Neocons relish a good tragedy. In a screed published prior to the 9/11 attacks, a cabal of neocons argued that the US Armed Forces could only be made resurgent through “some catastrophic and catalyzing event – a new Pearl Harbor”. Soon after the 9/11 attack the neocon David Brooks noted how the attack was positive for cultivating “an unconsummated desire for sacrifice and service”. Unsurprisingly, soon after the Westminster attack, the Times took the opportunity to milk the event and direct all narratives towards Islam and Muslims.
Niall Ferguson, a neocon, penned a particularly vitriolic piece, relying on three reports. The opinion piece has also been published in the Boston Globe.
What started out as a response to a comment on my article turned into a fully-fledged piece for my blog. An edited cross-post of one my heavily referenced articles on neoconservatives and their fascistic impact on society published on another site tendered the following colourful comment from an upset neocon apologist:
Clearly, the individual was upset by the reality expressed in the article, which resulted in personal attacks, smears, followed by two subsequent post scripts. Normally I do not respond to comments, mainly due to want for time, but also because they rarely tackle the content of the articles. Here, however, something caught my attention, which I have been meaning to write about for some time.