Good piece on the Trotskyite roots of the National Review and 'neo' conservatism

"They're much happier with a hack like Newt Gingrich who can stir up the masses to concentrate even more power in Washington. They can overlook his support for cap-and-trade and the individual mandate as long as he pushes their internationalist foreign policy."

Good piece on the Trotskyite roots of the National Review and 'neo' conservatism
Published: Wednesday, April 11, 2012, 10:33 AM     Updated: Wednesday, April 11, 2012, 11:45 AM
By Paul Mulshine/The Star Ledger

Leon Trotsky: father of neoconservatism

Have you ever used the term "Islamofascist?"

Do you get excited when some politician gets up on his hind legs and starts babbling about "American exceptionalism?"

You, too, may be a Trotskyite.

Don't axe.

 "Axe" - get it? Okay, it's an inside joke.

This is a reference to  Leon Trotsky, who famously got an axe in the head courtesy of Joe Stalin.

I posted recently on the National Review's decision to axe John Derbyshire for writing something that wasn't politically correct.

The typical American wannabe conservative does not want to think too deeply about why a supposedly right-wing publication would get so worked up about a piece of writing that offends liberal sensibilities.

 That wannabe conservative has been brainwashed by the heirs of old Leo.

I get these pests commenting constantly on my blog. They parrot the neocon line about spreading human liberation to every corner of the Earth without even realizing that every word of it has been planted in their brains by Trotskyites.

Here on the Lew Rockwell blog is a good explanation of the roots of "neo" conservatism in the thought of Trotsky:

From the anti-Stalinists who became conservatives ­ including James Burnham, Whittaker Chambers, and Irving Kristol ­ the Right gained a political education and, in some cases, an injection of passion. The ex-radicals brought with them the knowledge that ideological movements must have journals and magazines to articulate their perspectives. In 1955, for example, William F. Buckley, Jr., launched National Review at the urging of Willi Schlamm, a former German Communist. In its early years, National Review was largely written and edited by the Buckley family and a handful of former Communists, Trotskyists, and socialists, such as Burnham and Chambers.

Read the whole thing. Then you will get some understanding of why NR seemed conservative at a time when worldwide communism was a real threat but now seems so liberal. By "liberal" of course I mean in favor of the sort of big-government, centralized state that the Republicans created under George W. Bush.

You can see why these NR types feel so threatened by Ron Paul. He represents a return to the small-government, decentralized conservatism popular before the Trotskyites took over the American "right."

They're much happier with a hack like Newt Gingrich who can stir up the masses to concentrate even more power in Washington. They can overlook his support for cap-and-trade and the individual mandate as long as he pushes their internationalist foreign policy.

But that's not the real problem with National Review. The real problem is that it's not elitist. All conservatism, whether  traditionalist or libertarian, is inherently elitist because elites naturally rise in the absence of the leveling force of government.

 If you doubt that, imagine what a marathon would look like if Nancy Pelosi made the rules. Couch potatoes could ride bikes. Fat people would get a 20-mile head start.

That's why you should read the magazine that published Derbyshire rather than the one tha canned him. It's called Takimag and its founder, Taki Theodoracopulos,  is unapologetically elitist. Many of the writings included therein would be considered unpublishable by NR, for the simple reason that they outrage certain segments of the population and thereby imperil the efforts to build a successful political machine for pursuing the philosophy that old Leon advanced.

And if you doubt that, then read this article by Trotskyite Stephen Schwartz in the April 2003 National Review. An excerpt:

One might also add that nobody ever asked Jay Lovestone and Bertram Wolfe, ex-Communists whose company Beichman doubtless would prefer, to apologize for having defended the Soviet purge trials and the Stalinist state, long after so many of the brave band that carried a banner with the strange device of the Fourth International were murdered for their defiance of Stalinism. And I have yet to read an apology by Beichman for his own involvement with the Communist network.

To my last breath I will defend the Trotsky who alone, and pursued from country to country, and finally laid low in his own blood in a hideously hot little house in Mexico City, said no to Soviet coddling of Hitlerism, to the Moscow purges, and to the betrayal of the Spanish Republic, and who had the capacity to admit he had been wrong about the imposition of a single-party state, as well as about the fate of the Jewish people. To my last breath, and without apology. Let the neofascists, and Stalinists in their second childhood, make of it what they will.

Lovestone, by the way, coined the term "American exceptionalism" you'll hear Gingrich and Mitt Romney parroting. Schwartz claims to have coined the  term "Islamofascist," though the late Christopher Hitchens also made that claim.

Hitchens was also  a Trotskyite, by the way.

So are you if you parrot this nonsense. 

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2012/04/good_piece_on_the_trotskyite_r.html