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 impressively insane group of followers, the neoliberals 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 being 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 neoconservatism is clouded by what some claim to be the “incidental” relationship between neocon 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 neoliberalism. Much in the way internationalists simultaneously funded the rise of fascism in Europe and communism in Russia during the 20th Century, 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 despotism 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 (FISA and NSA domestic surveillance), torture, indefinite detention (including U.S. citizens as per the NDAA), assassination (including U.S. citizens), 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. Neoconservatism in particular is highly destructive to our constitutional heritage, because it poses as constitutionalism while seeking to erode liberty from within. The neoliberal side of the paradigm uses the stark viciousness of neocons 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 neoliberals to then argue for a return to greater militarization and force of law. Both methods result in a perpetually growing government and inevitable tyranny.
In the near term, 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 all our current problems were created by elites on both sides of the aisle.
What I see simmering under the surface of the geopolitical cinema conjured to distract us is a burgeoning trend toward a return of the neoconservative narrative. With the sudden and apparently “inexplicable” rise of the ISIS caliphate, not to mention the debut of a new cartoon villian, Khorasan, it is only a matter of time before America is smattered with terror attacks. The anger of the general public towards the Obama Administration is already at a peak; with war at our doorstep, people may demand immediate changes.
In my last article, ‘When War Erupts Patriots Will Be Accused Of Aiding “The Enemy”‘, I warned of the underlying propaganda trend used by the establishment to falsely associate the Liberty Movement with foreign aggression. A clear tactic is being developed to hijack the Liberty Movement’s identity by labeling patriot dissension as treason, and marginalizing our efforts as merely a mercenary extension of Russian and/or ISIS subversion. This is not the only dangerous method threatening liberty activism, however. Co-option of the movement by elements of the neoconservative side of the globalist coin is also ever present…
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? The coup idea is being floated everywhere the past two years, in some cases by neocon talking heads presenting themselves as liberty movement leaders.
There are always the old standby neocon 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.
The so-called “moderate” Free Syrian Army, a group entirely created by Western covert intelligence agencies, has been interweaving with the Islamic State (aka ISIS or ISIL) for some time. Meanwhile, neocons like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) argue that FSA members are the “good guys.”
Once again, I have to go back to the neoconservative ideology, which holds that unification requires the creation of enemies in order to galvanize peoples and nations around a centralized leadership. We have seen mounting evidence that ISIS is a fully fabricated monstrosity. We see fake Republicans like McCain involved from the very beginning of the process, admonishing President Obama for his participation while HELPING Obama with his mission. And now we see these same instigators coming to the American people with promises of utter terror if we do not rally around their governance.
An important point to grasp here is that all political leaders are ultimately expendable in the view of the internationalists. A shift to the left, or a shift to the right, makes no difference to them, as long as they control the momentum. Obama is a puppet whose public image could easily be sacrificed in order to gain a power advantage. It is important to understand that if the Liberty Movement cannot be destroyed, the elites may attempt to insert it’s own “leaders” into our midst in classic Cointelpro fashion and rally us in a misguided battle to unseat Obama and replace him with yet another globalist stooge.
We do have infiltrators who, in my view, are seeking to co-opt our initiative and divert the efforts of constitutional proponents away from the true enemies of our republic (namely, internationalist financiers calling for total globalization) using the looming threat of an extremist Islamic terror campaign.
One such example (one of many) is Fox News contributor Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, who has been skulking around my neck of the woods in Montana, attempting to sell his version of the final liberty “solution” to the large community of patriots in the region. Vallely’s answer to the problem appears to be an extension of the Operation American Spring project, which he has been promoting every year for as long as I can remember and has been relabeled over and over, and which has failed every year to produce the million-man armed march on Washington, D.C., that it calls for. The strategy has now evolved into what essentially amounts to a military coup led by neoconservative brass.
Vallely’s suggestions are certainly enticing to some, and his rhetoric sounds rather similar to what many in organizations like Oath Keepers believe. However, there is a distinct difference. Oath Keepers and other legitimate patriot groups do not focus only on middlemen like Obama, and any organization that claims Obama is the source of all our ills is either rife with ignorance, or is controlled opposition. By extension, a military coup led by politicized generals who may very well be controlled by the same globalist interests as Obama is not an expression of constitutional revolution. It is, in fact, a warped and twisted facsimile of revolution. The idea is alluring because many Americans want to take direct action to remove corrupt government, but they do not want to risk their lives to do it. That is to say, they would much rather the “professionals” handle their rebellion for them.
Military coup takes the responsibility of constitutional revolution away from the people and places it the hands of a select few. What this means is that a military coup led by Washington-bred generals is actually advantageous to the elites because it allows them to undermine legitimate rebellion without directly confronting it at the risk of energizing it. Two birds are thus killed with one stone: The revolutionary momentum is derailed, and the establishment maintains control through military puppets who have more room to impose greater totalitarianism through overt force.
But what if those generals were rock-solid constitutionalists, some might ask? We can only guess at the result, but I can say with certainty that pretenders like Vallely are NOT constitutionalists.
Before Vallely settled in Montana to become a “freedom fighter” he was most famous for co-authoring a Department of Defense white paper called “From Psyop To Mind War,” published in 1980.
The paper devises fourth-generation warfare methods to paralyze entire nations with complex propaganda, turning the population against itself and its own interests so that controllers do not have to expend vast military resources to defeat them conventionally. This strategy was deemed preferable, as it would reduce destruction of resources while still establishing dominance and/or destabilization. It is also a strategy that was recommended for use against the American people (not to mention the utilization of “ESP” as a weapon, but we don’t have time to get into that garbage). The Arab Spring, funded and directed by covert intelligence agencies, is a perfect example of Mind War in action. And in light of this, I find it interesting that Vallely would champion a project labeled “Operation American Spring”, as if the joke on us is right out in the open.
The other author of “From Psyop To Mind War” is a man by the name of Michael Aquino, who has a foggy career history beyond his status as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. military and allegedly an employee of the NSA. What is not a mystery is Aquino’s religious orientation. The man is an open Satanist, a former member of the Church of Satan, and a current member of his own Temple of Set. (Aquino founded the Temple of Set five years before working with Vallely, meaning his darker theological leanings were well known to any of his peers). Whether or not one has a Christian orientation, one should still be compelled to question the moral intentions of a man who curls his eyebrows to look like horns, worships either the myth or the actual embodiment of the prince of darkness, and tries to present such activities as a mere expression of rationalism. One should also be compelled to question the moral and mental compass of anyone who would willingly maintain a working relationship with such a person and then suddenly fight the good fight as a “Christian patriot”. I have not found a single instance in which Vallely has stood in public opposition to Aquino or denounced the methods of “From Psyop to Mind War.” And to this day, Aquino thanks Vallely for his efforts on the white paper.
After retiring from the military, Vallely became a client of Benedor Associates, a neoconservative public relations firm. And he continues to ally closely with neoconservative political elites. It should come as no surprise then that just like McCain, Vallely also took a trip to Syria, on the same day as the infamous sarin gas attack — the same gas attack that was most likely perpetrated by Muslim extremist groups as a false flag against the Syrian government, and which almost led America into World War III. In response, Valley called for increased U.S. government support for the FSA insurgents, the same insurgents that are joining ISIS in droves.
So why is a retired neoconservative U.S. general who wrote a psychological warfare paper with a DoD Satanist supporting extremist insurgency in the Middle East while suggesting military coup in the United States? I can only suggest that the Hegelian dialectic is in full force. The elites conjure a frightening enemy in the form of ISIS, attacks occur that distract the masses away from the internationalists, and the chaos that follows — whether it results in revolution or military coup — is then sold to the world as a natural by-product of a crumbling Western world due to the misguided zealotry of “conservatives.” After the dust settles, the men who made the collapse possible move forward with the global centralization they always wanted, using America as a horror story to teach future generations of children in Common Core-style classrooms about the barbaric attachments to national sovereignty and individualism.
A fanciful conspiracy theory? Perhaps. Or perhaps it’s a very real possibility if the liberty movement and conservatives in general are suckered into the neocon fold once again. The U.S. is back in Syria, this time to commit air strikes on the same terror groups OUR GOVERNMENT created to fight Assad. ISIS elements have called for attacks on U.S. citizens in response. The Neocon sharks are in a frenzy, ready to offer false leadership once again. The only question left is, will the citizenry follow, will they stick with establishment muppet, Barack Obama, or, will they finally cast off the false left/right paradigm, and choose to lead themselves?