December 31, 2017

"New Right" now fully co-opted by neo-cons, with remarks on Iran protests

The failed re-alignment of the GOP has been clear for awhile in the direction of the Trump movement trying to pull GOP-ers toward them, as the Republican party remains exactly as it was before the attempted "hostile takeover" by the Trump supporters.

But now we're seeing an even greater failure in the other direction -- former supporters of the populist-nationalist movement who are now shilling for the corporatist-globalist agenda of the widely hated GOP. If the Establishment cannot drive out insurgents from the political arena, it seeks to co-opt them instead.

They're known as the "New Right" or "Alt-Lite". Mike Cernovich, Jack Posobiec, Stefan Molyneux, Paul Joseph Watson, Cassandra Fairbanks, et al. Mostly active on Twitter, although some do guest host segments on the Infowars shows.

They all began as sincere America-firsters, and all expressed shock and disappointment when the Pentagon over-ruled Trump and decided to bomb Syria, which was obviously not going to be a one-off incident but a prelude to a broader and protracted intervention in that country, completely the opposite of what Trump had campaigned on and exhorted Obama to do in 2013.

Regime change in foreign countries was not supposed to be on the list of priorities for Making America Great Again. With the sudden shift on Syria policy, the US was now committed to regime change against Assad, which remains the open official policy still.

We now have thousands of American troops over there, and General Mattis of the Pentagon junta has declared that we will stay there forever -- no conditions, no timelines, and explicitly not just because ISIS has been defeated.

In the scramble to figure out what was going on, these Alt-Lite figures were all on the non-interventionist side and figured that someone else was pulling the strings on military policy other than the Commander-in-chief. They certainly did not start out as neo-cons.

Cernovich developed the largest networks of inside sources, and laid it all out -- General McMaster, also of the Pentagon junta, was undoing the early transformation that General Flynn (purged by the junta) was bringing to the National Security Council. Flynn was on board with Trump about shutting the door on Cold War policies, and focusing instead on radical Islam.

That meant letting go of regime change in Syria, which was a relic of the Cold War, and which would harm the fight against radical Islam, since Assad's secular pluralist government is a target of the jihadists, making him an ally of ours. For that matter, Iran is a target of the jihadists, who blew up the Iranian parliament just last summer. All jihadists are Sunni (though not the other way around), and Iran is predominantly Shia and pluralist.

One by one, Flynn's people were purged from the government by the brass at the Pentagon and the intel agencies. This culminated in August when Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka were purged, followed by Trump giving a neo-con ventriloquist speech about the existential need for us to send more troops back into Afghanistan. By September, the neo-con purge of Trumpians had been completed.

This left the Alt-Lite people with no more contacts within the government who were friendly to their movement. Now there were only GOP puppets for corporate elitism in economics and imperialist globalism against the usual targets in foreign policy. If the Alt-Lite journalists and activists wanted any access to the Trump administration, they would now be dealing only with hostile forces.

That meant that either they could stick to their principles of America First, and get shut out from all access to the Trump administration -- or grovel before their enemies who had taken over the administration, and get some access.

Groveling isn't enough, though -- the cucks and neo-cons who run the GOP want you to spread their BS message to your large audience, reaching people who the standard GOP talking heads could not reach via Fox News.

The deal is pretty simple: you can do the whole Tea Party thing, being counter-cultural or insurgent against the GOP Establishment, and adapt it for younger online-only audiences. The Tea Party was easily co-opted, so make that the model for the New Right. The Tea Party, only with no Bible thumping or other Boomer-related gimmicks.

But, you are never to criticize major policy decisions -- especially relating to the main faction that controls the party, the Pentagon -- and you are never to criticize the operation of the White House at the upper levels. Be a good team player for the GOP.

In addition to needing sources, there's also the chance that some Zionist donor dangled a bag of money in front of them.

Over the past several months, the New Right has started to sound more and more like the Old Right. Dismissing single-payer healthcare when they might have considered it before, cheerleading the tax cuts for the wealthy and for off-shoring corporations, hyping up Israel as the most important place for Americans to concern themselves with, and laying off their earlier criticism of the Pentagon junta for how it was sealing off Trump from his allies and from any information that might lead him to decide against more imperialism, with Cernovich even giving empty pro forma praise for both McMaster and Kelly.

Some of these changes may have been symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome, where after joining politics as nominal Republicans -- Trumpians -- they began internalizing the standard Republican crap that they had been fighting against just a year ago.

But in their reaction to the current protests in Iran, they seem far more coordinated and centrally orchestrated, using the same talking points and even the same buzzwords ("brave," "heroic"). Some of these talking points cut completely against their brands as they have existed for the past year or more -- like how we need regime change in Iran so that women can cast off their hijabs, and that "this is what real feminism looks like". All of these New Right people are anti-feminist, so what gives?

Clearly this talking point came from the same neo-con think tank borg brain, which tries to persuade American audiences to destabilize another Middle Eastern country and send millions of more Muslim refugees to our shores, by appealing to human rights, feminism, etc. The disseminater of this liberal interventionist talking point did not bother to adapt it to the anti-feminist brand of the New Right figures, leaving its fat clumsy neo-con fingerprints all over the message.

Do the head-level neo-cons really think we're going to forget how these Alt-Lite people responded to the push for regime change in Syria, either during the campaign or right after the bombing of Syria? Some of them went so far as to say they were "done with Trump" after that (misplacing the blame that belongs 100% to the Pentagon and intel agencies).

We're not the typical mindless Republican-voting morons who will rally around whatever a Republican President says we must do. If that's the only people who resonate with this neo-con co-optation of the New Right media figures, then it's not persuading anyone new among their audience. Those of us who used to tune in to Cernovich's scoops about which Trump supporter was getting purged next, can easily detect when he's talking like a ventriloquist dummy with a neo-con hand up its butt.

We can also tell when the dog does not bark. Back when the purge was in full force, Cernovich attacked the anti-Trump staffer Johnnie DeStefano as one of the ringleaders. Well, now Axios reports that DeStefano will assume even greater powers in the new year, meaning there will be even less of a Trumpian influence among the White House staff, and less Trumpian influence over Congress.

Why isn't Cernovich using the occasion to gloat about how he knew the score months ago, and was way ahead of the mainstream media in identifying who this anti-Trump purger was? He loves to gloat about early stories he's broken, but now not if it would end up criticizing the operation of the White House.

As the Pentagon and CIA begin preparing for the War on Terror 2.0 against Iran, who has never attacked us, while giving hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia who blew us up on 9/11, the New Right is only going to get worse. It's going to be warmed-over "Axis of Evil" crap from the George W. Bush years. Just when you thought the neo-cons were dead -- a hand shoots out of the grave and clings to your ankle!

The only high-profile Trumpians I can identify who are skeptical or dismissive of mindless, wasteful, and pointless regime change in Iran are Tucker Carlson and Ann Coulter. The only one with a lower profile but still visible in conservative media, is Scott Greer with the Daily Caller (connection to Tucker).

Paul Joseph Watson actually tweeted a link to this post by Moon of Alabama, which makes the case that whatever economic grievances may have motivated some of the Iranian protesters, the Deep State in the US and Israel is not going to waste the opportunity to re-direct them into a full-on regime change operation, which will fail like all the others have.

But then someone must have tapped him on the shoulder, and whispered in his ear that he was supposed to be towing the line about how great it would be for regime change to strike Iran. He also parroted the groupthink talking point from the others in the New Right that these protests could not possibly be part of a Deep State coup, since the mainstream media are not covering them like they covered them during the Arab Spring or Syrian civil war.

It is a facile claim, as the media will soon be covering them, but are not yet clear about how to frame their narrative -- this time, the media's rival party is in power, unlike during 2009 and just after, when their own party was in power and could not be criticized.

Moreover, in between the Arab Spring and the potential Persian Spring, the media's party struck a major deal with Iran when their own party was in power. Encouraging regime change in Iran would certainly disrupt that deal, which they consider one of their party's crowning achievements (rightly so, although you could say it was one of the few things they did that didn't fuck up the world any more than it already was).

Remember: the whole point of the Iran Nuclear Deal was to open the country up to Western investment, which would benefit the finance sector here in America. Since the finance sector is the main faction controlling the Democrat party, it had to be that party that struck the deal. The military is the main faction controlling the GOP, and they treat Iran as an obstacle to their continued military footprint in the Middle East. So like hell the deal would be struck by them.

With the media joining the finance sector in the party system, they are going to now err on the side of not stirring up trouble against Iran. Any regime change or other military operation would threaten the fragile new state of investment by Western banks in that country, which they were so hungry to sink their teeth into that they risked looking "soft on a regional military opponent". They countered by tying Western investment to a moratorium on nuclear weapons development.

So the media wants to have Wall Street's back on not destabilizing Iran.

On the other hand, the media also wants access to sources from the military in case a regime change operation does get under way, so they may decide to let Wall Street's investments in Iran go to pot by spreading the Pentagon and CIA's propaganda about needing to overthrow the government there once again.

For the moment, the media's decision is up in the air. But it does not mean that we are not witnessing an obvious attempt by the opportunistic Deep State to turn protests about economic grievance into a full-on regime change and nation-building operation, destined to fail like all the others before it.


  1. How disappointing that they sold out within one year.

  2. J.S. -- as usual when you come in to shill for the jihadists and Zionists, your comments will be deleted.

    Funny how you never comment on anything else. Almost like you're being paid just to shill for Saudi Arabia and Israel. Which one pays their comment-whores better?

  3. The Flynn people were always Iran hawks, but that was supposed to be the bad that we took with the good -- getting away from the Cold War framework.

    So they made a wrong assessment of Iran as being jihadist -- OK, a big mistake, but perhaps one worth making if we could pull out of NATO, SK, Japan, and the Muslim countries where we've been partners with jihadists for decades.

    Now it's turning out like the Trump movement domestically -- since the Establishment's power factions are in total control, the outcomes are only reflecting the small overlap between the Trump people and the anti-Trump people. Lower corporate tax rates and destabilizing Iran.

    We're not getting the policies where the Trump people were distinct from -- and antithetical to -- the same ol' GOP retards.

  4. * toeing the line...otherwise, another great post...

  5. Aidan Barrett1/2/18, 4:34 PM

    Iran doesn't have identity/sectarian issues the way that the Arab states do. As opposed to Syria/Iraq/Libya, which were creations of the 20th Century, Persia has an identity that goes back over 2500 years. Therefore, a post-clerical democratic republic is significantly less likely to spiral out of control.

    In addition, it has more stable institutions. Note how after the Pahlavi Dynasty fell in 1979, Iran's institutions kept the country relatively stable (although they were infiltrated by the Shiite clerics). Another contrast is that in spite of the economic/intellectual stagnation under the mullahs/ayatollahs, Iran's population remains more sophisticated/urbane/cultured that those of the Ba'ath Arab states where the autocrats ossified all civil society between themselves at the top and the tribes/extended families at the bottom (which soon served as the only rallying points for "governance").

    To be fair, Iran may have issues with minority groups in the fringes.

  6. All those stable Iranian institutions will get wiped out if the US helps to intervene or foment another phony "revolution" like it did in Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc.

    Your dumb shill argument leaves out the part where the 1979 revolution was an internal change -- not one foisted from hostile outside powers, like the US that is currently putting Iranian people under crippling sanctions.

    Changes engineered from hostile outside forces are obviously not going to preserve the stability of institutions.

    And at any rate, the US has already done this once before in Iran -- the CIA coup that overthrew the democratically elected leader Mussadegh in the 1950s, and installed the Shah in his place.

    How long did that last? About 25 years -- and then triggered the Islamic Revolution in '79. They nationalized all their oil, as they had planned to do under Mussadegh, so the coup only delayed the inevitable by a little bit.

    Oh and BTW the Saudis and other jihadist Gulf states nationalized *their* oil, too, taking away Aramco from the Americans who continued to be their #1 ally because the GOP leaders are cucked beyond belief. Also the Pentagon refusing to get revenge against the Saudis for attacking the Pentagon building itself on 9/11.

    If the US Deep State of the 1950s could not do a good job of regime change in Iran, the more abjectly pathetic and retarded Deep State of the 2010s will do an even worse job.

  7. Aidan Barrett1/2/18, 5:05 PM

    What about Germany/Japan after WWII? They were chaotic hellholes in 1945. In 1955, they had established strong institutions and higher standards of living that any other time in history. The notion that external influence is inherently corrupt/corrupting is false. I'm surprised a "race realist" such as yourself doesn't pick up on how institutions are established much more easily in societies with ethnic homogeneity allowing "brave reciprocity" to quote Robert Putnam.

  8. Newsflash from 2018: We have not militarily imposed our will on any nation's institutions since WWII -- conveniently the most recent example you provide was over 70 years ago, at our peak influence.

    We militarily invaded and occupied Germany and Japan, and waged war against them as entire societies and peoples -- we fought against "the Germans" and "the Japanese".

    We did not fight against "the corrupt German leaders who betray the wonderful German people," as the Pentagon and CIA have carried out things for the past several decades.

    We either go in against the whole society or don't go in at all. Surgically removing the leaders doesn't work.

    The US used to be an influential imperial power from roughly 1890 to 1950. We no longer are, and have no chance of invading Iran as a total society and re-shaping its institutions like we did back during our peak in WWII.

  9. Shibboleth overload from a Zionist / Jihadist shill, trying to gaslight the Alt-Right on Twitter:

    Whenever there's an in-group buzzword in every clause of every sentence, it's a tip-off that they're really from the out-group, and are overdoing their attempt to convince insiders that they too are insiders.

    Normal insiders pepper their conversations with buzzwords, not every friggin' sentence. In the pre-coup days, I had lots of shills and feds in the comments here saying things like "Trump's cucking for the Jews!" by hiring Kushner. So obvious.

    I checked in on the Alt-Right to see if they're falling for it like the Alt-Lite / GOP partisans are -- nope. Give them credit for not falling for warmongering.

    The Alt-Lite shills are in spin mode, having to address so many major objections from an audience that isn't buying what they're selling. "If you're explaining, you're losing".

    Give it up, shills, you're not converting anyone, only preaching to the choir.

  10. "Cassandra Fairbanks"

    Please don't tell me the Julian Assange superfan is selling out. Poor Jules, poor Ron Paul.


You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."