Editor’s Note: I’ve heard rumors for years that William F. Buckley and National Review had connections to the CIA and that postwar conservatism was shaped to fit the peculiar ideological needs of American intelligence agencies during the Cold War.
I have never looked into the matter, but it wouldn’t surprise me if a similar project of ideological subversion and management of political dissent was going on today. Who ultimately creates the litmus test of being part of the respectable mainstream Right? – HW
Conspiracy theories are unsettling not because they are mostly false, but because they are mostly true.
Like the classic episodes of the X-Files (not only the greatest sci-fi series of the 1990s, but the greatest sci-fi series ever), which featured authentic, “believe it or not” tales blending together the real (OPERATION: PAPERCLIP) and the not so real (Nazi scientists creating human-alien hybrids), every conspiracy story is at least half true.
For years, “off the meds” lunatics have suggested that the host of neoconservative figures, ranging from Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol, the literally Jewish godfathers of the neoconservative movement, to lower tier Catholic neoconservatives like George Weigel and Michael Novak, were working at the behest of the Central Intelligence Agency to coop and subvert the mounting right wing reaction to sixties radicalism, which itself was coopted and subverted by the CIA.
These claims, of course, have been ridiculed and dismissed by the neoconservatives themselves as well as, interestingly, some of their detractors and enemies among both the left and the paleo-conservatives.
However, in a masterpiece of gas-lighting, liberal “Catholic” journalist Peter Steinfels [(((Steinfels)))?] writes in his 1979 The Neoconservatives: The Men Who Are Changing American Politics (a work later given the new subtitle, The Origins of a Movement), that the Neoconservative movement, in addition to having its origins in Troskyites who turned on the Soviet Union when Stalin and later Brezhnev declared a cold war on the Jews in the Russian communist party, was, in fact, financed by the Central Agency.
On page 31 of the original Touchstone, Simon and Schuster edition, Steinfels explains that “a considerable part” of neoconservative politicking by Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, Eliot Cohen and Norman Podhoretz during the 1950s “turned out to be financed by the Central Intelligence Agency.”
Steinfels continues on the same page, arguing that the “Cold War efforts” of the early neocons “were waged in the name of ‘cultural freedom’” and “were organized and maintained by the espionage and covert-action arm” of the United States.
These early neoconservatives, who further included Daniel Bell and Sidney Hooks, specifically were working under the auspices of The American Committee for Cultural Freedom from which they published the “influential Anglo-American monthly Encounter” as well as Commentary (Steinfels 29-30).
This point is especially curious for two notorious grifters in our contemporary milieu who have spent much of their careers advocating the ZOG agenda around the world and who have ties to the Central Intelligence Agency.
The first is “crunchy con” and honorary shitlib Ray Oliver “Rod” Dreher, who, very interestingly, briefly worked for the Hudson Institute, a think tank funded by the CIA owned RAND Corporation.
The second is Sohrab Ahmari, an alleged Catholic convert, who spends his time advocating a US-Israeli invasion of his home country of Iran as well as competing with Rod Dreher for most cringe worthy tweets. Ahmari is a writer for none other Commentary magazine, which as Peter Steinfels writes, was working in tangent with the CIA during the 1950s.
Both of these two cringe lords spend a lot of time calling people Nazis on Twitter as well as, at least in the case of Dreher, taking selfies and “foodies.”
However, it is somewhat reassuring to know that these two clowns are not organic, natural phenomena, but rather, like their neoconservative forebears, merely astro-turfed faux culture warriors as hollow and empty as the ideology they sell.