The Cost of Right Deviations on Anti-Imperialism

: October 16, 2017

Note: This post was originally posted on a “Demo” website on 2/28/2016 and has been moved over.
Right Deviations
A right deviationist is a person who is a dissident against America policing the world, but focuses exclusively on the “culture war” and at least is reluctant to make materialist observations and at most openly “denies” them. A particular type of right deviationist focuses on Jewish influence and then makes statements like these:

-We didn’t get any oil.
-(so and so) is guilty of misdirection.
-There is no military industrial complex.

The fact that many people who acknowledge the existence of the military industrial complex are simultaneously critical of the Israel Lobby is overlooked while these right deviationists focus exclusively on the Jewish role. To not understand the role of the Israel lobby would be a large oversight, one might call it a politically correct deviation, but the right deviationists commit their own error and their own error has consequences as well. Their error is based around the idea that Jewish influence in media and foreign policy is operating without allies who are independent. They argue that people who point out otherwise are “controlled by the Jews,” while deviationists defend the allies of those neo-con Jews who actually do support aggressive US foreign policy. By defending the allies of the neo-cons, they assist the neo-cons, because everything comes from the perspective of unilateralism. In summarized terms, the right deviationist delays the deeper understanding of the political dissident by focusing on one issue, gets dismissed by others as it is clear that he/she is committing omission, over-commits to people who reject Jewish finance but lack other ideological foundations and still does not stop Jewish neo-cons from profiting from their alliance with other factions which the deviationist denies the existence of or pins as being “Jewish controlled.”

Trump and the “Alternative Right”
Trump should be supported not as a stalwart anti-imperialist but as a person whose comments about Muslims and taking oil may provide obstacles and cast doubt on his shifting position on Iraq and Libya and wrong position on Iran. In short, Trump’s lack of political correctness will make it more difficult for him to re-invade Iraq (under the pretense of fighting ISIS) and attack Iran. Because Trump is worse for the political class he is better for us than a politically correct imperialist who will talk about human rights and freedom while invading countries preemptively.

Because right deviationists “know” (note the quotes) that Jewish influence unilaterally caused the united states to engage in overseas adventures, someone like Donald Trump can simply make criticisms of particular imperialist policies (the Iraq war, Libya, Syria) after he switches his position back and forth and be mistaken as a steady opponent of US intervention. Yet because the right deviationists “know” that business interests do not also play a role in imperialism, they dismiss comments from Trump that suggest paraphrased that “we should have got the oil in Iraq” and “we need to take ISIS’s oil” and “I am only interested in Libya if we take the oil” and “the issue with the Iran deal is that we should have taken their money instead of returned their frozen assets.” Someone like Trump criticizes the specifics of individual imperialist actions as mistakes, while running against opponents, instead of misuses of the purpose of the military, yet because the right deviationists “know” that Jewish influence is the unilateral issue, they easily fall for what is not a true opposition to US meddling. Similarly, left deviationists mistook Obama’s criticism of the Iraq war as an overture against the use of the US military to change regimes preemptively. Obama then overthrew Moamar Gaddafi, attempted to overthrow Bashar Assad and made a series of calculations that turned Al Qaeda in Iraq into ISIS. The similarity is that Trump also criticizes old interventions in retrospect but leaves the door open for new ones. The difference is that Trump will be much more compromised than Obama due to his political incorrectness. What is bad for the rulers is good for us.

Supporting Trump because he causes problems for other politicians is one thing. However, some right deviationists think Donald Trump is actually sincere in his anti-interventionism and they think this because Trump says he does not want donations from large Jewish groups. Right deviationists have drilled the single jewish cause into people’s minds for a long time. Now we see the effect. These right deviationists are easily fooled by a candidate who vocalizes opposition to organized Jewish donations but still supports American imperialism. He reinforces their delusions by criticizing specific policies but suggesting taking more oil would be better in the future and would have been better in the past. The so called alternative right has been easily fooled and it is the view of the author that Donald Trump is playing the alternative right and laughing at them. The alternative right sincerely opposes the US empire and really does blame everything on Jews unilaterally. Donald Trump is insincerely opposing intervention by (after the fact) criticizing interventions, but aligning with Bush Jr., Cheney and Rice in saying he wants to get oil out of Iraq, Libya and Iran. Because he will not take Jewish money, the alternative right thinks he is one of them.

Predictions for the Alternative Right

The chain of events responsible for this predicament is the belief in a single Jewish cause, which is based on the fact that discussing Jewish influence is politically incorrect. The alternative right reacts to the establishment political correctness by violating its taboos but in its fixation sets itself up to alienate the section of the Jewish population that is “innocent” and latches onto candidates out of desperation who force the movement into compromised positions. The alternative right always speaks in contradictions – it will “oppose the initial Jewish war” but “support the troops”, “oppose the communist class based rhetoric” about military contractors and profiteers and “oppose the leftists jews who protest the war and troops.” Not that it has proven to have aptitude at differentiating between different ideologies as arguments are frequently made that Sanders is an Orthodox Marxist-Leninst, Israel is Communist, the Soviet Union was Zionist etc.

The alternative right is being backed into a corner in several ways current and will continue to be backed into additional corners. Its adherents take a position on military action that is no different from establishment politicians, with the exception that in their view Jewish influence misdirected soldiers who are largely white gentile. Then American Sniper comes out, sells massively, and shows clearly that many troops supported the war with firm fervor and in fact attack Obama because they wrongly believe Obama to be anti-empire and Jesse Ventura for his anti-war activism. Obama is the leader of the country – if everything worked from the top down, they would not dissent as they wrongly peg Obama as an anti-interventionist. Those troops were just mislead and confused (sarcastic)? Why are they writing books, pretending to punch opponents of the war and accusing Obama of betraying the country by removing troops from Iraq at the end of his first term. If the “Jewish leftist communist neo-cons” (sarcastic) caused the Iraq war, then why do troops with pro-war views attack the politicians such as Obama for his wrongly perceived anti-imperialist stance? “There is no military complex.” If that is the case, then there would be no American Sniper book as Chris Kyle would have “realized” the Jews “mislead” him, given his exposure to publicity, exposure to the views of Jesse Ventura and exposure to civilian life. Military contractors who hire white collar administrative positions frequently display office pictures lauding US invasions for their employees, to deny this is stupid. When a fool who supports Alternative Right ideology sees this, he either realizes he was a fool, minimizes the event or tries to tie the event to Jews. He is against the war and its Jewish masters but for the troops, yet the troops clearly are against him before, during and at least immediately after the war. This is the time period that matters, it does no use to oppose a war after it happened.

The alternative right may soon be backed into more corners. Will they argue that the Iran nuclear deal was anti-Iranian and that by attacking it, Trump is reversing the “Jewish deal?” Then they will be further compromised when Trump attempts the theft of Iranian assets. Time to either side with the profiteers or argue that Trump is a puppet of the Jews, while simultaneously maintaining that the deal is a “Jewish deal.” Will they suggest that intervention in Iraq had and will have nothing to do with oil when Trump openly repeats his fixation with oil and then advocates for ground troops against ISIS? Trump may have rescinded Jewish money, but the right deviationists may be forced to argue that Trump is talking about oil under Jewish influence to “misdirect.” Remember, this all started because Trump functions independently of Jewish superpacs, yet once Trump attacks the Iran deal and says he wants to invade Iraq for oil, the only thing the right deviationists can do is argue that he is behaving the way he is because Jews are plotting a scheme to confuse non-Jews. Naturally, the alternative right does not see this coming because they genuinely believe in a single Jewish cause. Soon the single Jewish cause will appear very foolish and the alternative right will appear very foolish for endorsing Trump as a candidate who can fix America as opposed to a candidate who is good for us because he is bad for the government. Trump may help America cease to be an empire, but not by intentional consent, but by being inconsistent and openly interested in extracting profits from countries he says he was against invading, while alienating and dividing other imperialists like Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Lindsay Graham, John McCain, George W Bush and Fox News.

Neo-cons Appointed by Bush Jr, not the other way around
An argument could be made that blaming the Jews unilaterally for the Iraq war in the end benefits those Jews who did push the Iraq war in coalition with others. The interaction then becomes a back and forth between two sides, one of which names the Jew and the other which rejects everything the former has to say, because the former is clearly indeed pushing a unilateral explanation while the later reacts by assuming there is not even an element of truth to what the former is saying. There is an element of truth to the idea that Jewish neo-cons pushed the Iraq war, but it is not the only factor. By insisting it is, the person in question already knows one is lying by omitting other factors (troops who are pro war, Cheney, Bush, Fox News, Senate/House Republicans as leaders, Democrats as followers) and therefore may assume that the lie is not just by omission but in substance as well. Yet as part of a broader coalition, a subset of Jews did join the Bush administration and they were tied to Benjamin Netanyahu.


The right deviationists act as if those Jews appointed Bush as a fall guy to take the blame. They act as if Bush was a gentile who Jews elected to conceal their war from non-Jews, when the simple fact is that the Democratic free market system elected Bush and Bush could have appointed Pat Buchanan instead if he wanted to. A Jewish role, yes! A unilateral Jewish role, no. With Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, no bid contracts to Halliburton and the introduction of American economics into Iraq after “regime change,” to deny that material factors have relevance is just plain stupid. To the untrained eye, it appears like the neo-cons and oil lobby realized they had a common objective and that Bush Junior wanted to outdo Bush Senior and “finish the job” so he appointed people who shared his “interest.” To argue that acknowledging these factors makes one part of a Jewish effort to suppress the truth about the Israel lobby actually defends the allies of the neo-cons, who can operate independently to the profit of the neo-cons. You can chose to believe that Halliburton and oil play no role in the middle east, but that will not stop them from playing a role any more than as Marx critically alluded, the thought of water causes someone to drown and the thought of fresh air causes them to stop drowning while still under water. Simply because you deny that imperialists have independent non-Jewish allies, that does not stop Jews from profiting from those allies.


About The Author