Western Neo-Liberalism, Globalism, Corporatism, And NeoTrotskyism - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

This thread will be an ongoing project of mine discussing western neo-liberalism, globalism (economically, socially, and politically), corporatism, and the influence by Neo-Trotskyists.

Here is an article by people who are better writers and more concise than I am as an introduction to what I am trying to discuss here.

Now, of course, there have been countless works written on this complex and often enigmatic world system – some good, some bad. Without a doubt, all of the more competent works highlight the incontrovertible fact that the world system commonly known as “Globalization” is actually Atlanticist in origin, which is to say Anglo-Saxon, and it is championed and promoted most viciously by the United States via its primary political-economic-cultural nerve centers (i.e. the Pentagon, Wall Street and Hollywood).

Needless to say, it is not too often that the fundamental roots of this hellish monster are either explored or revealed by even the best or most famous writers. In many cases, the so-called “conspiracy” authors (or those labeled “conspiracists” by the mainstream media) do a much better job of exposing the Globalist golem for what it actually is: a leftover and yet greatly strengthened form of Trotskyite Internationalism, or more specifically: Finance Capitalist Trotskyism. In other words, Globalization is best defined as a postmodern/post-industrial phenomenon which is: economically Financialist, culturally Capitalist, and politically/socially Trotskyite. These three highlighted words represent the unholy trinity of Globalization.

To understand the historical roots of Globalization, its component parts and its goals, one must first go back to the height of the Cold War and inquire as to what ideological values were in dispute between the United States and the Soviet Union. This is to say, one must first understand the deepest spiritual impetuses for the geopolitical tensions that existed during the “hottest” years of the USA – USSR rivalry. And so, the following question must be posed:
What primary ideological values of Marxism were openly opposed by the United States?

Answer: materialism, anti-traditionalism, ethno-socio-cultural mass-leveling, gender equality, internationalism (the eradication of national borders), and anti-classism (socialism).

It is more than ironic that out of all of the principles of orthodox Marxism cited above, only the last (anti-classism) was prevented from taking root in American society. In all other respects, the United States and its NATO vassals were far more successful than the Soviet bloc countries in implementing these anti-traditional goals – and long before the Cold War had officially ended.

Indeed, all throughout the twentieth century the U.S. government poured vast amounts of money into the radical mass-leveling of American society – a fact that has become increasingly obvious since the famous counter-cultural upheavals of the late 1960s. What resulted was a profoundly liberal American worldview (accepted by Democrats and Republicans alike) which actually stood firmly against the professed “human rights” which were claimed to be upheld by the most radical voices of the counter culture. There developed a great paradox of ethnic and gender “equality” which only highlighted the multidimensional problems affecting the innately hypocritical American society – a society which is indeed multicultural and multiracial, yet which was also founded on the genocide, slavery and oppression of the same groups it now provides with a paternalistic “pat on the back.” And so, as the Trotskyite/Neocon Nathan Glazer proudly boasted in the title of his 1998 book: we are all Multiculturalists now.

Whether Democrat, Republican or so-called “Independent” – all of the American political elites have accepted the socio-political dimensions of the international communist ideology or what can be termed mass-leveling or mass-hyper-egalitarianism, i.e. Trotskyism. Under this perverse liberal Trotskyite ideology, every denizen of the planet possesses the same rights so long as the dogma of liberalism (or hyper-individualism) is never brought into question. For those who are card-carrying members of this stealthy totalitarian creed, all the earth’s people are “created equal” in the purest sense of the term – meaning, in the eyes of liberals all human beings are cut from the same American mold, they are all considered equally worthless as atomized pieces of consumerist cannon fodder who must readily serve the liberal Atlanticist elites. They must jump when the commissars in Washington and New York tell them to jump, they must go to war when the commissars in London and Brussels tell them to go to war, they must die when the commissars in Hollywood tell them it is “heroic” or culturally acceptable to do so. This is Globalization. This is Death.

If one should visibly rebel against the liberal worldview at any time, what follows is his or her branding as a “racist,” even though liberalism has fomented more ethnic and cultural chauvinism than any other creed known to man. Nevertheless, the heretic crusaders against liberalism will undoubtedly be called “racists.” Public censuring and total social alienation – loss of friends, livelihood and even one’s own family – inevitably come next. This is Trotskyism plain and simple. This is the legacy of Trotsky’s liberal Left Opposition. In fact it was Trotsky himself who first coined the term “racist” in 1927. Needless to say, Cultural Marxism or so-called “political correctness” falls clearly within the schema of Trotskyism. For those who are not familiar with Leon Trotsky and his connection to liberal Globalization, I will provide a concise historical background.

Leon Trotsky (1879-1940) was the chief proponent of International Socialism/Communism in the USSR – he represented the anti-Leninist interests of the so-called Left Opposition, or more precisely: the liberal internationalist communists. What can only be described as the “National Bolshevik” tendency (or centrist position) of the Bolshevik Party was championed by Joseph Stalin who happened also to be the originator and proud exponent of the “Socialism in One Country” doctrine, not to mention the rightful political heir to Lenin.

In February of 1929 Stalin effectively banished Trotsky from the Soviet Union on account of his subversive liberal-internationalist propaganda which, if taken seriously, would have destroyed the Soviet Union at the most critical period of its development after the great human tragedies of the First World War (1914-17) and the subsequent Russian Civil War (1917-1922). What the Soviet people needed more than ever during this period (in the absence of Lenin who died in 1924) was a strong man in the Kremlin who represented the great bulk of the Russian and Soviet masses. They needed a great man of steel who represented the humble class origins of the peasantry and yet also embodied the combined supra-national aspirations of the people. The man the Soviet people needed was Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili: Stalin.

Certainly, volumes can be written on the subject of the Stalin-Trotsky rivalry, however the main reason for the dispute and Trotsky’s eventual exile (along with the famous trials against the Left and Right Opposition members) can be summed up thus: Stalin was a National Bolshevik (not ideologically but in his deeds) – he restored greatness not only to the Russian folk, but to all the other Eurasian ethnic groups who comprised the former Tsarist and then Soviet peoples. Stalin brought back order, hierarchy, patriarchy, religious tolerance, national patriotism, civic pride, as well as a renewed interest in the arts and sciences. Most importantly, all of these achievements were accomplished within a national or supra-national context; i.e. they were accomplished for the Soviet people and the Soviet people alone. The liberal-internationalist Trotskyites, on the other hand, spoke in terms of a world revolution. They promoted the view that nations and cultures do not exist – that an inorganic world community of workers must have the unique Soviet experiment foisted upon them mercilessly for the sake of internationalism. Does any of this sound familiar to the reader? If not, perhaps I should replace the word “internationalism” with “globalization.”

At any rate, the Stalin-Trotsky feud is absolutely crucial if one is to understand the ideological mechanics (if not the roots) of postmodern Globalization. It is also important to recall Stalin’s chief accusation against the Trotskyites: that they were the paid agents of international capitalism. The validity of Stalin’s claim is glaringly clear if one conducts the proper research, particularly the well-documented collusion between Monopoly Capitalism, the Federal Reserve Bank and Leon Trotsky – three of the foremost pawns of the Atlanticist-American elites.

For example, it is a fact of history that Leon Trotsky (real name: Lev Bronshtein) was admitted into the United States during World War I, and welcomed with open arms by his fellow radical internationalists in New York City. Yet far from living the meager lifestyle of a “comrade worker,” Trotsky lived an extravagant lifestyle, owning one of the city’s first refrigerators and frequently being chauffeured around in a limousine. Even more disconcerting, President Woodrow Wilson provided Trotsky with a passport to return to Russia to advance the cause of international revolution. This is not at all surprising when considering the fact that Wilson had one of the most liberal administrations in U.S. history. Some of Wilson’s most influential and trusted advisors were: Paul Warburg, Henry Morgenthau, Louis Brandeis, Bernard Baruch, and Stephen Wise (just to name a few). These same folks were instrumental in the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank.

Other names which directly funded Trotsky’s cause include: William Boyce Thompson – director of the Federal Reserve Bank and a large stockholder in the Rockefeller/Rothschild-controlled Chase Bank; Thompson donated 1 million dollars to Trotsky for propaganda purposes. Eugene Boissevain – a prominent New York banker connected to the Guaranty Trust Company. Alexander Gumberg – a Wall Street businessman who also had connections to Chase Bank. All in all, most of the pro-Trotskyite support originated from one single address: 120 Broadway, New York City.

When one investigates the matter thoroughly, one thing becomes perfectly clear: the so-called “red menace” turns out to be much more of a green menace, due to the vast amount of U.S. greenbacks which funded the cause of Trotsky’s failed International Revolution. A sufficient primer for those who might be new to the subject would be: Antony C. Sutton’s Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. While not an entirely accurate work, it does highlight the early twentieth century roots of Globalization quite convincingly, along with Sutton’s other works such as Wall Street & FDR, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, and The Federal Reserve Conspiracy.

And so, a clear picture emerges from a rigorous investigation of the facts: Big Business, the Federal Reserve Bank, and Leon Trotsky – all firmly under the control of the Atlanticist elites – worked in collusion to bring about an international communist regime inside Russia with two ultimately liberal goals: (1) the neutralization of all business competition that could pose a threat to the monopolistic hegemony of the United States and Britain, and (2) the promotion of a radical social world agenda. Needless to say, there is a plenitude of corroborating evidence behind the latter point, as it has always been the richest members of the economic and political classes (the robber barons and their political capos – the “bosses”) who have supported the most outlandish forms of social experimentation. Typically, the more outrageous the cause, the more funding it received. Thus, the ideology of International Communism may well have been born in 1848 – the year Marx published his famous work. But as a viable political force International Communism was created and bankrolled in the midst of World War I by the wealthiest one-percent of the banking class, their political lackeys and the radical agitator “hitmen” of Trotskyism.

By the 1930s, mass droves of the latter group – the radical agitator Trotskyites – immigrated to the United States where they were welcomed with open arms by the Roosevelt administration. Immediately the disciples of Bronshtein burrowed like plague-bearing rats into positions of power within the Democratic Party. Many – like Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Nathan Glazer, Daniel Bell, and Irving Howe – found the Republican Party to be just as easy to infiltrate, yet under the guise of “Neoconservatism.” In time, the GOP was successfully commandeered by the sons of these “former” card-carrying Trotskyites – by second generation Neocons like William Kristol, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Podhoretz, et al. This second generation would go on to form the backbone of the Neoconservative Movement of the 1990s and 2000s – a rabid group of liberal free-market radicals whose political trademark can be found in virtually every one of their works and speeches through the recurrent use of the word “Globalization.” This conspicuous trademark of theirs is simply another way of saying “Internationalism.”

The Finance Capitalist world system created by the abovementioned second-generation Trotskyites is the same one that emerged victorious from the Cold War. It currently poses the greatest existential threat to every living person on this planet simply because it is depriving entire nations, peoples, and cultures of their inherent right to pursue their own traditional and unique ways of life independent of American control. This is unipolar Globalization in the proverbial “nutshell.” It is an attack on true autonomy – since true autonomy can only exist within a multipolar context – and thus it is an affront to the collective dignity of all mankind.

Globalization must therefore be destroyed by any means possible. And when the usurious banking industry and the power of stock companies and the U.S. military industrial complex – which provides the armed muscle for the first two – are all finally destroyed, the Atlanticist cobra will no longer have any venom in his fangs. (And what threat is a cobra if it is deprived of its only means of attack?)

Finance Capitalist Trotskyism (i.e. Globalization) is the venom that is currently poisoning the world. It is being employed by whites and non-whites alike, by Christians and non-Christians, Jews and non-Jews, left-wing and right-wing; by members of every race, confession and political creed on the planet – but all for the benefit of one select group: the wealthiest one-percent of the liberal Atlanticist power elites. To put it another way: for the benefit of the Anti-Christs.

And so, to conclude, it could rightly be said that the Cold War was eventually won neither by Capitalism (Thesis) nor Communism (Antithesis), but by Finance Capitalist Trotskyites – the deceptive International Synthesis of the two. The Neo-Eurasianist worldview is therefore vehemently opposed to the diabolical synthesis – the unholy union – of both systems, i.e. the Atlanticist/Anglo-American extortionist racket which currently runs the world under the guise of “Globalization.” And peace-loving people all over the world ought to be against this racket too!

http://katehon.com/1306-globalization-o ... kyism.html
This is virtually all horseshit.

First and foremost, the whole liberal, "neo-Trotskyist" project they're describing is essentially what the Communist Manifesto lays out in chapter 1:

Marx and Engels wrote:The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.

The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

They go on. But this is the same conspiracy that this article proposes, in the main, but through a complicated set relations with no verification, now instead of a Marxist explaining what capitalism did to the world, it's a Marxist who corrupted capitalism from a century before he was born somehow.

Further, calling Trotsky anti-Leninist is an odd slur, in light of Lenin's Last Will and Testiment if nothing else; as is saying Stalin invented SIOC, something he himself would deny (always maintaining he was copying and pasting Lenin), and something we can probably pin on Bukharin so far as any theoretic work goes. In doing this, I'll point out, the author seems to be taking pains to separate the Jews from everyone else in Russia.

But this is common in the conspiracy theory of secret Trotskyism.

Max Shactman, Philip Selznick, Irving Kristol are really the only ones ever cited as being neo-concervative Trotskyists.

Further, they're not great Neo-Conservatives. Max Schactman was never anything but a hard leftist. He broke with Trotsky by going further to the left than Trotsky to a group Trotsky called, "ultraleft circles of petty-bourgeois intelligentsia." That is to say, where Trotsky advocated unconditional support for the Soviet Union, "ultraleft," individuals did not find it worth saving in WWII, especially after the Soviet-Nazi pact.

So, according to the prominent theory that neoconservatives are Trotskyists, Schactman moved to a more utopian left than Trotsky himself and somehow became a conservative by his endorsement of the New Left and the civil rights movement (darlings of conservatives at they time!) before he died. Though it is true some of Schactman's followers did go onto become neo-conservatives. But this is pretty weak tea to say that some students of Schactman (though never Schactman himself) later became neo-conservatives, thus neo-conservatives are tied to Trotsky in anyway whatsoever.

Philip Selznick has a slightly better claim to neo-conservatism, but a far worse claim to Trotsky. He was part of the Young People's Socialist League for only three year. He recounted it as mostly an, "intense intellectual experience." One thing he took from it that he carried away from it was the concept of bureaucracy being a bad thing (Trotsky took this from Lenin). Here the link wasn't far from anyone that opposed bureaucracy. When Shactman and his people broke with Trotsky, Selznick demanded, "the rejection of Bolshevism and of Leninism."

This is a little better match to conservatism in that much later Tea-Baggers and them would argue that the free-market somehow was the opposite of bureaucracy, but as I hope to show why this itself isn't the best connection either.

Kristol is a better conservative, but a worse Trotskyist than the others. He was attracted to a group of Schactmanites largely for their anti-soviet feeling. This, of course, already separated him far from Trotsky and even pretty far from Max Shactman who was an ultra leftist in his rejection of the Soviet Union, while Kristol was pretty much just against the Soviet Union. He was deeply against the civil rights movement and New Left (separating him from Schactman even further) but for the New Deal and government expansion into certain areas (separating him from Selznick). When allying with Harringtonists for the expansion of New Deal-like programs, Michael Harrington described what he thought was a slur against Kristol as a, "neo-conservative." Kristol picked it up and ran with the idea of a conservative expansion of government and whatnot, based on Reaganomics and the expansion of capitalism.

Alright, so these are the three that are always brought up as the Trotskyists turned Neo-Conservatives. One of them was a Trotskyist for a bit, one was actually a neo-conservitive. They all would violently disagree with each other. So what do they all have in common?

They're Jews. And that's all that really matters, because this theory that neo-conservatism is a Trotskyist thing comes from state-rights Republicans that have a Confederate bend and don't like the big bad Union, something neo-conservatives are more willing to accept. Other things they don't like are big cities and Jews. Since the Civil Rights Movement was accepted in the US, these kinds of Conservatives had to back off and put things into a more libertarian rhetoric. Note this is not saying all libertarians believe this, but that these kinds of Conservatives put their traditional platform into libertarian forms:

Lee Atwater wrote:You start out in 1954 by saying, "N*****, N*****, N*****." By 1968 you can't say "N*****" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N*****, N*****."

So by 1980 you have the Southern Strategy marries these rather racist former Dixiecrats and social conservatives with Eisenhower "establishment" Republicans. It really only works for Nixon and Reagan, falling apart when an Establishment Republican like Bush (the first) comes into office and alienates the former Dixiecrats. They compromise on Bush II later, but things are already falling apart by that point in the party.

Enter Pat Buchanan, who gives the opening salvo in the Republican civil war that continues today. He lists the charges leveled against him for his anti-semitism, though tellingly alludes to Jews not being able to be completely dependable Americans because of their ethnicity (he is too shrewd to come out and say this directly of course):

Pat Buchanan wrote:The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: “Can you assure American viewers … that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?”

Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group. People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of the world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in the schoolyard of politics. Not so.

Former Wall Street Journal editor Max Boot kicked off the campaign. When these “Buchananites toss around ‘neoconservative’—and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen—it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is ‘Jewish conservative.’” Yet Boot readily concedes that a passionate attachment to Israel is a “key tenet of neoconservatism.” He also claims that the National Security Strategy of President Bush “sounds as if it could have come straight out from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible.” (For the uninitiated, Commentary, the bible in which Boot seeks divine guidance, is the monthly of the American Jewish Committee.)

David Brooks of the Weekly Standard wails that attacks based on the Israel tie have put him through personal hell: “Now I get a steady stream of anti-Semitic screeds in my e-mail, my voicemail and in my mailbox. … Anti-Semitism is alive and thriving. It’s just that its epicenter is no longer on the Buchananite Right, but on the peace-movement left.”

Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan endures his own purgatory abroad: “In London … one finds Britain’s finest minds propounding, in sophisticated language and melodious Oxbridge accents, the conspiracy theories of Pat Buchanan concerning the ‘neoconservative’ (read: Jewish) hijacking of American foreign policy.”

Lawrence Kaplan of the New Republic charges that our little magazine “has been transformed into a forum for those who contend that President Bush has become a client of … Ariel Sharon and the ‘neoconservative war party.’”

Referencing Charles Lindbergh, he accuses Paul Schroeder, Chris Matthews, Robert Novak, Georgie Anne Geyer, Jason Vest of the Nation, and Gary Hart of implying that “members of the Bush team have been doing Israel’s bidding and, by extension, exhibiting ‘dual loyalties.’” Kaplan thunders:

The real problem with such claims is not just that they are untrue. The problem is that they are toxic. Invoking the specter of dual loyalty to mute criticism and debate amounts to more than the everyday pollution of public discourse. It is the nullification of public discourse, for how can one refute accusations grounded in ethnicity? The charges are, ipso facto, impossible to disprove. And so they are meant to be.

He goes on to define his enemies:

Ibid wrote:Who are the neoconservatives? The first generation were ex-liberals, socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatism’s long march to power with Ronald Reagan in 1980.

A neoconservative, wrote Kevin Phillips back then, is more likely to be a magazine editor than a bricklayer. Today, he or she is more likely to be a resident scholar at a public policy institute such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) or one of its clones like the Center for Security Policy or the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). As one wag writes, a neocon is more familiar with the inside of a think tank than an Abrams tank.

Almost none came out of the business world or military, and few if any came out of the Goldwater campaign. The heroes they invoke are Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, Martin Luther King, and Democratic Senators Henry “Scoop” Jackson (Wash.) and Pat Moynihan (N.Y.).

All are interventionists who regard Stakhanovite support of Israel as a defining characteristic of their breed. Among their luminaries are Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Michael Novak, and James Q. Wilson.

Their publications include the Weekly Standard, Commentary, the New Republic, National Review, and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Though few in number, they wield disproportionate power through control of the conservative foundations and magazines, through their syndicated columns, and by attaching themselves to men of power.

...For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam?

Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.

Indeed, Sharon has been everywhere the echo of his acolytes in America...What these neoconservatives seek is to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel. They want the peace of the sword imposed on Islam and American soldiers to die if necessary to impose it.

And then goes onto basically give his version of the summary that I gave before I started quoting his article:

Ibid wrote:The radical Zionist right to which Perle and Feith belong is small in number but it has become a significant force in Republican policy-making circles. It is a recent phenomenon, dating back to the late 1970s and 1980s, when many formerly Democratic Jewish intellectuals joined the broad Reagan coalition. While many of these hawks speak in public about global crusades for democracy, the chief concern of many such “neo-conservatives” is the power and reputation of Israel.

Right down the smokestack.

Perle today chairs the Defense Policy Board, Feith is an Undersecretary of Defense, and Wurmser is special assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, John Bolton, who dutifully echoes the Perle-Sharon line. According to the Israeli daily newspaper Ha’aretz, in late February,

So they come to blows and all this history comes back as the Dixiecrats and Establishment begin to fight.

Just to be fair, this isn't just a hardcore right movement. One of Clinton's advisors (himself Jewish) was pretty happy to use this kind of rhetoric to connect Neo-Conservatism to a Jewish conspiracy:

[url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Cbl7YugSoSMC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=Sidney+Blumenthal+“in+the+disputatious+heritage+of+the+Talmud.”&source=bl&ots=oWCByb5pte&sig=kTluUhr9NAjbwYgU8ifdvlg64wo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=frmIU4fIM4rvoASguICgCA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Sidney%20Blumenthal%20“in%20the%20disputatious%20heritage%20of%20the%20Talmud.”&f=false]Sidney Blumenthal[/url] wrote:As a generation of prospective intellectuals in the 1930s, they came to Marxism already steeped in the disputatious heritage of the Talmud. In the alcoves of the City College of New York, they learned the political value of universal principles, the dynamic movement of history, and the crucial role of the vanguard. Even within the left-wing movement, the future neoconservatives occupied a special place of alienation. Most were Trotskyists, followers of Leon Trotsky...

And what better fountainhead for the Jew conspiracy than Leon Trotsky? You'll note that Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and all sorts of other presidents that expanded federal the federal role in the US and US presence abroad are exempted from the status of the insidious Jew conspiracy that Trotsky is head of.

Now, as Buchanan and Blumenthal (obviously) would agree, there are good Jews and bad Jews. They probably both took a page from Churchill's own problematic relationship with Jews:

Churchill, noting the Good Jew, wrote:First there are the Jews who, dwelling in every country throughout the world, identify themselves with that country, enter into its national life and, while adhering faithfully to their own religion, regard themselves as citizens in the fullest sense of the State which has received them. Such a Jew living in England would say, "I am an English man practising the Jewish faith." This is a worthy conception, and useful in the highest degree. We in Great Britain well know that during the great struggle the influence of what may be called the "National Jews" in many lands was cast preponderatingly on the side of the Allies; and in our own Army Jewish soldiers have played a most distinguished part, some rising to the command of armies, others winning the Victoria Cross for valour.

The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, have managed to play an honorable and useful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia's economic resources, and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organizations, the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholder of friendship with France and Great Britain.

Churchill, noting the Evil Jew, wrote:In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century...

...There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews, it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd) or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.

And certainly this is a good fit for the conservative of the United States. It's similar rhetoric that both Blumenthal and Buchanan use to give the idea of a shadowy conspiracy that's afoot with their opponents. Blumenthal is a good Jew working for the United States, while shadowy Jewish cabals in New York work under the direction of the Talmud and the ghost of Bad Jew Trotsky try to undermine the United States. Buchanan needs to defend his party from the Bad Jews that have an international outlook, and break Jews of an identity other than that of their home country to stop them from puppeteering the goyim into killing each other.

I'm obviously underlying their arguments to make a point, but the point is that the three fathers of neo-conservatism exclude gentiles and pretty much focus on Jews, even if they didn't have much to do with the movement at all. Doing this preys less on overt anti-semitism (which most people are too smart to fall into) but the issues that anti-semitism was historically used to reinforce in politics. Including, but limited to, the fear of a secret cabal somewhere, an international puppet master, a foreign element that doesn't have the country's interest at heart, and so on and so forth.

The idea that neo-conservatives are Trotskyists accomplish all of this, even if the accusation falls apart the moment it is examined in any detail. It's not unlike Karl Rove saying that Hillary Clinton has brain damage, and then backing up off of the accusation the moment he's questioned about it. All that was needed was putting the idea out there, even if there was nothing to it at all.

As such, the issue is often inverted: Trotskyists now become neo-conservatives. This has never really happened. As shown above, even those with a vague association with Trotskyists violently break with them, and there is actually no ideological consistency with any of these "founding fathers," aside from the idea that they have, "forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world," and become Bad Jews in the minds of the thesis.
To be sure here people's related Jewishness is no concern of mine as I am only discussing political and economic ideology here. Not all Jews are Zionists for instance as there are plenty of Jews that are against it just as not all Jews are Trotskyists or corporatists either. I wish to avoid that conversational trap or entanglement. I don't want this thread to be all about Jewishness and so on. This thread is about corporatism and neoliberalism although I do understand the references above. Will respond to this thread later of course when time allows.
To be clear, I'm not accusing you of getting tangled in the Jewish issue, but the framing of the source you have follows the traditional narrative of this and leaves open rather gaping holes, seemingly for no other reason than to snare some Jewish people into this supposed process and expel non-Jews from it.

I suspect a lot of this is a latent part of an inherited hegemony, a meme in the actual sense of the word; that is to say, a cultural idea passed down through various generations as a gene is through genetics.

For instance, I have no doubt that evangelicals--for the most part--love the idea of Jewish people, of accepting them, of having them be part of their whole process, on and on. But a lot of these sects have a final solution built into the belief structure where all the Jews will move to Israel and be killed, or otherwise completely eliminated by the anti-Christ, thus paving the way for a Christian world after the End Times when all the Jews are gone. I am positive none of them think about it in exactly these terms, but it's the kind of thinking that's been in Western thinking for so long that people don't realize how it sounds when expressed verbally.

The same is, essentially, true above. There's a big banking issue with internationalism and people in charge. When looking for someone to blame, it follows these established grooves in the same way the evangelicals followed established grooves on divining the history of things to come.
What you discuss here is a valid contextual background for our discussion here Goon and I do understand your worry about generalizations. I myself try to avoid generalizations when possible. Therefore your warnings with this thread are perfectly reasonable concerning this discussion.

I'm glad you're interjecting your insights in this thread as you seem very knowledgeable about the history of both Marxism and communism.

With that being said I also would of been skeptical up until two weeks ago about Marxists infiltrating conservative elememts of American politics but strangely enough upon reading on Trotskyist Entryism or the French Turn it seems a pretty reasonable explanation of things, don't you think? If it was employed for the Russian Communist Party, why not for the American Republic?

What's most interesting is that after the Trotskyist split of factions in the 1960's the American Trotskyists went from the revolution of the proletariat to the revolution of the bourgeois (middle class) which became a hallmark of the 80's political movement of American conservatives.

Somewhere down the line of the Trotskyist American neoconservative movement even the middle class was abandoned where all initiatives started circulating around the elite upper class strata which has been a hallmark of neoliberalism since then concerning the United States and much of the west. I suspect that like all politics absolute power corrupts absolutely and even the vestiges of the bourgeois was also abandoned like the plight of the proletariat before it.
Joka wrote:With that being said I also would of been skeptical up until two weeks ago about Marxists infiltrating conservative elememts of American politics but strangely enough upon reading on Trotskyist Entryism or the French Turn it seems a pretty reasonable explanation of things, don't you think? If it was employed for the Russian Communist Party, why not for the American Republic?

I'm not sure what the purpose would be. The premise here is that the communists entered banking organizations. There are severe problems here. In this supposed historiography, note that only Jews are mentioned as the specific financiers. Also note that these financiers didn't occur. For instance Thompson's donation is credited to Trotsky instead of Lenin (who was Trotsky's superior—again, why cut Lenin out of the Bolshevik Party in 1917 and instead underline the more prominent Jew in Russia?); nor is the donation credited to Kerensky, the enemy of the Bolsheviks to which Thompson actually supported:

Cornell University wrote:He visited Russia in 1917, just after the overthrow of the monarchy, when civil war was raging and starvation was rampant. Thompson was a member of an American Red Cross relief mission that was present during the political unrest after the abdication of the czar, the interim government of Kerensky, and rise of Lenin and Trotsky. He was awarded the honorary title of colonel by the American Red Cross.

The mission saw firsthand the suffering of the people and the inability of the social democratic government headed by Alexander Kerensky to feed the hungry. Although Thompson added more than $1 million of his own to the relief funds provided by the U.S. government, he was unable to convince President Woodrow Wilson to do more. Soon after the Americans had returned home, the Kerensky government fell and the Bolsheviks came to power. Thompson’s hopes for a prosperous democracy in Russia were ended.

Beyond that, these conspiracy theories always lack motive. Why did bankers secretly want communism to take over the world and destroy them all?

Here's the list of things the Bolsheviks asked from anybody looking to join them:

Lenin wrote:What measures have you taken to fight the bourgeois executioners, the Scheidernanns and Co.; have councils of workers and servants been formed in the different sections of the city; have the workers been armed; have the bourgeoisie been disarmed; has use been made of the stocks of clothing and other items for immediate and extensive aid to the workers, and especially to the farm labourers and small peasants; have the capitalist factories and wealth in Munich and the capitalist farms in its environs been confiscated; have mortgage and rent payments by small peasants been cancelled; have the wages of farm labourers and unskilled workers been doubled or trebled; have all paper stocks and all printing-presses been confis-cated so as to enable popular leaflets and newspapers to be printed for the masses; has the six-hour working day with two or three-hour instruction in state administration been introduced; have the bourgeoisie in Munich been made to give up surplus housing so that workers may be immediately moved into comfortable flats; have you taken over all the banks; have you taken hostages from the ranks of the bourgeoisie; have you introduced higher rations for the workers than for the bourgeoisie; have all the workers been mobilised for defence and for ideological propaganda in the neighbouring villages? The most urgent and most extensive implementation of these and similar measures, coupled with the initiative of workers’, farm labourers’ and— ;acting apart from them— ;small peasants’ councils, should strengthen your position. An emergency tax must be levied on the bourgeoisie, and an actual improvement effected in the condition of the workers, farm labourers and small peasants at once and at all costs.

We're supposed to believe that the board of Chase Bank looked at this, nodded their heads, and decided to sign up for this?

Perhaps more mystifying, what do the Bolsheviks see in this? The article you cited is careful to remove Stalin from this part of the equation blaming it on Trotsky. This is extremely problematic as, again, this assumes Lenin didn't exist. Further, the supposed money transfers from the banks happened in 1917—long before Stalin took over. And then the Bolsheviks, supposedly, don't start working for the banks until after the Civil War a decade later...For no real given reason, and then Trotsky is killed and somehow this is all wrapped up in the French Turn mostly after Trotsky died. But still in 1917 for some reason. It makes little sense.

But again, what are the Bolsheviks supposed to get from this time traveling conspiracy theory in a dimension without Lenin that undermines their entire purpose?

Also Entryism, so far as I know, wasn't used for the Russian Communist Party but for other organizations.

But, perhaps most perplexing, is the weird lack of understanding of any kind of ideology in anyway whatsoever:

The OP wrote:Whether Democrat, Republican or so-called “Independent” – all of the American political elites have accepted the socio-political dimensions of the international communist ideology or what can be termed mass-leveling or mass-hyper-egalitarianism, i.e. Trotskyism. Under this perverse liberal Trotskyite ideology, every denizen of the planet possesses the same rights so long as the dogma of liberalism (or hyper-individualism) is never brought into question. For those who are card-carrying members of this stealthy totalitarian creed, all the earth’s people are “created equal” in the purest sense of the term – meaning, in the eyes of liberals all human beings are cut from the same American mold, they are all considered equally worthless as atomized pieces of consumerist cannon fodder who must readily serve the liberal Atlanticist elites. They must jump when the commissars in Washington and New York tell them to jump, they must go to war when the commissars in London and Brussels tell them to go to war, they must die when the commissars in Hollywood tell them it is “heroic” or culturally acceptable to do so. This is Globalization. This is Death.

Mass-levelling? This is an ideology from the English Civil War. But let's assume this is rhetorical.

Mass-hyper-egalitarianism? I guess I understand what they mean, even if this isn't anything specific.

But these two things are, supposedly what Trotskyism is. It's rhetorical gibberish and left at that.

"Under this perverse liberal Trotskyite ideology"—Now this rhetorical gibberish is also liberal. Because, apparently, words have ceased to have any meaning at all.

Since they're not using any known definition of liberalism, they define it: "liberalism (or hyper-individualism)." Again, a nearly meaningless phrase. Is the libertarian a Trotskyist? The anarchist? The Christian?

For those who are card-carrying members of this stealthy totalitarian creed, all the earth’s people are “created equal”

Is Jefferson a, "member of this stealthy totalitarian creed," since he coined this quoted term? There eat of the Founders that signed on?

It goes on like this. Some of this is verifiably false as the bullshit continues.

In fact it was Trotsky himself who first coined the term “racist” in 1927.

Though a lot of white supremacist websites say this, it is not true. I know this because this term comes from my hometown:

The Oxford English Dictionary wrote:Racist. n.

An advocate or supporter of racism; a person whose words or actions display prejudice or discrimination on the grounds of race (see race n.6 1b, 1c, 1d). Also in extended use: a person who is prejudiced against people of other nationalities. Cf. racialist n.

1924 Portland Oregonian 14 Dec. 70 The elections show the Germans at the moment want neither racists nor [printed now] communists—that is, neither extreme nationalists nor extreme revolutionists.

1926 Manchester Guardian 22 Sept. 5 If the French people and Government show that they desire to come to a real understanding the opposition of the German Nationals and the Racists will be nullified and will soon disappear altogether.

And the fail goes on and on and on in ways I've already partially covered.


Alright, so where what does this linking of liberalism and socialism (especially when the people underlined have been underlined)?

Hitler wrote:And having begun with these parties, from the bourgeoisie of the Zentrum Party up to the KPD (Communist Party of Germany), the German people were undermined and broken down slowly from within. In spite of that, the course of the war was an immeasurably glorious one. The years 1914-1918 - they proved one thing: not even the opponents triumphed; it was a low, common revolt, plotted by Marxian-Zentrum-Liberal-Capitalistic subjects. The driving force behind all of it was the eternal Jew.

Hitler wrote:The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute therefore the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood. A very simple statement; but it involves a principle that has tremendous consequences.

Hitler wrote:Filled with the conviction that the causes of this collapse lie in internal damage to the body of our Volk, the Government of the National Revolution aims to eliminate the afflictions from our völkisch life which would, in future, continue to foil any real recovery. The disintegration of the nation into irreconcilably opposite Weltanschauungen which was systematically brought about by the false doctrines of Marxism means the destruction of the basis for any possible community life.

The dissolution permeates all of the basic principles of social order. The completely opposite approaches of the individuals to the concepts of state, society, religion, morality, family, and economy rips open differences which will lead to a war of all against all. Starting with the liberalism of the past century, this development will end, as the laws of nature dictate, in Communist chaos.

Hitler wrote:By so doing we chose a path between two extremes. The one of these extremes was holding our people: It was the liberal-individualist extreme which made the individual not only the centre of interest but also the centre of all action. On the other hand, our people were tempted by the theory of universal humanity which alone was to guide the individual. Our ideals were between the two: we saw the people as a community of body and soul, formed and willed by Providence. We are put into this community and within it alone can we form our existence. We have consciously subordinated all considerations to this goal, have shaped all interests according to it, and all our actions. Thus the National-Socialist world of thought arose which has overcome individualism, but not by cutting down individual capacities or individual initiative, only by asserting that the common interest is superior to individual liberty and the initiative of the individual. This common interest regulates and orders, if necessary, curtails, but also commands.


Of course, there are those that would dispute that—but that's what I read in the statement you quoted.

I'll go further to, and point out that these kinds of comparisons aren't always fair, but they are made. Things like capitalists and socialists are linked; Trotsky and Stalin; fascists and capitalists; whatever, depending on the point of view. This is easily spoon-fed, and only a careful historical analysis can uncover it. You don't have to listen to me at all. I would encourage you to read everything you can about it and I feel confident that you'll find that a lot of what I said is true. Or, to put a more topical knot on this:

Trotsky wrote:A moralizing Philistine’s favorite method is the lumping of reaction’s conduct with that of revolution. He achieves success in this device through recourse to formal analogies. To him czarism and Bolshevism are twins. Twins are likewise discovered in fascism and communism. An inventory is compiled of the common features in Catholicism – or more specifically, Jesuitism – and Bolshevism. Hitler and Mussolini, utilizing from their side exactly the same method, disclose that liberalism, democracy, and Bolshevism represent merely different manifestations of one and the same evil. The conception that Stalinism and Trotskyism are “essentially” one and the same now enjoys the joint approval of liberals, democrats, devout Catholics, idealists, pragmatists, and anarchists. If the Stalinists are unable to adhere to this “People’s Front”, then it is only because they are accidentally occupied with the extermination of Trotskyists.

The fundamental feature of these approchements and similitudes lies in their completely ignoring the material foundation of the various currents, that is, their class nature and by that token their objective historical role. Instead they evaluate and classify different currents according to some external and secondary manifestation, most often according to their relation to one or another abstract principle which for the given classifier has a special professional value. Thus to the Roman pope Freemasons and Darwinists, Marxists and anarchists are twins because all of them sacrilegiously deny the immaculate conception. To Hitler, liberalism and Marxism are twins because they ignore “blood and honor”. To a democrat, fascism and Bolshevism are twins because they do not bow before universal suffrage. And so forth.

Trump gets credit for forcibly separating children[…]

2018 FIFA World Cup

The Balkans started well :D Croatia won, Serbia w[…]

Another member of Tommy Robinson's group the EDL i[…]

Actually the economic base is the foundation of E[…]