominternism or as you guys call it – communism = famine, genocide, prison, torture and ultimate terror. I think that’s a very effective way of controlling a people which they’ve abused critically.

        2. There’s no ,,lolz” in bolshevik genocide. It was hell. We don’t have the right to make mockery of international murder. We have been murdered and we still are to this day – not physically, but spiritually.

        3. There was no mockery intended: the lolz remark was directed at those on the left who claim certain actions like border control are unworkable or unenforceable based on the sheer scale or resources required etc.
          During the Holodomor, the Soviets accomplished the opposite, preventing people from fleeing rather than entering.
          The Holodomor should be covered in American classrooms as the Holocaust is covered today. But unfortunately it would challenge the monopoly of victim status / genocide that one group currently enjoys.

    2. Damn straight we were right to oppose it. But making up lies then taking credit for its collapse for political gain, while in reality the evil system collapsed on its own is the root of the problems we have today.

      1. While I agree that the system would have collapsed on its own, I do think that we were right to take credit for accelerating it.
        The Soviets basically bankrupted themselves by trying to keep up with the arms race we started. We could certainly argue the merits and wisdom of using nuclear proliferation to accomplish this end, but ultimately, it worked for the purpose of bankrupting the Soviets and collapsing their system faster than would have happened on its own.

        1. Good point. Was the arms race really about speeding up the collapse or was it more about financial gain? My issue is with using mythmaking to profit politically and financially, and then later using it to strip our liberties, and claiming to oppose Communism while turning the U.S. towards Communism at the same time. This started with CIA-funded feminism. Feminism is Cultural Marxism by any other name.

        2. Good point. Was the arms race really about speeding up the collapse or was it more about financial gain? My issue is with using mythmaking to profit politically and financially, and then later using it to strip our liberties, and claiming to oppose Communism while turning the U.S. towards Communism at the same time. This started with CIA-funded feminism. Feminism is Cultural Marxism by any other name.

        3. Truthfully, probably a bit of both. No doubt the U.S. wanted to cause the collapse, and financial collapse is a ripe target for a communist system. That has to be engineered somehow, and whatever solution was chosen would have presented opportunities for folks to profit. That’s just the way things work. Suppose instead we had decided on a strategy to win more hearts and minds to encourage people not to do business with the Soviets. Someone still has to do that work, and private enterprise would have recognized the opportunity and stepped in to do so (in truth, we did this strategy too and lots of “non-profits” also made a good business doing this work). The advantage of a military arms race is that it also fortifies you against the adversary in case the strategy doesn’t work and war breaks out.

      2. “..while in reality the evil system collapsed on its own”
        You are taking that for granted as you obviously didn’t live through it. It endured for 70 years and it wasn’t known for how much longer it would continue. The West was talking all about “Detente” in the 70’s and Reagan’s crew regcognized how economically stretched the whole soviet house of cards was. The arms race was one the soviets couldn’t win, but that wasn’t clear to most.
        Hindsight is a great thing, but it always remains something in the unchangeable past.

  3. I think the Neocon narrative of “keeping us safe” is shattered when one realizes that these same neocons are now trying to import hundreds of thousands of Muslim “refugees.”

    1. Most of the Neocons that are advancing Muslim interests tend to be the second generation successors. The originals are mostly out by now.

  4. What most people, including the author of this article can not comprehend is that it is a double bluff they play. The imaginary enemy and the obvious boogeyman, the Islamic extremist is not the real threat. Nor are the Mexican immigrants in US, the Muslim immigrants in Europe nor the Chinese exports. The strategic threats in the current decade lie elsewhere and you won’t hear much about it in both mainstream and alternative media.
    While you’re being kept distracted with useful idiots like Trump and Hillary, the resources have been focused on building a world empire under Communism.
    p.s. The demise of the Soviet empire was false.

    1. Look up Anthony Sutton’s book The Best Enemy Money Can Buy, or look up his interviews on YouTube.

    2. The premise of this article is that islam, commies, etc. are false enemies. They are things used to scare the public into accepting bad and oppressive governments at home.

        1. By false I think he means that the threat is manipulated to achieve an end. Sutton’s books show how movements how radical, communist, fascist movements (I don’t think Islamic terrorism was in play then) were often funded and supported by big money who on the surface should have been mortal enemies to those causes. If it’s just governments doing this, that can be just geo-politics, but where private money is also getting itself involved that suggests that economics and economic opportunity is also a part of the calculations involved. State capitalism, state communism, state fascism….what’s the difference?

  5. I see a concept embedded in this article. The first two paragraphs make mention of the loss of liberties resulting from the growth of government bureaucracy. This is where we are, conflict between individualism and authoritarianism.
    In my opinion, we are in the libertarian moment. And when I say libertarian, I don’t mean that Reason Magazine bullshit. Instead, it is a moment of libertarian factions in our society differentiated by the ways in which they apply the basic principle of “property rights” which is the foundation of individual rights.
    The race realists in the Alt-Right, the gender realists in neomasculine “wing”, and libertarian nationalists like Vox all represent the actual libertarian moment. Their differences are due in large part to the belief that individuals are free to perceive the world around them, assess their personal circumstances, make rational decisions about such, and form a set of actions based on those decisions in the pursuit of self interest. In this light, voluntary collectivism. tariffs, racial segregation and nationalism are all consistent with libertarian ideas (perhaps they are objectivist?).
    There are two common enemies, SJWs and neo-cons for both seek to expand the national government bureaucracy into our lives and individual decision making.

    1. “In this light, voluntary collectivism”
      Perceive, access and making rational decisions as you see fit is all fine with me. The problems arrise when I will be forced to subsidize others bad decisions with my time and money. Fools can squnaders theirs all they want, but they will always hamster how to take (ie. shame, regulate, tax, divine rights, etc..) from others.

      1. In my opinion, this libertarian moment can possibly open the door way towards a series of small sovereign republics as a replacement for an allegedly “federal” republic of 50 states. It may be 1774 all over again. The fierce debates between the radical agrarians, who would later become the Anti-Federalists, and the conservative coastal gentry, who would later become the Federalists, remind me of what is happening within the so-called “right”.
        The Colonial aristocrats (conservatives) of those times are reminiscent of the establishment GOP and their opposition (radicals) remind me of those factions that are in open rebellion against them (Tea Party, Alt-Right, Cultural libertarians, etc.,).

        1. Libertarians will never gain off the ground with the current voting public. Individual rights are nothing without responsibility and right now that is the last thing the politicians or segments of the society want.
          I told a foreign friend of mine about 5 years ago the US conservatives will either take over the Republican Party (from the establishment RINOs) or burn it down. We really don’t care which.

        2. The “burn it down” motive is lost on a lot of “pundits”. In my opinion, the aftermath of Bush 43 and the hot mess that was McCain’s campaign began many on a path that would take them through a series of stages that would culminate in indifference. The pundits have no grasp that Trump’s support also contains a desire to destroy the GOP.

        3. Correct. Alot of people have awoken to the fact the GOP doesn’t give a stitch about their concerns and will not fight the dems on anything (probably because it really is all one corrupt party now).
          Cruz was the conservative candidate. There was an article recently that said he lost because the establishment GOP wouldn’t help him as he “pissed to many of them off.” Fine. I will vote Trump, but to me he is nothing but a match to set it all aflame.

    2. Exactly, this is why I love ROK, someone gets it and expands on the idea. Both groups are pulling us towards authoritarianism. I am trying to point this out a piece at a time. In my view, the ultimate goal is Left Communism, backed by Right corporate fascism.

      1. Fascism from one side and Communism from the other. I think Reagan alludes to this in his “A Time For Choosing” speech. That stuff seems to echo Ayn Rand also.

  6. The big problem with the Neocons which led to their failure in Iraq is that they brought all the old guys back. The old guys always think “it worked before and it will work again” without taking into account modern realities.
    In truth, the propagation of a powerful and evil soviet empire did wonders for the united states in a lot of ways.
    What guys like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz didn’t account for in Iraq was how fast information travels now a days.
    In the 70’s and the 80’s the President, Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense or even the White House Communications Director making a statement was a big deal.
    When Reagan interrupted television and made a statement about the soviets it was true…whether it was true or not. That was it.
    Fast Forward to the early ’00’s up to today. A presidential press conference means less than nothing. Before it is even over everyone is on the web reading opinions on it. There are enough opinions that whatever you want to believe you will find a news outlet to agree with you.
    Once information and news was decentralized everything anyone in the administration said basically was taken as a campaign slogan. Just one of many voices out there. Without the authority of a nation who believes that what comes out of the whitehouse is important, the neocons were unable to control the narrative.
    So what there was no WMD in Iraq. That’s not the point. If we can all believe it then we can get behind it and nothing makes a country prosper like a good old fashioned enemy with nukes.
    Neocon shit will not work anymore…not the way it worked in the Ford-Bush I era. The internet put a stop to it. Will the ideas be reapplied with a modern tactic which takes advantage of rather than ignoring the importance of modern technology…..yupola…you are looking at it…it is called modern Feminism.

    1. I’d argue that they don’t know how to use it properly either (Feminism). They are throwing full force, using en masse tactics, or what appear to be those tactics, but without the realization that we too have the same technology and can (and have) shown that the “hordes of SJW’s” clamoring for “change! Now!” are normally ten people with three thousand accounts each. Their hubris and arrogance is limiting their ability to fully grasp the scope of the tool they, and we, are using. They had some initial success, but the pushback against them is already becoming powerful. Look at comments on articles from, say, 2008 and then today. It’s clear “our” ideas are taking a strong foothold and that their ideas are being openly examined and rejected.
      That’s the nice thing about the interwebs, it’s not a tool that only one party can use.

      1. You are right that Feminists do not know how to use it properly, but they are using it more effectively than the Neocons did in Iraq when they thought they could just ignore it and run an information domination game from the podium of the white house which is just impossible now.
        Feminists are the first group, I think, to use this Neocon game where we own the fact that truth is malleable and then manipulate it to our own ends in a most internet world and they have done it to devastating consequences and enormous success.
        Think about how Faggots got more in terms of acceptance between 2000-2016 than blacks did between 1800-1990. Feminists took the neocon game and went nuclear with it because they were young enough to understand the importance of stuff like chat groups, blogs, internet in general.
        Never fault anyone, even an enemy, for a successful tactic. That the feminists did in a short period of time was amazing. They basically emasculated a huge portion of the male population, the made deviant sexual behavior the norm, they totally destroyed nearly every industry from sanitation to surgery, the changed the vocabulary to be “inclusive” fuck, today they are voting in fucking congress whether or not dudes can use the ladies room….can you even imagine? And it is instant political suicide to say “uhm, what the fuck is going on here…dudes need to use the mens room”
        I suspect that they will eventually get blown out of the water by people who take tactics to yet another level while the world progresses and they think they can play the same game they always had because of it’s massive success…that is what people do…that is how the neocons got fucked in Iraq despite having incredible success with the Soviet Union. They played by the old rules in a new world.
        However, it’s always the same game. Control truth. The question is how to do it.

        1. I actually think the alt-right/manosphere is gaining cultural traction a lot these last two years via this tactic.
          EDIT: Let me rephrase. I think we’re gaining traction because the feminist push to control the truth smacks right into our “frame control” and we’ve proven to be a message that they cannot easily intimidate, combined with our own use of the tactics they’re employing. The “retreat” of the meetups is our only stumble thus far, though that’s really not a loss insofar as we’re still meeting up and talking via secure means.

        2. they are trying for sure. I think Roosh is smart in that he reinvents himself. I have seen, just in the last year, Roosh make some serious changes in his methods. He seems very adroit at understanding the modern world and being able to play with it to his advantage.
          I am not sure the future of the gained traction of alt right / manosphere stuff, but it does, at least, look like a fair fight. The truth of the matter is that eventually the extremes will crush each other and a third thing that I am not visionary enough to see thing will emerge. The question is, what will it look like….will it look like feminism 2.0 manosphere 2.0 something totally different?
          The thing is…the only thing for sure is that things will in fact change. Everything else is up in the air. It will be interesting to watch.
          I am a big fan of the neocon truth game because I think it is correct and that the entire 20th and beginning of the 21st century has borne out it’s conclusions to one end or another.
          What’s next? Better men than me will have to predict that. I am just enjoying the fall.

        3. I don’t necessarily see this in Hegelian terms like you do. Sometimes the extremes win. The USSR, the American Revolution, Chinese Communists, Genghis Khan, all the extremes and not the synthesis. This can either go really well for us, or really badly. I don’t see a synthesis coming from feminism v. manosphere that makes any sense whatsoever.

        4. on a long enough timeline the only one who wins is death. The ussr? the American revolution? Genghis Kahn? All gone with only remnants remaining, whispers in the wind. The Chinese Communists too. Remember, your average Flavius 6 pack in 65 AD would never have imagined a world without a Roman Empire.
          I don’t think there will be a direct synthesis coming from fem and manosphere stuff, but they will cease to exist and be replaced one day and it will be by people who come from those spheres. Ideas will be kept, others will be lost….and time moves on. Only death wins.

        5. All gone with only remnants remaining, whispers in the wind.
          Not at all. All have evolved to other states, but their influence shaped history and cultures in very distinct ways that are still with us, only we don’t really see it because we assume today = “how it’s always been” on most things. Even the Roman Empire’s legacy is still with us. We’re typing here, right now, with their alphabet, in a language that has many words borrowed from their tongue, living under a governmental hierarchy that more or less is based on their vision of a Republic, looking out the window at a mailbox which is based on their original postal delivery setup. Our houses are the same basic designs, down to central air (look it up!) and islands in the kitchen. We are in fact, just the evolution of the Roman Empire. It never went away, it just evolved with new actors taking the helm over time.
          Death wins, but big fuck, I already knew that. My day of dying comes on precisely the day it does, and not one day sooner or later. My participation or lack of participation in trying to make things better for me or my children will not alter that date one iota. I figure, fuck it, why not try?

        6. evolved into other states is what I meant by whisper in the wind.
          And death doesn’t just come for you it comes for whole cultures.
          I am a bit of a death cultist. I think that the fact that I will die is the coolest fucking thing ever.
          I think having children has given you a different perspective.
          For me? I hope I die in the apocalypse. I’d love to know that after me there was nothing but scorched earth.

        7. I really don’t think it’s extinguished those cultures is what I’m saying. As in, dinosaurs didn’t all die, they evolved into birds and are all around us. They’re still here, we’re just not cognizant of it most of the time because “this is normal”. I guess I don’t see evolution as “death” if the “species” continues to survive in some form.
          Rome’s influence especially is more than a whisper, I’m of the serious mind that we are nothing but a continuation of their Empire/Republic and we don’t really recognize it. Hell it took almost 400 years for most of Europe to get the news that Rome was “gone” (the Western half) because the forms and hierarchies remained in place for so long, and by the time word got out to the masses the Renaissance hit and it was all basically put back into place. Not ruled from Rome, but still, it was Rome reborn.
          Having kids does lend one a greater desire to work for posterity, no doubt. It’s why I think Angela Merkle is a VERY DANGEROUS leader, she has no children, she could give a flying shit whether her actions bring the end of the world or not. She just doesn’t have an investment in the future.

        8. I think that is it GOJ. You have your mission to save the free world should you chose to accept it. You are to HALO drop into Munich and through a series of well placed undercover confederates establish a cover story and blend into german society (your knowledge of honky lore will help here). After your cover is decided you will make your way to berlin where you will seduce and impregnate angela merkle saving the world for democracy.

        9. I think rather than that, I will take the young Le Pen with me, hang Merkel from a lamp post, then impregnate the young Le Pen and assume control of Germany. The Germans have that love-hate thing going on with the French so I think it would work out, invigorate the Germans, give them something to both hate and love and in all respects help them re-invent themselves.
          Though to be honest, Germans are way too stuck on hierarchy and social forms. Shit gets tiring, especially for a man with the fire of Scottish blood in his veins. I’d feel an immediate urge to drink a bottle of Scotch, run around the Bundestag waving a sword at people and laughing as they run.
          Hell, why the young Le Pen, when there appears to be at least one young attractive Scottish girl remaining in the world to bring with me?
          http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1-Nuoyn_prg/UsGFb2BgtJI/AAAAAAAAHQU/rQxwzSP-3gQ/s1600/scotland+flag+girl.jpeg

        10. If he is caught we will disavow any knowledge of or of operation seeded canyon. Mostly because, ya know, no fat chicks

        11. I have a fairly imposing fear of death, however I would love to be sitting in my bed at the ripe old age of 150, with my faculties still about me and seeing a shadow appear outside. Using my brain implanted mechatronics I make my wall transparent and see an enormous meteor heading for the earth. If I’m going to die, then I may as well take the world with me.

        12. I don’t think there’s a synthesis intended.
          Make men and women mistrust then hate then “war” with one another so that we can’t even court/mate properly anymore (and keep that thoroughly confused in the legal system too), keep us divided and voting the same folks into office (as has been said, without women voters…) along with policies designed to further our own oppression.
          The “properly” re-educated snob is more likely to not even have children at all due to their self-proclaimed “greater intelligence and lifelong academic mentality.” Perfect little sheep.
          Single moms are more likely to have abortions.
          Single people in general are more likely to suicide and we’ve watched the counts go up.
          Keep us in a real perpetual war with reason to send off the young to die and mistrust other Americans, growing more apathetic or paranoid in turn as the case may be, and allowing our fellows to be punished without fair hearing.
          Looks like population control (which spurs conformity and easier manipulation/control) to me. Idiocracy.
          And the best part is, even if it fails or causes our collapse, the people behind it are insulated and can try again in a few generations.

        13. Population control is more along the lines of what I think they’re intending as well. Everything they’re doing right now seems directly aimed at stopping humans (well, in the West anyway) from reproducing.

        14. The synthesis is already apparent I think. MGTOW, Cat cunts and the population decline that follows, leading to incessant demands for life extension and technological domination of the human organism, which permits total control.
          That’s the end game. Yours was the generation that created the most important parts of the technology. Mine is the one that is being persuaded not to reproduce. Apres nous, le deluge.

        15. Nah, she’s just a pretty girl in Scotland, which in and of itself makes her nearly unique and of celebrity status.

        16. Not only in the West my friend. In Latin America birthrates are going down faster than the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. As for Africa, I wouldn’t worry about them, once Bill with GMOs, artificial diseases, poor sanitation-related outbreaks and a few wars, there won’t be that much Africans by the end of this century.

        17. Exactly right: the dynamic between the genders is completely fucked in the West. When you see how harmonious relationships are among Chinese young people (shopping for groceries together, cooking together, doing laundry together, helping each other with homework and career), you come to realize that all that “America is the best” tripe they fed us in school was absolute shit.
          Men and women in the West are like fighters in a ring, circling each other warily looking for any slight advantage to exploit over the other. Completely dysfunctional.

        18. The population control agenda is multifaceted: along with promoting infanticide, careerism, etc, they promote infantalism among college graduates. Look at company picnic / activity photos of major corporations, e.g., Facebook, Google, any silicon valley company, major insurance companies like Geico etc: Nothing but people in their 20 and 30s who are encouraged to behave like children: playing in mud (tough mudder triathalon), dress up in costumes, play in ball pit, color coloring books … on and on … childhood has been extended into the 30s … it’s like the Eloi in HG Wells’ The Time Machine

        19. Eloi in HG Wells’ The Time Machine
          That is an apt comparison, now that you mention it.

        20. I’m glad that certain elements of the alternative right (and I’m using that as a blanket term for all conservative groups that do not align with “mainstream conservatism” such as ourselves) are gaining traction. However, I see little good in the fact that the group which calls itself the alt-right is rapidly gaining acceptance. The alt-right is little more than Nazism’s retarded bastard child. I have rarely ever seen any intelligent discourse come from groups that call themselves “alt-right,” such as Amren, The Right Stuff and Heartiste (though I will admit that Heartiste has some solid game material). Most of their articles and comments seem to devolve into a game of “let’s see who hates blacks/Hispanics/Jews etc. the most.” Though I am a Trump supporter, what scares me is that Trump’s ascendance may potentially be paving the way for a far more extreme candidate who really is “alt-right.”

        21. I just included them since they are more or less tethered to us. Agree on Heartiste, solid gaming advice but gets way too Storm-fronty for me to want to stick around for the political stuff.

    2. I don’t see any evidence that the neocons were successful at anything. That is, unless you think their plan was really to establish a spy state and massive federal bureaucracies at home, in which case they have been wildly successful, and silly details like who won or lost the battle of Iraq matter not.

      1. If we take it as true (which I do…though who knows) that the idea that the Soviet Union was a real superpower and a real threat was a neocon myth meant to create a strict us versus them binary, jump start industry, get economy pumping, create national pride etc..they won big.
        World War II was over. That was great for a lot of people, but bad business for others. Having a real enemy, one you could see and think about, one with a flag and a capital, made this entire country run for decades. If it was all done by a bunch of Straussians it was not just brilliant, but ultimately incredibly successful.
        Feminism, the death of masculinity, the emergence of a politically correct society, main stream deviant sexual behavior from the fags to the transdoodles…..all of this takes place in a world without a great enemy.
        With the destruction of a centralized monopoly on information the neocons found they couldn’t control the script. Without the script being controlled we took 200 years of work building a nation and pretty much all wound up at a faggot glory hole in 2 decades.

        1. Hmm, so the question is did the neocons have good motivations? The neocons of today are sick fucks like Dick Cheney that seem to feast off death and destruction. But you raise an interesting point. Did they use these lies in the past to create national pride, prime our economy, motivate people, etc.? Or did they use it for evil? I have not pondered that idea. Although I will say there was certainly a lot of evil done throughout those decades as well. If you have not watched the Power of Nightmares, I can’t recommend it highly enough. It certainly changed the way I think about the world and power.

        2. I take good and evil out of the equation because I think that they were created as well. I think they did what they did for the same reason a dog licks his balls. There was some good and some bad that came out of it.
          What I do know is that in a power vacuum with no enemy to fight and no concept of centralized power that matters this country basically went to the fags, the fatties and the hipsters quicker than Martha Washington could say there is a splinter in my cooch.

        3. Agreed. To me it comes down to an ends vs. means debate. How far should one go in order to maintain and protect a stable social order? I made a long post on this above.

        4. you know the funny part to me is that there is this commercial. I don’t even remember what it is for. But there are these little old ladies and one of them has a bunch of photos on her wall and she is asking “did you LIKE my wall” and then one woman is like “this isn’t how it works” and she says “I UNFRIEND you” and the other lady says “but this isn’t how it works, this isn’t how any of this works”
          Whenever I see people who have a ton of energy going to a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the world works (from any side raging from the SJW to the equally annoying white power folks) or even the neocons during Iraq who didn’t understand how modern media works or people who think those neocons are part of some larger jewish conspiracy I just want to say like that old woman “but that’s not how it works! that’s not how any of this works”

        5. Going to read your post now. Ends versus means is a totally valid way to look at things, but you still have to make your choice and what makes your choice any more valid than anyone elses. Go team nihilism! Just enjoy.

        6. Right. We are one generation away from “Give me cock or give me death”

        7. If only Revolutionary firebrands like Patrick Henry and Nathan Hale could see how the idea of freedom has been perverted in their name.

        8. yeah, I am pretty sure that if you could show Patrick Henry and Nathan Hale what the outcome of 2 centuries would have been they would have straight up become royal loyalist.

    3. You bring up something I’ve always thought about – these guys say so much every day that none of it means anything. When was the last time I went a full day without reading multiple thoughts from the president on every topic from nuclear proliferation to school lunches? It’s impossible to give any serious thought to such a wide range of issues, and so it becomes rather obvious that he’s just speaking off the cuff, and has no more information behind his views than I have. At some point, it just becomes an idiot who likes to hear himself talk rambling on endlessly. Like a verbal version of the Instagram attention whore.
      If we wanted to restore dignity to the office, I have long thought that the best thing to do would be to tell the president to shut the fuck up and not say anything. Disband the press corps. Stop with the daily press conferences. When asked for comment on whatever trivial shit is in the headlines, refuse to give one. When the president talks to the public every ten minutes, he is an ill-informed nuisance. When he only talks to the public three or four times a year, what he says will be important.

      1. I agree with you both about the symptom, the sickness and the solution…however, the solution is impossible. toothpaste doesn’t go back in the tube. Thinking we want to go back to a world where there isn’t this totally insane diarrhea of information just wastes time while people who understand modern realities slowly take over the world.
        You need to understand the problem and understand which tools are realistically at your disposal and then you can think about a solution…

        1. Yeah, I don’t think we will go back anytime soon. Just making the observation.
          Though, I would also argue that a president who keeps silent has a lot less to be criticized for. No gaffes to be made fun of, no word salad to be parsed and over-analyzed. Perhaps some politician in the future would realize he could take a lot of pressure off himself by simply shutting up about what he thinks and what his motives are.
          Whatever your thoughts on Trump as president, I read an interesting analysis of him (can’t remember where, maybe Foreign Policy) that said that his contradictions actually make sense if you view him as a businessman, which is what he is. A businessman negotiating a deal tries to never tell you what he’s really thinking and to keep you guessing about his true motives so he can gain the position of best advantage.
          Someone who actively implements such a strategy has taken a half step back toward keeping his mouth shut, in my opinion.

    4. Technically, there were WMDs in Iraq. In fact, there still are WMDs in Iraq. They just didn’t “count” as WMDs because the UN had already catalogued them. Also, a lot of the WMDs that were not in Iraq after we invaded were shipped to other countries, some of whom are our “allies” so we pretended that never happened.

      1. Truth though that may be, the question isn’t WMD or no WMD. We need an enemy. We need every person to be thinking that at any moment Iraq could come get us. Kids doing drills where they hide under desks. A collective national agreement that the petty differences between americans means nothing compared to the danger of the enemy.
        That is the truth that needs to exist in order to get the desired results. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your take, the neocons couldn’t pull that job off like they did with the soviets based, in large part, on the decentralization of information that comes from the internet.
        Sure, everyone believed a bunch of bullshit lies that someone made up and a lot of people made a great deal of money on….but in the end, it also happened to serve the public interest.

        1. I didn’t mean to get down in the weeds, but the WMD thing is a personal pet peeve of mine. Yes, the government and its military industrial complex buddies did everything they could to push us into the Iraq war, including lie, cheat and steal. But there were actually WMDs in Iraq, and some are still there because they are too dangerous to move. I personally don’t believe the war was justified, but I also know I don’t have all of the same information as the people that made that decision. I’m inclined to believe it was made for the wrong reasons, but the “there were no WMDs” mantra that the media fed us, and that the government has essentially signed on to, is a massive lie. The reason it has become the accepted story is to hide the truth of where most of those WMDs came from and where they went.

        2. I have no problem believing this is true. I think that if they could have found a way for the uS to see Iraq as a new Soviet Union and cause a huge industrial boom, resurgence of an us against them patriotism and got the western world on board to create original nato style unity then who cares if it’s a lie. Everything is a lie. It wild have been worth it. But they couldn’t pull it off

    1. Relampago’s article was great but he needed to make this connection. Follow the money, and you will find the root causes of most of society’s ills

  7. Leo Strauss™…Paul Wolfowitz™ and of course the crypto-YKW- Cheney, Bush dynasty and other usefully idiotic Goyim that peddle this paradoxical “War on Terror”. How Americans believe that a ragtag bunch of renegades 4000km way are a threat to them, I will never know. That’s why whenever I heard a political candidate talking about how much of a threat the fabricated ISIS are, I knew they were bought and paid for.
    To add on, Paul Wolfowitz, used to be the president of the World Bank, a dystopian monetary organization that has caused immeasurable misery to millions if not billions of people through economic manipulations. The Middle East is the only region in the world that doesn’t practice usury, fractional reserve banking and heavy systems of taxation, not to mention a Rothschild controlled central bank.

    1. Your reply is very wise and insightful brother. I applaud your vast knowledge on this particular subject. this is why I often skip to the comments section to get useful inputs from commentators. I’m always fascinated by how a small group of determined and scheming men managed to sway the public opinion on any matter.
      I used to wonder how the Americans can be so gullible to think that cave dwelling jihadist can actually harm their well-being. Under President Obama, there is no radical change in foreign policy either. Drones are more frequently used and collateral damage is skyrocketing. And Americans feign surprise when victims of American Military Industrial Complex behemoth becomes radicalized and swore vengeance.

    2. I really like your comment, especially the “ragtag bunch of renegades…” part, it brings to mind a theory I’ve been considering.
      What if Benghazi wasn’t a real embassy? What if it was a gun-running operation, as has been postulated before, similar to the fast/furious operation. We know that, for instance Bin Laden was US trained, but what if that approach never ended?
      What if Libya was our government arming, training, and creating Isis? These guys use guerilla and information warfare tactics as if they were taught by Green Berets or a first-world power (on the internet side). We have all these capabilities that essentially guarantee their absolute destruction, but we artificially limit our ROE, for what reason? We need the conflict to keep us in line? And it breeds new generations of aggrieved people who want our destruction. Who does that benefit, certainly not the security of the US.

      1. I’ve never believed Benghazi was a real embassy. Why? Because NO GOVERNMENT THROUGHOUT HISTORY continues to let their diplomats serve in a warzone. Going back to medieval times, when war is declared, the first thing that is done is the diplomats pack up and return to their home countries. This is standard procedure. For centuries. There are even special rules and protections EVEN IF you are invading a country, you allow their diplomats to leave under your protection.
        The mere fact that the US was operating an embassy in the middle of a civil war was a huge red flag that something wasn’t right. The least that could happen is that an innocent diplomat gets hurt or killed. The more probable scenario is that something more sinister was going on. Was it gun running or something worse? I don’t know. But it is fishy as hell.

        1. It’s weird how we have to get our investigative journalism from places like Business Insider, Rolling Stone, and the foreign press, because our nations news organizations fail to do anything other than parroting government press releases.
          Edit: Wow, that guy has some interesting articles. But he hasn’t written anything in 6 months. Maybe he just didn’t want to get Michael Hastings-ed.
          http://www.businessinsider.com/cia-jfk-assassination-2015-10

        2. Nah it’s the same here in the UK. We are first to bitch about you guys and say your govt is corrupt but yet NOTHING about the sh*t we do. If we were about truth, our media would be more pro-Trump.

      2. The US was arming Al Qaeda in Libya some time prior to Benghazi
        “Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,….”They were permitted to come in….[They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..
        “The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.”
        Clare Lopez, former CIA officer to the MailOnline

      3. It is the same story, Seymour Hersh has written about it: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military
        The US government had known that their weapons eventually get into IS hands. They also are (at least partially) responsible for its creation, as in Iraq they were locking together radical jihadists and Saddam Hussein’s best men. In prison they had much time to get along together and plan.

        1. Because they’d know what Israel would do! It’s a funny situation but Israeli’s are also being used.

        2. What would they do? with all the propaganda and rhetoric about poor Israel under attack from its enemies they use to justify laying waste to Palestinian civilians wouldn’t you think they would make a pre-emptive strike on such a militaristic threat. With little effort and time Putins Russia made huge inroads in squashing Isis operations yet the US/Israeli media have lambasted him relentlessly for doing so.
          Perhaps they really are just a chess piece under Israeli/US command.

        3. Israel would be more blunt and would support themselves more effectively. It’s their f*cking land. I’m tired of Arabs getting away with their BS, esp in Africa. The land belongs to the Jews and they could come up with a better solution, instead of pandering to the US.
          They would also make the border safer and protect themselves more,esp re Arab citizens.
          Israel is the US b*tch. Why? Because a powerful set of American Jews want to have power of Israel,so they can think themselves more important and valuable.
          They actually do NOT care for Jews at ALL. It’s just guilt over the Holocaust and seeing like they ‘protect’ Israel for their God.

        4. Aint their land
          For 2500 years it was called Palestinea, Syria Palestinea and British Mandate of Palestine.
          Israelis come from Asia, the Khazar tribe from khazaria. Its why WOody Allen doesn’t look semitic or Arabic. Hint…hes not

        5. “Israel is the US b*tch.” Backwards. Israel’s goal in Syria is a failed state, or at least a civil war prolonged for as long as possible.

      4. Actually, it wasn’t an embassy, or even a consulate. They just called it that to explain what the ambassador was doing there. Of course it was a gun-running operation– they were trying to recover some of the weapons that had been supplied to the Salafist crazies in Libya, to send them to Turkey to IS– I mean the “moderate rebels.”
        theconservativetreehouse.com has a good write up on it, though they steer clear of the ISIS issue. Look for “Operation Zero Footprint.” Interesting that a number of the MANPADs got diverted from the Qatar-to-Libyan rebels pipeline, and were used by the Taliban to shoot down US helicopters in Afghanistan– that part didn’t get much publicity…

    3. “How Americans believe that a ragtag bunch of renegades 4000km way are a threat to them, I will never know. ”
      Watching 3000 people die in NYC was one.
      “The Middle East is the only region in the world that doesn’t practice usury, fractional reserve banking and heavy systems of taxation, not to mention a Rothschild controlled central bank.”
      And they are all shitholes that people flee from.

        1. Anytime someone says “ragtag group” I always think of Walter Matthau.
          Is Walter Matthau a terrorist? I am not saying he is, but if he was eating a particularly sour lemon his face would look like most feminist’s vaginas.

        2. Ahh, the good ol’ days when you could drive drinking from an open container with an entire team of 12 years olds crammed into and on top of a convertible.

        3. Amazing we all (mostly) lived to tell about it. Heh.

      1. We should have just kept out the Saudis who caused 9/11 in the first place, instead of inviting them in and giving them visas.

      2. I’ve seen a documentary about evidence collected on 9-11 that contradict the commission report. Live broadcast of the news that day that contradicted the narrative was quickly removed.
        After following this ROK and knowing what the MSM does, I have to question everything I was told about what happened.

        1. 2001 was recent enough that people had recordings of the memory holed broadcasts and an anniversary release of news broadcasts online wasn’t carefully screened carefully enough so people found the suspicious instances that remained. All of this can be found online today.
          Some stuff is still memory holed but officially exists in listings. Networks simply refuse to allow them to be shown and won’t allow them to be purchased through their archive services.
          I don’t theorize on 9-11, but it is obvious we were lied to.

      3. “John,” these guys are just creeps who, appallingly enough, admire Islam cuz patriarchy. That the Islamic pie is really a tiny shiite sandwich is no matter. AND, as betas and gammas in the dar al-islam are lucky to get decent women at all, does not occur to them (polygamy is for the rich and powerful).

    4. You are overthinking it though, it’s simply that Israel is in the Middle East, and they want the goyim to fight their wars for them.

      1. No they do NOT. Speak to Israeli’s. They don’t want pompous White Jews/Westerners to control them. NO PEOPLE WANT THAT.

        1. Fair enough.
          Though one could point to Moorish Spain as a good Muslim contribution. Also, Arabic numerals and algebra and the tales of the Arabian Nights, if one wants to include those.

        2. Of course! So have the Indians, Ancient Egyptians etc. But not since the West BECAME the West. Jews are super secretive but as a Black person, I feel I can always spot that difference between them and a Celt/Saxon or Irish traveler.
          Banking systems to Literature-the West owes a lot to Jews.
          The issue Jews have, like Blacks, is that they are lumped into one big slump when they have THREE different clans, who do not really like each other. I can also bet that many Israeli’s do not feel the same as Western Jews etc.

        3. Communism, Usury, Feminism, Abortion, Flooding Europe with Muslims and financing muslim war parties leading to the Inquisition….porn. Whats not to like?

        4. Banking systems? Really?
          We can thank them for worthless fiat debt money and literature like that that comes from Media mogul Al Goldstein of Screw Inc or infantile sexual perversion ala Freud

        5. Lol name even ONE thing that the vermin have brought to western society. Usury? Porn? Sodomy? Feminism?

        6. Anand. following are just a few of the numerous Protestant crimes against humanity. For example, do some research on the barbaric way the Irish Catholics were treated when they came to the United States. If we look at history, we see the Protestant murderer John Calvin tortured many people who had theological differences from himself. On October 27, 1553 he tortured Michael Servetus, and then had him burned alive. The Protestant murderer King Henry VIII of England, “the adulterer and wife killer,” took the lives of 72,000 Catholics, many of whom were cruelly tortured. Under the murderous Protestant Queen Elizabeth I (1533 – 1603) the killing fields of Ireland ran red with the blood of innocent victims. It is estimated 1.5 million Irish Catholic peasants were starved or “put to the sword” and much of the land seized by English predators, while she reigned. The Protestant murderer Oliver Cromwell used his Puritan troops in the mass slaughter of 3,552 Irish inhabitants of the seaport town of Drogheda, just north of Dublin. He did the same in Wexford killing 2,000 citizens. He started a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Irish Catholics. The landowners of Irish birth were either killed, banished, or forced into the west of Ireland where it was hoped they would starve to death. From 1649 to 1652 one-third of the Irish population was destroyed by Cromwell. The Catholics suffered a holocaust under Cromwell. During the Irish Genocide of 1845 the English removed food reserves from Ireland at gunpoint. And the English would offer no aid whatsoever. Author Chris Fogarty places the number murdered during the forced famine at approximately 5.16 million……making it another Irish Catholic holocaust. The Protestants murdered 12 million Native Americans in the United States. The broken treaties, murder, and genocide of the native population was horrific. This was a Protestant endeavor. The Ku Klux Klan was completely Protestant. The horror and terror the Ku Klux Klan visited upon innocent people is a terrible and inhuman crime. The burning of women at the stake as witches was a Protestant phenomenon. For centuries the Protestants unleashed terror on countless innocent women. It happened in Protestant England, Protestant Scotland, and Protestant Holland. It even happened in the United States at the Salem Witch Trials. The SS (Schutzstaffel) was comprised almost entirely of Protestants (Lutheran), and they went on to murder 30 million people in their quest for a pure race. The Bolshevik Revolution was financed by English Protestants, and it resulted in the death of 50 million innocent Russians. The firebombing of Dresden Germany was the worst war crime of all history. Dresden was the most beautiful city in Europe. There were no German soldiers or war factories or armaments in Dresden, it was simply a city of war refugees looking for shelter. The good Catholic people of Dresden took them in and fed and sheltered them. Dresden was a German city that was 100% Catholic. That is why it was singled out by the English for the worst firebombing in the history of the world. They dropped incendiary bombs and completely obliterated the most beautiful city in the world. The inferno was so intense people miles outside the city suffocated because the flames consumed all the oxygen in the air. Today there is still a massive cover-up by the British to describe the terrible bombing as “accidental plans.” The terror unleashed on the New World by the Protestant Crown of England is a true horror story. They commissioned privateers (pirates) to rape and pillage colonies of Spain and Portugal and France. James Michener did extensive research for his national bestseller “Caribbean” and he documents such an episode. The priests and nuns would be tortured in the most horrific fashion. Often they would be racked until their limbs were ripped from their body. Dutch observers have left records of the events at The Hague. “I saw them cut people apart, slowly and with repeated shouts…. I saw them do things to women that are best forgotten, but what haunts me to this day are the indecencies visited upon Catholic nuns who could not have had even one peso (pgs. 241 – 243).” The Dutchman said, “What the English did in the ‘sack’ of Porto Bello leaves a scar on my soul.” The Protestants have murdered millions upon millions of Catholics. But the reverse is not true. It is the Catholics who should be given an apology from the Protestants. The Protestants have done many wicked, bloodthirsty atrocities against innocent Catholic populations. The Catholics are a good, kind, generous, God-fearing, and noble people. The Catholics have been persecuted for centuries, just as Jesus told the Catholic Church it would suffer bitter persecution as Christ himself suffered bitter persecution.

    5. “How Americans believe that a ragtag bunch of renegades 4000km way are a threat to them.”
      It’s simple. Bring them over here– then they’re a believable threat. But we can’t just not bring them here, because reasons. Invade the world, invite the world.

  8. My family were living in Egypt when these stirrings had begun. Say what you want about the evils the west has wrought, but being a Christian in the Middle East is not a life where any hope or prosperity can be found. They left in 1965 and returned in 1980, only a year before Sadat was assassinated. Any trace of westernization had evaporated under the Islamic peasant hordes. Alexandria once called the Paris of the Middle East, ruined. Cairo? forget about it, a dump. While we have little to fear from huddled goat felators thousands of kilometers away, never forget the potential Islam has for destruction.

    1. Precisely, Sharia Law would be an unmitigated disaster. It’s interesting how we were the best friends of the Islamists in the 1980s, supplying them with weapons, giving them CIA training, sending them billions of dollars, and Reagan even dedicated the launch of the first Space Shuttle to the Islamic “freedom fighters.” Then after the USSR collapsed we turned the Islamists into enemies to support the Neoconservative good vs. evil narrative. This shows duplicity and proves many of the points in the article.

      1. Because the USSR was the greater enemy. You don’t get to pick ethical allies in some situations. That’s facing reality and dealing with the situation with the cards your are dealt.

        1. So, you prefer Straussian mythmaking to Kissinger’s ruthless but pragmatic balance of power strategy. The ends justify the means. But that policy has directly led to the mess today with the need to constantly fight a propagandized boogerman and the curbing of freedom right here at home.
          Picking unethical allies is one thing, but lauding them as heroic freedom fighters is quite another, especially when only a decade later they become Satan himself to the propaganda ministers because the Straussian Neocons have to find an enemy somewhere. This also creates ill will when you do such an about face to your former allies in service of a myth.
          Just pointing out the fallacy with the Neocon thinking. I’m open to a new view if a rational one can be presented.

        2. “but that policy has directly led to the mess today ”
          The other choices with the resources at hand would have been better? How? I think you are enjoying hindsight and cherry picking the variables involved.
          Neocon = jew … isn’t that correct? Not sure how you spliced the last 25 years of US politics and world events, but you seem to be using it as a filler in your logical gaps.

        3. Not making up lies, creating myths, and not calling Islamists heroes before calling them evil wasn’t an option back then? How about being straight up and telling the public, look we are going to bankrupt those SOBs (USSR). This is the problem when reality is twisted to fit an ideology.

        4. If Wilson hadn’t dragged the country into WW1 in the first place sykes-picot would have never been implemented and the entire mess would have been avoided.

        5. Right in WW2 we didn’t go around telling people what a great Country the Soviet Union was. I do think you’re being a little simplistic though the US was actively opposed to certain islamists in the 80’s we bombed Ghaddafi when he was doING his islamists thing, we lost Marines in Lebanon, and we were vehemently opposed to Iran. In fact one of the things which made Afghanistan so important to us was to prevent a Soviet Iranian linkup. Furthermore it is easy to see now in hindsight how the taliban would rise to power after the Soviets left, but it was not a sure thing back then. Afghanistan was a much more modern country back then than it is now. But yes I still agree with you that the islamists should have never been sold as “freedon fighters”. The whole thing reminds me og Jack Nickelson’s speech in a few good men.

        6. England and France would have had to come to reasonable peace terms instead of being able to economically crush Germany and remap the middle east. US entry was to bring fresh blood to the fight and break the stalemate.

        7. Neo-Cons are gays too. Indianapolis was full of them during the 2000’s, and you practically HAD to be queer to be involved. It’s like the greatest criminals in history, Nero, Hitler, etc,. They get behind puppet leaders and wreak havic.

      2. “Then after the USSR collapsed we turned the Islamists into enemies” We did? Who were the international fighters we supported in Kosovo? Same kind of Salafist mercenaries. Who are the “moderate rebels” in Syria? Who did we back in Libya? I guess you could say they’re part time enemies. Enemies of convenience, Emmanuel Goldsteins, when we’re not using them to subvert other countries…

    2. Same goes for some people I know-they were Greeks who lived in Alexandria for countless generations but had to leave in the 1960s.

      1. Everyone who didn’t wrap a towel around their heads or cover their women from head to toe bailed man, shit was no bueno. My grandfather told me something hilarious. When they went back in 1980 almost every single elevator in buildings was non-operational. It was because all the westerners who had the expertise to repair and service them left the damn country so they’d all just ground to a halt. Quite an enlightening metaphor for the development of the country since the 60s.

    3. I’ve seen pictures of Beirut from the 50s, as well. Amazing how none of the Middle Eastern wars we get involved in seem to do any good for the Christians there– how many Christians are there in Iraq now? Almost like those (((neocons))) aren’t concerned about the fate of Christians, or something…

      1. They’re not. Neo-Cons only use ideology to get what they want. And the formula is Neo-Con+Homosexual+Jew. And they work for the monied elite.

  9. Further reading I would recommend is “Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Bin Laden and Afghanistan” by Steve Coll and “Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion” that give further insight into just what the CIA was up to in the 70’s and 80’s.
    Keep in mind this was what they were caught doing, nevermind what they could be doing now.

    1. Everything is hidden behind smoke and mirrors. All the hare brained policies are wrapped with sweet sounding soundbytes like ‘national interest’ and “combating worldwide terrorism”.

      1. I think that that itself is the biggest scam. It is not that everything is hidden behind smoke and mirrors….that at least would have some level of comfort….it is that nothing is hid behind smoke and mirrors…smoke and mirrors is all there is.

  10. Neocons are on board with the fascist agenda and to destroy the World. This is why they SUPPORT radical islam and immigration, and brining in Trojan horses of Sharia apes and setting them loose in the West.

  11. “As often happens in politics, reality has very little to do with policy making”. Absolutely. It’s all a show. Neocons, Liberals, Radical Islam, just can’t win in today’s political atmosphere lol.

  12. I don’t buy the Straussian connection. Strauss supposedly argued that the philosophers see religion as necessary bullshit for keeping the mob in line. When the Neocons, allegedly Strauss’s followers, used the U.S. to wreck Iraq and then remake it into a modern democracy, why didn’t they use religion there for that purpose? Instead they let the Islamic crazies run rampant and the Neocons’ nation rebuilding scheme there turned to ashes.
    I find it a bit more plausible in the American context, however. Neocons have benefited from these moronic preachers who promote this bible prophecy nonsense about how Israel’s existence proves we’ve reached “the end times.” These simpletons imagine Israel as a land of deserts and goats and rabbis, when in reality it more resembles a secular advanced civilization out of science fiction. I mean, jeez, you can find companies there which can break into iPhone encryption.

    1. The Straussians goal wasn’t to change the Iraqi people. The Straussians are western. They used the tool of violent religion in the mideast to affect great change in all the western liberal democracies. What would they gain by changing Iraq considerably? Not much.

  13. Excellent article, Relampago. I find Qutb a fascinating character. If you remove religion and context, one can find much that resonates in his thinking. Consider this paraphrased description:
    After the 1950s, the corruption of morals and values in American society began to take hold. The ideas of individualism, liberalism, and materialism were taken to the extreme. The people began to fall into a state of barbarous ignorance. The people began to worship materialism over other philosophies. A nihilistic culture where everything is permitted and nothing is true began to take form. A prosperous society was planting the seeds of its own destruction.
    Does that not accurately describe America? One finds it difficult to argue with that analysis. Which is precisely what Qutb and Strauss believed. However, I find myself angry when hearing about what Qutb and his successors and Straussians did. They used extreme violence in an attempt to stop these social changes. I can identify with the ends, but not the means, of their movements. So this leads to some interesting questions:
    (1) Facing such a severe threat to one’s society and way of life, are such extreme and violent methods warranted?
    (2) It appears violence failed in both Egypt and America (more of a soft power was used here, or an expansion of government power over the individual’s life and actions) to make these changes. Is there a better method?
    (3) Where today does one find an ideology or institution which opposes gross individualism, liberalism, and materialism? This was the domain and philosophy of the Catholic church for centuries, but I do not feel so today. Perhaps in orthodox Christianity, which I will soon be seeking out. But they are in such small numbers as they will not affect change in the greater society.
    (4) I am quite ignorant of the Islamic world (and somewhat fearful to travel there and expierence it myself). Are there any areas which have successfully eliminated jahilliyah from their society and are living peaceful and stable happy lives?
    (5) What will be next? I feel like ISIS was created out of thin air, and they could certainly just come up with a new terist group in the mideast. But won’t people eventually tire of those lies, and we will need something new? The Chinese maybe?

    1. a lot of very reasonable, intelligent and hard to answer questions here.
      As for number 5…people talk about isis like it is a gang. They all wear the same bandanas and shit. It would be interesting for a moment to have a gods eye view and really understand everything all at once.

      1. You may not like what you see if you found the truth. Could it be that WE are the evil ones? When a country that does not have the same democratic process as we do, the media vilify their leader to stir emotion in the public so we, the brainwashed, promote to have that leader taken out by force.

        1. I want to go a step further. There are no good ones and no evil ones and, more than that, no truth.
          It’s all just a show.

        2. That isn’t what is really going on. The U.S. government has taken the side of
          communists, warlords and all kinds of evil douches against even the most
          democratic of regimes, just to serve their interests, or the interests of their
          lobbyists. When is the last time the American people rose up and demanded we invade some country or topple some foreign leader? The politicos are always having to sell it. Just look how hard they had to sell Iraq even after 9/11. Even then, most of the people were like “Hey, but none of the terrorists were Iraqi, were they?” The majority of U.S. citizens don’t give a flying F about who runs Egypt or Iraq or any other Middle Eastern sandbox. We just want them to stop interrupting our Must See TV with all their stupid press conferences and news bulletins. There is no “good versus evil” in this, there is only the elite aristocracy and everyone else they step on to get what they want.

        3. I would take it a step further: Anyone who tries to sell a war on a “good vs. evil” basis, rather than on the basis of vital US interests, is merely hiding their real motivations,

    2. I’m surprised no one else has brought up how right both groups were about the malaise and degeneracy American culture is now in. The Neocons and Islamists are alike in so many ways, except their responses differ enormously. And of course the Neocons used mythmaking to seize control of our liberties, which they see as a threat to social order.
      What irks me are the blatant lies made up to enrich the military industrial complex and expand bureaucratic authority. The evil USSR would have collapsed on its own, but the Neocons wanted to profit from it politically and financially. They repeated the whole playbook a generation later by turning the Islamists they once dedicated the Space Shuttle Columbia to into a new boogerman.
      And, making the whole thing worse, the government claimed to be opposing Communism while instituting Cultural Marxism (i.e. feminism, et al) at the same time. We toppled democratically-elected governments while claiming to support democracy, funding then training the Islamists we would later oppose.
      It would be funny if it didn’t screw over so many lives here and abroad.

      1. While I see almost everything in a worse condition today than it was several decades earlier, perhaps foreign entanglements are one area that are actually slightly better today. The US would routinely intervene in foreign countries, especially if that country risked democratically electing someone that would put the interests of his nation and its people first.
        Today, sure, the US is still continuing the warmongering and intervention, but a combination of things has reduced its ability to do so. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are dragging into their 16th year, and it’s pretty clear the US is not going to win. The Snowden revelations have made other countries, perhaps particularly some of America’s allies, very distrustful of America’s objectives and of using American infrastructure, which is heavily monitored. Countries are more likely to distrust America’s motives after seeing the Confessions of An Economic Hitman revelations by John Perkins. The decline in America’s wealth has prevented it from financially intervening in more than one or two countries at a time, and it lacks any sort of strategic planning (in contrast to Putin’s short intervention in Syria which is already over). And the US, for better or for worse, seems to think Democracy is awesome and should exist everywhere (I dislike democracy, but at least it was better than coups and installing dictators, which was what the US preferred in the 80s) so it’s letting people around the world elect leaders, for better or for worse.
        However, I am not really surprised that no one is discussing the similarity in viewpoints. The neocons and islamists are quite similar, yet I do not think I have heard them compared by anyone other than Mr. Adam Curtis. Acknowledging these similarities, or examining the beliefs of Qutb, for instance, is not something most Americans would feel comfortable doing. Even among the reading audience here, I think most are purple pill at best. Hell, even I from time to time have a small part of me that *wants* to believe that women can be actually sweet and capable of everlasting love and adorable little creatures. Likewise, it is too much for most men to see the truth about the world politically, or to criticize their country or culture in any way, and they hold on to an irrational love of nation.
        Even the right wing conservatives, the ones that are most opposed to the social shenanigans going on ie gay marriage and trannies, they won’t be very critical of America in any meaningful way cause it’s Murica. And many can’t accept that anyone living in a desert who looks different from them and has their women in burkas could be right about anything. It’s only the most intellectually honest who can make these sorts of comparisons and there are very few disciplined thinkers, even among the “red pill” community. I wouldn’t even make the comparison I did above (how neocons and Islamists are so similar) publicly, because people just can’t handle it and would get emotional at you. But it’s clearly true.

        1. Actually that last bit I wrote about the conservatives made me curious. Why is it that American Republicans, who preach fire and brimstone about gayness, even going so far as to claim it is an abomination, and it is unnatural, and it can be prayed away. Why do these people with such strong beliefs opposing gayness, when gay marriage is introduced into the country, why do they fully embrace and accept it? This is NOT something the Islamic world would do. Can you imagine if the US, through its puppet Karzai government in the Mideast, proclaimed that from now on Trannies can piss alongside the burka-ed single women of their country? There would be violent, violent, extreme opposition, and this rule would NEVER be implemented.
          Why are the American conservatives not willing to do anything meaningful for their principles? I can’t even name a prominent conservative who is outspoken against gay marriage, trannies, etc. I mean I suppose Rick Santorum. But I can’t name two.

      2. The Islamists are honest, and correct, in assessing the toxicity of secular materialist culture. Their cure may or may not be appropriate to their societies, but it is worse than the disease for ours.
        The neocons are not being honest when they pretend to oppose the poz– they have at least tacitly supported every further stage of cultural degeneration, and likely will continue to do so.

  14. Ive heard Prague was the cat’s meow in the early nineties and dirt cheap. If I wasnt six Id have been blasting cheeks all over that place with my meager wages.

  15. I can understand the temptation to load up a President Trump with too many hopes, but I’d like to see him “read the Riot Act” to this crony nationalist fiasco called Israel to let it know that Americans have had enough of its meddling in our affairs.

  16. This article makes several good points. However, the degree to which it discounts the Soviet Union and radial Islam as a threat to traditional notions of liberty and core American values is fantasy. The Soviet Union was a significant threat to the American way of life, back when the American way of life was a lot more sane than it is now. Did American politicians, bureaucrats and corporate interests inflate the threat of the USSR to America? Yes. Did they use the reality of that threat to their own ends? Yes. But that does not lessen the actual threat that the Soviet Union posed. Have certain political groups and special interests cast the radical Islamic terrorist threat as an ever-looming boogeyman to serve their own purposes? Yes. But there still are vast numbers of fundamentalist and orthodox Islamists who are actively seeking the destruction of everything non-Islamic. They are doing this both through terrorism and through many other routes — see Dearborn, Michigan, for example, as well as the rise of Sharia Law in many places around the world. I’m not defending the “neo-cons” in any way. I’m not even sure exactly what a neo-con is, especially since the concept of a conservative has become increasingly fluid of late. Nevertheless, to suggest that “much” of the threat of international terrorism is “fantasy” is just factually wrong.
    To suggest that the “neo-con” movement is solely or even predominantly responsible for the Islamic backlash against the West is wrong, as well. The true source of that backlash has to do with the U.S. intervening in affairs that it should not, and then running away or switching sides as soon as the political winds back home changes. We’ve been going into the Middle East for decades and promising people we would support their government or their movement, and those people have out their lives on the line to help us meet our objectives, only to have the rug pulled out from under them the moment an election happens back home or some news station gets footage of dead American soldiers. Then those people who trusted us are tortured and executed. The Americans back home either don’t know or don’t remember these things, but the sons and daughters of the people we left to die certainly do. Over and over again, the US has gone into the Middle East, sometimes overtly but mostly covertly, to support one side or the other. We treat it as a game, because politics is a game back home in America — we see the political parties screwing over their own candidates all the time and its no big deal to us. But it is a big deal in the Middle East, when some warlord comes into power and feeds all his political enemies to rabid dogs or some other medieval crap.
    Generations of Middle Easterners have grown up watching us support one side, then bail on them and leave them to be slaughtered by their enemies. Or to change sides in the middle of a conflict. Or fund both sides of a conflict. We’ve lied to them, turned on them and abandoned them over and over again. That is why they hate us. Not because “damn liberals” or “evil neo-cons” but because both sides have played in Middle Eastern politics like its a game they can walk away from anytime they get bored, and haven’t given a crap about the untold number of lives that their little games have absolutely destroyed.
    Don’t get me wrong, I have no sympathy for these radical Islamic fucks, but to act like its one U.S. political movement’s fault is just wrong. It’s the entire history of our political activity in the Middle East, constantly switching our actions and alliances depending on which way the wind is blowing, which way the oil is flowing or which way the money is going. It’s the legacy of a total lack of a consistent international foreign policy that has repeatedly and emphatically screwed literally everyone over.

    1. IKR, and look where it got us. A bloated law enforcement system, revolving-door prisons and a shameful incarceration rate far above every other Western nation.

  17. “Richard Pipes, one of the heads of Team B, the group who totally fabricated allegations against the Soviet Union, was appointed to Reagan’s administration”
    …Pipes, the author of a book denouncing conspiracy theories.
    Good article, about one of the best documentaries ever made. I’ve been looking out for the work of Adam Curtis, but while he made some others for some reason this doesn’t seem to have done much for his career.
    One of the other most enlightening aspects of ‘the power of nightmares’ is the way it goes beneath the surface politics to investigate the way in which this type of manufacturing opinion, fear (and to use Chomsky’s phrase) consent, was based on inspired marketing / psy-ops (?) wizards like Bernays, and availed itself of the new technologies of manipulation furnished by psychoanalytic ‘discoveries’ of how the unconscious can be directed and manipulated (there’s also some fascinating background to the very wierd Wilhelm Reich as I remember)
    Neo-cons though. These are the guys responsible for so much mayhem its difficult to know where to begin. Leo Strauss seems to have had some interesting ideas, but his ‘defence’ of the values of classical civilization, doesn’t seem to have included the virtue of not telling absolute porkie pies. I have long intended to read some of his works, but until then I have to say I am mystified to how anyone can try to base a politics of deception and manipulation upon Plato (amongst others).
    The move from selling dreams to selling nightmares may not be entirely down to the neo-cons. Ulrich Beck has described how post-industrial reflexive society should be seen as producing / managing risk: the more we act upon society the more risk is generated, which in turn requires even more risk management. That given, the politics of fear actively and cynically embraces this and arguably actively exaggerates and even manufactures it.
    This doesn’t require conspiracy theory in itself although there are plenty of claims that radical terror groups have received indirect funding or support for geo-strategic purposes (e.g. to oppose strategic enemies) even aside of the more serious (and arguably conspiratorial) claim that terror is simply manufactured to keep domestic populations in check etc. Conspiracy theory doesn’t though need to be part of the calculations to see that it is often to the benefit of western governments to play up rather than play down the risk of terror. Terrorist attacks don’t have to be ‘inside jobs’ or false flags in order for them to be exploited for cynical and oppressive purpose by domestic governments.
    Indeed the crisis of democracy we’re facing now is probably largely down to the neo-cons and the fact that the public knows that half of this is cynical manipulation, a barely concealed cover story (however real islamic terror might also be in many parts of the world). The fact is neo-cons are the authors of much that is wrong with the world, both in terms of the manipulation of democracy and the creation of unnecessary and ‘illegal’ (?) wars.
    They should all be held to account, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, the Bushes, and Tony Blair

  18. Ashame the author discredits his argument with the ousting of Allende in chile. Allende long ago was shown to be an agent of the kgb. The democratic legislature of chile gave a majority vote to Pinochet to have him ousted to prevent chile being taken over by the ussr.
    Sadly I suspect the author is probably a disguised Marxist racist who just hates white people of NW European origin.

      1. Your behavior and refusal to do basic research indicates otherwise.
        You sound an awful lot like blacks who claim to hate black thugs just as much as white people and the violence they commit against blacks. They always conveniently never mention about being angry at the violence those black thugs commit against whites.

        1. I’m not the one who got bothered by my original post. You should reflect on your life choices.

  19. 1. Islamic “civilization”:
    – Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law
    http://www.amazon.com//dp/0915957728
    2. Neoconservatives:
    – An Abridged History Of The United States Psychopathocracy
    http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=36474
    – Repressive Tolerance, by Herbert Marcuse (1965)
    http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm
    3. The Great Game, Promethean Strategy and Cold Wars
    – The Great Game
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game
    – Russia’s Biggest Threat Is The Promethean Strategy: Can Putin keep the Intermarium in check?
    http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=27123
    – Part I. The WAR for the Ukraine: What’s the real story?
    http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=4993
    – Part II. Locus Of Global Power Shifts From The West To The East
    http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=5263
    – Part III. Secret History Revealed. Putin Played Critical Role After The Pre-Planned Collapse Of The USSR
    http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=8159
    – Part IV. Anglo-American Axis Wages Financial/Economic War Against Russia
    http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=9167
    – Part V. WORLD WAR III: Anglo-American Axis vs. BRICS Alliance
    http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=9465
    – Part VI. Putin’s Russia: Nemesis of the New World Order

    tumblr_lz09nalOXg1r6xoa6o1_500


    – Part VII. Putin Goes Ballistic In Syria, Obliterates The USA’s Secret ‘Mideast Strategy’
    http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=23524

  20. Most of the “wars” America has claimed to be involved in (against communism, against islamic extremism) have been phony wars. When America had a true enemy and really wanted to defeat them, they were utterly brutal and completely without remorse. America wanted to defeat the Confederacy. Toward that end, it did everything it could to inflict pain and misery on the South: instigated slave insurrection against the native population, burned down Southern cities (Sherman’s March to the Sea), tore up railroads, starved Confederate soldiers in POW camps, disenfranchised those men who had fought for the Confederacy, forbidding them from participating in politics after the war, and humiliating them by having former slaves rule over them (Reconstruction).
    When America set out to defeat nationalism / fascism in Europe and Asia in WWII, it did whatever it took (mass murder of millions of civilians in firebombings, nuclear bombings, starvation, etc.).
    You think America is really fighting a war against Islam? Look at how it deals with ISIS fighters making their way to the West interspersed with the mass influx of migrants. The Italian Navy rescues them when their boats get swamped and bring them to shore. The most aggressive – the Australian Navy – gingerly turns their boats around and points them back the way they came.
    There are real wars and phony wars. America ruthlessly murdered millions of Germans and Japanese civilians. But it has never gone full bore in the “war” against communism or islamic terrorism.

    1. America ruthlessly murdered millions of Germans and Japanese civilians.
      But it has never gone full bore in the “war” against communism or
      islamic terrorism.

      Kinda with you until the “firebombing” thing and the paragraph I quoted. It’s war. People die, innocent people. The Nazis didn’t give a fuck how many British civilians they might have killed when they were bombing London or sending over buzz bombs and V2’s. And they shouldn’t have to, nor should we nor anybody else. If you don’t like that civilians die, then don’t fucking start a war. It’s pretty damned simple.
      The entire point of a war is to break down the enemy to the point where he can no longer fight. You don’t do that by playing nice, you do it fast and effectively and brutally. Anything less, and you lose.

      1. Germany did not start the war: Britain and France declared war on Germany. The claim that it was Germany’s invasion of Poland that started WW2 is specious as the Soviet Union also invaded Poland from the East: yet France and Britain allied with the SU but declared war on Germany.
        Germany lost WW2 because it was too compassionate. Germany allowed 350,000 French and Britiish troops to be evacuated at Dunkirk. If Hitler had ordered the beachfront strafed and bombed, he probably could have effected an early end to the war. Moreover, Hitler made numerous peace overtures to Britain yet Churchill refused.
        Germany generally looked after Allied soldiers taken prisoner. On the other hand, less than 10% of the German soldiers taken prisoner at Stalingrad ever returned home. Germany should have had a “take no prisoners” mentality. The Allies conveniently discarded the POW status to circumvent the Geneva Convention, instead labeling German soldiers “disarmed enemy combatants.”
        The V1 and V2 attacks killed a comparatively small number of people: a few thousand over the course of the war. By contrast, Allied air raids killed by some estimates 400,000 German civilians in Dresden in a single air raid.

        1. Revisionism is not a good thing.
          Yeah, Germany was just sitting there, having their Oktoberfests, when Britain and France invaded. Seriously?
          That the USSR also invaded Poland does not nullify treaties. I do wonder at helping the USSR, mind you, but that doesn’t mean that Germany was some innocent just minding its own business. It invaded a nation, Britain and France did not.
          Dunkirk was in fact an act of compassion (and frankly, amazing logisitcal movements by the Allies), no doubt.
          German POW’s were well provided for and taken care of when not in Soviet hands. Many who were docked here in the States actually chose to stay, most did not, but all were well treated.
          The V1 and V2 attacks were what they were, indiscriminate attacks that had no way of being justifiable as “military only”, they were literally random bombings that killed civilians without remorse.
          Dresden was a city of a nation we were at war with. Sucks that it had to get bombed like that, but it is war, that’s what you fucking do in war, you bomb shit and destroy things until the enemy is either totally destroyed or surrenders. That’s just how it goes.
          Back in the olden days they’d simply have continued destroying anything, then taken the families left behind as slaves or simply killed them. That’s war.

        2. That’s exactly my point: Germany was America’s real (not alleged) enemy. America did everything to destroy it.
          On the other hand, claims that America was at war with Communism or (now) Islamic terrorism do not hold up on inspection.
          Even today, politicians speak of China being our economic or ideological competitor yet we educate hundreds of thousands of Chinese students at our universities each year.
          America claims to be concerned and to punish those found guilty of stealing state secrets and passing them along to China or Israel when in reality every major research lab (academic or industrial), the intellectual property offices of every university, the patent office itself is staffed with foreign nationals.

        3. Right. Like I said, I actually agreed with your initial post, except for the victimhood-for-nazis thing, which I do not cotton to.

        4. you got it all totally wrong about POWs. funny you don’t mention how many of the Soviet POWs returned home. neither Germany not Soviet Union adhered to the Geneva Convention when treating each other’s POWs. however, Germany and the Western Allies fully adhered to Geneva with regards to their respective POWs. very few of them died in captivity.

        5. Germany was a signatory to the Geneva Convention, the USSR was not. The Germans honored the Geneva Convention for their opponents that also abided by it. The Germans tried multiple times to get the Soviets to come to an agreement on treatment of POWs– Stalin refused, so the Germans treated Soviet POWs the same way that German POWs were treated by the Soviets.

        6. Danzig was >95% ethnic German, and Poland, backed up by the British and French refused to talk about any change in its status, and the Poles had begun massacring ethnic Germans– a reasonable cause for action.
          Glad to see that you admit that the failure of Britain and France to declare war on the USSR (which also invaded Poland) makes any ethical grounds for their stance nonsensical.
          “German POW’s were well provided for and taken care of when not in Soviet hands.” Allied prisoners were well provided for and taken care of when in German hands. Unfortunately, once the war ended, and Allied POWs had been recovered, the former statement no longer applie, and up to a million German POWs, now classified as “Disarmed Enemy Forces,” were killed by starvation, exposure, disease, and neglect. Read “Other Losses.”
          Dunkirk was a logistical accomplishment, but one that never could have taken place without Hitler holding up the Panzers to allow it.
          “Dresden was a city of a nation we were at war with.” It was also a city that had no legitimate military targets, hundreds of thousands of refugees, and quite a few Allied POWs. Read what Churchill had to say at the time. It was targeted to kill civilian refugees. There was no strategic purpose.
          The V1 and V2 attacks were retaliatory. The Allies were doing the same thing, but on a far larger scale.
          When you say the “olden days,” presumably you are referring to the days of Genghis Khan? Or the Huns? Because the European tradition of war prior to WW2 had not involved deliberately destroying whole cities with their civilian populations.
          Also, hundreds of thousands of deaths on both sides in the final year of the war can be attributed to the insane demand for unconditional surrender, coupled with the Morgenthau Plan to kill millions of Germans once the war was over.

        7. You don’t realize the depth of the propaganda in which you’ve been steeped for all of your life.

        8. yep that’s what i said.
          the issue of who of them exactly refused and when is kinda murky. Stalin eventually did offer Germans on July 17, 1941 to treat POWs according to international law on mutual basis – which Germany answered with a protest note – but there’s much more to this entire situation. I believe that Stalin was a much bigger evil here as he considered his own POWs as traitors and cowards who didn’t deserve to live anyway.
          remove kebab though!

      2. You still believe the standard narrative.
        Google “Lindemann Plan.” Look at the postwar assessments of the efficacy of terror bombing.
        1. The Allied bombing was aimed at working class housing, and intended to kill civilians and destroy housing.
        2. Assessment after the war showed that that it was ineffective at degrading warfighting capacity, but effective in killing civilians (which seems to have been its primary intent, if you look at the (((Lindemann))) Plan and how firebombing was tested for efficacy solely on mockups of typical housing, not industrial/ military targets).
        3. Prior to WW2, one of the main “war crimes” that the Japanese in China were cited for by Western powers was– bombing civilians. No mention of this was made in the “war crimes” show trials after the war, either in Nuremberg or in Japan, apparently because that would have been a little too much hypocrisy.
        4. German bombing was retaliatory– there’s no question that Churchill was the first to order deliberate attacks on civilian targets. The Germans did not target cities until a couple of months later.
        5. The British and French declared war on Germany, not the other way around.
        6. Just for comparison purposes, British casualties from German bombing were about the same number as French civilian casualties from Allied bombing in the preparation for D-Day.

    2. Australian Navy’s on the lookout for Roosh! Has Roosh raised a hurdle to mass migration into Australia?

    3. Bingo. The USSR received large amounts of technical aid from the US and other Western countries throughout the Cold War. The vehicles supplied by Russia to the North Koreans in the Korean War, to North Vietnam in the Vietnam War, and used by the Russians in the invasion of Afghanistan, were built in the the A. J. Brandt-ZIL Plant, the The Ford Gorki Plant, and the Kama truck plant. All of these factories were built with technical assistance and machinery from US companies, with US government approval. American taxpayers underwrote Kama financing through the Export-Import Bank, at a time when the USSR was busy supplying the vast majority of North Vietnam’s military needs, and US troops were fighting against them– WTF?
      Another interesting point is that, near the end of US involvement in Vietnam, when the North Vietnamese were getting stubborn about negotiating terms, Nixon got pissed off, and ordered that Haiphong harbor be mined. This took one sortie (with a few A-6s, I believe), a couple of hours, no casualties. Haiphong was the only good deep water port in North Vietnam, so mining it stopped Russian supplies to North Vietnam cold– ships were stacked up offshore until we recovered the mines when negotiations ended. Some supplies were still getting across the Chinese border by rail, but the advanced military equipment going to North Vietnam was all from the Soviets by ship.
      This brings up the obvious question: why the f**k didn’t we do that 10 years earlier, rather than focus almost solely on sending infantrymen chasing through the jungle, wasting so many lives and so much money? I’ve never seen a good answer to that.
      Anyway, if you haven’t read any of them already, and want to see some more detail that makes the Cold War look like a scam, Antony C. Sutton’s books are pretty good:
      “The Best Enemy Money Can Buy”
      “Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development
      “National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union”
      Joseph Finder’s “Red Carpet” is good, too (out of print due to a lawsuit by Armand Hammer, but used copies are out there).
      Armand Hammer and David Rockefeller seem to be rather significant figures when the Cold War is viewed from this angle.
      ISIS, of course, is backed by Turkey, Israel, and the US (in addition to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states). The “moderate rebels” are a scam.

  21. Unless you deal with the elephant in the room: the US’s long-standing alliance with Saudi Arabia, your conclusions will be wrong.

  22. America needs to close its borders and let the rest of the world deal with all the problems they have created. And I am talking real closed borders, not just a strict immigration policy. We have all the natural resources, knowledge, technology, infrastructure, and national defense with the borders of our 50 states to be self sufficient at least for the next 100 years. Other then we get cheap consumer goods and cheap labor from third world cess pools run by tin pot dictators there is little advantage to us continuing with our current interventionist policy. Maybe there was cause to intervene in the past, but that does not and should not dictate future foreign policy. Isolationism is the policy for the 21st century.

    1. “America needs to close its borders and let the rest of the world deal with all the problems they have created”
      Did you not read the bit about neo-cons?

  23. neocons make my skin crawl. Not as much as hard core leftist, but, they’re up there. After all, we are a leftist country right now. Hopefully its just our time to experience or experiment with socialism. At any rate, neocons are these twisted hawks that cheer “USA” “USA”, and unconditionally believe in american exceptionalism, even when we’re in a period, as mentioned before, where we are embracing and ideology and culture that is opposite of exceptional. Yet, these asshats want to go assfucking around the world dropping bombs and mowing down motherfuckers with everything from 5.56 to 30 mm depleted uranium rounds. All in the name of what, eh? Freedom, democracy? Yeah, try bruce jenner, homosexuality, feminism and tyranny. What a weird world. Yesterday Russia was the dark force in the world, today they are the light and america is the darkness.

  24. There is nothing “conservative” about NeoCons. They are (mostly) Jewish Trotskyists who managed to fool the American public for a long time by adding “conservative” to their name.

  25. This is an interesting analysis. However, how does this Neocon vision reconcile with the even more liberalist, individualist, consumerist hellhole which is American (and western) society today? Did the Neocons lose control of the reins after the horse bolted, or is it part of some clever end game?

  26. I don’t have time to finish reading the article but I will come back to it later. I did want to comment quickly though. There is a fine line between looking at these issues from a “rational” “reasonable” standpoint and promoting propaganda whether coincidently or purposefully.
    These Neoconservatives do have marxist links and I don’t think it was some rosy picture as described here of the elites trying to help America but it backfired. Maybe the low level minions thought it was a good strategy but my opinion is that at the uppermost levels there is nothing but malicious intent for America.

  27. “This, and other types of CIA-influenced torture had a radicalizing influence on Qutb.”
    Another crackpot article. Qutb was a “good Muslim” in that he hated infidels. Neither the CIA nor the Jooooooo Strauss, can blamed.
    I barely remained when Roosh spoke of being a Muslim when he was being threatened. I figured it was just talk. I didn’t pull the plug after ridiculous homophobia, even though icons of the Men’s Movement rejected this decades ago. But now we have flirtations with anti-Semitism and manifest anti-Americanism on a site whose biggy is a self-professed Muslim. This site also pushes the absurdity of monarchy.
    Buh-bye.

    1. Where was the anti Semitism in the article? Neocons are not all Jewish by any means. In fact the most prominent have been gentile. They do on the other hand bear a huge burden of responsibility (I would prefer the term ‘ guilt’ actually) for involving the world in aggressive foreign wars that have done nothing to stamp out terrorism. Combating anti Semitism should be about safeguarding ordinary Jews going about their daily lives not protecting warmongering elites who might as well be using the former as human shields

  28. The Soviets were one thing but, I just don’t go around being all that concerned about OMG!TERRORISM! Over the last few years I have grown to dislike the term “keeping us safe”. Keeping us safe seems to be an excuse for most anything also the phrase ” if we could save ONE life it would be worth it”. It seems that the government “keeping us safe” is more of a hindrance than a help.
    Shit happens, even the omnipotent Feds can’t prevent everything and it’s not logical to think it’s possible.
    A bunch of desert dwelling goat humpers thousands of miles away aren’t going to bring America down.

  29. This is easily one of the most important articles Return of Kings has ever published. Though depressing, the way Furioso weaves the two accounts together in a manner akin to assembling a puzzle is fascinating.
    Far more terrifying than the Islam side of the coin, however, are the neocons. The fact that these madmen have come to power in America is bloodcurdling.

  30. Again, great article, but the author should point out that neoconservatives have a higher percentage of (((them))) in their ranks.

  31. This is a rather intersting piece. First you have western society creating islamists and neoconservatives. I have to disagree with the individualism aspect and redirect it to a more appropriate relativism. The idea of no established truth which enables moral decay in society by enabling people to declare anything as a good so long as it benefits them or advances their ideology. Then it gets kind of weird by providing a seemingly apologetic view of the islamists as victims of this western moral decay while simultaneously demonizing neoconservatives for attempting to do the same thing as the islamists in reforming society.
    There is an element of the fear tactics presented to the public but the Soviet Union was a real threat. I know an ex CIA agent who actually took his child out of school one day in the 80’s because of an immediate threat of nuclear attack on Washington D.C. Just as that threat was real so is the threat of islamic terrorism. Look at the world, the daily bombings and killings and attacks. They are mainly isolated to the Middle East and Europe right now. But that’s not the real threat of islam right now. The real threat is the moderates raised up by western governments as an ideal example. Moderates who say wonderful peaceful things but then call sharia law an inseparable part of islam and the punishments it lists as valid and necessary for the flourishing of society. Moderates who call the conquest of Spain a liberation of the people from oppressive rulers and freeing them through imposing islam.
    I’m still unsure of the point of this piece, maybe part II will bring it out but for right now it seems to be a hit piece on neoconservatives. It’s also odd that it is bringout out lots of anti-semetism in the comments.

  32. Eh. That bit about the CIA teaching Egyptians to torture, it is to laugh! The Egyptians were torturing people when Athens was just a hut occupied by a dude named Og. And that part about the religious right. Isn’t there another religion that might have more of an influence here, one that claims roots in the Middle East? Here’s my favorite political joke, see if you can figure out its relevance to this situation: Wernher Von Braun – he aimed for the moon but only managed to hit London. It was never about saving the world, it was about saving Israel. And the Republicans went along with it because they need foreign enemies since they are paralyzed by the politics of race back home. Paralyzed by race back home = collaboration in genocide against whites who happen to make up the overwhelming majority of their constituents. Both the party leadership and those constituents were grateful not to have to face reality. The Republicans spit on evangelicals.
    Even the anti-Soviet agenda of early neos had a Jewish agenda: they wanted more Jews to be released from the Soviet Union.
    The religious rights blind support for Israel isn’t theology, it’s a product of the racist hammering, led by Jews, they’ve received over the past half-century. The sects that have gotten the most shit kicked out them by the left, groups like the Southern Baptists, are the most fervent in this support. It’s telling that non-white Christians don’t share in this fervor, because again, it ain’t about theology.

  33. Neoconservatism is a dreadful ideology because it’s not true conservatism at all. Neoconservatism is about Big State, endless war and an assault on individual liberty. It is more akin to Marxism and is an absolute affront to true conservatism.

  34. Fantastic article. I studied Russian history a little, and after that I could never really fathom why we were so ‘scared’ of them as a potential threat in terms of invading the homeland as it were. Well unless of course, we need an enemy merely so we can continue as a nation. In that case we are rome and they are the goths ca. 380-400 ad. This does fall withing the view of watching the world burn.

  35. Some interesting historical tidbits there, but the bottom line is:
    1. Writing a lengthy article about (((neoconservatism))) without mentioning the word “Jew” or the word “Trotsky” even once = fail.
    2. The author, whether deliberately, or through naivete, seems to devote a lot of time to the various surface narratives offered by the neocons, without seeming to understand that these are mere rationalizations that serve to designate a convenient external enemy, which in turn serves as an excuse to justify the actions that they want to take for other reasons.
    Example: want to use US military power to attack multiple countries in the Middle East that present potential threats to Greater Israel, while at the same time restricting civil liberties and increasing domestic surveillance in the US? Sounds like you need a terrorist threat; perhaps even a “New Pearl Harbor” (phrase used by the neocons in 2000, conveniently followed shortly thereafter by 911), then a “War on Terror” and a “Patriot Act.” (Google “PNAC” or “A Clean Break”)
    3. The purpose of neoconservatism is to use US military power to fight for Greater Israel and the interests of the (((global financial system))). Any supposed philosophical basis for this is mere rationalization– taking it at face value will only confuse and mislead the reader (by design).
    4. To emphasize #3– Jews are like women: don’t listen to what they say; look at what they do. Neocons are Jewish “liberals” (actually the first neo”conservatives” were almost all Trotskyite Communists) who were worried that they couldn’t count on the Democrats to be aggressive enough in fighting wars for Israel, so they co-opted Republican conservatism.
    Ron Paul on neocons– avoids the JQ, but otherwise a good short summary:
    youtube.com/watch?v=rp5_nvqeQ_U

  36. Neo”conservatives” are not at all conservative at all when it comes to leftist social causes– they’re perfectly happy spreading the poz when it comes to homosexuality/ feminism/ trannies/ etc., as long as they get their wars for Israel. They tend to be very supportive of open borders as well.
    The neocon philosophy can be described in part as “Invade the world; invite the world.” Perpetual wars provide the opportunity to bring in millions of “refugees,” while those “refugees” result in terrorist attacks, which provide an excuse for more wars… Rinse, repeat.
    The antidote to this is the America First stance. We go to war only when our vital national interests are threatened, not for the interests of Greater Israel, or to “promote democracy” (a sham, whose real meaning is “we’re not going to tell you why.”
    Don’t bomb ’em over there; don’t bring ’em over here.

  37. Ron Paul on the basic tenets of the neoconservative political philosophy (he addresses the problem solely from the standpoint of American interests, without mentioning the Overseas Israelis and their hyper-ethnocentrism at all, but it’s otherwise a good overview):
    They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
    They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
    They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
    They accept the notion that the ends justify the means – that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
    They express no opposition to the welfare state.
    They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
    They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
    They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
    They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
    They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
    They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
    They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
    Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
    9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
    They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists).
    They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
    They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/ron-paul/neo-conned/

    1. Baruch and Moshe want you to work 20 shekels a day and vote every 5 years to raise taxes. Why you no happy? Arhhhhhhhhh.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *