The simplest definition of neoconservatism is the conservative movement with an interventionist foreign policy. Since the conservative base is composed of white Evangelical Zionists, neoconservatives are particularly concerned with intervening in the Middle East on behalf of Israel.
On the other hand, neoliberalism could be described as marrying liberalism with an interventionist foreign policy. I am perfectly fine with being called a neoliberal, although the term is usually meant as a slur, like “Satanist” or “lizard-person.”
In opposition to the neocons and neolibs stand the paleocons, who are non-interventionists. There are also “paleolibs” who genuinely identify with the liberal left but oppose foreign interventionism. These days, the “paleolibs” like RFK are so powerless and few in number that they are inevitably swallowed up by the right.
Who is right, morally, historically, economically? Which side leads to prosperity and peace? Which side is more authentically American?
history of empire.
The divide between interventionists and isolationists goes all the way to the French and Indian War, in 1754, before America ever got started. The colonial settlers were dead-set on their freedom to rape, pillage, and steal land from the natives. The British in London, by contrast, were extremely hesitant to allow colonists to violate British treaties.
The British did not view the Native Americans as an evil race worthy of extermination. Instead, the British allied with the Native Americans on several occasions, including the Iroquois, the Wyandot, the Cherokee, and the Mingo. From the royal perspective, Native Americans were a powerful part of an anti-French coalition. The main concern of the British was reducing and undermining French influence on the North American continent. Toward that end, they viewed the trust, collaboration, and cooperation of various native confederacies as essential. Anything which threatened these practical alliances had to be stamped out.
An analogy for this situation could be drawn between Chuck Schumer and the Israeli settlers. Chuck Schumer is a Zionist. He wants Israel to survive and thrive in the Middle East. However, Schumer also believes that if Israel violates laws of war (starving civilians), assassinates foreign civilians in other countries without a declaration of war, expands illegal settlements, and generally upsets Arab nations, that it creates a public relations crisis and hostile neighborhood for itself. The end result is that Israel is less secure than if it had acted in a more restrained manner.
In this metaphor, King George is Chuck Schumer, and the colonial Americans are the crazy ultra-Zionist Arab-killing terrorists.
Zionists can object that this is a mischaracterization of Israel’s illegal occupation and settlement of the West Bank. It’s not my point here to litigate the morality or legality of Israel’s actions. Maybe you believe that the United Nations is an evil, corrupt institution, and that everything Israel does is legal and moral. My point at this moment isn’t to attack Israel, as much as it is to point out that the colonial Americans were literally genocidal terrorists. Every charge that has been made against Zionists, whether true or false, was actually true about the colonial Americans.
frontier serial killers.
One of my favorite icons of the American colonial terrorist movement is Lewis “Death Wind” Wetzel. Wetzel was a straight up serial killer. He lived in the woods, and stalked around at night. He didn’t kill enemy combatants in battle. He snuck up on friendly Native American allies while they were on a walk and stabbed them in the back.
To be fair, the Native Americans also engaged in murder and mutilation. The point I’m making isn’t to indemnify or infantilize Native American warriors, who were certainly fierce and bloodthirsty in their own right. Rather, it is to say that most normal people cannot imagine how psychopathic men like Lewis Wetzel were. He was an absolute monster, a violent beast, and he was also an American hero.
The last battle of the Revolutionary War was in 1781, and in 1782, the British House of Parliament voted to cease further attacks on America. Finally, in 1783, the Treaty of Paris guaranteed peace between Britain and America (at least until the War of 1812). It was during this period, in 1781, that Lewis Wetzel joined Brodhead's Coshocton expedition.
The American Revolutionary War was a contest between the British rules-based-order and colonial terrorists. The British wanted the colonial Americans to abide by the treaties with the natives, and remain outside their territories. The American terrorists refused to listen, and continued their mass migration westward, killing whatever resistance they encountered. This instigated native American reprisals, and then the British were inevitably drawn into wars with the natives (blowback) because of the lawlessness of the Americans.
The British wanted to stop this cycle, and their strategy was to place the tax burden of these wars on the Americans. The Americans responded with more terrorism, attacking British goods and troops. “No taxation without representation!” The British were exasperated. The colonists were only being taxed in proportion with the foreign wars that they were instigating. If they didn’t want to pay taxes on tea, why did they keep violating native treaties and starting wars?
Eventually, the British had enough, and they left the Americans to their own devices. Soon, the Americans had their own problem: the new government tried to form new treaties with the natives, but terrorists like Lewis Wetzel kept violating these treaties.
For example, Wetzel assassinated the Seneca chief Tegunteh in 1788. Instead of hiding this fact, he openly bragged about it, saying that he would kill any native, anywhere, anytime. Since the Seneca were in an alliance with the American government, the American military arrested Wetzel. The people didn’t appreciate that very much.
The legendary frontiersman Simon Kenton led a riot of 200 men to break Wetzel out, and the federal government relented in the face of a popular uprising. Wetzel escaped justice, and was later prosecuted for killing more innocent Native Americans. However, his sentence was suspended due to the massive popular support which surrounded him. When he did finally end up in prison, it was after rejoining “civilian life” and being charged with counterfeiting. He simply did not fit into normal society.
I want to make it clear that Wetzel was weird, but he was beloved, and reflected larger attitudes in the American spirit. The Gnadenhutten Massacre of 1782 was an act of rape and genocide against Christian pacifists on the basis that they happened to be of Native American descent. Even Teddy Roosevelt, who was a eugenicist and an expansionist, called this chapter of American history “a stain on frontier character that the lapse of time cannot wash away.”1 And yet, paleos want to pretend this never happened, and imagine that America was always just a peaceful bunch of shopkeepers protecting private property and practicing the NAP.
When I hear paleos blathering on about “entangling alliances” and “blowback” I find this to be incredibly dishonest and superficial. America is an empire. Always has been. Don’t like it? Go back to Europe, or wherever you come from, with your tail between your legs. In fact, you should really go back to Ukraine, because all Indo-European languages are imperialistic, expansionist, and militaristic. And if you’re a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, you should return to the Middle East. Your language and religion isn’t native to America. You’re an imperialist, whether you like it or not.
I can admit that the founding of America was violent, expensive, and cruel. This isn’t to endorse “social Darwinism,” racism, or “Nietzschean vitalism” (whatever that means). It is simply to say that I am honest about these issues. America was founded by imperialist white supremacists, slave owners, and rapists. George Washington was killing Hessians the morning after Christmas. These were brutal people.
Moralizing about “Putin’s right to Ukraine,” or “China’s right to Taiwan,” or “the sovereignty of Venezuela” isn’t authentic to the American spirit. This is resentment.
If Russia, China, or Venezuela was truly a better system than America, I would endorse those systems. But since America is better than the rest, I endorse America taking over the world.
I understand that America, like all living entities, has a lifespan. No culture is eternal. Whether America lives for 300 years or 1,000 years, it too is mortal. Nothing lasts forever. Yes, the American Empire will eventually come to an end. But morally speaking, that tells us nothing at all. You’ll die too, probably in the next century. Does that mean you should just give up and stop trying to do anything? What a hopeless idea!
The fact that life will eventually end is only more of a reason that we should rage against the dying of the light. YOLO! Why not go down in a blaze of glory? I am not suggesting that America start nuclear wars for no reason at all. American foreign policy should be informed by cold intellect.
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Most of the attacks on my supposed “neoconservatism” are simply antisemites being coy. If you want to attack Jews, go ahead. Substack won’t censor you. Have the courage of your convictions.
However, the most influential thinker for me isn’t Frum, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Perle, or Kristol. It was Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski was a liberal democrat, and top National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter.
For the record, here’s what Brzezinski had to say about Israel in 2007:
Two states, based on the lines of June 4, 1967, with minor, reciprocal, and agreed-upon modifications as expressed in a 1:1 land swap;
Jerusalem as home to two capitals, with Jewish neighborhoods falling under Israeli sovereignty and Arab neighborhoods under Palestinian sovereignty;
A solution to the refugee problem that is consistent with the two-state solution, addresses the Palestinian refugees’ deep sense of injustice, as well as provides them with meaningful financial compensation and resettlement assistance;
As to Hamas, we believe that a genuine dialogue with the organization is far preferable to its isolation; it could be conducted, for example, by the UN and Quartet Middle East envoys. Promoting a cease-fire between Israel and Gaza would be a good starting point.
A mutual and comprehensive cease-fire in the West Bank and Gaza, an exchange of prisoners, prevention of weapons smuggling, cracking down on militias, greater Palestinian freedom of movement, the removal of unjustified checkpoints, dismantling of Israeli outposts, and other tangible measures to accelerate the process of ending the occupation.
Maybe that was all just rhetoric. Maybe when Brzezinski defended the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, the recognition of Hamas, the end of checkpoints and occupation, maybe he was just a secret Zionist controlled by the Jews. “Two state solution — that’s what they all say!” Brzezinski would never call out the Israel lobby… Unless…?
"Given that the Middle East is currently the central challenge facing America, Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have rendered a public service by initiating a much needed public debate on the role of the 'Israel lobby' in the shaping of US foreign policy."2
Brzezinski will still be called a Zionist because he doesn’t endorse the total extermination of Israel, and that's fine. I’m not running away from the Zionist label either. But this is clearly not neoconservatism.
Recapping the book.
It would be too much of me to ask you to stop reading this article and order Brzezinski’s book on Amazon. For your convenience, I will summarize it here. However, I encourage you to buy it after and read it. It is not long, it is not complicated, but it is full and complete.3
Brzezinski is a geo-strategist. The geo-strategist school of foreign policy was largely invented by the British and Germans in the 19th century. Before the 18th century, people didn’t even really know what the whole world looked like, exactly. By the 19th century, Europe and its colonies were fully on its way to conquering the world. The question became, which European country would dominate the others, and thus the world?
The geo-strategic school saw Eurasia as the center of the world, with most of the people and most of the resources. The job of Britain was to divide this continent into small, powerless, equally-matched entities, so that Britain could attain maximum influence. The job of Germany was to seize control of this continent by dominating Russia.
As documented in Ludendorff’s memoirs, the plan for the German colonization of Russia long preceded Naziism and Hitler, and even the communist takeover of Russia. Germans have tried to disguise their intentions by claiming “we were only fighting communism.” This is not only false, it is the opposite of the truth: the Germans funded communists like Lenin to try to divide and conquer Russia. The goal was to take over Russia, which would make Germans the largest power in Eurasia and the world. It was a plan for world domination.
That doesn’t mean that the Germans would have invaded America, of course, just as America has no immediate plans to invade China. However, a German-Russian Empire would have dominated by having the largest military, the largest economy, the most oil, the greatest land area, and the greatest population. States like Britain or America may have survived with their sovereignty intact, but they would merely orbit German power, in the same way that states like Russia orbit China today, or states like Britain orbit America.
Brzezinski was Polish, and he recognized that the destruction of Germany in 1945 meant that global domination would belong either to America or Russia. He preferred America. Toward that end, Brzezinski advocated that America oppose Soviet hegemony by allying with and supplying Russia’s enemies. For example, Brzezinski strongly supported an American alliance with China to jointly oppose the Soviet Union.
Today, Russia is a shadow of its former self, and China is on the rise. China only surpassed Japan’s economy in 2010. This is a very new development. Most of the books, ideologies, and ideas surrounding China are old and outdated. China has transformed itself extremely quickly, beyond what most people had considered possible.
Peter Zeihan.
Since Brzezinski’s passing in 2017, the title of best Geopolitical Popularizer has passed to Peter Zeihan. People love to criticize Zeihan, but their alternative is someone like Scott Ritter. I randomly googled Scott to see what his latest prediction was, and I was taken to a video entitled: “Scott Ritter: Israel on Brink of SHOCKING DEFEAT to Hezbollah & Iran, IDF Losing on All Fronts.” Here’s the video description:
Former UN Weapons Inspector and US Marine Corps Intelligence Officer Scott Ritter EXPOSE Israel's massive vulnerabilities in a full-scale war with Hezbollah and Iran, making its defeat certain. This video breaks it all down, and answers the question as to how this defeat will come about and what exactly has caused the tables to turn against Israel in a massive way.
Maybe Peter Zeihan gets some things wrong, but I don’t think he’s that wrong.
The strongest claim Zeihan makes, which upsets people the most, is that China is going to become a failed state without our lifetimes. I have made my own arguments for why China is vulnerable, and why the economic model which helped it massively expand over the last three decades is now falling apart.
But if Zeihan and I turn out to be wrong, then China has truly supplanted Russia as the primary power of Eurasia. Accordingly, following Zbigniew’s theories, American geostrategy should prioritize undermining China and its proxies, such as Russia. As such, the Zbigniew doctrine states that America should support Ukrainian separation from Russia:
“Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire.”
Moralizing.
Most of my opponents aren’t interested in genuine, substantive disagreement on the efficacy of supporting Ukraine. Rather, they are engaged in naked hysterical moralizing against America and Israel. Their complaints are as follows:
America was uniquely evil on COVID (despite the fact that Russia and China had vaccine mandates)
America is the only country which is undermining its own ethnic majority (despite the fact that Russia is experiencing the same white demographic decline and mass Muslim migration)
America is the only country destroying the family and undermining natalism (despite the fact that Russia and China both have lower fertility rates)
America is the only country which is anti-Christian (despite the fact that China is openly hostile to Christianity)
Israel is a metaphysically evil country, and American support for Israel warrants America’s destruction.
I don’t take any of these complaints very seriously (I don’t take the last one seriously at all). That’s not because I entirely disagree: COVID policy was bad; white demographic decline has consequences; fertility collapse will slow economic growth; and the decline of Christianity will lower social trust. My disagreement is threefold:
None of these problems are isolated to America.
None of these problems have great solutions — there are only trade-offs, no solutions.
None of these problems make me want to betray my country and start spreading conspiracy theories and foreign propaganda.
sleeping with the mailman.
Imagine you’re a woman, and your husband makes some mistakes. He’s underperforming at work, risking his job. He has some health issues that he’s been neglecting. He hasn’t been spending time with the kids. Enraged, you respond to these issues by sleeping with the mailman.
Now, the mailman is even worse than your husband: he’s also underperforming and earning less money, he’s not only overweight but is also an alcoholic, and he’s a divorced deadbeat dad as well. Sleeping with the mailman isn’t an alternative to your husband. It’s actually making the problem worse on all accounts. I hope the sex was good!
Resentment fueled attacks on American foreign policy are worse than “sleeping with the mailman.” They are political pornography. Nothing is accomplished by lashing out at the “globalists,” other than a demonstration of impotent rage. Even if you succeeded in “collapsing the American Empire,” it wouldn’t necessarily lead to a revival of family, liberty, whiteness, or Christianity.
That’s the assumption, but it’s an unfounded assumption. For example, during Apartheid, South Africa was engaged in a number of foreign wars. After Apartheid ended, South Africa was no longer able to engage in foreign adventures, but that didn’t automatically result in the growth of Christian values and white identity. Instead, South Africa’s withdrawal from regional domination of its neighbors has resulted in greater racial violence and cannibalism.
the myth of “paleolibs”
The Founding Fathers were radical leftists for their times. Jefferson wanted to edit the Bible to take out all the miracles; Thomas Paine was a proto-Marxist; George Washington was a Freemason. They were also expansionists. Washington’s isolationism did not foresee an end to the Indian Wars. He saw “entangling alliances” as a distraction to Manifest Destiny. Had he lived to see the establishment of Washington state, he probably would have understood the logic of continuing on to seize Cuba and the Philippines.
Teddy Roosevelt, a progressive, was an expansionist. Wilson and FDR, Democratic presidents, were interventionists. FDR’s opposition was the conservative, antisemitic, racialist “America First” movement. He crushed it, and then crushed Germany and Japan.
To say that expansionism is “right wing” as opposed to “left wing” is to ignore history. Trotsky didn’t support “nationalism for all peoples.” Stalin didn’t respect “indigenous rights.” Yes, it is true that some leftists are pacifists and anarchists… until they come to power. Leftism is peaceful in theory, but expansionist in practice.
The myth of the “paleolibs” or “paleoleft” as a non-interventionist force doesn’t hold up. There is just as much evidence to indicate that isolationism is a value of conservatives.
It is possible, common, frequent, and normal to be a leftist expansionist. Call it neoliberalism if that makes you happy. Neoconservatism, on the other hand, is the brainchild of a very small and particular but influential clique of Jewish intellectuals, in an alliance with white Evangelicals, who are hyper-obsessed with the most extreme and virulent ethno-nationalistic and theocratic forms of Zionism. These two things are not the same.
The biggest neoconservatives in the world are JD Vance and Donald Trump. I oppose them, and support Harris. Meanwhile, the majority of these “anti-neocons” are either sitting the election out, or supporting Trump.
solutions.
I think that the best way to crush the paleoconservative, non-interventionist, anti-elite movement is with a series of carrots and sticks. Here are the policies I would suggest:
Carrots:
Free college for all.
Increase investment in infrastructure to 25% of each state government’s budget.
Abolish carbon tax credits, especially for “wind energy.”
Remove payroll taxes.
Sticks:
Sue and bankrupt Paypal, Tesla, and Palantir.
Limit foreign students in American universities to 1,000 per country per year.
Limit total immigration to 1,000 people per country per year.
100% tariff on all Chinese goods.
Force all NATO members to increase their military spending to 5% of GDP.
Free college.
The intention of free college is to help align Americans into a new common culture. College educated whites are much less likely to support Trump than those without college degrees. Although education is expensive, it is worthwhile to provide Americans with a sense of unity and direction.
Infrastructure.
Infrastructure is a crucial and basic necessity. This is also a point of national pride. If airports are dirty and dysfunctional, then Tucker’s propaganda about the Moscow subway being clean becomes more effective. Infrastructure spending provides employment to non-college educated Americans. However, public transportation (trains and buses) should be entirely privatized, since these services only cater to urban dwellers who have little impact on anti-interventionist sentiment.
No carbon credits.
Tesla has made a fortune off carbon credits, but these billions of dollars could be used more effectively elsewhere. Carbon isn’t a threat to human health, whereas the breakdown of water treatment in Flint, Michigan is.
No payroll taxes.
Payroll taxes hit workers the most. Replace these taxes with tariffs, money printing, and a federal property tax.
Bankrupt Tesla.
Elon Musk and Peter Thiel are the biggest billionaires backing non-interventionist sentiment. Punish them. Remove their protections, their subsidies, and government contracts. Use anti-trust laws to go after them.
Foreign students.
Chinese and Indian students are benefitting from American education, and then returning home instead of building businesses in America. Those who remain in America are the least likely to express “pride in being an American” of any racial group.
Immigration.
Limit immigration to 1,000 people per country per year, with an exception for any country which participates in a mutual defense treaty with America, such as NATO, Australia, New Zealand, or Canada.
100% tariffs.
Although trade with China makes America richer, it does not advance American geopolitical interests.
5% NATO.
By forcing NATO members to commit to a 5% military budget until Ukraine has secured a peace deal with Russia, the war will conclude so that Ukraine can be rebuilt.
conclusion.
I can’t be concerned with every label, slur, and deliberate slander that flies my way. I am not concerned with the fact that Hitler drank water. I, too, drink water. Neoconservatives, also, drink water. Equating the three of us together is not appropriate or productive.
I blame the growth of neoconservatism on Ronald Reagan. He established the alliance between Republicans and Evangelicals that endures to this day. It was a brilliant electoral strategy, but had terrible consequences for the country.
Equating Zbigniew Brzezinski with neoconservative Zionism demonstrates profound and willful ignorance. Equating any form of military expansionism with Zionism and neoconservatism is myopic, bordering on obsessive.
If Trump wins in November, the likelihood of a war with Iran increases. This will almost certainly destroy the prospect of a victory in Ukraine, and open up the possibility of Chinese action in Taiwan.
The Israelis are running out of time. This decade represents their only chance to take advantage of the dying “neoconservative moment,” and they know it. This timing is extremely unfortunate for Ukraine, and distracts from the larger issue of a Cold War with China.
In the optimal scenario, Israel would be ignored in order to finish the job in Ukraine. Israel’s further territorial aspirations are no longer based on a desire for security (since it is now effectively allied with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt). Instead, Israel is pursuing ethnic nationalism and theocracy.
Besides voting for Harris, who isn’t even very strong on this issue, there is not much that I or anyone else can do in the short term to stop a war with Iran. If that war does occur, if it is anything similar to Iraq and Afghanistan, it would be a massive waste of resources and would increase the relative strength of both Russia and China.
It is possible that I am wrong and the Iranians will roll over, surrender, and establish a pro-Israel democracy. Maybe they will elect Noor Pahlavi as their first female president five years from now.
But even if Iran is completely incompetent and unable to defend itself, the geography of the Persian Gulf dictates that it will be able to easily cut off 25% of the world’s oil supply for the duration of the war with mines and subs. That will almost certainly cause a global recession, spiking energy prices in China, America, and the EU. At the same time, Russia will experience an unprecedented boom to its economy. Not good.
The neocons do not care. And with their control over Trump, they might get everything they want, no matter the cost.
Zionism is not a global ideology in the way that communism was, or Americanism is today. It is a petty ethno-nationalist and theocratic idea for a very small percent of the world’s population. It does not inspire the intellectuals of Europe, the youth of Asia, or cosmopolitan artists. In this sense, the more it gains from military victories, the more it consigns itself to becoming North Korea: heavily armed and impervious to attack, but unable to integrate itself into a global order.
I have contempt for losers. It is easy to scapegoat Israel for the world’s problems, and any criticism of Israel is likely to attract a dark cloud of victimology, ranging from third worldism to neo-naziism. Hence, I don’t spend all of my time beating up on Israel. It’s easy to do, but it’s bait for golems, goblins, and Gribbles. Hence, every time I attack Israel, I must also remind you that I have little sympathy for the so-called white working class, who actually don’t work at all, and contribute nothing to this country. I am nothing if not fair.
Thanks for reading.
If you enjoyed this, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. 100% of my income comes from this blog. I’m going to tell you some harsh truths about ideological samsara, break through the maya of political pornography, and then ask you to put a few dollars into my begging bowl.
If you’re already signed up, you can always “boost” my posts by liking, commenting, and re-stacking. All of this engagement helps promote visibility. Thank you.
Roosevelt, Theodore, The Winning of the West, Volume 2, p. 145. G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1889.
A DANGEROUS EXEMPTION. Brzezinski, Zbigniew. Foreign Policy; Washington Iss. 155, (Jul/Aug 2006): 63-64. Read here: https://www.proquest.com/openview/8d844f82268f96f2588f7c7dd81e86a2/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=47510
I also found an archive link where you can “borrow” one of his books, which I have no read, but I suspect is interesting: https://archive.org/details/geostrategictria00brze/page/n91/mode/2up
First part of your post made me think about a famous Drieu La Rochelle quote: "Extreme civilty produce extreme barbarity".
Ever thought a career as decadentist novelist? :-D
In my experience, both terms (neocon and neolib) serve the purpose of trying to co-opt the other side’s arguments and rebelliousness. For tradcons, attacking neoconservatism is all about showing that they’re “not your parents conservatives”, that they’re also concerned with the meanieness of the American regime. But, you know, for trad reasons or something… Having the same bleeding heart about CIA, American military attacks, lack of social services etc etc but using a trad justification like blaming it on America being “Judeo-Masonic” or the “Degenerate 1%”. These people are usually more on the reactionary or paleocon side than anything fascist, because a fascist would just say “conservatives”. Likewise, “neoliberalism” is a way for lefties to co-opt the anti-authority in the right which is hard to come by on the contemporary left due to their institutional power. They want you to know that they hate lib’rals, NATO, and even corporate pride month stuff, but not because it’s gay. It’s because Liberalism is an obsolete bourgeois ideology that isn’t what the BASED multiracial working class needs!
And yet… Nobody seems to know what these words mean exactly. I’ve seen a lot of people call Henry Kissinger a neocon because they just associate the term with every American conservative who dirtied their hands at some point. Even though Kissinger spent a lot of his time in office facilitating detente and playing realpolitik (not being world police). People also call Leo Strauss neoconservative, which is bizarre. And they’ll call Carl Schmitt a “source for neoconservatism” as if Schmitt himself ever intended for anything he wrote to be interpreted as modern neoconservatism.
Neoliberalism means… Hmm, not sure, because 10 years ago everyone used Kennedy as an example of a “Classical Liberal”. But now a bunch of Redditors jacked up on autism use him as the symbol of Neoliberalism. Again, very ill defined ideology. Maybe a good break off point would be to split the new Hegelian Francis Fukuyama Star Trek type liberals into the category of Neoliberal, the Liberal of the 20th and 19th century as “Middle Liberal”, and reserving “Classical Liberal” for the enlightenment “liberals” (who weren’t even that associated with Liberalism until the 20th century)
On a side note, I would not describe Americas founders as brutal or rapists. Yes, the continental army did, you know, act aggressively towards enemy military personnel, and got their hands somewhat dirty, but the American a revolution has never come off as particularly awful and brutal to me. Maybe it was a product of the times, but compare it to how awful and devastating a lot of the wars of the previous century had been, like the 30 years war, and how devastating wars of the next century would be, like the Boer War, Napoleonic Wars, and the Civil War. American slave owners were also quite caring of their bastard children, which makes me think their relationships with the mothers of those children was less rapey than often portrayed in media. They were a very intelligent, very moralistic bunch, a people that were richer than basically everywhere else on the planet and some of the best genes from Europe.