« "... Tucker Carlson Pushes for End of the Neo-cons" Reuters and Haaretz | Main | Houthi UAVs set big Saudi refinery alight. al-jazeere, etc. »

13 September 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Babak Makkinejad

In other words, the neoconservative movement is akin to a Church Militant or to a Muslim Jihadists dynasty like the Ottomans. And I suppose the religion here is a version of the Cult of Prgoress & the Cult of Man?

Babak Makkinejad

The Western Civilization, at one time, was centered around God & Church. You can see that still in vestigial form in small towns and villages in Catholic countries. There is no longer a spiritual center into which move and have moved all these "isms".

Babak Makkinejad

All these "isms" are offshoots of the Enlightenment Tradition and they all agree that "Man is alive by bread alone."
That is why neoconservatives specially hate Iran: "People did not revolt over the price of watermelons..." but for Islam - as Ayatollah Khomeini stated.

Babak Makkinejad


The biography of Trotsky is titled: "The Prophet" https://www.amazon.com/Prophet-Life-Leon-Trotsky/dp/1781685606/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=isaac+deutscher+trotsky&qid=1568560840&sprefix=issac+deutscher&sr=8-1

Mark Logan


I quite agree, but I'll opine they do share that messianic complex, the key to the damage they do. They share an absolute faith that people who don't think like they do are ignorant.


Finally bothered to watch the Carlson commentary at the root of this. I detect no "irony" in his claim that Bolton is a "man of the left".

Some direct quotes, from Carlson:

"John Bolton was one of the most progressive people in the Trump administration"

"[He]...promoted Obama loyalists" - with no list of names to check. Who?

"In between administration jobs are always cushy think-tank posts, paid speaking gigs, cable news contracts...". Note that...
1. the Administrations were all GOP
2. the Think-Tanks were all GOP/Right-wing tanks
3. (I don't have stats on the blab jobs, but it sure wasn't the DSA)
4. Bolton was a FOX commentator.

This is a crying shame. Listening to Carlson's monologue, I agree completely with his basic premise - that Bolton and the other NewCons continue to destroy America from within - and many of the details he provides (other neocons in government).

What bothers me is that Carlson threw in the gratuitous - and false - accusations attempting to tie Bolton to the "left", "progressives", and Obama, implying that the NeoCons are a Democrat problem and not a Republican one.

The key quote:

"If you're wondering why so many progressives are mourning Bolton's firing tonight, it's because Bolton, fundamentally, was a man of the left. There's not a human problem John Bolton wasn't totally convinced could be solved with the brute force of government".

1. The Progressives sources I've seen are happy & relieved that Bolton is out. We care about Peace, Life, Democracy, etc, so we hate the NeoCons.
2. Many "Liberals" - loosely, Clinton Democrats - view Trump as the bigger enemy, so they focus on the administrative chaos exhibited by the constant turnover. That's exactly what Samantha Power said; she did NOT defend Bolton (nor "mourn" his firing), she attacked Trump for not having a stable staff. If you have better examples of progressives' support for Bolton, please add links.
3. The real NeoCon project is solely focused on a warlike Foreign Policy, so of course they look to the "brute force of government". We have little data on domestic issues where they might abuse this force to our detriment. OTOH, Bolton's Wiki page recounts an incident early in his career (in USAID, under Reagan) where he threatened to fire someone who refused to "lobby for the deregulation of baby formula in developing nations", which is an example of Corporatist priorities (let the multinational Companies sell baby-poison), not progressive ones.

I'm glad to see signs that the Right is turning against the NeoCons. But using Bolton to smear the left undermines the case against our common enemy. True progressives are your ally, against Republican NeoCons AND Democratic NeoLibs! Please, lets just rejoice together: Ding-Dong the Wicked Moustache of Evil is Gone! (...for now…)



That is due to the relentless attacks on faith starting in the late 50s and early 60s.


I understand your bewilderment. I think in reality you cannot assign any of the many 'isms' strictly to 'the left' or 'the right'.
The various 'ism ideologies' exist in some of the people in both parties.
It becomes confusing because one ism often 'piggy backs' another ism..i.e...joins up with, another ism to further their own goal.
Iow, you support me this and I'll support you on that.
Conspiracy people talk about the Deep State as if it was one entity all agreed on one giant vision, when it is really various interest entities trading off bits and pieces of policy and power among themselves to achieve their goals.

Babak Makkinejad

Off by 350 years.


See BarbaraAnn's comment, above: "Some people are compulsive revolutionaries, requiring perpetual war; others are "culturally at home and content to make their way in this world."

Neocons may exhibit an imbalance of the revolutionary compulsion, but the impulse is not limited to zionists/neocons. It may be that revolution is a Red Sportscar to more than a few aging comfortably at home non-neocons.

I wanna be a contender!

Babak Makkinejad

But my question stands.

Where are the American people in all of this?


The main manifestation of the Trotskyists' messianic complex is their propensity for factional arguing over who can lead the masses to revolution with their One True Way. But they invariably fail to have any real effect at all. It's more comical than anything. The attempts to tie Trotskyism to some grand narrative of contemporary American politics lend it more seriousness than it deserves.


Just been on a call with a Washingtonian, who told me that Bolton quit - he wasnt fired. He was reported as quitting because Trump had been moving towards talks with Iran.

I have no independent insight into this.


Because it is useful for those in power if the masses think they have a say.


By Carlson's logic, every member of Team R that votes for an expanded military budget is a closet leftist, as is just about everyone else that isn't a hardcore libertarian.



"every member of Team R that votes for an expanded military budget is a closet leftist, as is just about everyone else" No, only those who advocate use of the expanded military in wars of choice and regime change.

different clue

Perhaps a useful distinction can be made between intellectual political ideology and emotional political psychology. I too had read that the earliest founders of "neo-conservatism" had begun as fervent butts-in-seats Trotskyists in the study carrels of City College of New York, locked in bitter intellectual and ideological combat with their opposing butts-in-seats study-carrel Stalinists at the same College.

When they went neo-con, they turned against socialism and towards privatism, but they kept their psychographic emotion-sets as permanent destabilizers always looking to overturn this and that.

So while they are not Trotsky-IST, they may be considered as being Trotsky-ESQUE.

English Outsider

Babak - most definitely yes. As we in England posit our own mini-neocons. As we discussed a while ago, they control the bulk of the information sphere.

That and, as you recently remarked, the Scofield Bible account for the most of it. Not forgetting the Eastern European Russophobes who flooded into the States after WW2. This is not, I respectfully suggest, a civilisational clash, with us on our side of the Diocletian Line clean off our heads. It's an information war. If the American public, or indeed we Europeans, got a hold of what was happening the neocons would be a mere footnote in the history books.

Maybe not the French ones but then, the French have always been the exceptional nation. As with making tea properly (not that I'm boasting) some things you just have to be born into.

English Outsider

Colonel - perhaps as was stated by Biden a little while ago -

“If there were not an Israel, we would have to invent one to make sure our interests were preserved,”



Every political confrontation we are seeing today is along civilizational lines - Western Diocletian Civilization against the Russian Orthodoxy, against Sinic Civilization of the Far East, and against Iranian Shia.

Inside India, we have two clashing civilizations Hinduism and Islam.

Central African Republic disintegrated along the lines of religion, soon to be repeated in Nigeria as well.


The confrontations between the United States and her vassals and the Russian Federation, the People's Republic of China, and the Islamic Republic of Iran are all along civilizational fault-lines.

The civil war inside the Islamic world is along the Seljuk fault line.

The persistent communal violence inside India is in between two distinct, hostile, and mutually exclusive and incompatible civilizations.

The Central African Republic disintegrated because the structures of Western Diocletian civilization decayed. The only functioning institution there, whose writ is carried out across its territory, is the Catholic Church - while Muslims have fled elsewhere.

I think you are taking the Western Diocletian civilization as normative, I take it as another machine that may or may not work according to its specifications when used in a different context.

English Outsider

Well, maybe I'm just too parochial to see it that way, Babak. Or maybe on those fault lines you identify we have another that cuts across them. Certainly does in the Western world, and in that world we must include the RF.

That's the fault line between the Progressives and the rest of us. An internal conflict more debilitating, more destructive, than we acknowledge. While the big blocks you mention are engaged in the dramatic and hazardous business of pointing everything at each other from rockets to proxies, that internal conflict saps away at our Western civilisation more effectively than anything outside forces can threaten us with or we can threaten them with.

And in the world you are so intimately acquainted with, the Muslim world, do we not see that same fault line emerging? Certainly the Jihadis we send over from Europe are not just crazed lunatics. From the interviews I've seen some are looking, however imperfectly or naively, to reject what many of us in the West reject.



2013 is almost a decade ago.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

July 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad