TheMillerCircle.org

You might find it interesting to read an article that came out of the Rockwell-Report, derived from a book written in the 1970s by historian-economist Murray Rothbard. It briefly summarizes the historical threads between the isolationist right-wing libertarians and the war-footing neocons of today in the titanic post-WW II struggle for political control of the right in America. As a right-wing organization, the CIA had more influence in American politics than anyone might presuppose. Rothbard’s book was written in the 1970s, but is only recently available. It traces the history that he lived and knew well in this struggle. Central to this history is the toppling of the isolationist publication Freeman and replacing it with William Buckley’s National Review: this threw the switch from isolationist to interventionist philosophy of the right. There is some suggestive evidence that the CIA helped finance Buckley’s publication. Buckley worked for the CIA and in college, was an FBI informant. As a CIA agent, Buckley worked under the mysterious Howard Hunt, who has been implicated as having intimate knowledge of the Kennedy assassination. When the CIA was formed in 1947, it was illegal for it to manipulate the American press or publications originating in the U.S. Apparently this was not taken seriously and the article points to evidence that the CIA engaged in massive propaganda in the U.S. , through its “Black Fund,” with the full support of much of the American publications industry. The central problem for the new war-footing conservatives was the elimination of the isolationist right wing, in addition to waging battle with the liberal left FDRists. The article traces how the CIA was a full participant in assisting with this transition and how it manipulated the famous Frank Church hearings in the 1970s to generate an outcome and report edited by them and, in its final form, less revealing about the depth to which they had engaged in manipulating American publications and opinion. The neocons of today have a straight-line historical link to the war-footing machinations of the 1950s, when their predecessors toppled the influence of the isolationists-libertarians. Murray Rothbard continued to try and persuade an isolationist point of view and in 1988, he supported the candidacy of Ron Paul, who is with us today as a residual member of that camp. Rothbard died in 1995. His book is generally considered to be the bible of the aforementioned. His group lost, but today they are making a comeback as one can see by the popularity of Ron Paul, especially on the internet $ contest.

That is not the only confluence of history for our beloved neocons. You must also figure in the organ transplant program derived from Leo Strauss, a German born immigrant professor, who has been given credit for influencing people like Paul Wolfowitz who at least took some classes from Strauss, when Strauss was a professor at the University of Chicago. The turnaround was the point at which the neocons admired the Israeli intelligence operations and their bold decisive actions in pursuing their own interests. They came to despise the CIA, because of their lack of good intelligence and thus came full circle with their birth mother. Do you think people’s attitudes about the National Review would change if they learned that it was/is a CIA front? Rothbard’s book is titled The Betrayal of the American Right. Now add to that stew, the introduction of the free market economy with guru Milton Friedman, a dash of Ayn Rand, bring to a boil and you have some idea of the stew we are currently in. What a mess! Perhaps it’s not surprising that Americans don’t want to know their own history; apparently citizens of the Roman Empire didn’t want to know their history either. It was Jean Kirkpatrick that once said (I think), “I am not interested in learning history, I want to make history.” And so they did and we payed for it.