Neoliberalism and the New Right versus Democracy

The Russian collusion debate was straight-forward to begin with. The Clinton campaign accused the Russians of hacking the DNC’s email account in order to embarrass the Democrats and swing the election to Trump. That was their explanation for Hillary’s loss.

Progressives had good reason to reject this argument, but it seems to me they’ve stopped paying attention. Although the investigation has uncovered plenty of troubling behavior by Donald Trump and his associates, we’re stuck on the possibility of Hillary Clinton foisting herself into the White House. The continued refusal to consider Mueller’s evidence begins to look like a defense of the 2016 election results.

There are good reasons to be suspicious of establishment fear-mongering, but it’s important to consider the evidence in each case. Otherwise while we’re busy fighting the neoliberal agenda we might ignore an agenda every bit as hostile to the progressive cause. I’m thinking of the rise of the alt-right in the United States and its apparent ties to the current administration.

American racism has increased with the election of Donald Trump, but the rise of White Nationalism represents racism of a different sort. It is legitimate to be alarmed about national security when presented with evidence of ties between Donald Trump, the White Nationalist movement, the European New Right, and Alexander Putin.

As it happens, the neocons are not the only ones forming think tanks and crafting ambitious plans for the world. According to an article in New Dawn Magazine, geopolitical groups have also been at work in Europe, laying the groundwork for the Eurasian agenda. That was the claim made by Romanian-born journalist and author, Jean Parvulesco (1929-2010), who compared the policies of these groups to the neoconservative Project for a New American Century. Parvulesco was influenced by the perennialist Traditionallism of Rene Guenon and Julius Evola, and was also associated with the European New Right.

“It is the confrontation of our imperial and catholic [universal] doctrines with the current political historical reality…which will see the final emergence of the catholic Great Empire which constitutes our ultimate objective, the Imperium Ultimum, the Regnum Sanctum, which should comport, in principle, three operational stages….

“The first stage was to be the creation of a Paris Berlin-Moscow axis that is considered to be the axis along which this major change will occur. This axis will tie together the destiny of three nations (France, Germany and Russia).

“The second stage is the integration of what was traditionally known as West and East Europe, together with Russia, Siberia, India and Japan.

“The final stage involves what is termed the destruction of the ‘global democratic conspiracy,’ led by the United States, including a revolutionary liberation of its people, after which America as a whole (North and South) will become one entity. We can only wonder whether the present drive by the US to expand NAFTA and create a North American Union are steps in this direction.”

There are a disturbing number of similarities between the ideas of the European New Right and the American Right. Parvulesco anticipates the death of the ‘democratic system’ of political correctness—political correctness is a pet peeve of Donald Trump. Parvulesco predicted that the United States will self-destruct in a second civil war due to irreconcilable differences between the liberal community and the archconservative religious community—conservative leaders in the US have spoken of the possibility of a civil war.

Parvulesco’s geopolitical model for what he had in mind was the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union. He thought it demonstrated that powerful empires can disappear from one day to the next, requiring a new society and structure to be built from the ground upwards. At the same time, he argued that the Soviet Union’s collapse was not as sudden as it appeared. The public collapse was merely the revelation of a death that had already occurred. This is what he believed would happen to Europe. “The collapse of ‘democratic Europe’ has already taken place, and all that is left is the public acceptance of this fact and the beginning of a new Europe.” And he also thought he knew what would replace it. His idea of a new Europe was the ‘Eurasian Empire of the End Times,’ and its symbol was Vladimir Putin.

Lately, we see the same choices playing out in the United States. For some, it is obvious that American democracy is worth protecting. Many of them supported Bernie Sanders in 2016. For others, who also call themselves progressives, the capitalist system at the basis of American democracy is finished. This faction did everything it could in 2016 to distract Sanders voters with a third-party candidate and to promote inane advice like, ‘vote your conscience’. They failed to mention that your conscience will have no say at all in what happens after the collapse. Could it be that they are closer to the imperialists of both the Left and the Right than they are to Bernie Sanders’ supporters?

Another article in the same magazine speaks of the part that Jean Parvulesco played in acquainting the world with the visions of French esotericist Raymond Abellio. Abellio and Jean Parvulesco are identified in this article as two prominent French esotericists who visualized and tried to implement a roadmap for what Europe – and the Western world as a whole – should become. “It is a future where the real role of the Priory of Sion comes into its own.”

The name ‘Raymond Abellio’ is the pseudonym of Georges Soulès (1907-1986). In 1942, Georges Soulès became secretary general of the MSR (Mouvement Social Rèvolutionnaire. “This group had evolved out of the sinister Comitè Secret d’Action Revolutionaire (CSAR), also known as the Cagoule. Soulès was now to become acquainted with Eugène Deloncle, head of the political wing, dedicated to secret direct, and violent action…so here we have a Socialist turned Fascist, deeply involved in political movements who actively collaborated with the Vichy government.” (Guy Patton, Masters of Deception, as quoted by the New Dawn Magazine)

According to Patton, Abellio’s thought is “typical of an extreme right-wing esotericism, the aim of which is to ‘renew the tradition of the West.’ He wanted to replace the famous Republican slogan, ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’ with ‘Prayer, War, Work’, to represent a new society built on an absolute hierarchy led by a king-priest.”

Abellio chose his pseudonym because he identified himself with Apollo, and because his initials, RA, were those of the Egyptian sun god. His ideas were a mixture of Christian eschatology, prophecy, and gnostic doctrines regarding what it is to be human. His most famous work is ‘The Absolute Structure’ (1965). The absolute structure is a vital ingredient in his idea of the Assumption (destiny) of Europe.

Although Parvulesco and Abellio differed in some ways, they both believed in the need for a final battle against the counter-initiatory and subversive forces (the non-being), and they both saw themselves as freedom fighters, a theme that runs all through their writings.

“In the West, it was the task of freedom fighters – terrorists? – to bring about this change. These ‘heroic’ battles were brought to life in [Abellio’s] novels…many consider ‘The Pit of Babel’ to be his best work and it is here that he plots intellectuals that are disengaged from all forms of ideology and scruples engaging in widespread terrorism.”

Also mentioned is a familiar theme on YouTube, a polar shift.

“Parvulesco often uses the term ‘Polar’ in reference to the ‘polar fraternities’ with which Guénon had once associated. He sees these as important instruments in the creation of modern Europe. He also used the term to refer to the Hyperborean origins of the present cycle of humanity, which he argued would soon end with a polar reversal. Here he is close to Guénon but far from Abellio’s thinking, who had an altogether more optimistic vision of the future…”

(Some believe that Donald Trump inherited Hyperborean lineage, through his mother.)

The last part of this article, titled Russia, Putin and the New Europe provides the names of people important to the New Right and emphasizes the importance of the last message of Fatima, which was delivered in October 1917, at the moment when the Bolshevik Revolution began. For esotericists, the appearance of the Virgin Mary at Fatima and her messages concerning the future of Russia are part of this Great Empire. This not only has meaning on the political plane—it coincides with their vision as to how ‘real politicians’ work together with the ‘denizens of the other world’ to accomplish the Assumption. The apparition at Fatima inspired Abellio’s effort to unite the two factions of the Cold War.

Now for those who claim to be afraid of war above all else, it is clear that this movement provides a poor rationale for war with Russia. This fear misunderstands the nature of the struggle.

For those who see the value in continuing the struggle within the present system, it is important to know that democracy itself is on the front lines. Parvulesco argues that due to the extreme dissatisfaction within the United States and the disparity between the archconservative religious community and the liberals, it is impossible to be elected as president on a genuine agenda. This is his entire rationale for the end of democracy. Unfortunately for him, 2016 proved the flaw in this rationale with the sudden appearance of a genuine agenda and the support of the majority of Americans.

Considering the New Right’s focus on the demise of democracy it becomes obvious who the opposition was in 2016. It was every false actor who pretended to be like Bernie in 2016 and 2018, everyone who rigged the process, everyone who purged the voting rolls and closed the polling stations, everyone who lied and wheedled and bribed and cheated, everyone who thought they could win with platitudes and cliches, in short, everyone who helped to defame the democratic process. They played right into the arms of the imperialist devils. Little did we know that a campaign like the one Bernie ran in 2016 was the most logical response to this threat. It is the perfect defense of democracy against the defamations of the alt-right.

When you draw the battle lines in this way, the entire polemic of the New Right is absurd. If democracy is destined to fade away, as they claim it is, what could be the purpose of all those books and articles? All those marches and slogans? The same can be said for the neoliberal agenda. Why bother convincing people at all? Do they hope they can get us to accept the theft of our democratic rights as a default position? If so, the outcome must still depend on us.

Mossad Urges Netanyahu to Bomb Alleged Iranian Sub Base

According to George Webb, Israel has discovered a secret Iranian Submarine base. After the chemical weapons fiasco the sheer gall of this announcement is impressive.  Never mind the fact that Webb is a member of the Mossad .  Nevertheless, he calmly states that Israel will strike within 24 to 48 hours.

Webb began making videos shortly after Trump was elected, leveling dramatic accusations at Hillary and Huma Abedin concerning their relations with the ISI, the Inter-Service Intelligence, the premier intelligence service of Pakistan.  However, these accusations would only be dramatic to people who hadn’t read the book Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons.  Pakistan has been engaging in ‘unauthorized proliferation activities’, and the United States has been covering it up.  For years.  Foreign trade in nuclear technology was Pakistan’s foreign policy.  But it’s worse than that.

For three decades, consecutive US administrations, Republican and Democrat, as well as the governments in Britain and other European countries, had allowed Pakistan to acquire highly restricted nuclear technology.  In a disastrous epoch, key state assets were then misdirected and countermanded in order to disguise how Pakistan had sold it on.  Intelligence gathering in the US was blunted while federal agencies, including the Departments of State and Defense, were corralled into backing the White House agenda and forced to sidestep Congress and break federal laws.  Officials who tried to stop the charade were rough-housed, smeared or purged, inflicting terrible damage on America and Europe’s ability to see sharply.  The US Congress played along too, by folding beneath White House pressure during a period in which political debate that dared level hard questions was portrayed as unpatriotic or even seditious.

This illicit trade was common knowledge before the US made the decision to go to war in Iraq.  Nevertheless, here is George Webb spelling out our doom.  If there are any military strategists out there who want to toss around possible strategies for Iran, now would be the time.  The Iranians surely know they are going to be attacked, but if they defend themselves or retaliate, they play into their enemies’ hands.

Here’s Netanyahu’s statement, which doesn’t mention the sub base:

George Webb commented on Netanyahu’s statement:



This is a War in the Making

See this link for the latest statements warning Trump against striking Syria.  First is Democracy Now’s report of a statement from Bernie Sanders:

On Wednesday, Sanders tweeted, “President Trump has no legal authority for broadening the war in Syria. It is Congress, not the president, who determines whether our country goes to war, and Congress must not abdicate that responsibility.”

Democracy Now also reports that Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya directly addressed his U.S. counterpart, Nikki Haley at the United Nations Security Council.

Vasily Nebenzya: “You are very good at threatening. And the threats you are proffering, that you are now stating vis-à-vis Syria, should make us seriously worried—all of us—because we could find ourselves on the threshold of some very sad and serious events. I would once again ask you, once again beseech you, to refrain from the plans that you’re currently developing for Syria.”

And finally there is this warning reported by Press TV.  Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said that the threat of using force against a UN member state is a gross violation of the UN charter.

“We call upon… members of the international community to seriously consider the possible consequences of such accusations, threats and especially action (against Syria),” she added.

This escalation must be stopped in any way possible.  When will you people stop being confused about Donald Trump?  Will you at least consider that he may be the Clinton’s Plan-B, and controlled by the same people?


Is Afrin a Trap?

From the time I heard the news of the attack on the Kurds and then read of Trump’s half-hearted warnings to Turkey I was afraid the Kurds were going to be sacrificed. Now I’m beginning to think Erdogan will be sacrificed as well. When the president of the United States is saying one thing to you on the phone and another thing to the press, you should worry. That’s how it started with Saddam Hussein and look what happened to him. Come to think of it, there was that attempted coup in Turkey…

A Warning to the United States and Turkey

I feel called to warn the United States and Turkey that the Kurds belong to the Creator. If you harm them, or if you allow them to be harmed, he will defend them. If you have already harmed them you will pay.

I am also called to tell you that Hassan Rouhani belongs to the Creator. It will be better for you if you do not threaten him or harm his country.

Neoconservatives Against the World

We knew that this election was a contest between two deep state factions, but the most interesting thing in my opinion is the fact that both Trump and Clinton represent neoconservative influences.

It was Bill Clinton who allowed the left-wing neocons to take control of the Democratic Party.[1] (Page 36, Location 465) He did so because he needed their support for his first presidential campaign. This would explain the DNC’s treatment of Bernie Sanders in 2016. Bernie’s Democratic Socialism is more threatening to left-wing neocons than the right will ever be. However the neocon influence on the left tends to stay under the radar. It usually takes the form of neoconservative candidates posing as progressives, including John Kerry, Howard Dean, and John Edwards. Those ‘in the know’ hoped that the imperialist-democratic ideal was on its way out with the election of Barack Obama. Little did they know…

It goes without saying that the right-wing religious leaders who supported Donald Trump are also neocons, although everyone seems to chalk up their bizarre statements to religious extremism. The Christian Right has been considered a natural ally of the neocons since the time of Irving Kristol. The neocons shared the Christian Right’s aversion to the cultural revolutions of the 60s and 70s. They rejected the Democratic Party when President Carter proved to be too open-minded and respectful of people’s different lifestyles, and they were disappointed again at Reagan’s moderate stance on family and cultural issues. From that time the Christian Right has supported the most radical groups and it has violently opposed the Democrats, particularly the Clinton administration, which it considered too timid in foreign affairs.

This alliance has been courted by both the Christians and the neocons. Ralph Reed, head of the Christian Coalition from 1989 to 1997, had neocon sympathies, putting him somewhere between a sometimes anti-Semitic protestant fundamentalist and the pro-Israeli group in Washington. On the neocon side, PNAC sought to create links with key Christian groups such as William Bennett’s Empower America, and neocons like Kristol or Eliott Abrams showed their support by sharing extreme Christian positions on abortion and Aids. This alliance was boosted after September 11 when Christian Right think tanks, lobbies, and affiliated preachers adopted the neoconservative vision of Islam, Islamic terrorism and the ‘War on Terrorism’.

Many Americans are not aware of how often the Christian Right has swayed presidential decisions. George Bush was threatened with their sanctions when he condemned Israel’s assassination attempt on Hamas leader Rantissi in June of 2003. As a result of their threats Bush’s reaction to the successful assassinations of Sheikh Yassin and Rantissi in 2004 took on an entirely different character: he sided with Sharon. (When Empire Meets Nationalism, Page 35, Location 447)

Thus, starting from a deep-rooted anti-communism, the neoconservatives have gradually developed their analyses, which go far beyond the strict mould of their supporters to irrigate the whole political scene. During all their historical trajectory, there has always been a desire for American supremacy and a wariness of the rest of the world which can only lead them towards a re-legitimization of the Empire as a key to world order. (When Empire Meets Nationalism, Page 38, Location 489)

Given this discouraging state of affairs, it’s important to identify a pointed and coherent resistance. The position of Pope Francis in this struggle is probably best illustrated by the identity of his Catholic critics. As described in Todd Scribner’s book, A Partisan Church: American Catholicism and the rise of Neoconservative Catholics,[2] Francis’s critics are Catholic neocons. This is probably the faction represented by Paul Ryan when he stated that Francis should not be involved in politics. Bernie Sanders on the other hand, has been sympathetic to Francis’s approach.

Orthodox criticism of the Catholic Church represents political rivalry of another sort. The Orthodox Church is not a disinterested religious voice. It vies with Alexander Dugin for influence over Vladimir Putin.

Dugin’s neo-eurasianism represents a line of thought similar to neoconservative thought. His influence on both Vladimir Putin and Steve Bannon reveals the true dilemma of our time.


[1] Didier Chaudet, Florent Parmentier, Benoit Pélopidas, When Empire Meets Nationalism: Power Politics in the US and Russia. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Surrey, England and Burlington VT, 2009. (All page numbers and locations correspond to the Kindle edition.)

[2] As reviewed by Patrick Garry, Neoconservative Catholicism in America. First Things, December 2, 2015

Who’s Right About Syria?

I’m reading Patrick Cockburn’s article about the U.S. teaming up again with Al Qaeda and at the same time listening to Obama’s news conference. I’d like to know why they differ so much on the situation in Syria. Obama says it’s all about Assad’s treatment of Syrian protesters. Cockburn says the U.S. has been trying to destabilize Assad’s regime since 2006. ((Patrick Cockburn, A Special Relationship, Harpers, January 2016)) It gets worse:

“Syria’s first and only democratically elected government was overthrown by a CIA-instigated coup in 1949 at the behest of American oil interests who objected to Syria’s request for better terms on a pipeline deal.”

The World Bank’s Bankrupt Policy

Masses of humanity overrunning neighboring borders is not the kind of thing I had in mind when [intlink id=”2009″ type=”post”]I said[/intlink] we should focus on supporting a growing population. My context was the justification of automation in agriculture with the need to feed a growing population. I was referring to an article in which automation had already been justified by the profit motive.  I argued that corporate profitability and prosperity don’t mix. Putting the population first in this case would mean employing more people. If this makes the agriculture industry unprofitable, it’s the industry that should be considered expendable—not the workers.

The profit motive is more expensive in the long run. The refugee crisis in Syria began at least fifty years ago with bad agricultural policy. Desertification of the Syrian Steppe began in 1958 when the former Bedouin commons were opened up to unrestricted grazing and the eastern part of the steppe was put under intensive agriculture using underground irrigation. The nomads and farmers that were displaced by these practices were then forced to eek out a living in the cities, which explains why the protests began in provincial towns rather than in Damascus or Aleppo. ((Serra, Gianluca, Overgrazing and Desertification in the Syrian Steppe Are the Root Causes of War. Ecologist, June 5, 2015. Available:

Regardless of the cause, at this point the U.S. is obliged to do its part for Syrian refugees. But going forward we need policies that are designed to help people where they live. It’s true that we have no control over the agricultural policies of countries like Syria which were influenced by the Soviet Union. However in the West the World Bank’s policies have been just as damaging.

Aside from rampant corruption, (I moved the discussion of Richard Behar’s Forbes article to the end this post.) one of the main characteristics of the World Bank’s Green Revolution, from 1970 to 1990, was the removal of poor farmers from their land. As in Syria, these farmers either migrated to the cities or moved to areas with poorer soils. It is estimated that with the added pressure of the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008, up to a third of the world’s population has been dragged into a cycle of poverty and hunger. Unbelievably, according to its 2008 World Development Report, the World Bank plans to resume its focus on agriculture while ignoring the lessons of history. The basis of its agenda remains the transfer of resources away from peasants and toward large capitalist firms. ((Kersson, Tanya, Land and Resource Grabs: the World Bank’s Long War on Peasants. Global Research, April 24, 2015. Available:

If the well-being of the global population is a priority, it makes no sense to uproot people and destroy working ecosystems. Instead, our policies should have the goal of allowing people to thrive where they are. This would benefit the environment and also decrease the flow of refugees. But if we want to accomplish altruistic goals, they have to actually be our focus.

Today a handful of people believe that wealth and power entitle them to rule the world. Their decisions are profit driven, but in order to sell them to the public they then tack on altruistic goals, like feeding the world, spreading democracy, or enforcing peace. This is not policy—this is sleight of hand. It’s no wonder nothing gets done.

Dismantle the World Bank. Rein in the corporations.  If you’re still not convinced please read Richach Behar’s article in Forbes.  A summary follows:

According to a 2012 Forbes article ((Behar, Richard, World Bank Spins Out of Control: Corruption, Dysfunction Await New President. Forbes, June 27, 2012. Available: things were pretty bad when Dr. Jim Yong Kim took over as president. Richard Behar’s assessment at that time was that the system needs a complete overhaul. Since that article was written things have gone from bad to worse. ((Lakhani, Nina, World Bank’s Ethics Under Scrutiny after Honduras Loan Investigation. Available:

Behar argued that the World Bank’s problems are philosophical, structural, and cultural. Examples of the philosophical problem include a failure to articulate a vision for the World Bank’s role in the 21st century, and the handling of countries like China which no one wants to offend, with the result that China’s abuses are tolerated.

The cultural problem refers to a culture of fear—fear of loss of reputation for the Bank, fear of being the target of a witch hunt for whistle-blowers.

The most obvious structural fault would be the huge annual budget combined with a lack of oversight by the governments that provide the funds, leading to corruption at all levels.

In my opinion, you would also have to include a corporate way of thinking that convinced reasonable people this setup would work in the first place. Frankly it’s difficult to believe that the World Bank’s negative outcomes could be caused by a bunch of hapless people. The bank’s destructive tendencies are too consistent.