Washington Monthly web editor, slanderer in chief Martin Longman, author of "Bolton Taps Neo-Nazi as National Security Council Chief of Staff," now officially corrected to "John Bolton’s New Chief of Staff Has Deeply Alarming Connections"
To understand the campaign of slander and smear against Fred Fleitz, late of the Center for Security Policy, now chief of staff in the National Security Council under John Bolton, it is important to understand that in the concentric circles that array themselves around Washingon's power centers there are to be found National Security Hawks and National Security Subversives. Until November 8, 2016, the National Security Subversives ranged closest to and inside the hubs of power; after November 8, 2016, National Security Hawks began to trickle into that most powerful hub, the Trump White House.
This terrifies the Subversives. To understand why, let me explain why I call them "Subversives." It is because their policies, their programs, are subversive of the Constitution of the United States; the sovereignty of the United States; which naturally means the continued existence of the United States as a nation-state with controlled borders (including an immigration policy designed to improve the nation-state), overriding interests, and a dedication to the primacy of its own citiizens. Hewing to Marx, not our Founding Fathers, Foreign Policy Subversives are best understood as globalists who see the United States as an integral and also subordinate part of an international political system to be run, not governed, by elites like themselves. In their eyes, We, the People, are just subjects, not citizens, members of contending "identity"-groups to which they will redistriibute benefits, or not.
Quite unexpectedly, the Trump Counter-Revolution of 2016 gave the National Security Hawks in Washington new hope. By "National Security Hawks," I don't mean to specify "neocons" or interventionists, which is how we have come to understand this term. Indeed, most neocons and interventionists have worked hand in glove with National Security Subversives. In the context of the campaign of slander and smear against Fred Fleitz, I am thinking of National Security Hawks as those who hold a variety of opposing, even clashing, foreign policy viewpoints; however, as a group, loosely confederated or not, we all seek to defend and protect America first.
Yes, it's the old struggle -- patriots vs. globalists, nation-staters vs. Marxists, anti-communists vs. communists -- over our nation's character. Will our nation re-discover itself as a republic under the US Constitution after all (the National Security Subversive nightmare) or will it further integrate (disappear) into the socialist suprastate run, not governed, by unaccountable legions of bureacrats guided by global, not national, interests?
As vanquished as the globalists believed the nation-staters to be -- I think they forgot about us after winning the ideological war in the Cold War at home -- they were pitched into disarray as this struggle entered a new phase in 2016.
Their tactics to regroup unmask them as Subversives as much as anything else. That is, these are not regular, old "liberals" putting forth their competing set of ideas to win elections next time. As Subversives, President Trump's main opposition sows chaos, disrupts, "resists," and tries to sabotage the president and harm those associated with him: Witness the ruinous, punitive campaigns of personal and financial destruction masquerading as a legal process operated by the Special Counsel and glossed by his Special Media. They attempt to commandeer the "information battlespace," not debate in the public square, with a form of propaganda the historical record shows us originated in the Kremlin to be disseminated by Marxist agents. I refer especially to the communist practice of branding all anti-communists, especially the patriot who loves his country, as "fascists" and "Nazis." Just check back issues of Pravda and the Daily Worker. Or check the Washington Monthly.
Which takes us to the campaign against Fred Fleitz. As soon as Fleitz's new job was announced, the story went out that an "anti-Muslim" "Islamophobe" "conspiracy theorist" was going to work in the White House. But maybe nearly 17 years after 9/11, this tired invective just wasn't bad enough anymore. Or maybe it was just time to hit new gutter-levels of calumny. Whatever the cause, in the pages of the Washington Monthly, in a hit and run piece of claptrap by Martin Longman with a headline on top, the anti-Fleitz campaign went full "Neo-Nazi": "Bolton Taps Neo-Nazi as National Security Council Chief of Staff." To put a point on the mainstreaming of such a spurious attack, Google, meanwhile, was simultaneously defining the ideology of the California Republican Party first as "Nazism."
This is information-warfare against conservatives going nuclear.
Moments ago, the Washington Monthly changed its egregious headline as noted in the correction pasted at the top of this post -- six days after the piece appeared. Better late than never is the adage, however, numerous follow-up pieces have appeared in the interim, referencing and knocking down the smear, which tell us the damage was done. (Example: "Fred Fleitz Is Not a Neo-Nazi" by Rich Lowry.) The lasting harm, I suspect, is to the Washington Monthly. Note that the text of Longman's piece is unchanged and its central spurious claim -- that "there are links between the Center for Security Policy and neo-Nazi origanizations in Europe" -- is, if anything, underscored by the "correction." What a disgrace.
Then again, the Washington Monthly is just a tiny publication. Still, it lays claim to the beating heart of mainstream liberal journalism and letters, as the magazine's roster of contributing editors shows.
Are they all satisfied now that their publication's Pravda-style headline is just a Wayback.org memory? Or will any of them do the right thing and apologize to Fred Fleitz for this unjustified, injurious blow struck by the journal that their own reputations anchor?
In the article that counts for Martin Longman's admittedly dodgy research ("I cannot endorse everything" but ...), I, too, am slimed (along with Frank Gaffney and other leading lights such as Geert Wilders, Lars Hedegaard, Rachel Ehrendfeld, David Yerushalmi, and more) as a racist, and, referencing the disinformation campaign against American Betrayal launched by David Horowitz and Ron Radosh, I am also tagged "`McCarthy’s heiress' for selling `yellow journalism conspiracies' about the secret Soviet occupation of America." (NB: Being named "McCarthy's heiress" is a great honor, and I humbly accept; however, Horowitz and Radosh meant it to do as much harm as possible.)
Here is the main and unchanged thrust of Longman's scurrilous attack:
To get a sense of what it means that Fred Fleitz has been chosen as the National Security Council’s chief of staff, you need to understand both the role of Frank Gaffney and his Center for Security Policy in the international neo-Nazi movement and the way that movement is seamlessly connected to and promoted by Vladimir Putin.
"...the role of Frank Gaffney and his Center for Security Policy in the international neo-Nazi movement"
I have to say I've never read anything more insane in my life.
Longman has a caveat:
While I cannot endorse everything Mr. Ahmed alleges and recommend double checking his sources and how he treats them, I do think his A Fourth Reich is rising across Europe — with ties to Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin is an excellent place to start your journey. It connects a lot of dots that need connecting, and it contains a lot of documentation that you can assess for yourself.
In other words, "It's trash, but I like trash." As for providing "a lot of documentation that you can assess for yourself," "Mr. Ahmed" somehow forgot to include a link to my column "whose views on black people," Ahmed wrote, "`gave new meaning to the word racism'” (here's the link).
In short, Longman's nasty little item is no better than bathroom grafitti; however, it should not to be quickly dismissed. In its crude slashings there are indicators of a strategy that has been coming into focus, a strategy to engineer and/or use the Russian beguilement and/or infiltration of elements of the European right as a mechanism to "dirty-up" the genuinely patriotic people and parties coalescing around nation-state and sovereignty issues in the wider West. Such attempted inroads are openly attributed to the Kremlin. It seems unlikely that it is just a coincidence that we have been seeing similar patterns in the revelations around the Great "Russian" Frame-Up of the Trump campaign -- a process of beguilement and/or infiltration of the Trump campaign to "dirty-up" members with Russian connections, too. Perhaps one day we will be able to attribute this similar operation to the Kremlin, also.
Not Longman. He's off again, puring hot tar on anti-communists such as Gaffney (and me, I can assume) by aligning them with "Putin's foreign policy objectives."
But it’s the way this movement has melded with Putin’s foreign policy objectives that is most urgent, and it’s admittedly confusing because Gaffney built his reputation in the 1980s as an anti-Soviet, anti-Russia hawk. Even today, he is not known for speaking favorably of Russia or Vladimir Putin, which is why it’s essential to explore the absolute confluence of interests that have developed between Gaffney’s promotion of the European far right and Putin’s promotion of the same neo-Nazi parties and politicians.
More slander and disinformation about Frank Gaffney, a courageous patriot whose fidelity to this nation is unparalleled. If Putin is engaging in a "scissors strategy" -- the traditional Kremlin m.o. of infiltrating both sides (or more) in a conflict -- Gaffney's so-called "promotion of the European far right" has nothing, nada, zero to do with any neo-Nazi parties or politicians. On the contrary, his "promotion" constitutes a principled and robust defense of free speech in Europe and the US against the incursions of both Islamic and Marxist censorship into Western society.
Not that Longman dares explain or even understands such things. By his own admission, he is irresponsible (and so is Washington Monthly) for promoting a source ("Mr. Ahmed") he does not trust; also for substituting his own vicious biases for journalistic judgement, without concern for, or, worse, relishing the consequences to Fred Fleitz and anyone else associated with CSP and its mission to support free speech against sharia speech codes, and to alert Americans to the dangers to free speech that accompany Islam wherever it establishes its totalitarian legal, political and individual control-system known as sharia.
Longman says he's confused.
If so, I bet whoever put him up to this piece is not.