Neoconservatism - Revision history

RoadtoEmmaus2: improved Neoconservatism

2026-11-06T02:26:59Z

improved Neoconservatism

DavidB4-bot: /* Nazi and Trotskyist roots of Neoconservatism: Shachtman and Burnham meet Carl Schmitt */ clean up, typos fixed: 1939-40 → 1939–40, extra-territorial → extraterritorial

2026-10-26T07:56:48Z

Nazi and Trotskyist roots of Neoconservatism: Shachtman and Burnham meet Carl Schmitt: clean up, typos fixed: 1939-40 → 1939–40, extra-territorial → extraterritorial

AlbHous at 22:26, October 18, 2026

2026-10-18T22:26:30Z

Aschlafly: some improvements

2025-10-27T02:24:42Z

some improvements

RobSmith: /* References */

2025-09-02T04:40:13Z

References

RobSmith: /* Nazi and Trotskyist roots of Neoconservatism: Shachtman and Burnham meet Carl Schmitt */ wiki

2025-06-29T21:54:37Z

Nazi and Trotskyist roots of Neoconservatism: Shachtman and Burnham meet Carl Schmitt: wiki

RobSmith: /* References */

2025-05-31T16:14:11Z

References

RobSmith: /* References */

2025-05-31T16:13:31Z

References

RobSmith: /* See also */

2025-05-31T16:11:44Z

RobSmith: /* References */

2024-10-27T03:16:15Z

References

@@ Line 82: / Line 82: @@
 Neoconservative [[globalism|globalist]] ideas on foreign policy have their roots on the writings of renegade Trotskyists Max Shachtman and James Burnham in the 1940s and 1950s, while on domestic policy they derive their [[authoritarianism]] from the writings of [[Nazism|Nazi]] [[jurisprudence|jurist]] Carl Schmitt during the same period.
-Burnham and Shachtman were American Trotskyists who had clashed with [[Leon Trotsky]] in 1939-40 on the issue of whether the international workers' movement should support the [[Soviet Union]] in the event of a Nazi attack. Trotsky said it should, while Burnham and Shachtman said it should not. Both Burnham and Shachtman abandoned [[Marxism]] in the 1940s (ostensibly) and entered the [[conservative]] movement. In fact, they never really abandoned the idea of "[[Permanent Revolution]]", they just reshaped it to make it look more "conservative": the [[one-world government]], for them, wouldn't come through the USSR or through workers' revolution, but through American [[internationalism|internationalist]] and [[imperialism|imperialist]] foreign policy. Burnham explicitly wrote:
+Burnham and Shachtman were American Trotskyists who had clashed with [[Leon Trotsky]] in 1939–40 on the issue of whether the international workers' movement should support the [[Soviet Union]] in the event of a Nazi attack. Trotsky said it should, while Burnham and Shachtman said it should not. Both Burnham and Shachtman abandoned [[Marxism]] in the 1940s (ostensibly) and entered the [[conservative]] movement. In fact, they never really abandoned the idea of "[[Permanent Revolution]]", they just reshaped it to make it look more "conservative": the [[one-world government]], for them, wouldn't come through the USSR or through workers' revolution, but through American [[internationalism|internationalist]] and [[imperialism|imperialist]] foreign policy. Burnham explicitly wrote:
 <blockquote>A World Federation initiated and led by the United States would be, we have recognized, a World Empire. In this imperial federation, the United States, with a monopoly of atomic weapons, would hold a preponderance of decisive material power over all the rest of the world. In world politics, that is to say, there would not be a balance of power.<ref>James Burnham, ''The Struggle for the World'' (Toronto: Longmans, 1947), 190, 210.</ref></blockquote>
-As regards domestic policy, the neoconservatives' advocacy for the aggressive curtailing of freedom and [[civil liberties]] has its roots to the ideas of a self-proclaimed post-war ally of American imperialism, Carl Schmitt, who before the war had been a Nazi jurist for Hitler. The proponent of the theories of "state of exception" and "unitary executive power" (which, according to Schmitt, "frees the executive from any legal restraints to its power that would normally apply"), during the [[Weimar Republic]] Schmitt had advocated for the imposition of a Presidential dictatorship by [[Paul von Hindenburg]], then after 1933 he willingly offered his services to Hitler and produced legal theories that justified Nazi invasion of neutral countries, infamously proclaiming "woe to the neutrals".<ref>https://edisciplinas.usp.br/mod/resource/view.php?id=2252381</ref> Schmitt called for an imposition of an open dictatorship of a system aligned to the needs and interests of [[big government]] and [[corporation|corporations]] against the people. He argued that the massacre of large numbers of people without due process of law signifies the creation of a new world order of law and justice.<ref>https://davidarthurwalters.wordpress.com/tag/neoconservatism/</ref>
+As regards domestic policy, the neoconservatives' advocacy for the aggressive curtailing of freedom and [[civil liberties]] has its roots to the ideas of a self-proclaimed post-war ally of American imperialism, Carl Schmitt, who before the war had been a Nazi jurist for Hitler. The proponent of the theories of "state of exception" and "unitary executive power" (which, according to Schmitt, "frees the executive from any legal restraints to its power that would normally apply"), during the [[Weimar Republic]] Schmitt had advocated for the imposition of a Presidential dictatorship by [[Paul von Hindenburg]], then after 1933 he willingly offered his services to Hitler and produced legal theories that justified Nazi invasion of neutral countries, infamously proclaiming "woe to the neutrals".<ref name="edisciplinas.usp.br">https://edisciplinas.usp.br/mod/resource/view.php?id=2252381</ref> Schmitt called for an imposition of an open dictatorship of a system aligned to the needs and interests of [[big government]] and [[corporation]]s against the people. He argued that the massacre of large numbers of people without due process of law signifies the creation of a new world order of law and justice.<ref>https://davidarthurwalters.wordpress.com/tag/neoconservatism/</ref>
 Some have argued that [[neoconservativism]] has been influenced by Schmitt.<ref name="The Return of Carl Schmitt">Legal justification
@@ Line 102: / Line 102: @@
 In 1934, Schmitt wrote an essay bearing the title: 'The Führer Protects Justice'. In it he defended the crassest form of arbitrary [[fascism|fascist]] justice and most firmly upheld the view that the Führer had the sole right to distinguish between friend and foe:
-<blockquote>The Führer is in earnest over the warnings of German history. That affords him the right and the power to found a new State and a new order ... The Führer is protecting justice from the vilest misuse when, in the hour of danger, he creates justice directly as the supreme authority by virtue of his leader's office ... The office of judge emanates from that of Führer. Anyone ... wishing to separate the two is seeking to put the State out of joint with the aid of justice . . . The Führer himself determines the content and scope of a transgression against the law.<ref>https://edisciplinas.usp.br/mod/resource/view.php?id=2252381</ref></blockquote>
+<blockquote>The Führer is in earnest over the warnings of German history. That affords him the right and the power to found a new State and a new order ... The Führer is protecting justice from the vilest misuse when, in the hour of danger, he creates justice directly as the supreme authority by virtue of his leader's office ... The office of judge emanates from that of Führer. Anyone ... wishing to separate the two is seeking to put the State out of joint with the aid of justice . . . The Führer himself determines the content and scope of a transgression against the law.<ref name="edisciplinas.usp.br"/></blockquote>
 Schmitt not only supported Hitler's moves in home affairs. Already before the outbreak of the [[World War II|Second World War]], during the preparations for it, he became the leading law ideologist of Nazi Germany's foreign policy. He resisted the 'universalist' claims of the [[League of Nations]] and called instead for the application of the [[Monroe Doctrine]] to Germany and territory in which she had interests. He quoted a statement by Hitler on this subject and commented:
-<blockquote>'That expresses the idea of a peacefully arbitrated (schiedlich-friedlich) demarcation of the major territories in the simplest business-like terms. It eliminates the confusion that an economic imperialism created around the Monroe doctrine by twisting its reasonable idea of territorial demarcation into an ideological claim to global intervention.<ref>https://edisciplinas.usp.br/mod/resource/view.php?id=2252381</ref>'</blockquote>
+<blockquote>'That expresses the idea of a peacefully arbitrated (schiedlich-friedlich) demarcation of the major territories in the simplest business-like terms. It eliminates the confusion that an economic imperialism created around the Monroe doctrine by twisting its reasonable idea of territorial demarcation into an ideological claim to global intervention.<ref name="edisciplinas.usp.br"/>'</blockquote>
-This theory too rested on the Nazi dogma of the 'Reich'. 'Empires in this sense are the leading and supporting powers whose political idea is radiated over a specified major territory and which fundamentally exclude the intervention of extra-territorial powers with regard to this territory.' Such a division of the world, which would guarantee the appropriate 'major territories' for Germany and [[Japan]], would, in Schmitt's view, mark the start of a new and higher condition of international justice. There would no longer be nation-states, as before, but only 'empires'. The concrete consequences of this Schmitt spelled out in another essay bearing the significant title 'Woe to the Neutrals!' Here it was argued that the concept of major territories implied the abolition of neutrality. So in 1938, Schmitt had penned in advance the 'international' legal apologia for unbridled imperialism: Empires had the "right" to conquer nations. It is this core legal ideology that he rent to the Americans after the war.
+This theory too rested on the Nazi dogma of the 'Reich'. 'Empires in this sense are the leading and supporting powers whose political idea is radiated over a specified major territory and which fundamentally exclude the intervention of extraterritorial powers with regard to this territory.' Such a division of the world, which would guarantee the appropriate 'major territories' for Germany and [[Japan]], would, in Schmitt's view, mark the start of a new and higher condition of international justice. There would no longer be nation-states, as before, but only 'empires'. The concrete consequences of this Schmitt spelled out in another essay bearing the significant title 'Woe to the Neutrals!' Here it was argued that the concept of major territories implied the abolition of neutrality. So in 1938, Schmitt had penned in advance the 'international' legal apologia for unbridled imperialism: Empires had the "right" to conquer nations. It is this core legal ideology that he rent to the Americans after the war.
-Shortly after Nazi defeat, he re-invented himself as an spokesman of American globalism. In "Nomos of the Earth" (1950), he gave the best definition of the principle behind American globalist foreign policy which he supported. Schmitt's formulation rivals Burnham's in cynicism but surpasses it in precision: 'cujus economia, ejus regio'. This is a cynically candid expression of the United States' absolute claim to global dominion; and not by chance is it an up-to-date secular variant on the 1555 Augsburg Convention (cujus regio, ejus religio). In both cases naked power relations are stated as absolute determinants, only now of course at a more advanced stage, hence economic in substance and absolute in all political respects.<ref>https://edisciplinas.usp.br/mod/resource/view.php?id=2252381</ref>
+Shortly after Nazi defeat, he re-invented himself as an spokesman of American globalism. In "Nomos of the Earth" (1950), he gave the best definition of the principle behind American globalist foreign policy which he supported. Schmitt's formulation rivals Burnham's in cynicism but surpasses it in precision: 'cujus economia, ejus regio'. This is a cynically candid expression of the United States' absolute claim to global dominion; and not by chance is it an up-to-date secular variant on the 1555 Augsburg Convention (cujus regio, ejus religio). In both cases naked power relations are stated as absolute determinants, only now of course at a more advanced stage, hence economic in substance and absolute in all political respects.<ref name="edisciplinas.usp.br"/>
 Being a proponent of war and foreign intervention on the part of [[Nazi Germany]], after the war he advocated, with equal fervor, a policy of interventionism and [[perpetual war]] (or, as he called it, "world-wide civil war") on the part of the [[United States]]. Hence he showed in "Nomos of the Earth" (1950) the ineluctability of the dilemma of isolation or intervention for the U.S.A.:
-<blockquote>The contradictions stem from the unresolved problems of a territorial development involving an obligation either to set limits to the invasion and to find other major territories beside those recognizing themselves as such, or else to turn back what has hitherto been a war of national claims into a world-wide civil war.<ref>https://edisciplinas.usp.br/mod/resource/view.php?id=2252381</ref></blockquote>
+<blockquote>The contradictions stem from the unresolved problems of a territorial development involving an obligation either to set limits to the invasion and to find other major territories beside those recognizing themselves as such, or else to turn back what has hitherto been a war of national claims into a world-wide civil war.<ref name="edisciplinas.usp.br"/></blockquote>
 As a short summary, Neoconservatives take their advocacy for [[globalism]], interventionism, [[perpetual war]], [[police state]] and the trampling of citizens' [[civil rights|rights]] from two Trotskyists (Shachtman and Burnham) and one Nazi (Schmitt).

@@ Line 210: / Line 210: @@
 [[Category:Neoconservativism]]
 [[Category:Neoconservatives]]
 [[Category:Liberalism]]
 [[Category:Conservatives]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[File:Anti-Putinism and neoconservativism.PNG|right|400px|thumb|[[Essay: Vladimir Putin is a corrupt kleptocrat and an authoritarian|Anti-Putinism]] is a neoconservative movement aimed at [[demonizing]] the Russian leader and promoting the interests of [[Globohomo]] and the [[Uniparty]].<ref>[https://thegrayzone.com/2023/08/21/neocon-dark-money-ad-blitz-ukraine-forever-war/ Neocon dark money front launches desperate ad blitz as support for Ukraine forever war craters], Alexander Rubinstein, ''The Greyzone'', August 21, 2023.</ref>]]
-A '''neoconservative''' (colloquially, '''''neocon''''') in American politics is someone presented as a "[[conservative]]" but who actually favors [[big government]], [[globalism]], [[interventionism]], [[perpetual war]], [[police state]], [[gun control]], and a hostility to [[Religion and U.S. Government|religion in politics and government]]. The [[liberal]]-promoted [[British]] rock band [[Rolling Stones]] released a vulgar song in 2005 criticizing neocons, entitled ''Sweet Neo Con'', in which the clueless Brits falsely confuse neocons with [[Christian]] [[conservative]]s.<ref>https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rollingstones/sweetneocon.html</ref>
+A '''neoconservative''' (colloquially, '''''neocon''''') in [[American]] politics is someone presented as a "[[conservative]]" but who actually favors [[big government]], [[globalism]], [[interventionism]], [[perpetual war]], [[police state]], [[gun control]], and a hostility to [[Religion and U.S. Government|religion in politics and government]]. The [[liberal]]-promoted [[British]] rock band [[Rolling Stones]] released a vulgar song in 2005 criticizing neocons, entitled ''Sweet Neo Con'', in which the clueless Brits falsely confuse neocons with [[Christian]] [[conservative]]s.<ref>https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rollingstones/sweetneocon.html</ref>
 "Neoconservative" means "newly conservative," and thus previously self-interested or [[liberal]]. A quip by neocon co-founder Irving Kristol was that a neocon is a '''"liberal mugged by reality"'''. A neocon is typically pro-[[Deep State]] and a [[RINO Backer]], and like [[RINO]]s, does not accept most of the important principles in the [[Republican Party]] platform. Neocons do not emphasize putting [[America First|America first]]. Neocons support attacking and even overthrowing foreign governments, despite how that often results in more persecution of [[Christians]]. Some neocons (like [[Dick Cheney]]) have profited immensely from the [[military-industrial complex]] and their pro-war positions, and his daughter Rep. [[Liz Cheney]] (R-WY) benefits from that neocon fortune while ranting against [[America First]] leaders like [[Donald Trump]]. Many neocons are [[globalist]]s and support the [[War on Sovereignty]]. [[Fox News]] promotes neocons.
-Many neocons focus on the Middle East, often invoking [[Israel]] as a justification for endless war, when in fact, the true central justification is to protect the Saudi regime and the [[petrodollar]]. They also favor arming terrorist organizations such as [[al-Qaeda]] and [[ISIS]] in order to achieve their foreign policy goals.
+Many neocons focus on the Middle East, often invoking [[Israel]] as a justification for endless war, when in fact, the true central justification is to protect the Saudi regime and the [[petrodollar]]. They also favor arming terrorist organizations such as [[al-Qaeda]] and [[ISIS]] to achieve their foreign policy goals.
 The centerpiece of neocon strategy was to invade [[Iraq]], which left a predictable vacuum that resulted in the murder of many [[Christian]]s there, as well as the rise of [[ISIS]].  During the presidential Republican primaries in 2016, [[Donald Trump]] humiliated the neocons' insistence on the Iraq War, exposed the neocon claim of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as a lie, and routed the neocon-supported [[Marco Rubio]] in his home state of Florida by a wide margin. Despite this, the [[mainstream media]] continues to treat neocons as "experts."<ref>Carlson, Tucker (February 15, 2019). [https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-are-these-professional-war-peddlers-still-around-tucker-carlson-max-boot-bill-kristol/ Why Are These Professional War Peddlers Still Around?] ''The American Conservative''. Retrieved February 15, 2019.</ref>
@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 In the European nations of [[Britain]] and [[France]], globalists dominate "right"-leaning politics and are sometimes referred to as "neocon," although European globalists tend to be more Eurocentric than Amerocentric.  Preserving American [[Imperialism]] in the post-Cold War [[unipolar]] order is the basis of the neocon movement.
-In the United States neocons are less influential than the [[conservative movement]].  For example, neocons begrudgingly supported [[Mitt Romney]] as the Republican nominee for [[Presidential Election 2012|President in 2012]], even though he was not their first choice and Romney has never supported the neocon agenda.
+In the United States, neocons are less influential than the [[conservative movement]].  For example, neocons begrudgingly supported [[Mitt Romney]] as the Republican nominee for [[Presidential Election 2012|President in 2012]], even though he was not their first choice and Romney has never supported the neocon agenda.
 [[File:Nuland and Kagan.png|right|300pc|thumb|Robert Kagan and wife [[Victoria Nuland]].]]
 Neoconservatives tend to oppose the appointment of social conservatives to high governmental positions, such as nomination to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].  Neoconservatives support candidates who are liberal on social issues instead.
@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 Some prominent spokesmen include [[Bill Kristol]], [[Paul Wolfowitz]], [[Lewis Libby]], [[Norman Podhoretz]], [[Charles Krauthammer]], [[Richard Perle]], [[Robert Kagan]], [[Christopher Hitchens]], [[Bernard Lewis]], [[Stephen Schwartz]], Elliott Abrams, Ben Wattenberg and Carl Gershman.
-In contrast to traditional conservatives, neoconservatives favor [[globalism]], downplay religious issues and differences, are unlikely to actively oppose [[abortion]] and [[homosexuality]]. Neocons disagree with [[conservatives]] on issues such as classroom prayer, the [[separation of powers]], cultural unity, and [[immigration]]. Neocons favor a strong active state in world affairs.
+In contrast to traditional conservatives, neoconservatives favor [[globalism]], downplay religious issues and differences, are unlikely to actively oppose [[abortion]] and [[homosexuality]]. Neocons disagree with [[conservatives]] on issues such as classroom prayer, the [[separation of powers]], cultural unity, and [[immigration]]. Neocons favor a strong, active state in world affairs.
 On foreign policy, neoconservatives believe that democracy can and should be installed by the [[United States]] around the world, even in Muslim countries such as [[Iraq]], [[Iran]], and [[Syria]].
@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 The original intention of the neocons was regime change in [[Syria]] – the overthrow of [[Bashar Assad]] – without using American troops. Radical Islamic terrorists, many of their leaders supposedly "de-radicalized" while in American detention, were returned to their groups to form new militias armed and trained by American, Turkish, Saudi, and Qatari Special Operations Forces and advisors. By removing the Syrian Alawite regime aligned with [[Iran]], the hope was to rid Syria of [[Hezbollah]], a 10,000 man force which is directly under the command and control of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and deemed a threat to Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the Gulf states.
-The [[Benghazi massacre]] however, slowed the progress of arming the Syrian jihadis, now dubbed "moderate rebels" by the Obama administration and its sycophantic media. The Syrian government gained popular support as the people of Syria witnessed foreign jihadis backed by the Obama administration and its allies, flood Syria with psychotic killers and weapons. With a quick resolution not in the offing, Russian troops intervened preventing the Obama administration from establishing a no-fly zone to aid its radical jihadis on the ground to overthrow the government, as had been done in [[Libya]].
+The [[Benghazi massacre]], however, slowed the progress of arming the Syrian jihadis, now dubbed "moderate rebels" by the Obama administration and its sycophantic media. The Syrian government gained popular support as the people of Syria witnessed foreign jihadis backed by the Obama administration and its allies, flood Syria with psychotic killers and weapons. With a quick resolution not in the offing, Russian troops intervened preventing the Obama administration from establishing a no-fly zone to aid its radical jihadis on the ground to overthrow the government, as had been done in [[Libya]].
 == Neoconservatism and Donald Trump ==

@@ Line 221: / Line 221: @@
 [[Category:Terrorism]]
 [[Category:Threats]]
 [[Category:Man-Made Disasters]]
 [[Category:Oppression]]

@@ Line 92: / Line 92: @@
 * [https://ssrn.com/abstract=942865 The Bush Regime from Elections to Detentions: A Moral Economy of Carl Schmitt and Human Rights] by Abraham, David, University of Miami – School of Law, University of Miami Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2007 – 20 May 2007
 * [https://ssrn.com/abstract=870602 Torture, Necessity and Existential Politics] by Kutz, Christopher L., [[University of California]], Berkeley – School of Law (Boalt Hall), UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. 870602, December 2005
-* [http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/11/return-of-carl-schmitt.html The Return of Carl Schmitt] Scott Horton, Balkinization, 7 November 2005
+* [http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/11/return-of-carl-schmitt.html The Return of Carl Schmitt] [[Scott Horton]], Balkinization, 7 November 2005
 * [http://harpers.org/archive/2008/01/hbc-90002226 Deconstructing John Yoo] by Scott Horton, Harpers, 23 January 2008
 * [http://mondediplo.com/2006/09/08democracy The will to undemocratic power] By Philip S Golub, ''[[Le Monde Diplomatique]]'', September 2006

@@ Line 214: / Line 214: @@
 [[Category:Reagan Era]]
 [[Category:Afghanistan War]]
-[[Category:NATO war in Ukraine]]
+[[Category:Russia-Ukraine War]]
 [[Category:Hillary Clinton]]
 [[Category:Police State]]

@@ Line 177: / Line 177: @@
 *[[Police state]]
 *[[Essay: The United States will be the leading power in the world for the foreseeable future]]
 </div>

@@ Line 202: / Line 202: @@
 == References ==
-<references/>
+{{reflist|2}}
 {{Globalism}}