Without sounding like Andy Rooney, I also get attacks of sheer euphoria when I think I found something new and exciting. A few days later that euphoria turns into an utter despair when I realize somebody else found it years before I did.


I found out that our president G. W. Bush has had a tremendous success in uniting the various (and often conflicting) factions of the Republican party. Some of it, I found to be a source of an anti-Clintonian backlash (and I’m sure some of it was, but not as much as I tought). Some other portion, I ascribed to the pendulum effect where after pronounced liberalism you get into a phase of dire conservativism (that too was partially accurate).


But nowhere in my search did I manage to unite all these theories as elegantly as Dr. Trifkovic did in his article “Who controls Washington’s foreign policy” dated as far back as July, 2003. In a part significant to me Dr. Trifkovic points out:
[“The neoconservatives, who are generally agreed to be the most powerful faction in the U.S. foreign policy establishment at the moment, have had an unusual and uneven ideological evolution. Many of them originally came from the hard, revolutionary Left, and are often depicted to this day as former Trotskyites who have morphed into a new, closely related life form.
In support of this argument it is pointed out that many early neocons-including The Public Interest founder Irving Kristol and coeditor Nathan Glazer, Sidney Hook, and Albert Wohlstetter-belonged to the anti-Stalinist far left in the late 1930s and early 1940s, and that their present-day successors, including Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprize Institute and Carl Gershman, came to neoconservatism through the Socialist Party at a time when it was Trotskyite in outlook and politics. As early as 1963 Richard Hofstadter commented on the progression of many ex-Communists from the paranoid left to the paranoid right, clinging all the while to the fundamentally Manichean psychology that underlies both. Four decades later the dominant strain of neoconservatism is declared to be a mixture of geopolitical militarism and "inverted socialist internationalism."]


Now that is one brave new way to look at things almost two full years ago and diagnose the state of affairs today in 2005


In his mild introduction to the heart of the matter (in my assessment) he says: “Certain important differences remain, notably the neoconservatives' hostility not only to Nazi race-theory but even to the most benign understanding of national or ethnic coherence. On the surface, there are also glaring differences in economics. However, the neoconservative glorification of the free market is more rhetoric, designed to placate the businessmen who fund them, than reality. In fact, the neoconservatives favor not free enterprise but a kind of state capitalism-within the context of the global apparatus of the World Bank and the IMF-that Hitler would have appreciated.”



And if you keep reading you find the real gems, like:

“They do not want to abolish the state; they want to c o n t r o l it -especially if the state they control is capable of controlling all others. They are not "patriotic" in any conventional sense of the term and do not identify themselves with the real and historic America but see the United States merely as the host organism for the exercise of their Will to Power. Whereas the American political tradition has been fixated on the dangers of centralized state power, on the desirability of limited government and non-intervention in foreign affairs, the neoconservatives exalt and worship state power, and want America to become a hyper-state in order to be an effective global hegemon. Even when they support local government it is on the grounds that it is more efficient and responsive to the demands of the Empire, not on Constitutional grounds.
The neoconservative view of America as a hybrid, "imagined" nation had an ardent supporter eight decades ago: in Mein Kampf Adolf Hitler argued for a new, tightly centralized Germany by invoking the example of the United States and the triumph of the Union over states' rights. He concluded that "National Socialism, as a matter of principle, must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries." Hitler was going to make a new Germany the way he imagined it, or else destroy it. In the same vein the Weekly Standard writers are "patriots" only insofar as the America they imagine is a pliable tool of their global design. Their relentless pursuit of an American Empire overseas is coupled by their deliberate domestic transformation of the United States' federal government into a Leviathan unbound by constitutional restraints. The lines they inserted into President Bush's State of the Union address last January aptly summarized their Messianic obsessions: the call of history has come to the right country, we exercise power without conquest, and sacrifice for the liberty of strangers, we know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation: "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity."


Who would have thunk? Such a strong parallel and it’s just in front of our nose. Is it possible that the Bush doctrine of superiority through “we are the only superpower left, so we can do what we damn please” has brought home a strong pro-Nazi element? No, it’s not possible it most definitely happened and it is most definitely happening. With every passing day we see some of our freedoms abridged in a tasteless way. Just look at a closer parallel with the Nazis:

“The neoconservatives' deep-seated distaste for the traditional societies, regimes, and religion of the European continent, particularly Russia and East European Slavs, is positively Hitlerian. The sentiment was most glaringly manifested in the 1999 NATO war against the Serbs: William Kristol's urge to vicariously "crush Serb skulls" went way beyond the 1914 Viennese slogan "Serbien muss sterbien." In terms of strategic significance for the United States, however, the neocons' visceral Russophobia is mush more significant. In the aftermath of the Cold War the neoconservatives have continued to regard Moscow as the enemy, enthusiastically supporting Chechen separatists as "freedom fighters" and advocating NATO expansion. Their atavism is comparable to Hitler's obsession with Russia, an animosity that was equally unrelated to the nature of its regime. It is only a matter of time before some neocons start advocating a new Drang nach Osten, in the form of an American-led scramble for Siberia.
The neoconservative mindset is apocalyptic (which is a Nazi and Stalinist trait), rather than utopian (which characterizes the Trotskyite Left). The replacement of the Soviet threat with the more amorphous "terrorism" reflects the doomsday revolutionary mentality that can never rest. New missions and new wars will have to be engineered, and pretexts manufactured, with the same subtlety that characterized the "attack" on the German radio station at Gleiwitz on August 31, 1939. Even the tools for the enforcement of domestic acquiescence are not dissimilar: the Patriot Act followed 9-11 as smoothly as the suspension of the Weimar constitution followed the Reichstag fire. Echoing the revolutionary dynamism and the historicist Messianism equally common to fascists and communists, Michael Ledeen wrote that "creative destruction" is America's eternal mission, both at home and abroad, and the reason America's "enemies" hate it: "They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence-our existence, not our politics-threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission."


Since I began sounding like Andy Roony, I’ll end my modest share with a more palatable (patriotic and Jeffersonian): The above truths I hold self-evident. It entailed just listing a few of the events and lots of courage comparing it to what we know of the birth of Nazism. “Fascism will come,” Huey Long once said. “in the name of anti - Fascism” - it will come in the name of your security - they call it “National Security,”


There is another, even greater danger from such a Super State (super power): The super state will provide you tranquility above the truth, the super state will make you believe you are living in the best of all possible worlds, and in order to do so will rewrite history as it sees fit. George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth warned us, “Who controls the past - controls the future.”


In all likelihood, there won’t be such familiar signs as swastikas. We won’t build Dachaus and Auschwitzes. We’re not going to wake up one morning and suddenly find ourselves in gray uniforms goose – stepping off to work. But this short history reminder might serve us well. The objects in the mirror are closer than they appear.

To read the full article please go to: www.snd-us.com/Liberty/st_1843.html

Iliya Pavlovich