How times have changed.<\/p>\n
Love him or hate him, everyone and anyone who is genuinely interested in achieving \u201ctransparency\u201d owes President Donald J. Trump an eternal debt of gratitude, for had it not been for his meteoric political rise, it would still be possible for some to doubt the existence and profound corruption of the Government-Academic-Media-Entertainment complex (GAME).<\/p>\n
Courtesy of President Trump, this phenomenon is now axiomatic.<\/p>\n
In the Age of Trump, those who not long ago labored inexhaustibly to convince their respective constituencies that they were mortal ideological enemies have pulled back the curtain on this act so as to fulfill their sole objective:<\/p>\n
Stopping the Great Disruptor<\/a>, Donald J. Trump.<\/p>\n For example, Max Boot has long been recognized by friend and foe alike as the quintessential neoconservative, a tenacious military interventionist whose support for George W. Bush\u2019s \u201cWar on Terror\u201d\u2014and every American military engagement for which this has served as the pretext\u2014has been uncompromising. \u00a0Yet Boot, doubtless because he is an outspoken Never Trumper, now appears in the pages of the unapologetically anti-Trump Washington Post. <\/em><\/p>\n And in his most recent editorial, Boot accuses Trump of \u201cnormalizing racism<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n In December of 2017, in an essay<\/a> published by Foreign Policy, <\/em>Boot claimed that for years he had been \u201ca smart-alecky conservative who scoffed at \u2018political correctness,\u2019\u201d but \u201cthe Trump era has opened my eyes\u201d on the reality of \u201cwhite privilege.\u201d<\/p>\n Boot represents the GOP-Neoconservative Media Axis\u2014what I call \u201cBig Conservatism,\u201d or \u201cthe Big Con\u201d\u2014insofar as he is a self-styled conservative who spares no occasion to ingratiate himself to recognizable leftists by renouncing Trump and his supporters as \u201cracist.\u201d George W. Bush, John McCain, Megan McCain, talk radio host Michael Medved, Mitt Romney, the writers at National Review, <\/em>and a whole lot of other self-described conservative (neoconservative) politicians and commentators have seized every available opportunity to do the same.<\/p>\n For reasons that I\u2019ve listed repeatedly, I am usually the last person to hurl the \u201cR-word\u201d at others.\u00a0 The main reason that I refrain from doing so is that the term, perhaps from overuse, has become all but meaningless.\u00a0 However, if a white \u201cracist\u201d is not<\/em> someone who habitually endorses actions that lead to the destruction of millions of non-white men, women, and children, then there is no white racism.<\/p>\n The point, though, is that Max Boot and every one of his Never Trumping neoconservative fellow travelers have repeatedly appropriated their substantial resources for the express purpose of waging war. <\/em><\/p>\n Almost without exception, these wars have been waged against Third World peoples of color.<\/p>\n Although Boot and his comrades labor inexhaustibly to convince The New York Times <\/em>and The Washington Post <\/em>of their unmitigated contempt for the \u201cbigotry\u201d and \u201cracism\u201d of those to their right, it is the latter who have no moral alternative but to unequivocally condemn the racially and religiously charged imperialism<\/em> of neoconservatives like Boot.<\/p>\n Boot claims to have belatedly arrived at the revelation that he has \u201cwhite privilege.\u201d Whether this is an expression of sincerity or but another attempt on Boot\u2019s part to posture for the left is anyone\u2019s guess. At any rate, that the hundreds of thousands of dead, maimed, orphaned, and displaced brown and Islamic peoples whose fate was sealed by the very wars for which he was the loudest of cheerleaders didn\u2019t suffice to awake Boot from the dogmatic slumbers of his ethnocentric ideology, makes it all but a foregone conclusion that Boot remains a champion of the same neo-imperialism that he\u2019s always favored.<\/p>\n Max Boot is the proverbial textbook illustration of the Big Con in another critical respect:<\/p>\n He is morally unserious.<\/p>\n The Boots of the world compete with one another over who can come up with the greatest number of adjectives in condemning the allegedly \u201cracist\u201d remarks <\/em>of a public figure on whom the left has set its sights.\u00a0 Yet they continue to advocate on behalf of literally homicidal policies, <\/em>of actions, <\/em>that result in seas of blood for legions of non-white men, women, and children.<\/p>\n If \u201cracism\u201d and \u201cIslamophobia\u201d have any meaning at all, then surely Max Boot and his fellow neoconservatives, given that their imperialist ideology is almost invariably directed toward Muslims and people of color, are guilty of these moral transgressions in spades.<\/p>\n Back in January, Joy Reid, of MSNBC<\/em>, accused National Review <\/em>writer David French of arguing that nuclear war was worth risking because \u201cit will only kill Democrats and minorities<\/a>.\u201d Reid is a disreputable person whose intellectual dishonesty renders her unfit to be a public figure. She radically misread French.\u00a0 That being said, given that French is an Iraq War veteran, and since he does indeed write for a publication that not only vigorously advocated for this war that by now virtually everyone recognizes for the catastrophe that it is but which, to this day, refuses to apologize for its part in promoting it, can it be any surprise that some would interpret French as viewing the loss of non-white lives as a price worth paying for a war that he and his neoconservative colleagues regard as \u201cjust?\u201d<\/p>\n