The Republican purge to come: Gabriel Schoenfeld

[amnestynone]

You and your rinos whores got Trump nominated. If that is such a bad thing then you can only blame yourselves. You showed no ability to institute conservative principles or values unless they corresponded to corporate interests. You were addicted to corporate cheap labor and you helped the Democrats bring in more voters just because you were to cheap to hire regular people. We told you not to do this. We told you in every way imaginable, we we wrote letters, email visited Congress persons offices and did everything to stop this and you just continued to help the Democrats get a majority in this country. so we took the matters into our own hands and nominated someone who would look after out interests instead of yours for once. So take that and shove mr A hole. Oh by the way your corporate media does everything It can for the Democrats so why should we not look after ourselves since you won't look after us.

[amnestynone]

The cheap labor amnesty crowd!

[BlackElk]

We are rapidly developing a dictionary of abused words, abused for political purposes.

First among these words is "neocon" which originated as a more polite way of objecting to the increased participation of a group of mostly Jewish democratic socialists who had made the journey to the GOP and conservatism after McGovern and outright communists seized permanent control of the Democrat Party in 1972. Not all were Jewish (Jeanne Kirkpatrick was a Presbyterian) and a few remained Democrat (somewhat Catholic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan) but most were Jewish and had fled the Democrat Party.

Among their number: Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, Irving Kristol, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Martin Diamond, Alexander Bickel, Donald Kagan and many others. The GOP-E had always had, shall we say, a certain reluctance to socialize with Jews and the term "neocon" gave them the opportunity to be anti-semitic without being embarrassingly obvious.

The GOP-E is also notably reluctant to socialize with Catholics who are really Catholic, Evangelicals who are really Bible-believing, pro-lifers, those who believe it impossible that Bruce and Lance might "marry" one another, those who believe that the trade "deals" have not led us to heaven on earth. Actual conservatives are not part of the Cheap Labor Express.

Additionally, there was the matter of foreign policy and war. A respectable member of America's elite such as Douglas MacArthur or George S. Patton, Jr., were brilliant practitioners of military power and never ashamed of it. Today's elitists think that war, even when necessary, is just too expensive and messy and has very little to offer to Muffy's trust fund. So, looking for some allegedly respectable excuse for their neo-treasonweaselism, they harked back to the utterly discredited isolationist wimps of the pre-WWII era and Colonel McCormack's "America First" war resisters. Neville Chamberlain was the posterboy for weakness and fecklessness in foreign affairs and Churchill made him pay with his political head.

Those who identify with an anti-war foreign policy of peace at any price and are reluctant to socialize with any but fellow members of the vanishing "mainline Protestant" groups and who think that the USA exists to build their stock and bond portfolios, may now be labeled "paleo-conservatives" not because they are conservative as that term may be generally understood today but because they are eccentrics wedded to a nostalgia for a long ago America which they imagine but which was not what they imagine it to have been. An America that looked much more like them.

I should not generalize but "neocon" and "globalist" and several other terms seem to have been popularized in recent years by a desperate effort by the John Birch Society to enjoy a relevance that has always escaped its grasp. The JBS has partially succeeded in this because the terms have been adopted by the inadequately informed many of whom would not consider membership in the JBS.

[fatman6502002]

The only thing I learned from reading that tripe is Gabriel Schoenfeld is a moron and is no longer living in reality. Trump is going to win, and when he does he will effectively control the party apparatus and that will leave the RINO’s out in the cold, and that is exactly where the likes of Cruz and the other traitorous republicans should be.

[ExNewsExSpook]

Did you see Bill Kristol on FNC last night? He looked like a kid what has his lunch money stolen every day at school. Billy was apoplectic that Hillary’s about to blow it and spoil everything for the establishment elites.

And he should be worried. If Trump wins, the GOP-E is finished and so is its companion chattering class. They will be making the Republican equivalent of Mao Tse-tung’s Long March, with one noticeable difference. Mao came back to take control of China and force the Nationalists into exile. A Trump victory will alter the GOP for the next 20 years and a lot of the GOP-E boys and girls don’t have enough time left (politically or chronologically) to mount a comeback.

In fairness to Kristol, he was warning his fellow establishment types that Trump is opening multiple paths to a November victory, and Hillary is anything but the sure bet touted by the punditry class. When Trump wins, it’s going to get bloody, with the “E” class tearing each other to shreds.

[bkopto]

several other terms seem to have been popularized in recent years by a desperate effort by the John Birch Society to enjoy a relevance that has always escaped its grasp. The JBS has partially succeeded in this because the terms have been adopted by the inadequately informed many of whom would not consider membership in the JBS.

You might be interested in

https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/what-alt-right-is.html

and

https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/09/of-alt-west-and-alt-white.html

[Pelham]

The John Birch crowd had nothing to do with inventing the name “neoconservative”. Irving Kristol, father of William Kristol, applied the name to the movement of which he was a leader and wrote books and articles employing the term.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-neoconservative-persuasion/article/4246

Your definition of paleoconservative is bizarre and mistaken to say the least. They were Middle American traditional conservatives who didn’t share the progressive cultural values of the neocons and the GOPe. They were opposed to open borders, mass immigration, and the wars and nation building favored by the likes of GW Bush. Paleos were hardly the GOP elite. They once were Buchanan voters and now probably make up a good portion of the Tea Party and Trump supporters.

[DNME]

The day after the election, Trump should announce the formation of a new political party.

Then let the bastards have what is left of the Republican party. See how much fun they have ruling over a ghost town.

[jjotto]

I recall that liberal Michael Harrington coined the term ‘neoconservative’ to insultingly describe Martin Peretz at The New Republic and Irving Kristol at Commentary in the early ‘70s.

It has since become a catch-all insult for anyone inclined towards US military intervention anywhere, and, as in TV shows like Law and Order, simply an insult to judges (or anyone else) who takes punishing convicted criminals seriously. It has become meaningless.

[detective]

“I should not generalize but “neocon” and “globalist” and several other terms seem to have been popularized in recent years by a desperate effort by the John Birch Society to enjoy a relevance that has always escaped its grasp”

“Neoconservative” was first used in the early 1970’s by leftist/Communist/socialist Michael Harrington. He used it to describe former liberal Democrats and/or Communists like Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Irving Kristol who rejected leftist dogma and supported conservative principles on some issues.

The “neoconservative” label was used by Irving Kristol in his 1979 article “Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed ‘Neoconservative.’” During the 1970s the neoconservatives saw that liberalism had failed and they left the Democrats and joined the Republican Party.

The supporters of Bush's foreign policy were termed neocons in the early 2000’s.

[Pelham]

Harrington could well have invented the term but Irving Kristol appropriated it an early date. The neocons wanted to differentiate themselves from traditional conservatives which they knew that they weren’t. Kristol traces their beginning to a Trotsky political club in NYC. His essays collected in “Neo-conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea” would be a good source.

[jjotto]

Yes. Kristol and Peretz thought it was great and signified their lack of appetite for the culture war! The idea itself instead of just the name does go back much farther, at least to some upset over the NY Times-led Left embracing a killer like Stalin.

[detective]

“Harrington could well have invented the term but Irving Kristol appropriated it an early date. The neocons wanted to differentiate themselves from traditional conservatives which they knew that they weren’t. Kristol traces their beginning to a Trotsky political club in NYC. His essays collected in “Neo-conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea” would be a good source.”

Michael Harrington used the term Neoconservative in the early 1970’s in a derisive way to describe socialists, Trotskyites, liberal Democrats and other assorted leftists who abandoned their previous leftist views and embraced Conservative principles.

Kristol used the term to describe himself and his fellow former leftists in the late 1970s who saw that liberalism had failed.

[Pelham]

Here’s a decent history of neoconservatism that includes Harrington hanging the term on them:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Neoconservatism.aspx

[jjotto]

In looking, I found out even wiki knows the story! I know it because those were my formative years, when I wrote summary essays for a teacher about my reading of The New Republic, National Review, Commentayy, Dissent, etc, instead of having to listen to his lectures for beginners.

[detective]

Here is Michael Harrington writing about neoconservatives in 1973.

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/the-welfare-state-and-its-neoconservative-critics

[BlackElk]

Llewellyn Rockwell, The Rockford Institute, and their fellow travelers who sometimes sink so low as to recommend Justin Raimondo's execrable website Antiwar.com, are examples of the paleo"conservatives" I have described.

They are NOT and never have been mainstream CONSERVATIVES. They are crotchety eccentrics who prefer to wall themselves off from the world as it is rather than wage a principled intellectual war against it.

My own background is that I was brought up in a labor union family of traditional Catholics, educated at a Jesuit prep school so long ago that the Jebbies were still Catholic, got involved in state leadership in Young Americans for Freedom, Young Republicans, College Republicans, anti-tax movements and the pro-life movement, found Bill Buckley to be right about Ayn Rand and about the John Birch Society. I never met until relatively recent years (and then only here in the Midwest) any conservative who was not an interventionist.

Buchanan came to paleo foreign policy in reatvely recent years. He was also NEVER a "movement conservative." He came in through Richard Nixon who was no role model.

I did not claim that the Birchers "invented" the term "neoconservative" but rather that they have been popularizing it along with a steady drumbeat of complaints about "globalism." I do not favor any treaty obligations tying the hands of the USA in any way preventing us from waging war whenever we, in our sole judgment, deem it expedient and without a by your leave from any other nation or the UN or any alliance. The sole purpose and test of our American foreign policy should be "Is any proposed action in the legitimate interest of the American people?" The purpose is not serving the agenda of the likes of CFR, Trilateralists, Warburgs, Bilderbergers, the US Chamber of Crony Commerce, K Street or Wall Street or whatever corrupt business conglomerates may desire.

In the 1930s, the sorry excuse for a GOP was dominated by what we now call paleos. They were an embarrassment until they folded their tents n disgrace on December 8, 1941.

Politically, Buchanan had very little support in running for office. The TEA Party is made up of a lot of folks who regarded themselves as Taxed Enough Already. They are NOT paleos. The very paleo Rockford Institute played absolutely NO ROLE whatsoever in the local TEA Party operations. There may be paleos among Trump supporters but hardly a significant force. The connection is on borders and immigration on which Trump seems as effective as the paleos are not.

[BlackElk]

Daniel Patrick Moynihan was NEVER a communist. Read his 1962 book Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding which covers in some depth the then ongoing effort of communists to seize control of the venerable Tammany Hall Democrat Machine from the verrrrry conservative but aging Irish Democrat Congressmen like James Delaney. You may find particularly interesting his direct observations as to the involvement of Connecticut’s execrable senior US Senator Richard Blumenthal on behalf of the reds. Irving Kristol and the other “neocons” had been socialists in the 1930s hothouse atmosphere of the City College library where many different kinds of socialists endlessly debated how to refine and perfect socialism in theory. Again, they were NEVER communists.

[Pelham]

Llewellyn Rockwell and the late Murray Rothbard called their particular little group paleo-libertarians to distinguish themselves from paleo-conservatives and from Left libertarians. There was an alliance between the two paleo groups when Buchanan ran in 1992. Rockwell dropped the name paleo-libertarian after Rothbard died and now simply calls himself a libertarian. Justin Raimondo still refers to himself as a paleo-libertarian.

“In the 1930s, the sorry excuse for a GOP was dominated by what we now call paleos. They were an embarrassment until they folded their tents n disgrace on December 8, 1941. “

Those who subscribed to FDR’s Liberal Internationalism would certainly agree. As would their neoconservative heirs who want America to be the policeman of the world.

[BlackElk]

Would you have preferred the policy of the isolationist wimps who would have stuck their heads in the sand like cowardly ostriches until the Japanese might have overrun St. Louis?????

Or would it have been "liberal internationalism" to launch Jimmy Doolittle's firebombing of Tokyo as our initial response to Pearl Harbor and a down payment on the extermination of Tojo's regime?

And spare us the communist Cold War rhetoric about the US being "the policemen of the world." Would you prefer that the enemies of freedom "police the world?" Ask anyone who did time in the gulag how that would work out.

This "neoconservative" (as you would imagine me) does not want American troops in more than 100 countries. OTOH, Teheran has long since passed its shelf life and deserves to be incinerated. What are nuclear boomer submarines for? Do we REALLY have to stand idly by (as paleowimps and Neville Chamberlain would have preferred) as the mullahs threaten our ally Israel and also threaten us while Obozo paves the way for the Iranian nuke program? I think not. What's flat, black and glows in the dark: Teheran two days after the next actually American POTUS is inaugurated. AND remove each and every Iranian nuclear weapons facility simultaneously. Film the flight of the missiles from submarine to the Iranian wreckage for the edification of future generations.

Do you hallucinate that anyone really cares whether the sorry likes of Llewellyn Rockwell or the utterly evil enemy of our nation Justin Raimondo are known as "paleo-libertarians," "paleo-conservatives" or just plain delusional peace weenies of the Ron Paul school of foreign policy cowardice?