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 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 20 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.
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.
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