Liberals vs Conservatives

The Old Right—founded by the Regnery family, original members of the America First Committee (AFC) and the American Security Council (ASC), the “heart” of the Military-Industrial Complex—only temporarily lost control of the Republican Party with the advent of the neoconservatives. The right-wing propaganda against political correctness began with the neoconservatives. However, the paleoconservatives introduced a conspiratorial interpretation, exploiting anti-communist paranoia, by drawing attention to the Marxist origins of the Frankfurt School, and characterizing their program not only as an attack on Christian values, but on “white” civilization. The term used in their agenda, “political correctness,” was the predecessor of the more highly charged concept of “Cultural Marxism”—a conspiracy theory which sees the Frankfurt School’s supposed agenda aimed at attacking Western society, using political correctness to enforce the acceptance of feminism, multiculturalism, radical environmentalism and homosexuality.

As heirs of the Old Right, the paleoconservatives adhered to the core racist tenets of the Southern Strategy, and persisted in their attempts to regain sway, gaining ground through the Fox News supported Tea Party, creating the groundswell to place in power their designated candidate: Donald Trump. Fox has assisted the ascendency of the Old Right by exploiting the topic of “political correctness,” to rally conservatives against a perceived “liberal bias” in the media and “Big Government.” Years in the making, that agenda, bankrolled by the infamous Koch brothers, sons of John Birch Society founder Fred Koch, and both members of the Council for National Policy (CNP), culminated in the rise of the Tea Party, which was largely publicized by Fox.

Henry Regnery, the son of William H. Regnery, a founding member of AFC and the ASC, founded Human Events and Regnery Publishing, which a according to E. Howard Hunt, was subsidized by the CIA because of its pro-Nazi stance.[1] Regnery Publishing, like the Volker Fund, also did its part to promote libertarian economics, publishing works of Friedrich Hayek, Lugwig von Mises, Albert Jay Nock and Frank Chodorov, who became editor of Human Events in 1951. Mises was was economic adviser to Otto von Habsburg, and a member of Coudenhove-Kalgergi’s synarchist Pan-European Union (PEU).[2] Regnery also published paperback editions of literary works by authors such as novelist Wyndham Lewis and the poets T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound. In 1954, Regnery published Junio Valerio Borghese’s memoirs, Sea Devils.

In 1951, Regnery published God and Man at Yale, the first book written by Knight of Malta and Skull and Bones member William F. Buckley, Jr., with whom he would establish the Philadelphia Society. Regnery also had a hand in fanning the UFO phenomenon by publishing ufologists like Jacques Vallée, whose work inspired Steven Spielberg’s film Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and Josef Allen Hynek. In 1973, Regnery published Sybil, a book about multiple personality disorder, later made into a film for television starring Sally Field and Joanne Woodward. In the early 1950s, Regnery published two books by Robert Welch, who went on to co-found the John Birch Society in 1958, with Harry Lynde Bradley, co-founder of the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and Fred C. Koch, founder of Koch Industries, and father of the infamous Koch brothers.

As Jane Mayer documents in her book, Dark Money, the key funders of the propagandists against “political correctness” were the networks of conservative donors, particularly the Koch, Olin and Scaife families. The Koch Brothers, Charles and David, are the principle owners of Koch Industries, inherited from their father Fred Koch, which is listed by Forbes as of 2015 as the second-largest privately held company in the United States.[3] The brothers followed their father in joining the John Birch Society in Wichita, Kansas.[4] Marko Maunula, a historian at Clayton State University in Georgia says that Bircher Roger Milliken, one of the godfathers of the first New Right, who convinced Goldwater to run for president in 1964, was “the John the Baptist of the Koch Brothers.”[5] Milliken also bankrolled the National Review and Heritage Foundation, and along with Ronald Reagan, and Pat Buchanan, was also a financial patron of “I AM” member Robert Lefevre’s Freedom School, which was also attended by Discordians Kerry Thornley and Robert Anton Wilson, and where Charles Koch was converted to Libertarianism, and was first exposed to Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek.[6]

In 1974, Charles Koch gave a speech to a group of businessmen gathered at a hotel in Dallas, quoting Lewis Powell, who would serve as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and was the author of the Powell Memo, which according to David Harvey w rise of the origin of the rise of neoliberalism in the US.[7] “As the Powell Memorandum points out,” Koch warned the group, “business and the enterprise system are in trouble, and the hour is late.”[8] The Koch brothers have spent millions duping naïve Americans into supporting neoliberal policies to support their industries, by creating a false grassroots movement under the guise of patriotism and paranoid opposition to “Big Government.” Joe Strupp of Media Matters wrote, “The Kochs are major funders of the American conservative movement, funneling tens of millions of dollars every year to build a right-wing infrastructure geared toward reducing the size and impact of government.”[9]

In 1976, Charles Koch presented a paper at a conference for the Center for Libertarian Studies in New York City, which proposed the John Birch Society as a model for his movement’s future undertakings. Several leading lights of the libertarian movement proposed that libertarians hide their true antigovernment extremism by banishing the word “anarchism,” because it reminded too many people of “terrorists.” To attract a bigger following, some suggested, they needed to organize synthetic “grassroots” groups and hire volunteers without giving up any actual control. Charles cautioned his fellow radicals that to succeed, they would need to cultivate a positive image, unlike the John Birch Society, requiring them to “work with, rather than combat, the people in the media and arts.”[10]

Charles Koch founded the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 with Murray Rothbard, a friend of Mel Bradford, which in July 1976 changed its name to the Cato Institute, and serves as a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, DC. The Institute’s website states, “The mission of the Cato Institute is to originate, disseminate, and increase understanding of public policies based on the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace.” Funding for Cato was provided by the Scaife and Bradley Foundations.[11]

Nancy MacLean, author of Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America, has recently revealed that the Koch brothers employed the economist James M. Buchanan to select those who would implement their program. Buchanan was known for his work on public choice theory, for which he received the Nobel Memorial Prize in 1986. He was for a time president of the Mont Pelerin Society, a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Cato Institute, and professor at George Mason University, which the Wall Street Journal named “the Pentagon of conservative academia.”[12] Buchanan was strongly influenced by both Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, and the property supremacism of John C. Calhoun. Any clash between “freedom”—understood as allowing the rich to do as they wish—and democracy should be resolved in favor of freedom. In his book The Limits of Liberty, Buchanan noted that “despotism may be the only organisational alternative to the political structure that we observe.”[13] Buchanan also worked to impede desegregation, and assisted Augusto Pinochet’s regime in writing the 1980 Constitution of Chile.[14]

Political Correctness 

The Koch brothers have carried forward the tradition of the Old Right, by repurposing bigotry and fear of communism in the form of an attack on the so-called “Liberal media” and “political correctness.” Debra L. Shultz noted that “throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the New Left, feminists, and progressives… used their term “politically correct” ironically, as a guard against their own orthodoxy in social change efforts.”[15] The underlying assumptions of political correctness evolved from the field of cultural studies, which itself derived from the Frankfurt School’s critical theory. The New School has followed a tradition of synthesizing leftist American intellectual thought and critical European philosophy, particularly the teachings of Aristotle, Leibniz, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Marx, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Arendt, Freud, Benjamin, Wittgenstein, Foucault, and Derrida.

According to Paul Berman, political correctness in America evolved from the influences of Heidegger, Nietzsche, Freud, Lacan, Barthes, Derrida and Foucault, but with a tinge of a uniquely American conception of identity politics, which classifies people by “race, class and gender.” As Berman explained, politically correct thinking borrowed Derrida’s linguistics in the significance of the meaning of words, Foucault and the Nietzschean’s view of culture as a field for the struggle for political power, from Lacan and Freud the focus of the erotic and male domination, and an anti-imperialist adaptation of Heidegger’s view of the regrettable intellectual tradition of Western civilization.[16]

Starting in the late 1980s, the well-funded conservative movement began their attack on what they characterized as a “liberal bias” in the media and academia. Enormously influential was University of Chicago philosophy professor Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind, published in 1987. A top protégé of Leo Strauss, Allan Bloom travelled to Paris annually to study Alexandre Kojève’s Nietzschean fascist beliefs, from 1953 up until Kojève’s death in 1968. Bloom would consider Kojève to be one of his greatest teachers.[17] Bloom argued that colleges were embracing “cultural relativism” and abandoning long-established disciplines and standards in an attempt to appear liberal and to pander to their students.

In April 1990, Roger Kimball, an editor at the conservative journal, The New Criterion, published Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted our Higher Education. In June 1991, the young Dinesh D’Souza followed Bloom and Kimball with Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus. As John K. Wilson pointed out in The Myth of Political Correctness: The Conservative Attack on Higher Education, Bloom, Kimball and D’Souza were supported by grants from the Bradley, Olin and Scaife foundations.

These books did not emphasize the phrase “political correctness,” and only D’Souza used the phrase directly. Most Americans had never heard the phrase “politically correct” until all three came to be regularly cited in the stream of anti-PC articles that appeared in leading newspapers and magazines. One of the first and most influential was published in October 1990 by the New York Times reporter Richard Bernstein, who warned in an article titled “The Rising Hegemony of the Politically Correct,” that the country’s universities were threatened by “a growing intolerance, a closing of debate, a pressure to conform”.

The following month, the Wall Street Journal columnist Dorothy Rabinowitz denounced the “brave new world of ideological zealotry” at American universities. In December, the cover of Newsweek featured the headline “THOUGHT POLICE” and warned: “There’s a ‘politically correct’ way to talk about race, sex and ideas. Is this the New Enlightenment – or the New McCarthyism?” A similar story was featured on the cover of New York magazine in the January 1991 issue, which proclaimed that “The New Fascists” were taking over universities. In April, Time magazine reported on “a new intolerance” that was on the rise across campuses nationwide.

As explained by Moira Weigel in “Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy,” published in The Guardian, many of these articles recycled the same stories of campus controversies from a handful of elite universities, often exaggerated or stripped of context. According to Weigel:

PC was a useful invention for the Republican right because it helped the movement to drive a wedge between working-class people and the Democrats who claimed to speak for them. “Political correctness” became a term used to drum into the public imagination the idea that there was a deep divide between the “ordinary people” and the “liberal elite”, who sought to control the speech and thoughts of regular folk. Opposition to political correctness also became a way to rebrand racism in ways that were politically acceptable in the post-civil-rights era.[18]

Since the 1990s, the term “Cultural Marxism” has been appropriated by paleoconservatives, who referred to political correctness as part of their ongoing “Culture War” against liberalism. The phrase “culture war” represents a loan translation from the German Kulturkampf—referring to the clash between cultural and religious groups in the campaign from 1871 to 1878 under the pan-German policies of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck of the German Empire against the influence of the Roman Catholic Church.

The concept of “Cultural Marxism” was popularized by the mass media in the early 1990s, and highlighted in 1991 by the first President Bush when he warned that “free speech [is] under assault throughout the United States,” in a commencement speech at the University of Michigan. “Ironically, on the 200th anniversary of our Bill of Rights, we find free speech under assault throughout the United States,” Bush said. “The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land,” but, he warned, “In their own Orwellian way, crusades that demand correct behaviour crush diversity in the name of diversity.”[19] By the end of 1992, feature stories on the phenomenon had appeared in Newsweek, New York magazine, The New Republic, Atlantic Monthly and the New York Review of Books.

Neo-Confederates 

The real genesis of the paleoconservatives came in 1986 when the ISI’s journal Intercollegiate Review ran a “State of Conservatism” symposium, where some of the contributors complained about growing Neoconservative dominance. Soon after, the Philadelphia Society held a symposium on Neoconservatism at its 1986 annual meeting. Stephen Tonsor remarked in his address that:

It has always struck me as odd, even perverse, that former Marxists have been permitted, yes invited, to play such a leading role in the Conservative movement of the twentieth century. It is splendid when the town whore gets religion and joins the church. Now and then she makes a good choir director, but when she begins to tell the minister what he ought to say in his Sunday sermons, matters have been carried too far.[20]

The paleoconservatives feared that the neoconservatives had gained too much influence on some of Reagan’s policies. The original event that ignited their opposition to the neoconservatives was Reagan’s appointment of William Bennett to the National Endowment of the Humanities in 1981, over the University of Dallas professor, Mel Bradford.[21] Bradford, a former Dixiecrat, is seen as a leading figure of the paleoconservative wing of the conservative movement. Bradford campaigned for Barry Goldwater in 1964, George C. Wallace in 1972, Ronald Reagan in 1976 and 1980, and Pat Buchanan in 1992. He was for a time the President of the Philadelphia Society from 1984 to 1986. A letter supporting Bradford's nomination, sent to President Reagan during the controversy, was signed by Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Orrin Hatch, and Dan Quayle. William Buckley and M. Stanton Evans were also named as supporters. However, the selection met with intense objections from some neoconservatives, namely Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, and William Kristol, centering partly on Bradford’s criticisms of President Abraham Lincoln.[22]

Bradford was also one of the critically important founders of the modern neo-Confederate movement, being a founding writer of Southern Partisan and later a senior editor of the magazine. Historian James M. McPherson used the term “neo-Confederate historical committees” to describe the efforts from 1890 to 1930 to have history textbooks present a more positive version of the Civil War.[23] Historian Nancy MacLean used the term “neo-Confederacy” in reference to groups, such as the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission, that formed in the 1950s to oppose U.S. Supreme Court rulings demanding racial integration, in particular Brown v. Board of Education.[24] Bradford was at one time the National Historian for the Sons of Confederate Veterans.[25] In the Southern Partisan’s M.E. Bradford memorial issue, T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr., then President of the ISI, describes how and when he met Bradford at the North Carolina Conservative Society where he narrated the racist silent film classic Birth of a Nation, “with no small gusto.”[26]

Pitchfork Pat

Then financially well-off, H. Keith Thompson—close associate of Francis Parker Yockey, George Sylvester Viereck, Otto Skorzeny, involved in the National Renaissance Party (NRP) with conspiracy researcher Eustace Mullins, and former agent of the Sicherheitsdienst (SD)—gave generously to several Republican candidates, including Senator Jesse Helms, would-be Senator Oliver North, David Duke and Pat Buchanan. Thompson’s contributions earned him official membership in the GOP’s Presidential Legion of Merit, as well as numerous thank-you letters from the Republican National Committee and its various groups.[27]

Thompson contributed to the Liberty Lobby’s Spotlight and the Journal for Historical Review. In 1979, Dan Quayle thanked the Liberty Lobby for supporting his successful political campaign.[28] For the Journal for Historical Review, Thompson wrote his articles including “Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz: Last President of a United Germany.” Thompson rebuffed an offer to sign a loyalty oath to the Liberty Lobby, countering, “I took one oath of loyalty in my life and that is al I shall take,” referring to his recruitment to the SD.[29] At a gathering of Willis Carto’s Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review (IHR), Thompson’s speech reminisced about this efforts to rehabilitate Dönitz, at the end of which he urged the audience to “stand by the Third Reich,” which received a standing ovation.[30]

Although he didn’t use the words “Cultural Marxism,” paleoconservative politico Pat Buchanan, helped frame the debate as a “culture war.” Pat Buchanan, a traditionalist Catholic, is also a member of the Knights of Malta. With Buchanan being a Knight of Malta, Paul Gottfried once noted an “occasional paleo association with over-the-top Catholicism.”[31] In fact, counter-revolutionary, Roman Catholic European precursors to the Catholic paleoconservatives include Joseph de Maistre and Charles Maurras of Action française. Some modern European right-wing intellectuals, such as Alain de Benoist of the Nouvelle Droite, are esteemed by many paleoconservatives.

Buchanan was a senior advisor to Presidents Nixon, Ford and Reagan, and was an original host on CNN’s Crossfire. An admirer of Franco, Pinochet, the Argentine military junta, and South Africa’s apartheid regime, Buchanan equated Allied treatment of German civilians after the war to Nazi treatment of the Jews. As a member of the Reagan White House, he is accused of having suppressed the Reagan Justice Department’s investigation into Nazi scientists brought to America by Operation Paperclip.[32] Buchanan described Hitler as “an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier,” and referred to Holocaust survivors’ memories as “group fantasies of martyrdom.”[33]

In a 1972 memo, Buchanan had suggested the White House “should move to re-capture the anti-Establishment tradition or theme in American politics.”[34] Buchanan coined the phrase “Silent Majority,” and helped shape the strategy that drew millions of Democrats to Nixon. Buchanan was an advocate of the “Southern Strategy” first employed by Barry Goldwater and George Wallace. As Eleanor Clift explained, “Nixon was a progressive Republican who looked to Buchanan to navigate the new political reality of Goldwater conservatism taking over the GOP, and the country moving right, with segregationist Alabama Governor George Wallace getting up to 21 percent in the polls.”[35] In a memo during the 1968 campaign, Pat Buchanan warned Nixon not to go after Wallace: “Wallace is the symbol of Southern resistance to Washington in the South, just as we would like to be the symbol of resistance to Washington and its policies in the nation. We will want, I would think, the people who are supporting Wallace now to be in our corner perhaps later.”[36] As also explained by Clift, “Bringing working class Northern Catholics together with Southern Protestants on a racially charged law-and-order, message carried Nixon to a 49-state reelection victory in 1972 with over 60 percent of the vote.” [37]

Buchanan was named White House Communications Director after Reagan’s landslide victory in 1984. “Reagan was one of us,” he said, a movement conservative. The only time Reagan got upset with the media was if Human Events or the National Review criticized him, says Buchanan. “He always thought of himself as the great leader of the movement. It was real and natural.”[38] Frank Chodorov became editor of Human Events, which was financed by Henry Regnery. Contributors to Human Events from the 1960s to the 1980s included Spiro Agnew, Pat Buchanan, Phyllis Schlafly, Henry Hazlitt and Murray Rothbard. For more than 40 years, Human Events was Reagan’s favorite newspaper, which he said “helped me stop being a liberal Democrat.”[39] In 1999, Human Events named Reagan “Man of the Century.”

Buchanan sought the Republican presidential nomination first in 1992, running on a platform of immigration reduction and social conservatism, including opposition to multiculturalism, abortion, and gay rights. Buchanan later threw his support behind Bush and delivered an address at the 1992 Republican National Convention, which became known as the culture war speech. “There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America,” Buchanan said in his nationally televised address. “It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself.” In addition to criticizing environmentalists and feminism, Buchanan portrayed public morality as a defining issue:

The agenda Clinton and Clinton would impose on America—abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat units—that’s change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God’s country.[40]

Buchanan saw his most successful attempt to win the Republican nomination in 1996. He was endorsed by conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly, among others. During the 1996 GOP primaries, Buchanan was endorsed by several prominent Religious Right leaders and by the Liberty Lobby. “Buchanan’s campaign platform reads like nothing less than a statement of the Liberty Lobby’s positions on the issues,” the Spotlight explained.[41]

Buchanan announced his departure from the Republican Party in October 1999, disparaging them (along with the Democrats) as a “beltway party.” He sought the nomination of Ross Perot’s Reform Party. As noted in 2000, by Thomas B. Edsall for the Washington Post, “Patrick J. Buchanan’s presidential bid has turned the once-centrist Reform Party into a magnet attracting leaders and activists of such extreme right organizations as the National Alliance, the Liberty Lobby, the Council of Conservative Citizens and the League of the South.”[42] Don Black and his organization Stormfront supported Buchanan. Don Wassell, David Duke’s 1988 presidential campaign manager and the head of the American Nationalist Union, wrote that Buchanan “has methodically and effectively… taken over the Reform Party with the intention of making it into a genuine America First alternative to the two-party tyranny.”[43] Buchanan’s statement that “We are old church and old right, anti-imperialist and anti-interventionist, disbelievers in Pax Americana” reflects this new coalition.[44]

William Pierce, the head the National Alliance, estimated that the overwhelming majority of his supporters and members would vote for Buchanan. Pierce later became infamous for his authorship of The Turner Diaries, which depicts a violent revolution which leads to the overthrow of the United States government, nuclear war and ultimately to a race war. The novel has been associated with a number of violent crimes committed by white separatists, and is believed to have inspired Timothy McVeigh, the perpetrator of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.[45]

Paleoconservatism

Paleoconservatives are most distinctive in their emphatic opposition to open immigration by non-Europeans, and their general disapproval of U.S. intervention overseas. The prefix “paleo” derives from the Greek root “palaeo” meaning “ancient” or “old,” and refers to the paleoconservatives’ claim to represent a revival of the Old Right, in contradistinction to neoconservatism. The paleoconservative movement grew with Buchanan’s failed run to be the Republican presidential nominee in 1992. Many first-generation paleoconservatives were supporters of Buckley’s National Review, but slowly grew weary starting in the 1970s, as the journal reflected more and more neoconservative influence. In a 1983 edition of Crossfire, Congressman Larry McDonald, then the John Birch Society’s newly appointed president, characterized the Society as belonging to the Old Right rather than the New Right. After an early rise in membership and influence, efforts by those such as Buckley and the National Review led the JBS to be identified as a fringe element of the conservative movement, mostly in fear of the radicalization of the American right.[46]

The term “paleoconservative” was coined in 1986 by Jewish academic Paul Gottfried, who served as an adviser to Buchanan’s campaign. A professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, Gottfried is the author of numerous books and articles detailing the influences which various German thinkers, such as Hegel and Schelling, have exerted on American conservative political theory, and was a friend of many political and intellectual figures, such as Richard Nixon, Pat Buchanan, Samuel T. Francis and Murray Rothbard. Gottfried attended Yeshiva University in New York as an undergraduate and then attended Yale, where he studied under Herbert Marcuse. Gottfried devoted a chapter of his memoir to Marcuse, under whom he was a “rapt, indulgent disciple.” In later years, one reviewer called Gottfried a “right-wing proponent of the Frankfurt school.”[47]

Gottfried became involved with the New Left journal Telos, established in 1968. Telos began introducing the ideas of Western Marxism and of the critical theory of the Frankfurt School. However, with the disintegration of the New Left, Telos flip-flopped to the other end of the ideological spectrum. Largely under Gottfried’s influence, Telos began focusing on the ideas of Carl Schmitt and Alain de Benoist.[48] Telos’ editor-in-chief is Russell Berman, an American professor of German Studies and Comparative Literature, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Founded in 1919 by Republican Herbert Hoover, the institution has been a place of scholarship for individuals who previously held high-profile positions in government, such as George Shultz, Condoleezza Rice, Michael Boskin, Edward Lazear, John B. Taylor, Edwin Meese, and Amy Zegart.

Gottfried complained regularly in his writing about “ill-mannered, touchy Jews and their groveling or adulatory Christian assistants”—his phrase for neocons who he claimed had hijacked the Republican Party and American policy.[49] He opposes both the Civil Rights Act and white nationalism. “If someone were to ask me what distinguishes the right from the left,” Gottfried wrote in 2008, “the difference that comes to mind most readily centers on equality. The left favors that principle, while the right regards it as an unhealthy obsession.”[50] According to Gottfried in The Conservative Movement: “[The paleoconservatives] raise issues that the neoconservatives and the left would both seek to keep closed… about the desirability of political and social equality, the functionality of human-rights thinking, and the genetic basis of intelligence… like Nietzsche, they go after democratic idols, driven by disdain for what they believe dehumanizes.”[51]

Gottfried worked closely with Samuel T. Francis, a non-Catholic paleoconservative and friend of Pat Buchanan. In 1986, Francis joined the editorial staff of Sun Myung Moon’s The Washington Times as an editorial writer, and was editor of the Citizens Informer quarterly newsletter as well as an editor of The Occidental Quarterly, a white nationalist and self-described “pro-Western” publication sponsored by William Regnery II. The Citizens Informer was the journal of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), the successor organization to the KKK-affiliated White Citizens’ Councils.[52] According to Gottfried, Francis had an encyclopedic knowledge of the literature of H.P. Lovecraft.[53]

Francis and Gottfried were both influenced by James Burnham’s seminal work, The Managerial Revolution, in which he suggested that a new form of society was emerging to replace capitalism, composed of a ruling class of “managers.” Michael Shelden, author of Orwell: The Authorized Biography, saw Burnham’s work as having an influence on Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.[54] For Francis and Gottfried, the managerial state is an ongoing regime that remains in power, regardless of what political party holds a majority. According to Gottfried, when the managerial regime cannot get democratic support for its policies, it resorts to sanctimony and social engineering, including mass welfarism, positive rights, laws punishing racism, sexism and homophobia, and centralized control of public education.[55]

In part based on Burnham’s idea of the “managerial revolution,” Francis developed a theory for a new populist movement based on the idea of “Middle American Radicals” who could provide a social base for resistance. According to Francis, “If we could somehow take out the ideology, change the minds of those who control the state, and convert them into paleo-conservatives, the state apparatus itself would be neutral.”[56] In Francis’ opinion, the Republicans have failed to tap into the sentiments of “Middle Americans” because of their focus on free-enterprise economics and support for globalist policies. He believed that while Buchanan may not have won the presidential campaigns in either 1992 or 1995, his relative success marked a victory in mobilizing forces that would only continue to build over time:

The importance of the Buchanan campaign lies not in its capacity to win the nomination or the national election but in its organization of those forces into a coherent political coalition. That coalition includes the remnants of the “Old Right,” as well as various single-issue constituencies (pro-lifers, anti-immigration activists, protectionists) to which Buchanan is one of the few voices to speak.[57]

For the most part, Francis explained, conventional conservative causes such as small government, low taxes, strong national defense and economic growth are “bourgeois” issues that belong to a different era. However, according to Francis, former Klansman David Duke’s defeat in the Louisiana gubernatorial election of 1991 marked a “turning point” in American history. After leaving the Klan, Duke formed the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP), which he claimed was a civil rights organization designed to protect the identity and interests of Caucasian Americans. A former one-term Republican Louisiana State Representative, he was a candidate in the Democratic presidential primaries in 1988 and the Republican presidential primaries in 1992. Duke’s chief accomplishment was to rebrand white supremacism and present a more polished image. “In Duke’s hands, racism takes on a people-loving, positive spin,” observed Village Voice correspondent Leslie Savan. “There’s nothing wrong with black people being proud of their heritage and their race,” Duke insisted, “There’s nothing wrong with white people being proud of theirs.”[58]

In Francis’ opinion, Duke managed to “redefine the ideological pivots around which American politics revolve” by demonstrating the real issues were racial. But Duke’s surprising popularity was due to his rebranding of racist ideas in a less objectionable form, by opposing quotas for affirmative action, multiculturalism, civil rights legislation and unrestricted immigration. The underlying message that resonated with voters, according to Francis, is that “the historic racial and cultural core of American civilization is under attack.”[59] Francis therefore defined “authentic” conservatism as “the survival and enhancement of a particular people and its institutionalized cultural expressions.”[60]

Outreach to Rednecks

Koch and Rothbard ultimately parted ways. During the 1980 election, when David Koch ran as the Libertarian Party’s vice-presidential nominee with Ed Clark, Rothbard felt that David Koch had watered down the core tenets of libertarianism to make their philosophy. Following the election, in which the Koch campaign claimed a little over one percent of the popular vote, Rothbard penned a scathing attack titled “The Clark Campaign: Never Again,” in which he wrote that David Koch had “sold their souls—ours, unfortunately, along with it—for a mess of pottage, and they didn’t even get the pottage.” A few months after that, Charles Koch ejected Rothbard out of the Cato Institute.[61] While Koch sought direct policy influence, as indicated by the institute’s relocation to Washington in 1981, Rothbard favored an appeal to the libertarian sympathies of the American grassroots.

Rothbard was also a friend of Mel Bradford. According to Quinn Slobodian, Rothbard represented the end of schism within the neoliberalism movement, by turning to what he labeled “right-wing populism.”[62] As Slobodian explains, in the 1990s, Rothbard came to the realization that

Neoliberal thought had been built on the premise that the masses were all instinctively socialists and that the goal of elites was to write laws and design States to constrain the masses from acting on their own natural impulses which would be to seize the means of production and you know take over the state and turn it into a communist state or a fascist state but somehow break all the rules of the market.[63]

However, as Slobodian continued to explain, Rothbard noted that, as the masses had become heavily invested in the markets through pensions and retirement funds, perhaps it was the elites were still clinging to socialism and not the masses. Therefore, it should now be possible to use the capitalist-friendly masses against the elites. This led Rothbard to a series of changes in strategy, moving away explicitly from Hayekian trickle-down economics, to a grassroots strategy and supporting and advising political actors like Pat Buchanan.[64]

Rothbard considered the monopoly force of government the greatest danger to liberty, labeling the state as “the organization of robbery systematized and writ large.”[65] Rothbard concluded that all social services could be provided more efficiently by the private sector. In his review of The Bell Curve, a book financed by the neo-Nazi Pioneer Fund, Rothbard praised the book for “expressing in massively stupefying scholarly detail what everyone has always known but couldn’t dare to express about race, intelligence, and heritability.”[66] The book’s conclusions make sense, according to Rothbard, because if the libertarians succeed in abolishing the welfare state, and the free market is triumphant, only a certain number of ethnic groups will be effected. As summarized by Jonathan Harrison, “Rothbard was proud to be a ‘racialist’ because racialism exposed the true source of inequality in a free market, namely genetics. A belief in biological racial inequality was, for Rothbard, part of the libertarian project, because racial inequality was simply how markets reflected nature.”[67]

Together with American libertarian Lew Rockwell, Rothbard founded the Ludwig von Mises Institute in 1982, following a split with the Cato Institute. The Southern Poverty Law Center also lists the Ludwig von Mises Institute as a neo-Confederate organization. Additional backing for the founding of the Institute came from Henry Hazlitt, Lawrence Fertig, and Friedrich Hayek.[68] Both Paul Gottfried and Samuel T. Francis served as adjunct scholars at the institute. Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute’s senior faculty, is a founder of the secessionist group the League of the South, and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a pro-Confederate, revisionist tract published in 2004. Paul reviewed the book positively, saying that it “heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole.”[69] As Kirchick describes:

The people surrounding the von Mises Institute—including Paul—may describe themselves as libertarians, but they are nothing like the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine. Instead, they represent a strain of right-wing libertarianism that views the Civil War as a catastrophic turning point in American history—the moment when a tyrannical federal government established its supremacy over the states.[70]

Rothbard split with the Radical Caucus at the 1983 national convention over cultural issues and aligned himself with what he called the “right-wing populist” wing of the party, notably Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul, who ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988. Ron Paul and his associates published a number of the newsletters, particularly in the period between 1988 and 1994 when Paul was no longer in Congress, dwelling on conspiracy theories, praising anti-government militia movements and warning of coming race wars. The newsletters offered praise for David Duke and other controversial figures. On his website, Duke boasts of the endorsements and kind words he received from Paul in his newsletters and in turn endorsed Paul for president. During his 1996 congressional election, Paul said the material had been taken out of context, but in later years claimed the articles were ghostwritten and that he was unaware of their content. Paul’s former staffer Eric Dondero said Paul was not telling the truth.[71] Likewise, Paul's former secretary said, “It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product.... He would proof it."[72] Paul continued to deny the accusations and to disavow the material. Dondero related that Paul’s newsletter was a joint effort between Paul and another popular political commentator, Lew Rockwell, and others joined in later on.[73]

According to a Reason magazine article on the Paul newsletters, “Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist ‘paleoconservatives’…”[74] In the January 1992 Rothbard-Rockwell Report, titled “Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement,” Rothbard recommended a strategy of engaging in an “outreach to rednecks” founded on social conservatism and radical libertarianism. As summarized by Sanchez and Weigel:

Lamenting that mainstream intellectuals and opinion leaders were too invested in the status quo to be brought around to a libertarian view, Rothbard pointed to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an “Outreach to the Rednecks,” which would fashion a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition by targeting the disaffected working and middle classes. These groups could be mobilized to oppose an expansive state, Rothbard posited, by exposing an “unholy alliance of ‘corporate liberal’ Big Business and media elites, who, through big government, have privileged and caused to rise up a parasitic Underclass, who, among them all, are looting and oppressing the bulk of the middle and working classes in America.”[75]

During the 1970s and 1980s, Rothbard had been active in the Libertarian Party, which he left in 1989 and began building bridges to the post-Cold War anti-interventionist right, calling himself a paleolibertarian. In the 1990s, a “paleoconservative-paleolibertarian alliance was forged,” centered on the John Randolph Club founded by traditionalist Catholic Thomas Fleming.[76] Fleming was a former president of the Rockford Institute and the editor of its a paleoconservative magazine Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, for which Mel Bradford was a contributor. The Institute was founded in 1976 by Rockford College President John A. Howard as a response to the American social changes of the 1960s. Rockford president Allan Carlson and several college trustees were members of the CNP.[77] In a well-publicized schism in 1989, Rockford ousted Rev. Richard John Neuhaus following his accusations that the institute was showing signs of anti-Semitism. According to David Frum, the split was seen by leading conservatives as a sign of the division between the paleoconservative and the neoconservative movement.[78] Neuhaus would later sign the Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) ecumenical document in 1994, along with Chuck Colson, J.I. Packer, Pat Robertson and Bill Bright. Chronicles peaked in the 1990s, helping to shape the paleoconservative revival that accompanied Patrick Buchanan’s 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns. Chronicles peaked in the 1990s, helping to shape the paleoconservative revival that accompanied Patrick Buchanan's 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns.

Fleming was introduced to the paleoconservative public in 1982 when he contributed to Robert W. Whitaker’s book, The New Right Papers, which put together ways whereby conservative populists could be elected to office through an alliance of people from both parties in the Republican Party. Fleming’s Chronicles published the articles of Samuel T. Francis, who along with Fleming and some other paleoconservatives, de-emphasized the “conservative” part of “paleoconservative,” saying that they do not want the status quo preserved. The Rothbard-Rockwell Report published an article written by Francis, which asserted that “of the two major races in the United States today, only one possesses the capacity to create and sustain” suitable levels of civilization. According to Francis:

Reagan conservatism, in its innermost meaning, had little to do with supply-side economics and spreading democracy. It had to do with the awakening of a people who face political, cultural, and economic dispossession, who are slowly beginning to glimpse the fact of dispossession and what dispossession will mean for them and their descendants, and who also are starting to think about reversing the processes and powers responsible for their dispossession. Ever since Mr. Reagan marched off to Washington in 1980 with the votes, money, and confidence of the Americans who supported him, that meaning has been systematically thwarted, manipulated, and suppressed, not least by the very professional conservatives who have gained from it and purport to represent it.[79]

Rockwell and Rothbard also supported Buchanan in 1992, and described him as the political leader of the “paleo” movement. Rothbard declared that “with Pat Buchanan as our leader, we shall break the clock of social democracy.”[80] Later, Rothbard asserted that Buchanan developed too much faith in economic planning and centralized state power, which eventually led paleolibertarians to withdraw their support for Buchanan.[81] Paul Gottfried, who originally coined the term “paleoconservative,” and also served as an advisor to Buchanan’s failed campaign, later lamented of a lack of funding, infighting, media hostility or blackout, and their vilification as “racists” and “anti-Semites.”[82]

Free Congress Foundation (FCF)

It was William Lind who reframed Buchanan’s “Culture Wars” into a conspiracy theory that defined political correctness as “Cultural Marxism,” a move that was so successful it was given credence on the pages of the National Review, the magazine founded by conservative icon William F. Buckley, for whom Lind once worked as an assistant. Lind served as a legislative aide for Senator Robert Taft, Jr., of Ohio from 1973 through 1976 and held a similar position with Senator Gary Hart of Colorado from 1977 to 1986. He is the author of the Maneuver Warfare Handbook and co-author with Gary Hart of America Can Win: The Case for Military Reform. While not a libertarian, Lind has also written for LewRockwell.com. “If you just drop the white nationalism a lot of [Samuel T.] Francis makes sense,” said Lind.[83]

Lind also worked at the Free Congress Foundation (FCF), which evolved from the CSFC founded by Paul Weyrich, a leader of the Second New Right and also founder of the Heritage Foundation and the Moral Majority. The FCF was led by the Coors family and major funding was provided by the Scaife Foundation and Roger Milliken of Milliken & Company.[84] By 1997, the Heritage Foundation and the FCF were two of the top five biggest and best funded conservative think tanks.[85] The FCF adopts the neoconservatives’ critique of liberalism, but compliments it with a white-supremacist tone. According to the FCF website, America is on the verge of a second American Revolution:

…what people are thinking but are often afraid to say: that the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness is destroying our country, that “multicultural” nations break apart in civil war, and that uncontrolled immigration and rising crime are turning America into a Third World nation. They ask the “forbidden” questions: is real reform still possible, or will a new Revolution be necessary to restore America’s traditional—and very successful—culture? Is the United States Government still a legitimate government? Is “racism” the real problem or do cries of racism arise as a result of bad behavior by minority groups?[86]

In 1992, the FCF launched a satellite television station called National Empowerment Television (NET), which broadcast to 11 million homes. According to Media Transparency, the NET carried Borderline for “conservative views on immigration policy,” the Cato Forum, “which provides the Cato Institute with an on-going opportunity to promote its beliefs concerning the illegitimacy of taxes and government regulation,” On Target With the National Rifle Association, and other right-wing policy shows. Launched in 1996, Borderline was produced by The Federation For Immigration Reform and featured, according to a report on FAIR from the Southern Poverty Law Center, “a number of prominent white nationalists, including Samuel T. Francis and the alt-right’s Jared Taylor, the spokesman for the KKK-affiliated Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC).[87] Three years before the Borderline show was launched on NET, FAIR founder John Tanton had remarked, “As Whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an explosion?”[88]

Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW)

According to Lind, he began the debate over maneuver warfare in 1976 that became a central part of the military reform movement of the 1970s and 1980s. The U.S. Marine Corps finally adopted maneuver warfare as doctrine in the late 1980s, and Lind wrote most of their new tactics manual. In 1989, he began the debate over Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW), referring to any war in which one of the major participants is not a state but rather an insurgent group or violent non-state actor. The concept was first described by Lind, Colonel Keith Nightengale (US Army), Captain John F. Schmitt (USMC), Colonel Joseph W. Sutton (US Army), and Lieutenant Colonel Gary I. Wilson (USMCR) in a 1989 Marine Corps Gazette article titled “The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation.” According to Scaminaci:

The central objective is to undermine and destroy the legitimacy of the state actor, to deny the state actor a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, and to use manipulations of moving images and other psychological warfare techniques to remove affective support from the state actor. Psychological warfare would be more important than military operations.[89]

In the 2004 book The Sling and The Stone, US Marine Corps Colonel Thomas X. Hammes explained that 4GW, “uses all available networks–political, economic, social, and military–to convince the enemy’s political decision makers that their strategic goals are either unachievable or too costly for the perceived benefit. It is an evolved form of insurgency… Unlike previous generations of warfare, it does not attempt to win by defeating the enemy’s military forces. Instead, via the networks, it directly attacks the minds of enemy decision makers to destroy the enemy’s political will. Fourth-generation wars are lengthy–measured in decades rather than months or years.”[90]

Lind explicitly took credit for having inspired al-Qaeda’s 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In one of his military strategy articles, Lind observes that during the US invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001 in retaliation for 9/11, American troops reportedly found copies of his seminal 1989 Marine Corps Gazette article on Fourth Generation warfare “in the caves at Tora Bora, the al-Qaeda hideout in Afghanistan.”[91] A reported close aid to Osama bin Laden even authored an article, for an al-Qaeda publication, that specifically referenced Lind’s article.[92]

A sub-component of 4GW was Lind’s advancement of Buchanan’s notion of a “Culture War,” as part of a purported liberal conspiracy comprised of so-called “Cultural Marxists” and their ideology of “political correctness” or “multiculturalism” in opposition to “traditional American culture” or “Judeo-Christian culture.”[93] Lind was one of the five advisers Buchanan listed as having played significant roles in his book, The Death of The West, which contains a chapter titled “The Frankfurt School Comes To America.” Lind was chiefly responsible for popularizing the conspiratorial interpretation of the Frankfurt School agenda behind Cultural Marxism, which originated in Michael Minnicino’s 1992 essay “New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and ‘Political Correctness’,” published in Fidelio Magazine by the Schiller Institute, a branch of the LaRouche movement. Lind has asserted that Marxists control much of modern popular media, and that political correctness can be directly attributed to Karl Marx.[94] Lind’s introduction to a 1990s twenty-two minute Free Congress Foundation video, on the origins of “political correctness” also featured Weyrich’s “right-hand man” Laszlo Pasztor, a convicted Nazi collaborator and the founding chair of the Republican Heritage Groups Council (RHGC).

Weyrich first aired his conception of Cultural Marxism in a 1998 speech to the Civitas Institute’s Conservative Leadership Conference, later repeating this usage in his widely syndicated Culture War Letter. At Weyrich’s request, Lind wrote a short history of his conception of Cultural Marxism for FCF, in which he identifies the presence of homosexuals on television as proof of Cultural Marxist control over the mass media and claims that Herbert Marcuse considered a coalition of “blacks, students, feminist women and homosexuals” as the vanguard of cultural revolution.[95] In 1999 Lind led the creation of an hour-long program entitled “Political Correctness: The Frankfurt School.” Some of Lind’s content went on to be reproduced by James Jaeger in his YouTube film CULTURAL MARXISM: The Corruption of America. The FCF’s 2004 mini-book, Political Correctness—A Short History of an Ideology and its references to “Cultural Marxism” provided the core inspirational ideas for Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik’s political manifesto.

The paleoconservatives view immigration, especially Muslim and Hispanic immigration, as an existential threat which could destroy the nation. According to Scaminaci, they were targeting Islam years before the 9/11 terrorist attacks.[96] Indeed, a plot line in William Lind’s 2014 race-war novel Victoria: A Novel of 4th Generation Warfare, envisions America’s second civil war, and a recovery of “traditional,” Western, Christian culture, led by a new country located in the northeast, which named itself Victoria because it had returned to Victorian values. The novel describes the invasion of Boston by Muslim troops under the auspices of the UN. At the close of the book, the victorious white Christian insurgents prepare to launch a tenth Crusade against Islam.

[1] Yeadon & Hawkins. Nazi Hydra in America, p.. 161.

[2] Coudenhove-Kalergi. An idea conquers the world (London: Hutchinson, 1953). p. 247.

[3] Andrea Murphy, ed. “America’s Largest Private Companies.” Forbes (October 28, 2015).

[4] Lisa Graves. “Like His Dad, Charles Koch Was a Bircher (New Documents).” The Progressive (July 8, 2014).

[5] Jonathan Katz. “The Man Who Launched the GOP's Civil War.” Politico (October 1, 2015).

[6] Jane Mayer. “The Secrets of Charles Koch’s Political Ascent.” Politico (January 18, 2016); Mark Ames. “Meet Charles Koch’s Brain.”

[7] David Harvey. A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 43.

[8] Mayer. Dark Money.

[9] Joe Strupp. “Tribune Company Scribes: Koch Brothers Purchase Could Turn Papers Into ‘Conservative Mouthpiece.’” Media Matters (April 23, 2011).

[10] Jane Mayer. “The Secrets of Charles Koch’s Political Ascent.” Politico (January 18, 2016).

[11] Robert. D. McFarland. “Richard Mellon Scaife, Influential U.S. Conservative, Dies at 82.” New York Times (July 4, 2014); “Contributions of the Bradley Foundation.” SourceWatch (accessed December 21, 2017).

[12] Sam Tanenhaus. “The Architect of the Radical Right.” The Atlantic (July/August 2017).

[13] George Monbiot. “A despot in disguise: one man’s mission to rip up democracy.” The Guardian (July 19, 2017).

[14] Ibid.

[15] Debra L. Schultz. “To Reclaim a Legacy of Diversity: Analyzing the ‘Political Correctness’ Debates in Higher Education.” (New York: National Council for Research on Women, 1993).

[16] Paul Berman. Debating P.C.: The Controversy over Political Correctness on College Campuses (Random House, 1992).

[17] Alan Bloom. “Preface.” Alexandre Kojève, Introduction to the Reading of Hegel, p i.

[18] Moira Weigel. “Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy.” The Guardian (November 30, 2016).

[19] Ibid.

[20] Adam L. Fuller. Taking the Fight to the Enemy: Neoconservatism and the Age of Ideology (Lexington Books, 2012), p. 265.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Carla Hall. “Bradford’s Boosters.” The Washington Post, (October 20, 1981); David Gordon. “Southern Cross: The meaning of the Mel Bradford moment.” The American Conservative (April 4, 2010).

[23] James M. McPherson. “Long-Legged Yankee Lies: The Southern Textbook Crusade,” in Alice Fahs & Joan Waugh, ed. The Memory of the Civil War in American Culture, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), pp. 64, 78.

[24] Nancy MacLean. “Neo-Confederacy against the New Deal: The Regional Romance of the Modern American Right,” paper presented at conference entitled “The End of Southern History? Reintegrating the Modern South and the Nation.” (Atlanta: Emory University, 2006).

[25] Ed Sebesta. “The Library of Evil and The University of Missouri Press.” The Black Commentator (December 10, 2015 - Issue 633).

[26] Vol. 12 4th Qtr. 1992, pp. 8; cited in Ed Sebesta. “The Library of Evil and The University of Missouri Press.” The Black Commentator (December 10, 2015 - Issue 633).

[27] Lee. The Beast Reawakens, p. 387.

[28] Ibid..

[29] Ibid., p. 225.

[30] Ibid.

[31] “Parallel Lives: William F. Buckley vs. Samuel T. Francis.” Vdare.com (February 24, 2015).

[32] “Nazis Helped Get Us To The Moon. The Reagan White House Helped Keep Them In The U.S.” (news report/book review). The Huffington Post (November 8, 2014). Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/operation-paperclip_n_6123746?ri18n=true

[33] Lee. The Beast Reawakens, p. 227-228.

[34] Monte Paulsen. “Buchanan Inc.” Nation (November 22, 1999).

[35] Eleanor Clift. “Two of a Kind: Steve Bannon, Pat Buchanan, and the Nuts’ 20 Percent.” The Daily Beast (April 5, 2017).

[36] George Packer. “The Uses of Division.” The New Yorker (August 11 & 18, 2014 Issue).

[37] Eleanor Clift. “Two of a Kind: Steve Bannon, Pat Buchanan, and the Nuts’ 20 Percent.” The Daily Beast (April 5, 2017).

[38] Ibid.

[39] Lee Edwards. “Reagan’s Newspaper.” Human Events (February 5, 2011).

[40] Patrick Buchanan. 1992 Republican National Convention Speech (Speech) (August 17, 1992).

[41] Ibid., p. 361.

[42] Thomas B. Edsall. “Buchanan’s Bid Transforms the Reform Party.” Washington Post (July 23, 2000).

[43] Mark Ames. “Behind the scenes of the Donald Trump - Roger Stone show.” Pando (August 11, 2015).

[44] David Brooks. “ism: An Intellectual Cause.” The Weekly Standard (11 March 1996).

[45] Ward Harkavy. “The Nazi on the Bestseller List.” The Village Voice (Novemver 15, 2000).

[46] Alfred S. Regnery. Upstream: The Ascendance of American Conservatism (Simon and Schuster, 2008). p. 79.

[47] Jacob Siegel. “The Alt-Right’s Jewish Godfather.” Tablet (November 29, 2016).

[48] Danny Postel. “The metamorphosis of Telos: A splintered journal pokes into its own contradictions.” In These Times (April 24-30, 1991).

[49] Jacob Siegel. “The Alt-Right’s Jewish Godfather.” Tablet (November 29, 2016).

[50] Ibid.

[51] Ibid.

[52] “Ex-Ontario teacher is international director of American ‘white nationalist’ group that influenced Dylann Roof.” National Post (June 23, 2015).

[53] Jared Taylor. “Sam Francis.” American Renaissance (February 16, 2005).

[54] Michael Shelden. Orwell: The Authorized Biography (HarperCollins. 1991).]

[55] Paul Gottfried. After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), p. 85.

[56] Samuel T. Francis. “Power Trip.” The Occidental Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 2. Summer 2003.

[57] Samuel T. Francis. “From Household to Nation.” Chronicles (March 1996). pp. 12-13.

[58] Lee. The Beast Reawakens, p. 358.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Samuel Francis. “Principalities and Powers.” Chronicles (February, 1992).

[61] Daniel Schulman. “Late Libertarian Icon Murray Rothbard on Charles Koch: He ‘Considers Himself Above the Law’.” Mother Jones (June 5, 2014).

[62] Quinn Slobodian. “Anti-‘68ers and the Racist-Libertarian Alliance: How a Schism among Austrian School Neoliberals Helped Spawn the Alt Right.” Cultural Politics, Volume 15, Issue 3 (November 2019).

[63] “Quinn Slobodian – Globalists” Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung (December 11, 2019). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6xIBh8wZ2g&t=2417s

[64] “Quinn Slobodian – Globalists” Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung (December 11, 2019). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6xIBh8wZ2g&t=2417s

[65] Murray Rothbard. “The Myth of Neutral Taxation.” The Logic of Action Two: Applications and Criticism from the Austrian School (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 1997). p. 67.

[66] Murray N. Rothbard. “Race! That Murray Book.” LewRockwell.com (December 1994).

[67] Jonathan Harrison. “Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell and Scientific Racism.” Holocaust Controversies (July 06, 2010).

[68] William H. Peterson. Mises in America (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2009). pp. 18–19.

[69] James Kirchick. “Angry White Man.”

[70] Ibid.

[71] Joe Newby. “Former staffer says Ron Paul lying about role in controversial newsletter,” Examiner.com (December 26, 2011).

[72] Jarry Markon & Alice Crites. “Paul Pursued Strategy of Publishing Controversial Newsletters, Associates Say.” Washington Post, (January 27).

[73] Joe Newby, “Former staffer says Ron Paul lying about role in controversial newsletter,” Examiner.com (December 26, 2011).

[74] Julian Sanchez & David Weigel. “Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters? Libertarian movement veterans, and a Paul campaign staffer, say it was "paleolibertarian" strategist Lew Rockwell,” Reason (January 16, 2008).

[75] Sanchez & Weigel. “Who Wrote Ron Paul’s Newsletters.”

[76] Keir Martland. Liberty from a Beginner: Selected Essays (Second ed. 2016). p. 62.

[77] Bellant. The Coors Connection, p. 101.

[78] David Frum. “Cultural Clash on the Right.” Wall Street Journal (June 2, 1989), p. 1.

[79] Samuel T. Francis. “The Education of David Duke.” p. 5.

[80] Lee Edwards. The Conservative Revolution: The Movement That Remade America (Simon and Schuster, 1999), p. 329.

[81] Lew Rockwell. “What I Learned From Paleoism,” LewRockwell.com, (May 2, 2002).

[82] Keir Martland. Liberty from a Beginner: Selected Essays (Second ed. 2016). p. 64.

[83] Timothy Shenk. “The dark history of Donald Trump’s rightwing revolt.” The Guardian (August 16, 2016).

[84] Bellant. The Coors Connection, p. vi.

[85] Ruth Murray Brown. For a “Christian America”: A History of the Religious Right (Prometheus Books, New York, 2002), pp. 131-35

[86] “The Heritage Foundation: Power Elites: The Merger of Right and Left.” Retrieved from http://watch.pair.com/heritage.html

[87] “Ex-Ontario teacher is international director of American ‘white nationalist’ group that influenced Dylann Roof.” National Post (June 23, 2015).

[88] James Scaminaci. “Part III: The Free Congress Foundation’s Political-Military Strategy Documents.”

[89] Chauncey Devega. “How “4th Generation Warfare” helps to explain the rise of Donald Trump.” Salon (May 7, 2016).

[90] Alex Chadwick. “‘The Sling and the Stone’: Next-Generation War.” NPR (November 18, 2004).

[91] William S. Lind. “Understanding Fourth Generation War.” Military Review (September/October 2004).

[92] Michael Ryan. Decoding Al-Qaeda's Strategy: The Deep Battle Against America (Columbia University Press, Jul. 9, 2013), p. 99.

[93] Paul Rosenberg. “From the “old right” to the alt-right: How the conservative ideology of FDR’s day fueled the rise of Trump.” Salon (October 8, 2016).

[94] William S. Lind. “What is Cultural Marxism.” Maryland Thursday Meeting (2008).

[95] Bill Berkowitz. “Reframing the Enemy: ‘Cultural Marxism,’ a Conspiracy Theory with an Anti-Semitic Twist, Is Being Pushed by Much of the American Right.” Intelligence Report. Southern Poverty Law Center (Summer, 2003).

[96] Paul Rosenberg. “Donald Trump’s weaponized platform: A project three decades in the making.” Salon (July 16, 2016).

Volume Six

1. Culture Wars

2. Red Mafia

3. From Russia With Love

4. #MeToo

5. Conservative Media

6. Atl-Reich

7. Multipolar World Order

8. Katehon

9. Collusion

10. Russia House

11. Techno-Libertarianism

12. Military-Digital Complex

13. Fake News

14. Memetic Warfare

15. Big Data

16. Make America White Again!

17. In Trump We Trust

18. Israel First