Worldnet Daily posted an article titled "The End of Buckelyism" by
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., president of the Ludwig von Mises, Institute in
Auburn, Alabama. The article should be titled, "The End of [Council on
Foreign Relations member William F. Buckely's] Buckelyism?????"
The article does a good job showing how under "Buckley's guidance,
right-wing politics mutated from its ancient faith in limiting government
at home and abroad into a new faith that elevated as its central principles
anti-Sovietism and support for the huge military and spying apparatus
supposedly needed to combat an impoverished Russia." The article does a
good job showing how Buckley helped subvert the conservative movement by
silencing men like John T. Flynn ( author of The Roosevelt Myth and As We
Go Marching), and Bruce Porter (author of War and the Rise of the State)
who doubted the merits of the warfare state. The article raises the
question as "to what extent the old Communist Threat was trumped up to
plunder the American taxpayer."
The article talks about how Buckley's 180 degree turn from support for
bombing Serbia to a position that he is now against the destruction of a
country that has done us no ham signals an end to "Buckleyism."
Rockwell is wrong. William F. Buckley Jr., like Clinton, Albright, Cohen,
Berger, Jessie Jackson and many other prominent figures orchestrating the
War on Kosovo, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
"Buckleyism" is nothing more than "Council on Foreign Relations"
propaganda used to control the divergent sides of an issue, cause endless
debate, and create a false reality world providing the illusion of
freedom, while the rights guaranteed the American people by the Declaration
of Independence and Constitution are destroyed, and the United States is
turned into a "totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores."
The Communist Threat was trumped up by a Council on Foreign Relations
controlled executive office, state department, Central Intelligence Agency,
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and National Security Agency. The Communist threat
was created through Council on Foreign Relations planned and coordinated
psycho-political operations designed and directed by Council on Foreign
Relations members such as Gordon Gray, George Kennan, Walter Lippmann, and
Henry Kissinger, and the 100 or more Council on Foreign Relations members
that have been part of every Presidential administration since Woodrow
Wilson. Supporting roles in the psycho-political operations are played by
the other 2000 or more Council on Foreign Relations members who occupy top
positions in the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of
government, run congressional investigative committees, control the media,
head the largest law firms, direct the largest private foundations and
universities, and who hold the top commands in the military.
The War on Kosovo is simply another Council on Foreign Relations
psycho-poltical operation. As long as issues can be aired as differences
between left vs. right, Republican vs. Democrat, or conservative vs.
liberal, the Council on Foreign Relations win and the American people lose.
Unless the Council on Foreign Relations is exposed, investigated, and
stopped, the United States will be destroyed and absorbed into an
international regime; and, the Council on Foreign Relations created
"totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores" will be extended to all shores
and run by members of the Council on Foreign Relations and its branch
organizations in other nations such as England's Royal Institute of
International Affairs, and Canada's Canadian Institute of International
Affairs.
Rockwell's article, updated to show Council on Foreign Relations
connections, follows:
[
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_rockwell/19990505_xclro_the_end_bu.shtml ]
>WEDNESDAY MAY 05 1999
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--------
> The End of [CFR member William F. Buckley's] Buckleyism
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--------
>
>As the ranks of those who defend [Council on Foreign Relations member]
>Bill's War continue to thin, another
>famous [Council on Foreign Relations member] Bill has grown skeptical.
>[Council on Foreign Relations member] William F. Buckley Jr. has reversed
>his
>earlier position in favor of bombing Serbia to say that he too is
>against the unconscionable destruction of a country that never did us
>any harm.
>
>"If I were voting on the Kosovo matter," he wrote back on March 24, "I'd
>vote yes: Get on with the bombing." A month later, on April 28, he
>reversed himself: "There's something dirty about the entire operation.
>In most direct terms, it is not geared to the safety of the population
>whose protection took us into the war. ... We are taking satisfaction
>from dropping bombs here and there."
>
>[Council on Foreign Relations member] Buckley's reversal represents more
>than the change of one mind. It is a
>capitulation to a movement that he, his friends, and their expansionist
>ideology no longer control, or even influence to any noticeable extent.
>It's great that [Council on Foreign Relations member] Buckley is now on
>board the antiwar cause, but even
>better that his previous control of conservative opinion has been broken
>up.
>
>Time was when the right was nearly indistinguishable from National
>Review, a powerful fortnightly that began publication in 1955, just as
>the last remnants of the old anti-New Deal right were dying off. Under
>[Council on Foreign Relations member] Buckley's guidance, right-wing
>politics mutated from its ancient faith
>in limiting government at home and abroad into a new faith that elevated
>as its central principles anti-Sovietism and support for the huge
>military and spying apparatus supposedly needed to combat an
>impoverished Russia.
>
>Hence, [Council on Foreign Relations member] Buckley famously called for a
>"totalitarian bureaucracy within
>our shores" to battle the foreign communist menace, and proceeded to
>cast out from the right anyone who doubted the merits of the warfare
>state. Even such stalwarts of the old faith as John T. Flynn (author of
>The Roosevelt Myth and As We Go Marching) were banned from [Council on
>Foreign Relations member] Buckley's
>magazine and other publications he influenced.
>
>The reason was simple: Flynn saw the founders' fear of standing armies
>as entirely justified. It makes no sense, he said, to militarize the
>economy in the name of fighting a militarized economy. The Cold War
>state, he wrote, played into the hands of home-grown socialists by
>lavishing vast industrial subsidies on special interest groups, and
>giving government planners more power than a free society should allow
>anyone to have.
>
>As Bruce Porter has pointed out in War and the Rise of the State,
>"Throughout the history of the United States, war has been the primary
>impetus behind the growth and development of the central state. It has
>been the lever by which presidents and other national officials have
>bolstered the power of the state in the face of tenacious popular
>resistance."
>
>This is why Alexis de Tocqueville warned Americans in 1833 about the
>problem of even successful wars: "All those who seek to destroy the
>liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest
>and shortest means to accomplish it." Murray N. Rothbard went further to
>point out that right-wing backing for the Cold War was made possible
>only through a systematic purge of the movement itself, combined with an
>influx of socialist intellectuals who had only turned against the
>Soviets after the Hitler-Stalin pact, as well as a bunch of recovering
>Trotskyites. For thirty years, Rothbard was nearly alone on the right in
>decrying the nuclear buildup and proliferation of American troops in
>far-flung corners of the world that the ex-communists championed.
>
>Flynn and Rothbard were the principled exceptions. Most conservatives
>put their fear of militarism on hold while the Cold War raged. [Council on
>Foreign Relations member] Buckley
>then led the charge to oust the last "isolationists" from the
>conservative movement, and to make glorification of war a central plank
>of the conservative philosophy.
>
>Exactly as Flynn and Rothbard predicted, when the warfare state grew, so
>too did the welfare state, and the vast regulatory bureaucracy lording
>it over American business. The lesson of wartime history -- that
>individual liberty cannot coexist with a government engorged on
>killing -- was tossed aside.
>
>How badly did the warfare bug infect the right? People who otherwise
>claimed to believe in free enterprise, the most peaceful social system
>ever conceived, reflexively argued for a first-strike use of nuclear
>bombs. Yet these weapons of mass destruction are fundamentally
>incompatible with just-war doctrine because they necessarily harm
>innocents. Meanwhile, conservative publications began celebrating the
>indiscriminate use of power, and hailing higher Pentagon and CIA budgets
>as acts in defense of freedom.
>
>Along with the rise of warfarist ideology on the right came an
>inevitable trimming of the domestic political agenda. Cutting programs
>came to be preferred to abolishing them, and slowing the growth of
>government was seen as more respectable than calling for it to stop, let
>alone be dramatically curbed. Statist measures like the drug war and
>federal school standards became popular among people who should have
>known better. The conservative love affair with the war machine spilled
>into many other areas.
>
>Even today, when National Review lists its top 100 nonfiction books of
>the century, No. 1 is Winston Churchill's grotesquely biased history of
>the Second World War (starring you-know-who). In its sycophancy toward
>the warfare state and mass killing as man's highest end, it is only
>surpassed by [Council on Foreign Relations member] Tom Brokaw's
>government-worshiping bestseller, The Greatest
>Generation.
>
>But at the grass roots, matters are different. Since the Cold War, the
>antiwar instincts of the right have come more to the fore with every
>intervention. The war on Iraq in particular forged an important new bloc
>of right-wing, antiwar intellectuals, and since then, they have fought
>to bring the troops home, curb the ability of the president to wage war,
>and restore some semblance of rationality to foreign policy.
>
>How horrible to realize, ten years after the Cold War, that the real
>evil empire is not some foreign regime, but the U.S. military state. It
>bombs buses, bridges, factories, churches, and schools, expresses
>"regret," and then continues to do the same. A host of innocents have
>died from U.S. attacks -- a fact which should make every patriot wince.
>The propaganda should also make us wonder to what extent the old
>Communist Threat was trumped up to plunder the American taxpayer.
>
>Polls have shown that Republican voters, particularly conservatives, are
>against this war, and rightly so. In a great moment in political
>history, House Republicans voted six to one against supporting Clinton's
>cowardly air attacks. Even more impressive, a sizeable majority voted to
>invoke the War Powers Act and reclaim Congress' constitutional right to
>declare war.
>
>Truly, many Republicans have learned the lesson of Vietnam, which is not
>to increase bombing when the war isn't going well, but to think entirely
>outside the box, fundamentally reevaluating military commitments when
>reality shows them to be failing. But this type of thinking hasn't gone
>nearly far enough: stupidly, the same Congress contradicted itself by
>expanding military spending.
>
>Nevertheless, in their sometime-opposition to war, Republicans are
>recalling a pre-Cold War tradition of thought and action. American
>libertarians (believers in private property, decentralism, and liberty)
>opposed McKinley's war on Spain and Wilson's war on the European
>monarchies, and formed the basis of the American First movement that
>warned of Roosevelt's planned war for Churchill and Stalin. Indeed,
>their roots go back even further, to the states-rights opposition to
>Lincoln's military consolidation of the country.
>
>Republicans must return to their interwar impulse, and resist military
>internationalism before the U.S. is entrenched as the very global menace
>the U.S.S.R. was always said to be. The [Council on Foreign Relations
>member] Buckley surrender is a good
>first step. What is needed now is a wholesale ideological restructuring,
>to rid the last vestiges of warfare statism from the mind of anyone
>calling himself a conservative.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--------
>
>Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. is president of the Ludwig von Mises
>Institute in Auburn, Alabama.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--------
> � 1999 Western Journalism Center
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--------
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
###
When was the last time you asked your public officials to investigate the
Council on Foreign Relations?
roundtable
____
Visit the Roundtable Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2807
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How many Secretaries of State belonged to the Council on Foreign Relations? See
CFR Secretaries of State [
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2807/wwcfrsos.html ]
