There are the important questions which matter and should be
asked of anyone who discusses “politics.” Unfortunately, most people are
oblivious to seeking these deeper insights. They are deferential to what they
learned in school and from their peers, from their willfully ignorant parents,
and from the regime media.
They are unaware of the post-WWII creation by the National
Security State of synthetic “liberal” and “conservative” ideological movements
which sought to rationalize the projection of power and hegemony of the
American empire. The American people have been pawns on the deep state’s
chessboard for seven decades.
One must
employ what is labeled “Power Elite Analysis” or “Establishment Studies,” the examination of
causal relationships regarding the nature and scope of political power, who has
it and how it is exercised, to understanding the nexus between the State and
those who profit from its machinations. This is what researcher Peter Dale
Scott calls “Deep Politics,” the critical examination of the sub rosa reality
behind surface events, an attempt to unmask the true face of power, exposing
the elite social, economic, and financial groups and individuals who benefit
from the exercise of State coercion. How is the corporatist welfare-warfare
State enabled by the fractional reserve policies of the Fed? What is the
true purpose of Military Keynesianism, the War on Drugs, and the US Empire of over 900 bases
stretching across the planet? How do these policies impact on the
grievous loss of civil liberties at home?
Examine these excerpts from the crucially
important book Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, by
Carroll Quigley. They relate how the powerful Wall Street firm of J. P. Morgan
decided to infiltrate the left in America in the early years of the 20th Century.
Later it
was many from this same elite milieu of Wall Street financial operatives and
lawyers who first, under the direction of William J. Donovan of OSS, and later
Allen Dulles of CIA, filled the top echelon of American intelligence and
under their direction created the Cold War synthetic ideologies of “left” and
“right” to advance the agenda of the National Security State.
Cold War
Liberalism
As one observer described this synthetic
ideological construct:
“Cold War
liberalism,” a combination of welfare state domestic policy and ‘realist’
foreign policy, entered mainstream politics in America at the end of WWII.
Realists regarded Stalin as a global menace, and international politics
irresolvable in which America nevertheless had to participate. Consequently,
this meant that discussion about America’s role in the world moved toward a
pragmatic approach. Realism provided the intellectual basis of the Cold War,
and theologian Reinhold Niebuhr took his place along
with George Kennan, Hans
Morgenthau, and Arthur Meier Schlesinger, Jr. These
pugnacious men were the leading philosophers of this new American realism and
the primary intellectual apologists for the Cold War.
Beginning
with the Truman administration and the creation of the National Security State
in 1947, Cold War Liberalism became the dominant philosophy of the American
intelligence establishment. The CIA actively shaped and disseminated these
views through psychological warfare and media manipulation. Agency created front organizations and publications networks such
as the Congress for Cultural Freedom were
vital in this subversion process. These spooks believed it absolutely crucial to mold the cultural milieu of intellectuals, both
in the United States as well as Europe. But covertly
influencing the mass of the general public was not neglected via publications
such as the Reader’s Digest, Time, Life, Look, Newsweek,
and other popular magazines. Key figures in this propaganda apparat were Frank
Wisner, Tom Braden, Cord
Meyer, James Jesus Angleton, Phillip
Graham, Joseph Alsop, Stewart Alsop, and C. D. Jackson.
Organizations
such as Americans for Democratic Action acted as
major conduits for popularizing these ideas to an unsuspecting public. The ADA
was the principal Cold War Liberal organization from 1947 (the year the CIA was
created). Although it still exists, it is a shadow of its former self. If you
examine the list of its “founders” most have very clear connections to the OSS
and CIA or their front groups. A prominent leader of the ADA was former
OSS intelligence operative Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. He was a
co-founder and key player in this effort. His book, The Vital Center, became the virtual Bible
of Cold War Liberalism.
Post-WWII
Conservatism
When you
look at what is the broad (and narrow) evolutionary picture since the end of
World War II of what is labelled as “the conservative movement,” you have to first
examine the death of the Old Right opposition to FDR and Truman in
the early 1950s; the birth of the Buckleyite New Right in the 1950s and
their purge and exclusion of competing elements they considered anathema;
the evolution of the establishment Rockefeller Republicans into
the RINOS of today; the emergence of the neocons in the late 1960s from former
Trotskyists, social democrats, and Truman-Humphrey Cold War liberal Democrats
(opposed to McGovern in 1972) morphing into posing as Nixon-Reagan Republicans;
the rise of the populist New Right in opposition to
these former groups claiming to be “conservatives” in the mid 1970s (the
catalyst was the naming of Nelson Rockefeller as Ford’s VP; the clandestine capture and dominance of “the
conservative movement” by the neocons; and lastly the rise of the
alt-right groups of the past decade in opposition to these previous groups.
What is
characteristic in all this unfolding narrative story is the constant
internecine competition and repeated efforts to purge or declare anathema any
opposing sect or group not deemed part of the “respectable right” so labelled
by the reigning gods of the dominant political establishment in the media and
academia.
What was
distinctive about the recent Sean Hannity caper was that it
is the latest example of this internecine warfare between the fading
Buckleyites of Conservatism, Inc, and those persons supporting the renegade
insurgent Donald Trump.
The
ultimate validity or authenticity of what constitutes “the conservative
movement” has always been defined not by the eclectic participants who
self-describe themselves as “conservatives,” but by their
liberal (and today more frequently labelled “progressive”) opposition, which is
itself a creature of the deep state (as we see in the hysterical reaction to
Trump by the Democrats, the presstitutes in the regime media, and bought and
paid for remaining RINOS dominating the elite GOP hierarchy.
Charles A.
Burris [send
him mail] teaches history in the Murray N. Rothbard Room at Memorial
High School in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Copyright © 2015 Charles A. Burris
Previous
article by Charles Burris: Worst of the Worst
