As of yet, I have refrained from writing on the EU referendum, despite being prompted by friends to provide the neoconservative perspective.
Given the indeterminacy and misleading nature of the arguments being presented, the truth is I could not produce an advisory for either choice for reasons which will become evident through the course of this piece. One thing was for sure, that those who have been responsible for politically terraforming the closed society here in Britain and other Western countries, as well as physically destroying the Middle East courtesy of benevolent bombs and civilising war, had largely been ignored.
The neoconservative position has been a split one. It needs to be understood however, that the core aim is not being differed (militarisation, projection of power etc.), but rather the approach.
The pro-Europe camp of neoconservatives wished to press ahead with the creation of a super state. The attempts to create a European constitution, fashion a European identity, and a European army has stalled over the past decades with some countries, not least Britain, refusing to “subordinate” themselves to a super state. US neocons turned away from the EU as a result of not being able to exert the necessary political influence, adjusting their strategy accordingly (discussed below).
It seems neocons like Anne Applebaum, Niall Ferguson, Tony Blair and his cronies in Labour and disciples among the Conservatives wished to maintain this dangerous militarised dream. With Europe as a whole lurching to the farthest corners of the political right, and leaders of each of these countries frequently suffering from outbursts of an anti-Islam, anti-Muslim nature, the ingredients for the generation of cohesive but antagonistic European identity are certainly there.
Recent developments indicate towards an increased effort by the EU to establish a European army. Last year, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said that the EU needed its own army, with Germany and France supporting the idea. A year later, Juncker repeated the call again, claiming that NATO is not enough. Blair had attempted to create such an army in the late nineties. This January, weighing into the Brexit debate, Blair argued that Britain needed to integrate more into Europe, whilst calling for a European army to be founded to confront “radical Islamism” as a medium-term solution:
“The challenge of radical Islamism should provoke greater cooperation across European nations’ borders.”
By March, Blair’s European army had morphed into a global one, with a global strike capability. Presumably this is his long-term solution for eradicating “radical Islamism” – an epithet used to mask his true objective: Islam itself.
In short, a warmongering continental army facing the East is the aim.
Neocon Anne Applebaum, former adjunct fellow at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, and an advocate for war against Russia, argued the case for the European Union. For her the EU is crucial for fighting “Muslim extremism”, dressing her plea in typically neoconservative foreign policy and fiscal terms:
“The only international institution explicitly committed both to democratic government and to rule-based markets in Europe is the European Union. It’s an institution that we have helped shape, and although we don’t always realise it, it promotes our view of the world, advocates competition and campaigns for the removal of barriers to trade.”
Elsewhere, she has effectively argued that Britain in the EU would enable a unified European policy against (surprise, surprise) Russia.
In sum, the aim for this group of neocons is to use the EU as a bulwark against Russia and the Muslim world. A modern day Western “Christian” empire to compliment the neocon imperialism of a “unipolar” US, if you will. Logically speaking, US neocon influence in Europe would also mean a cohesive, friendlier attitude towards Israel.
For neocons averse to the European model, Bosnia, and later, the Iraq war provided sufficient reasons to ignore a Union not amenable to US national interests. Thus arch neocon Robert Kagan said in 2003,
“’When it comes to setting national priorities, determining threats, defining challenges, and fashioning and implementing foreign and defense policies, the United States and Europe have parted ways… Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus.”
More explicitly, “Europe believes conflicts are best resolved through peaceful diplomacy and multilateral engagement. Not war, but inspections is what will secure Iraq’s disarmament.”
Kagan elaborated this sentiment further in a book dedicated to this very subject:
“The Balkan conflict at the beginning of the decade revealed European military incapacity and – political disarray… Outside of Europe, by the close of the 1990s, the disparity was even more starkly apparent as it became clear that the ability and will of European powers, individually or collectively, to project decisive force into regions of conflict beyond the Continent were negligible.”
For Kagan, the EU was living in a Kantian world dominated by rules, and despite Blair’s effort to “lead Europe back out into the Hobbesian world, where military power remains a key feature of international relations” by amassing an army of 60,000 troops with French, the philosophic transition failed to materialise.
Not content with destroying the Middle East, neocons turned their attention to Eastern Europe. In 2014, US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland was exposed for actively picking and choosing a Western-friendly leader of Ukraine, escalating tensions with Russia in the process. Pertinently, Nuland suggested a meeting with Ban Ki-moon to cement the effective regime-change, brazenly side-lining the EU (infamously using the terms “f*** the EU”). One American Russia expert called it “two steps from a Cuban Missile Crisis”.
Nuland’s old boss is Iraq disaster architect Dick Cheney, whilst her husband is the aforementioned Robert Kagan.
This “weak Europe” theme has since continued generally and specifically in the context of Eastern Europe. More recently, neocon Robert D. Kaplan stated in February of this year that,
“Europe is not succeeding. Let’s be honest. The problems in the European Union are profound… What I’m afraid is that the European Union is gradually, slowly weakening, and that instead of a united Europe you’ll get many different Europes, going at different speeds that will weaken the West and partly deny the United States having a strong ally in Europe.
Kaplan’s imperialist solution is to station more troops inside Europe in order to tell the world “that it’s willing to shed blood on behalf of principles.”
With Britain free from EU “softness”, British neocons feel they are unshackled, or as the Spectator editorial put it, “Out – and into the world”. For this group of neocons (including hate preacher Douglas Murray, who endorsed this view), NATO is the “true guarantor” of western security.
Per form, the Zionist crime-whitewasher and student of IDF and Mossad, Colonel Richard Kemp provided further neocon-supporting insight into this perspective. For Kemp, remaining in the EU would facilitate an EU army which would cripple the deterrence of NATO, thus increasing vulnerability of Europe against the threat of Russia, Middle East and “radical Islam”. Pertinently, it would also reduce US influence – a key strategic aim of France and Germany.
The military alignment away from the EU and towards the US (and Israel) is the strategy advocated by these particular extreme neocons. It is thus understandable that Zionist neocon Michael Gove, the “brains” behind the toxic leave campaign, has been endorsed by the son of the godfather of US neoconservatism, William Kristol, “as probably the most impressive member of the British Parliament”.
Neoconservatives are by the far most influential advocates of Western international violence. Further, neoconservatives believe that the relationship between foreign and domestic policy is intertwined and reciprocal, enabling the creation of a fascism-based closed society. It stands to reason that analysing this mandarin mafia’s take on geopolitics is integral to formulating any strategic response to the outcome of the EU referendum from both domestic and foreign policy perspectives.
The notion that an exit from the EU would contain British violence abroad is not entirely accurate. Since 2014, NATO has increased its provocations on the “eastern flank” – i.e. the Baltic States – potentially dragging Europe into war with Russia and turning the renewed cold war into a full-on hot war. For the US, agitating Russia means creating European dependency on the US and destabilising the EU (which perhaps explains why this agitation is not predominantly taking place in Syria). As Kagan revealingly wrote in the footnotes of his 2003 book,
“The exception, of course, is in Eastern and Central Europe, where most nations still feel strategically dependent on the United States. But if and as these powers feel less threatened over the coming years, and as they become more entangled in the European Union’s web of economic and political relationships, they may follow the path of the Western European peoples.”
European dependency means more “blood shedding”, more “statecraft”, and resultantly more closed society measures at home.
As media reports dominate with Brexit concerns over the past months, Britain quietly aired its intention to commit troops in Libya separate from EU military operations. Furthermore, a thousand troops from the UK took part in Operation Anaconda in Poland earlier this month. This is not the behaviour of a castrated country.
Either outcome is problematic. However, with Britain choosing to leave the EU, Britain’s politics is swiftly set to align further with the US, signalling a further consolidation of neocon thinking at the upper echelons of UK government.
With the post-referendum furore continuing, the British people must not lose sight of the Machiavellian, warmongering politics of fascist neocons.
 Kagan R., Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order, New York: Vintage Books, 2004, p.22
 Ibid. p.75
 Ibid. p.113, fn.9