September 9, 2014 by Brandon Smith
There is nothing worse than a die-hard neoconservative. Of all the socialist horrors wrought against the American public by the Obama administration and its small, but insane, group of followers, the neo-liberals are at least relatively open about their disdain for the Constitution as well as their intentions to reduce our country to a Third World communist enclave. Neoconservatives, on the other hand, have the audacity to pretend as if they adore the Bill of Rights, posing as freedom fighters and champions of liberty while working intently to administer the same exact despotic policies and socialist infrastructure.
As most readers are aware, the false left/right paradigm has been the primary control mechanism used against the American people for decades. The idea is that in order for establishment elites to maintain control of a population with a heritage of independence, a facade of choice must be created to placate the dim-witted masses while the system itself is dominated from behind the scenes. The people of a republic must be conned into participating in the process of their own enslavement, at least until the oligarchs are ready to unleash full-blown totalitarianism. The concept of free elections becomes a grand theatrical display when most candidates, regardless of party affiliation, are bought, bribed, blackmailed or philosophically allied with the elite. The actions of these candidates speak far louder than their rhetoric for those with the sense to pay attention. But for many people, the attachment to the sports team mentality of politics is just too much to resist. For them, the circus is reality.
The birth of neo-conservatism is clouded by what some claim to be the “incidental” relationship between neo-con adherents like Irving and William Kristol, Abram Shulsky, Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush, among others, and a little-known political science professor by the name of Leo Strauss. Strauss’ work culminated in the University Of Chicago as many of his students and followers went on to engineer the rise of an insidious bureaucratic machine that gave us the Patriot Acts, the fake War on Terror, rationalized torture procedures and numerous other constitutional disgraces.
Strauss was at least publicly opposed to the formation of communism; but at the same time, he held a reverence for a pre-Weimar Germany brand of authoritarian oligarchy. To fight the rise of “liberalism,” Strauss maintained that the use of “noble lies” was preferable to surrender. That is to say, the left was so devilish that an “any means necessary” approach became acceptable. This approach, interpreted by Strauss’ students, was meant to include the creation of false unity in the face of a fabricated enemy.
Strauss himself argued that enemies were vital in the unification of man: “Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed. Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united — and they can only be united against other people.”
It is important to note that the “noble lie” concept was also a primary pillar in the philosophical methods of another political gatekeeper by the name of Saul Alinsky, a gatekeeper who just happened to become prominent during the same era as Strauss and who influenced the same generation, but on the left end of the spectrum, giving birth to what we now call neo-liberalism. I do not believe it is simple coincidence that these gatekeepers would both go on to successfully galvanize two sides of American society against each other based on false premises while both of them were promoting nearly identical forms of moral relativism.
Both ideologies argue in speech for either “liberal values” or “conservative values.” But the tactics they use can end only one way, regardless of which side wins out: with tyranny being the ultimate result. The identical policy measures taken by the administrations of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama in terms of war, executive powers, personal privacy, torture, indefinite detention, assassination, etc., clearly illustrate that there is truly no discernible concrete difference between Republican leadership and Democratic leadership.
The brilliance of the false left/right paradigm is that it mesmerizes the public with two cosmetically separate but inherently identical political movements, and it distracts Americans away from the more plausible third option: namely, personal liberty and responsibility, also known as classical liberalism, practiced by the Founding Fathers. Neo-conservatism in particular is highly destructive to constitutional heritage, because it poses as constitutionalism while seeking to erode liberty from within. The neo-liberal side of the paradigm uses the stark viciousness of neo-cons to convince the public that socialization is a necessary measure to humanize government. The neoconservative side of the paradigm uses the foreign policy “weakness” of neo-liberals to then argue for a return to greater militarization and force of law. Both methods result in a perpetually growing government.
I believe it is possible that we are about to see the left/right game switch gears once again.
The rise of ISIS and the increased threat of economic war with Russia have highlighted the old “weak liberal” talking points in conservative circles, while conveniently ignoring the fact that both of these problems were created by elites on both sides of the aisle.
While it is true that America has been made weaker with each passing year, both defensively and economically, it is important that we question what exactly our response should be. Is the solution to swing the pendulum right back to the neoconservative standards of centralized military-industrial might and trading freedom for security? Or how about a military coup to unseat Obama and put the country back on track? Would the removal of a middle-management puppet like Obama by a group of patriot-posers among the military brass really change anything in the long run? This idea is being floated everywhere, in some cases by neo-con talking heads presenting themselves as liberty movement leaders.
There are always the old standby neo-con peddlers like John McCain and Lindsay Graham, who are both avid supporters of greater executive power, including the defense of torture, indefinite detention and assassination of American citizens. But when such politicians use ISIS as a villainous prop to frighten the citizenry with visions of masked gunman and mushroom clouds, liberty proponents remember that ghouls like McCain were involved in the funding and training of the same extremists that now make up the core of the ISIS threat.