PDA

View Full Version : Who Are The Neoconservatives?



Carl
18th December 2015, 10:48 AM
Who Are The Neoconservatives? (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35106.htm)


By Laurent Guyénot

May 29, 2013 "Information Clearing House" -"VN" -- The neoconservative movement, which is generally perceived as a radical (rather than “conservative”) Republican right, is, in reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of the monthly magazine Commentary, a media arm of the American Jewish Committee, which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. The Forward, the oldest American Jewish weekly, wrote in a January 6th, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: “If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it. It’s a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find horrifying. And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants’ grandchildren”. The neoconservative apologist Murray Friedman explains that Jewish dominance within his movement by the inherent benevolence of Judaism, “the idea that Jews have been put on earth to make it a better, perhaps even a holy, place” (The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy, 2006).

Just as we speak of the “Christian Right” as a political force in the United States, we could also therefore speak of the neoconservatives as representing the “Jewish Right”. However, this characterization is problematic for three reasons. First, the neoconservatives are a relatively small group, although they have acquired considerable authority on and within Jewish representative organizations, including the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. In 2003, journalist Thomas Friedman of the New York Times counted twenty-five members saying, “if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened”. The neoconservatives compensate for their small number by multiplying their Committees, Projects, and other think tanks, which certainly give them a kind of ubiquity.

Second, the neoconservatives of the first generation mostly came from the left, even the extreme Trotskyist left for some such as Irving Kristol, one of the main editors of Commentary. During the late 1960s the Commentary editorial staff begins to break with the liberal, pacifist left, which they suddenly find decadent. Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary from 1960 until his retirement in 1995, was a militant anti-Vietnam dissenter until 1967, but then in the 70s became a fervent advocate of an increased defense budget, bringing the journal along in his wake. In the 1980s, he opposed the policy of détente in his book The Present Danger: in the 1990s, he calls for the invasion of Iraq, and then again in the early 2000s. In 2007, while his son John Podhoretz was taking over as editor of Commentary, he asserted once again the urgency of a U.S. military attack, this time against Iran.

Third, unlike evangelical Christians who openly proclaim their unifying religious principles, neoconservatives do not display their Judaism. Whether they’d been Marxists or not, they appear mostly non-religious. It is well-know that their major influence is the philosophy of Leo Stauss, so much so that they are sometimes referred to as “the straussians”; Norman Podhoretz and his son John, Irving Kristol and his son William, Donald Kagan and his son Robert, Paul Wolfowitz, Adam Shulsky, to name just a few, all expressed their debt to Strauss. Leo Strauss, born to a family of German Orthodox Jews, was both pupil and collaborator of political theorist Carl Schmitt, himself a specialist of Thomas Hobbes and advocate of a “political theology” by which the State must appropriate the attributes of God. Schmitt was an admirer of Mussolini, and the legal counsel of the Third Reich. After the Reichstag fire in February 1933, it was Schmitt who provided the legal framework that justified the suspension of citizen rights and the establishment of the dictatorship. It was also Schmitt, in 1934, who personally obtained from the Rockefeller Foundation a grant for Leo Strauss to study Thomas Hobbes in London and Paris, and then finally end up teaching in Chicago.

The thinking of Leo Strauss is difficult to capture, and certainly beyond the purview of this work. Moreover, Strauss is often elliptic because he believes that Truth is harmful to the common man and the social order and should be reserved for superior minds. For this reason, Strauss rarely speaks in his own name, but rather expressed himself as a commentator on classical authors, in whom he discovers many of his own thoughts. Moreover, much like his disciples Allan Bloom (The Closing of the American Mind, 1988) and Samuel Huntington, he is careful to clothe his most radical ideas in ostensibly humanist principles. Despite the apparent difficulty, three basic ideas can easily be extracted from his political philosophy, no different from Schmitt. First, nations derive their strength from their myths, which are necessary for government and governance. Second, national myths have no necessary relationship with historical reality: they are socio-cultural constructions that the State has a duty to disseminate. Third, to be effective, any national myth must be based on a clear distinction between good and evil; it derives its cohesive strength from the hatred of an enemy nation. As recognized by Abram Shulsky and Gary Schmitt in an article “Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence” (1999), for Strauss, “deception is the norm in political life” – the rule they applied to fabricating the lie of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein when working inside the Office of Special Plans.

In his maturity, Strauss was a great admirer of Machiavelli, who he believes he understood better than anyone. In his Thoughts on Machiavelli, he parts from the intellectual trend of trying to rehabilitate the author of The Prince against the popular opinion regarding his work as immoral. Strauss recognizes the absolute immorality of Machiavelli, which he sees as the source of his revolutionary genius, “We are in sympathy with the simple opinion about Machiavelli, not only because it is wholesome, but above all because a failure to take that opinion seriously prevents one from doing justice to what is truly admirable in Machiavelli; the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech”. The thought of Machiavelli is so radical and pure, says Strauss, that its ultimate implications could not be spelled out: “Machiavelli does not go to the end of the road; the last part of the road must be travelled by the reader who understands what is omitted by the writer”. Strauss is the guide who can help his neoconservative students do that, for “to discover from [Strauss’] writings what he regarded as the truth is hard; it is not impossible”. This truth that Machiavelli and Strauss share is not a blinding light, but rather a black hole that only the philosopher can contemplate without turning into a beast: there is no afterlife, and neither good nor evil; therefore the ruling elite shaping the destiny of their nation need not worry about the salvation of their own souls. Hence Machiavelli, according to Strauss, is the perfect patriot.

Neoconservatism is essentially a modern Jewish version of Machiavelli’s political strategy. What characterizes the neoconservative movement is therefore not as much Judaism as a religious tradition, but rather Judaism as a political project, i.e. Zionism, by Machiavellian means. Note that, in an article in the Jewish World Review on June 7th, 1999, the neoconservative Michael Ledeen defends the thesis that Machiavelli was a crypto-Jew, as were at the time thousands of families nominally converted to Catholicism under threat of expulsion of death. “Listen to his political philosophy, and you will hear the Jewish music”, wrote Ledeen, citing in particular Machiavelli’s contempt for the nonviolent ethics of Jesus and his admiration for the pragmatism of Moses, who was able to kill countless men in the interests of enforcing his new law.

Obviously, if Zionism is synonymous with patriotism in Israel, it cannot be an acceptable label in American politics, where it would mean loyalty to a foreign power. This is why the neoconservatives do not represent themselves as Zionists on the American scene. Yet they do not hide it all together either. Elliott Abrams, Deputy National Security Adviser in the administration of Bush’s son, wrote in his book Faith or Fear (1997): “Outside the land of Israel, there can be no doubt that Jews, faithful to the covenant between God and Abraham, are to stand apart from the nation in which they live. It is the very nature of being Jewish to be apart — except in Israel — from the rest of the population”. It is hard to come with a better definition of Zionism, the corollary of which is the apartheid practiced against non-Jewish peoples in Palestine, defended in the same year by Douglas Feith in his “Reflections on Liberalism, Democracy and Zionism”, pronounced in Jerusalem, defending the right of Israel to be an “ethnic nation”: “there is a place in the world for non-ethnic nations and there is a place for ethnic nations”.

If one is entitled to consider the neoconservatives as Zionists, it is especially in noting that their foreign policy choices have always coincided perfectly with the interests of Israel (as they see it). Israel’s interest has always been understood as dependent on two things: the immigration of Eastern Jews and the financial support of the Jews of the West (American and, to a lesser extent, European). Until 1967, the national interest pushed Israel toward the Soviet Union, while the support of American Jews remained quiet. The socialist and collectivist orientation of the Labor Party in power naturally inclined them in this direction, but Israel’s good relations with the USSR were primarily due to the fact that the mass immigration of Jews was only possible through the good will of the Kremlin. During the three years following the end of the British mandate on Palestine (1948), which had hitherto limited Jewish immigration out of consideration for the Arab population, two hundred thousand Polish Jewish refugees in the USSR were allowed to settle in Palestine, with others coming from Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria.

The Six Day War was a decisive turning point: in 1967, Moscow protested against Israel’s annexation of new territories, broke diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv and stopped the emigration of its Jewish citizens, which had accelerated in the previous month. It is from this date that Commentary became, in the words of Benjamin Balint, “the contentious magazine that transformed the Jewish left into the neoconservative right”. The neoconservatives realized that, from that point, Israel’s survival – and its territorial expansion – depended on the support and protection of another super-power, the U.S. military, and concomitantly that their need for Jewish immigrants could only fe fulfilled by the fall of communism. These two objectives converged in the deepening of military power of the United States. This is why Irving Kristol engaged the American Jewish Congress in 1973 to fight George McGovern’s proposal to reduce the military budget by 30%: “this is to drive a knife into the heart of Israel. [...] Jews don’t like a big military budget, but it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States. [...] American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel”. We now understand better what reality Kristol was referring to, when he famously defined a neoconservative as “a liberal who has been mugged by reality”.

In the late 60s, the neoconservative support the militarist fringe of the Democratic Party, headed by Senator Henry Scoop Jackson, a supporter of the Vietnam War who challenged McGovern in the 1972 primaries. Richard Perle, parliamentary assistant to Jackson, wrote the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which made food aid to the Soviet Union conditional upon the free emigration of Jews. It is also within the office of Scoop Jackson that an alliance between the neoconservatives and the Rumsfeld-Cheney tandem will be forged, before Rumsfeld and Cheney took advantage of the Watergate scandal to join the Republican camp and infiltrate the White House. Perle placed his protégés Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pipes in Team B, whose report was published in Commentary. During the Carter period, neoconservatives allied with evangelical Christians, viscerally anti-communist and generally well disposed towards Israel, the foundation of which they see as a divine miracle foreshadowing the return of Christ. The contribution of the neoconservatives to the Reagan victory allowed them to work within the government to strengthen the alliance between the United States and Israel; in 1981, the two countries signed their first military pact, then embarked on several shared operations, some legal and others not so, as evidenced by the network of arms trafficking and paramilitary operations embedded within the Iran-Contra affair. Anti-communism and Zionism had become so linked in their common cause, that in 1982, in his book The Real Anti-Semitism in America, the director of the Anti-Defamation League Nathan Perlmutter could turn the pacifism of the “peacemakers of Vietnam vintage, [the] transmuters of swords into plowshares”, into a new form of anti-Semitism.

With the end of the Cold War, the national interest of Israel changed once again. Their primary objective became not the fall of communism, but rather the weakening of Israel’s enemies. Thus the neoconservatives underwent their second conversion, from anti-communism to islamophobia, and created new think tanks such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) led by Richard Perle, the Middle East Forum led by Daniel Pipes (son of Richard), the Center for Security Policy (CSP) founded by Frank Gaffney, and the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). President George H.W. Bush, however, cultivated friendships with Saudi Arabia and was not exactly a friend of Israel; he resisted in September of 1991 against an unprecedented pro-Israel lobbying campaign that called for $10 billion to help Jews immigrate from the former Soviet Union to Israel. He complained in a televised press conference on September 12th that “one thousand Jewish lobbyists are on Capitol Hill against little old me”, thereby causing Tom Dine, the Executive Director of AIPAC, to exclaim that “September 12, 1991, is a day that will live in infamy”. Bush also resisted the neoconservatives’ advice to invade Iraq after Operation Desert Storm. Finally, Bush’s Secretary of State James Baker was too receptive to Arab proposals throughout the Madrid Conference in November 1991; the neoconservatives, as a result, sabotaged Bush’s chances for a second term and supported Democrat Bill Clinton. After eight years of Clinton, they finally completed their victory by having Bush’s son George W. elected and forcing him into the second Irak war.

During Clinton’s two terms, while the Madrid agreements were buried by the Oslo Accords negotiated directly with an overwhelmed Yasser Arafat, neoconservatives prepared their return with Rumsfeld and Cheney, and threw all their weight behind their ultimate think tank, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). William Kristol, son of Irving, also founded in 1995 a new magazine, The Weekly Standard, that immediately became the dominant voice of the neoconservatives thanks to funding from the pro-Israeli Rupert Murdoch. In 1997, it would be the first publication to call for a new war against Saddam Hussein. During the Clinton years, neoconservatives, although consulted by the White House, were not part of it. And so it is relevant to mention that, during this same time, the FBI was investigating an Israeli mole in the White House, who was allegedly using the code name “Mega” and enjoying privileged access to the Security Council. According to the investigator Gordon Thomas, quoted by the New York Post on March 5th1998, the FBI investigation was stopped when “Israel blackmailed President Clinton with private recordings of his steamy conversations with Monica Lewinsky”.

Speeches and mirrors

The 2007 book by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, shocked the American public by exposing the considerable influence of pro-Israel groups, the oldest of which being the Zionist Organization of America, and the most influential since the 70s, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The authors demonstrate that “the Lobby” has been the major force driving the United States into the Iraq war and, more generally, into a foreign policy that lacks coherence and morality in the Middle East. The authors’ thesis is yet incomplete because they leave absent the complementary role played from within State by the neoconservatives, who form the other arm of the pliers now holding the American foreign policy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asGvjbfIASA

http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L400xH266/jewish-250fe.png
“We, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it”, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said to minister of Foreign Affairs Shimon Peres on October 3, 2001, according to Israeli radio Kol Yisrael. His successor Benjamin Netanyahu proved it on May 24, 2011 by receiving 29 standing ovation by the American Congress, including at each of those sentences: “in Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers” ; “No distortion of history could deny the 4,000-year-old bond between the Jewish people and the Jewish land” ; “Israel will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967” ; “Jerusalem must never again be divided. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel ».


More At: Speeches and mirrors (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35106.htm)

cheka.
18th December 2015, 12:05 PM
as eustace mullins pointed out -- red vs blue = trotskyites vs marxists. and all controlled by collectivist blood thirsty israel firsters

mick silver
18th December 2015, 01:04 PM
I have too ask this one more time why is ISIS not fighting with Israel ??? there right next door to Israel why oh why are they not

vacuum
18th December 2015, 01:16 PM
Great article. It explains the history of Russia and Israel, and how Russia tried to stop the Israeli land grabbing.

This really explains everything that's happened from WWII until now.

I also thought this was a particularly interesting tidbit:

First, nations derive their strength from their myths, which are necessary for government and governance. Second, national myths have no necessary relationship with historical reality: they are socio-cultural constructions that the State has a duty to disseminate. Third, to be effective, any national myth must be based on a clear distinction between good and evil; it derives its cohesive strength from the hatred of an enemy nation.

Rubicon
18th December 2015, 02:42 PM
Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement (http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/understandji-3.htm)

Neuro
18th December 2015, 09:29 PM
as eustace mullins pointed out -- red vs blue = trotskyites vs marxists. and all controlled by collectivist blood thirsty israel firsters
Yes Neocons (Bush/McCain/Cheney) vs Neocoms (Obama/Clinton/Sanders). It's all fun and games...

Neuro
19th December 2015, 12:32 AM
The OP article perfectly and concisely captures the evil that has happened since WWII. Thanks Carl!

gunDriller
19th December 2015, 04:51 AM
I have too ask this one more time why is ISIS not fighting with Israel ??? there right next door to Israel why oh why are they not

ISIS seems very Israel controlled.
They are busy clearing the land - making it so bad people flee to Europe.
They are busy killing Muslims - serious Gentile population reduction.
They are busy destroying Muslim culture - e.g. museums & antiquities - the things that give people IDENTITY.
All Israeli & Jewish objectives.

As for neocons -
Neocons = Israel-supporting Jews, and Shabbas Goyim (Cooperative Gentiles like Dick Cheney)

Neuro
19th December 2015, 06:15 AM
The OP article perfectly and concisely captures the evil that has happened since WWII. Thanks Carl!
Btw read the entire article, it is excellent!

Carl
19th December 2015, 06:23 AM
I have too ask this one more time why is ISIS not fighting with Israel ??? there right next door to Israel why oh why are they not
Israel the Main Buyer of ISIS Oil — Report (http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/israel-main-buyer-isis-oil-report/ri11633)

mick silver
19th December 2015, 06:26 AM
so this is a made up war to kill who and why ? I have seen about the oil . but but they hate Israel ???

Jewboo
19th December 2015, 06:48 AM
Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement (http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/understandji-3.htm)


Excellent addition to Carl's OP article.

Carl
19th December 2015, 06:55 AM
7968 Neoliberalism Harvesting world resources.

7969 Neoconservatism For those who will not comply.

mick silver
19th December 2015, 07:02 AM
Neoconservatism, http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/02/22802-049-1C5D853F.jpgKirkpatrick, Jeane© Purdue Research Foundation (http://www.britannica.com/topic/neoconservatism/images-videos/Jeane-Kirkpatrick-former-US-ambassador-to-the-United-Nations-discussing/19466)variant of the political ideology (http://www.britannica.com/topic/ideology-society) of conservatism (http://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatism) that combines features of traditional conservatism (http://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatism) with political individualism (http://www.britannica.com/topic/individualism) and a qualified endorsement of free markets (http://www.britannica.com/topic/market). Neoconservatism arose in the United States (http://www.britannica.com/place/United-States) in the 1970s among intellectuals who shared a dislike of communism (http://www.britannica.com/topic/communism) and a disdain for the counterculture of the 1960s, especially its political radicalism (http://www.britannica.com/topic/radicalism-politics) and its animus against authority, custom, and tradition

mick silver
19th December 2015, 07:04 AM
Neoconservatives have been especially influential in the formulation of foreign and military policy, particularly in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan (http://www.britannica.com/biography/Ronald-Reagan), George H.W. Bush (http://www.britannica.com/biography/George-H-W-Bush), and George W. Bush (http://www.britannica.com/biography/George-W-Bush). They contend that power—military, economic, or political—that is unused is for all practical purposes wasted. The military might of the United States should be employed around the world to promote American interests. And it is in the interests of the United States, they say, to promote the development of democratic (http://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy) regimes abroad, in as much as democracies (according to the “democratic peace” hypothesis proposed by some political scientists) do not wage war against one another. Neoconservatives wish, in the words of Pres. Woodrow Wilson (http://www.britannica.com/biography/Woodrow-Wilson), to “make the world safe for democracy.” And indeed, neoconservatives often describe their views on foreign policy as “Wilsonian.” They view Wilson as an idealist (http://www.britannica.com/topic/idealism) who came to the Paris Peace Conference (http://www.britannica.com/event/Paris-Peace-Conference) (1919) at Versailles with proposals for a just and lasting peace that were denigrated and defeated by cynical European politicians bent on punishing Germany for its role in starting World War I (http://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-I). Back in the United States, Wilson’s proposals for a League of Nations (http://www.britannica.com/topic/League-of-Nations) and for the country’s membership in that organization were defeated by isolationist politicians. The all-too-real result of such cynical anti-idealism was another and even bloodier second world war (http://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-II). Thus, idealism, far from being impractical, can produce politically practical and even admirable results.
From the 1980s, neoconservative idealism took the form of an assertive and interventionist foreign policy that targeted anti-American regimes and leftist movements abroad. Sharp increases in U.S. military spending in the 1980s very nearly bankrupted the less affluent Soviet Union (http://www.britannica.com/place/Soviet-Union) and helped to bring about its disintegration in 1991. Meanwhile, communist-led rebel movements in Latin America were crushed with the help of U.S. economic and military aid to regimes regarded as pro-American. In the George W. Bush administration, neoconservative officials in the Pentagon (http://www.britannica.com/topic/Pentagon) and the Department of State helped to plan and promote the Iraq War (http://www.britannica.com/event/Iraq-War) (

mick silver
19th December 2015, 07:08 AM
all three words are the same goal to a point

Neuro
19th December 2015, 07:36 AM
From the OP article

In an essay entitled “A Strategy for Israel in the Eighties” written for the World Zionist Organization in February 1982, Oded Yinon, a former senior official in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, put forward a strategy to exert control over the Middle East through the fragmentation of Israel’s neighbors, beginning with Lebanon: “The total disintegration of Lebanon into five regional localized governments is the precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the Arab peninsula, in a similar fashion. The dissolution of Egypt and later Iraq into districts of ethnic and religious minorities following the example of Lebanon is the main long-range objective of Israel on the Eastern Front. The present military weakening of these states is the short-term objective. Syria will disintegrate into several states along the lines of its ethnic and sectarian structure, as is happening in Lebanon today.”

So the fuckers have been planning the current mayhem for at least 33 years!

cheka.
19th December 2015, 10:50 AM
ISIS seems very Israel controlled.
They are busy clearing the land - making it so bad people flee to Europe.
They are busy killing Muslims - serious Gentile population reduction.
They are busy destroying Muslim culture - e.g. museums & antiquities - the things that give people IDENTITY.
All Israeli & Jewish objectives.

As for neocons -
Neocons = Israel-supporting Jews, and Shabbas Goyim (Cooperative Gentiles like Dick Cheney)

same thing did to palestinians

add bombing schools, hospitals, etc

mick silver
19th December 2015, 04:29 PM
asking again
I have too ask this one more time why is ISIS not fighting with Israel ??? there right next door to Israel why oh why are they not

Carl
19th December 2015, 05:05 PM
asking again

What answer are you looking for mick? ISIS is being financed through oil purchases by Israel, as the article I linked illustrated, could it be as simple as not biting the hand that feeds them?

Jewboo
19th December 2015, 05:48 PM
Too funny. Saudi Arabia claims to have recently gathered ALL muslim countries into a military alliance but they never go to rescue their Palestinian muslim brothers in occupied Palestine.

Mick's question remains valid.


:(??

Carl
19th December 2015, 08:35 PM
~ Mick's question remains valid.

:(??


So does mine: What answer are you looking for mick?

Cebu_4_2
19th December 2015, 08:42 PM
So does mine: What answer are you looking for mick?


Israel does not condone violence.

mick silver
20th December 2015, 08:17 AM
“Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East
http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815