What is a neo con?

With all the attention paid to neo-conservatives in the international media nowadays, one would think that there would be a standard definition of the term. Yet, despite their now being credited with a virtual takeover of US foreign policy under President George W Bush, a common understanding of the term remains elusive.

It may be useful to offer some description of their basic tenets and origin, if for no other reason than to distinguish them from other parts of the ideological coalition behind the administration’s neo-imperialist trajectory; namely, the traditional Republican machtpolitikers (might makes right), such as Vice President Dick Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, and the Christian Rightists, such as Attorney-General John Ashcroft, Gary Bauer and Pat Robertson.

As neo-con godfather, Irving Kristol once remarked, a neo-conservative is a “liberal who was mugged by reality”. True to that description, neo-conservatives generally originated on the left side of the political spectrum and some times from the far left. Many neo-cons, such as Kristol himself, have Trotskyite roots that are still reflected in their polemical and organizational skills and ideological zeal.

Although a number of prominent Catholics are neo-conservatives, the movement remains predominantly Jewish, and the monthly journal that really defined neo-conservatism over the past 35 years, Commentary, is published by the American Jewish Committee. At the same time, however, neo-conservative attitudes have reflected a minority position within the US Jewish community as most Jews remain distinctly liberal in their political and foreign policy views.

Neo-conservative foreign policy positions, which have their origin in opposition to the “new left” of the 1960s, fears over a return to US isolationism during the Vietnam War and the progressive international isolation of Israel in the wake of wars with its Arab neighbors in 1967 and 1973, have been tactically very flexible over the past 35 years, but their key principles have remained the same.

They begin with the basic foreign policy realism found in the pessimistic views of human nature and international diplomacy of the English political philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, that neo-cons share with most US practitioners: that “the condition of man [in a state of nature] … is a condition of war of everyone against everyone.” Or, as Machiavelli, another favorite thinker of the neo-cons, wrote, “Men are more ready for evil than for good.”

But neo-cons take “man’s” capacity for evil particularly seriously, and for understandable reasons. For neo-conservatives, the Nazi Holocaust that killed some 6 million Jews during World War II is the seminal experience of the 20th century. Not only was it a genocide unparalleled in its thoroughness, the Holocaust also wiped out family members of hundreds of thousands of Jewish citizens in the United States, including, for example, close relatives of the parents of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

For neo-conservatives, as for most Jews, the Holocaust represents absolute evil, and the factors which contributed to the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany and the subsequent extermination of Jews must be fought at all costs.

“The defining moment in our history was certainly the Holocaust,” Richard Perle, a key neo-con and leading advocate of war with Iraq, recently told BBC’s Panorama. “It was the destruction, the genocide of a whole people, and it was the failure to respond in a timely fashion to a threat that was clearly gathering. We don’t want that to happen again, and when we have the ability to stop totalitarian regimes we should do so, because when we fail to do so, the results are catastrophic,” he said.

For neo-conservatives, the 1938 Munich agreement, under which Hitler was permitted by Britain and France to take over Czechoslovakia, is the epitome of appeasement that led directly to the Holocaust. As a result, Munich and appeasement are constantly invoked in their rhetoric as a way to summon up the will to resist and defeat the enemy of the day. Hence, almost every conflict in which the United States has been engaged since the late 1960s

Onward Christian soldiers…

Neo-con is simply the newest strawman used by the communists and their disappointed supporters. Kind of like capitalist roader, hegemonist, running dog, fascist, neo-fascist, boogie man… :unamused:


BOO!

Better be good kiddies or the neo-cons will get you!

The reason isn’t difficult to find or to understand.

The so-called neo-cons have always had several different ideas about what should be done. You cannot generally lump them all together any more than you could say that Sen. Lieberman is just like Sen. Kerry.

A neo-con is a Jew or Jew retainer who seeks to advance Jewish interests (e.g. Israel) through conservative politics–just in case the leftist Jewish conspiracies don’t work out. Or at any rate, to prevent conservativism from becoming a real alternative to Jewish domination.

Mathahir Muhammad was correct, by the way.

SJ:

Where oh where will the politically correct shrillmasters be with regard to your racist statement which does not even make a pretense of separating Jews and Israelis. Where oh where will the outrage be? Anyone?

Let’s see if this helps. Blacks whether in the United States or Africa are lazy and prone to criminality.

Hispanics are lazy and unable to focus on the future and that’s why they have too many children.

All women are overly emotional, PMSing shopaholics who just want to take bubble baths all day long. And the poor dears just cannot seem to control their shopping for shoes now can they? How about some chocolate Hagen Daaz?

How’s that?

[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]A neo-con is a Jew or Jew retainer who seeks to advance Jewish interests (e.g. Israel) through conservative politics–just in case the leftist Jewish conspiracies don’t work out. Or at any rate, to prevent conservativism from becoming a real alternative to Jewish domination.

Mathahir Muhammad was correct, by the way.[/quote]

yup, that pretty much encapsulates how the word is used today. “neo-con” is a word most often used by those who blame jews for our problems, but don’t want to sound too racist. when people don’t want to say “those evil jews are hijacking our foreign policy”, they say “those evil neo-cons are hijacking our foreign policy”.

ah…doesn’t that sound much better in polite company?

I’m a neocon and I became one on 911. Before that no one was more phobic about national building and entanglements overseas than me. I also hated the UN at that time finding it a worthless organization staffed with ineffective overpaid Third World bureaucrats. 911 changed that and I realized that we cannot sit behind our borders reacting to events but that we have to go out and actively address these problems. Yup. Sure is going to be hard work, but the benefits will be akin to those that we brought Western Europe, then East Asia, the Latin America and then Eastern Europe. Time for the Middle East to get reformed one way or another. The whole world will be better off because of it. Thank God for America.

:america: :notworthy:

Bin-Laden speaks in a similar style.

Yes…, perhaps. But only dumbasses, like those morons who idiotically liken Republicanism to Fascism, are unable to get past any similarity in styles and see into the differing substances.

Kwow what I mean?

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Why on earth should we separate Jews from Israelis? It’s hardly a coincidence that 99.9 percent of American Jews support Israel. Or that at what, 3 % or so of the U.S. population they somehow dominate certain sectors of society such as mass media. Or that the media and political voices crying out for war have been predominantly Jewish.

As usual, a lot of people’s first reaction is to throw out red-herring words like “racism” or “anti-semitism” or “hate” (as it hating was bad, or personal emotions relevent). But the thing about stereotypes is, there’s generally a fair amount of truth in them. Not fair to the people who don’t fit the mold, I realize, but then neither is the insurance industry.

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:[/quote]

Oooohh… Closet Queen… Oooohh… You really got me! :unamused:

Neo-cons are neo-nazis. That’s easy enough to understand. :smiling_imp: :bluemad: :raspberry: :bluemad: :raspberry: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :smiling_imp: :raspberry: :bluemad: :bluemad: :bluemad: :bluemad:

[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]… It’s hardly a coincidence that 99.9 percent of American Jews support Israel… Or that at what, 3 % or so of the U.S. population they somehow dominate certain sectors of society such as mass media. …Or that the media and political voices crying out for war have been predominantly Jewish.

.[/quote]

SJ, you got it wrong I think: actually, according to ADL, only 67% of Jew Americans support Israel’s govt politics, the other 33% support a Palestinian state in coexistence with the Jew nation.

  1. Jew people in the USA do not dominate any sectors of the mass media, although they do work in the media is a larger proportion than their mere 3% represents in the total population. That’s for many reasons, but not because they dominate the media: more than 50% of all mass media is owned, controlled and run by Christians, who are you kidding. Next you are going to say that TOm Hanks Robert DeNiro QUentin Tarantino Urman Thursdmand David Carradine Martin Scorcese Meryl Streep Cher Rush Limbaugh and Bob Keller NYTimes editor and Marlon Brando Maureen Dowd, William F Buckley and Jessie Jackson Al Sharpton John Kerry Al Gore and BEn Bradlee and Bob Woodward and Michael Moore the new Cannes winner for Farhenheit 911 and Dan Brown the Da Vinci Code writer and Jack Valenti the Hollywoood movie czar are JEW RETAINERS, too, or maybe even Jew people themselves?

  2. the pro war voices are more than 80% Christian voices, Jew voices are just 20% or so. Cheny, Bush are Jews, yes, we know that, as is RumsFELD, a real Jew if ever there was one, and William F Buckley is a closet Jew everyone knows that, and the entire Christian Rightwing is nothing but comprised of Jews, right, who are CHristian but secretly practive blood rituals at night, right.

SJ, you are probably a Jew Retainer yourself. Weird.

Luckily there are people like these around:

jewsnotzionists.org

European:

Good point and the day we see organizations like

muslimsnotterrorists.com then I think that you and I will be seeing eye to eye.

speaking out against jews is racist? since when did a religion get classified as a race? if we wanna talk race, let us remember that semites, by definition include both jews and muslims.

so, jews make up “20%” of the voices calling for war in america? what percentage of america is comprised of jews? not a real surprise there. the rich are much more warmongering than the poor (as per zinn). it is so easy to send the poor off to die. do jews make up “20%” of the US troops?

let me know when the children of the neo-cons are signing up and shipping off to fight their daddies spats.

all kerry has to do to win the election would be to see his daugher off to the recruiting station with a media horde. he can pull some strings so that she’ll cathc some fire before the election. bush would be forced to beg his daughters to stop posing for vogue and sign up to. think he could get them in the air guard? nah, let them face fire as well. you know as well as i neither the aforementioned daddies or daughters want anything to personally do with fighting the fight, pontificating from behind is good enough for all of em. bush v. kerry: whoever’s daughter signs up and ships out first get my precious missouri “battlezone” state vote.

By a strict definition of “race” the Jews could be considered a race.

Speaking out against the Jews is not, however, necessarily racist. And even in cases where it might be racist, it will generally be tolerated in this forum unless it is both racist and hateful.

But, to clarify, there is no requirement that anyone posting here love all people equally. This isn’t Heaven.

Perhaps some of you think it is.

But, you’re mistaken if you do.

i notice you’re not refering to zionists, or neo-cons, or even just pro-israel jews. you’re speaking out against jews as a group. maybe you were posting too quickly to qualify your statement? :slight_smile: