Neocons vs. Paleocons - Robert Stacy McCain

Lucille

Lucille

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
15,019
The Other McCain is a a great blog. One of my daily stops, along with The American Spectator (blog included, where R.S. McCain contributes).

Behind the BS Wall

The root of the problem is the neos' insistence that they, and they alone, are fit judges of what is "acceptable" conservatism, and that no one may present himself as a conservative without their permission. They have relentlessly purged so many people -- Bradford, Pat Buchanan, Peter Brimelow, Sam Francis, Paul Gottfried, Thomas Woods, to name but a few -- from the ranks of "acceptable" conservatives that it's hardly surprising that now the Big Tent is looking kind of empty.

Perhaps worse than that, the neocon "Urge To Purge" creates a fear-based vibe within the GOP coalition. Who will be next?
Click to expand...

Johnny Mac and his Neocons must be denied. If not, these enemies of the Republic will come back with a vengeance.

Better to let the Marxist have it, who will sink the nation further into economic crisis. This will wake the American people up to the damage the Dems' quasi-socialist platform can (and will) do. By 2010, the conservatives will have gotten their heads out, regrouped and started acting like conservatives again and hopefully regain some seats in Congress. By 2012, we'll be ready to take back the WH, and hopefully have a Congressional majority as well.

Denying McCain the WH and purging the neocons from the GOP will be a great start. Which answers RS's question - The neocons are next!
 
Last edited:
Lucille said:
Better to let the Marxist have it, who will sink the nation further into economic crisis. This will wake the American people up to the damage the Dems' quasi-socialist platform can (and will) do. By 2010, the conservatives will have gotten their heads out, regrouped and started acting like conservatives again and hopefully regain some seats in Congress.
Click to expand...

I am sceptical about this idea of letting our country sink into more socialism so that we can later rescue it. It sounds like the idea of letting the other team score a few easy touchdowns so our team will become motivated to win the game in the second half. Sounds risky!

Has this worked in other countries?
 
Well, its time for us to start taking over the GOP from the bottom up so we can purge those neo-con hijackers right out of the GOP.
 
I was speaking to a friend, and he worried about all this talk of neocons. He is Jewish, and he gets uncomfortable by this talk. Why? Because he believes people like Ron Paul supporters are Anti-Semetic. Why? Because when you talk about neocons negatively, he thinks you are really talking about people that are Jewish and/or support Israel.

So when you say something like, "Down with the neocons!", I would advise you to PLEASE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT YOU ARE NOT ANTI-SEMETIC! Unless, of course, you are. But then, if you are, then get out, because no one that really supports Ron Paul can ever really be Anti-Semetic. Why do I say this? Because you do not really understand who Ron Paul is or what he stands for. And if you do not have that prerequisite knowledge, there is no way in hell that you can really be a supporter of Ron Paul. You are merely clinging to a movement that looks interesting or new, kind of like a flavor-of-the-month club.

Ron Paul's campaign and purpose is not a flavor-of-the-month club. And Ron Paul is not Anti-semetic. He does not call for the destruction of Israel. He only advocates a foreign policy that is equal and neutral to all parties concerned.
 
LibertyCzar said:
I was speaking to a friend, and he worried about all this talk of neocons. He is Jewish, and he gets uncomfortable by this talk. Why? Because he believes people like Ron Paul supporters are Anti-Semetic. Why? Because when you talk about neocons negatively, he thinks you are really talking about people that are Jewish and/or support Israel.

So when you say something like, "Down with the neocons!", I would advise you to PLEASE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT YOU ARE NOT ANTI-SEMETIC! Unless, of course, you are. But then, if you are, then get out, because no one that really supports Ron Paul can ever really be Anti-Semetic. Why do I say this? Because you do not really understand who Ron Paul is or what he stands for. And if you do not have that prerequisite knowledge, there is no way in hell that you can really be a supporter of Ron Paul. You are merely clinging to a movement that looks interesting or new, kind of like a flavor-of-the-month club.

Ron Paul's campaign and purpose is not a flavor-of-the-month club. And Ron Paul is not Anti-semetic. He does not call for the destruction of Israel. He only advocates a foreign policy that is equal and neutral to all parties concerned.
Click to expand...

Your friend's position is just plain illogical. Let's assume arguendo that all neo-conservatives are pro-Israel (doubtful but let's imagine this for a moment). There is an even larger number of folks who do not consider themselves neo-conservative but who are pro-Israel (eg. a lot of Jewish liberals). Does this mean that a Jewish liberal who despises neo-conservatives is also anti-semitic? I don't think so.

Likewise, a Paleo-Conservative, or true Republican, or Ron Paul Republican, or whatever, who is against the neo-conservatives, should not be automatically viewed as anti-semitic. For anyone to make that knee jerk assumption is being judgmental in the worst way.
 
LibertyCzar said:
I was speaking to a friend, and he worried about all this talk of neocons. He is Jewish, and he gets uncomfortable by this talk. Why? Because he believes people like Ron Paul supporters are Anti-Semetic. Why? Because when you talk about neocons negatively, he thinks you are really talking about people that are Jewish and/or support Israel.

So when you say something like, "Down with the neocons!", I would advise you to PLEASE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT YOU ARE NOT ANTI-SEMETIC! Unless, of course, you are. But then, if you are, then get out, because no one that really supports Ron Paul can ever really be Anti-Semetic. Why do I say this? Because you do not really understand who Ron Paul is or what he stands for. And if you do not have that prerequisite knowledge, there is no way in hell that you can really be a supporter of Ron Paul. You are merely clinging to a movement that looks interesting or new, kind of like a flavor-of-the-month club.

Ron Paul's campaign and purpose is not a flavor-of-the-month club. And Ron Paul is not Anti-semetic. He does not call for the destruction of Israel. He only advocates a foreign policy that is equal and neutral to all parties concerned.
Click to expand...

Nope, just the Zionists of whatever religious persuasions.

Is your friend a Zionist? They usually are the ones quick to play the "Anti-Semite" card. Is he a Semite or Ashkenazim? :rolleyes:
 
In response to both Thomas Paine and Truth Warrior
Click to expand...

From Wikipedia, on neoconservatism:

Bush's policies changed dramatically immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks. According to columnist Gerard Baker,[22]

It took, improbably, the arrival of George Bush in the White House and September 11, 2001, to catapult [neoconservatism] into the public consciousness. When Mr Bush cited its most simplified tenet — that the US should seek to promote liberal democracy around the world — as a key case for invading Iraq, neoconservatism was suddenly everywhere. It was, to its many critics, a unified ideology that justified military adventurism, sanctioned torture and promoted aggressive Zionism.​
​
The thing is, Bush has contorted the premise of Zionism into something that is much larger. Currently, neoconservativism is presented in such a way that portrays it as being in the interests of Israel and Jews everywhere. Conversely, in order to prevail, it should be demonstrated that neoconservatism is not in the interests of Israel and Jews.

Also from Wikipedia:

Antisemitism

Some neoconservatives believe that criticism of neoconservatism is couched in antisemitic stereotypes, and that the term has been adopted by the political left to stigmatize support for Israel. In The Chronicle of Higher Education, Robert J. Lieber warned that criticism of the 2003 Iraq War had spawned[38]

a conspiracy theory purporting to explain how [American] foreign policy... has been captured by a sinister and hitherto little-known cabal. A small band of neoconservative (read, Jewish) defense intellectuals... has taken advantage of 9/11 to put their ideas over on [Bush]... Thus empowered, this neoconservative conspiracy, "a product of the influential Jewish-American faction of the Trotskyist movement of the '30s and '40s" ([Michael] Lind)... has fomented war with Iraq... in the service of Israel's Likud government (Patrick J. Buchanan and [Eric Alterman).​
​

David Brooks derided the "fantasies" of "full-mooners fixated on a... sort of Yiddish Trilateral Commission", beliefs which had "hardened into common knowledge... In truth, people labeled neocons (con is short for 'conservative' and neo is short for 'Jewish') travel in widely different circles..."[39] Barry Rubin argued that the neoconservative label is used as an antisemitic pejorative:[40]

First, 'neo-conservative' is a codeword for Jewish. As antisemites did with big business moguls in the nineteenth century and Communist leaders in the twentieth, the trick here is to take all those involved in some aspect of public life and single out those who are Jewish. The implication made is that this is a Jewish-led movement conducted not in the interests of all the, in this case, American people, but to the benefit of Jews, and in this case Israel.​
 
LibertyCzar said:
I was speaking to a friend, and he worried about all this talk of neocons. He is Jewish, and he gets uncomfortable by this talk. Why? Because he believes people like Ron Paul supporters are Anti-Semetic. Why? Because when you talk about neocons negatively, he thinks you are really talking about people that are Jewish and/or support Israel.

So when you say something like, "Down with the neocons!", I would advise you to PLEASE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT YOU ARE NOT ANTI-SEMETIC! Unless, of course, you are. But then, if you are, then get out, because no one that really supports Ron Paul can ever really be Anti-Semetic. Why do I say this? Because you do not really understand who Ron Paul is or what he stands for. And if you do not have that prerequisite knowledge, there is no way in hell that you can really be a supporter of Ron Paul. You are merely clinging to a movement that looks interesting or new, kind of like a flavor-of-the-month club.

Ron Paul's campaign and purpose is not a flavor-of-the-month club. And Ron Paul is not Anti-semetic. He does not call for the destruction of Israel. He only advocates a foreign policy that is equal and neutral to all parties concerned.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry your friend is so sensitive. I am also sorry you feel the need to qualify the term, and demand others do the same, every time it's uttered in order avoid being labeled an anti-Semite. Way to hand the neoco... wait, the New Right Trotskyites another win!

Because I had the unmitigated gall to use a perfectly legitimate term -- neoconservative (which Ron Paul himself uses regularly) -- you have branded me an anti-Semite (a term which I can actually spell correctly!), accused me of being ill-informed of Paul's views, calling him my flavor of the month, and demand that I, and others, explain how we are not anti-Semites every time we use it.

I don't know whether to be insulted, or laugh in your bossy, Politically Correct face.
 
LibertyCzar said:
From Wikipedia, on neoconservatism:

Bush's policies changed dramatically immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks. According to columnist Gerard Baker,[22]

It took, improbably, the arrival of George Bush in the White House and September 11, 2001, to catapult [neoconservatism] into the public consciousness. When Mr Bush cited its most simplified tenet — that the US should seek to promote liberal democracy around the world — as a key case for invading Iraq, neoconservatism was suddenly everywhere. It was, to its many critics, a unified ideology that justified military adventurism, sanctioned torture and promoted aggressive Zionism.​
​
The thing is, Bush has contorted the premise of Zionism into something that is much larger. Currently, neoconservativism is presented in such a way that portrays it as being in the interests of Israel and Jews everywhere. Conversely, in order to prevail, it should be demonstrated that neoconservatism is not in the interests of Israel and Jews.

Also from Wikipedia:

Antisemitism

Some neoconservatives believe that criticism of neoconservatism is couched in antisemitic stereotypes, and that the term has been adopted by the political left to stigmatize support for Israel. In The Chronicle of Higher Education, Robert J. Lieber warned that criticism of the 2003 Iraq War had spawned[38]

a conspiracy theory purporting to explain how [American] foreign policy... has been captured by a sinister and hitherto little-known cabal. A small band of neoconservative (read, Jewish) defense intellectuals... has taken advantage of 9/11 to put their ideas over on [Bush]... Thus empowered, this neoconservative conspiracy, "a product of the influential Jewish-American faction of the Trotskyist movement of the '30s and '40s" ([Michael] Lind)... has fomented war with Iraq... in the service of Israel's Likud government (Patrick J. Buchanan and [Eric Alterman).​
​

David Brooks derided the "fantasies" of "full-mooners fixated on a... sort of Yiddish Trilateral Commission", beliefs which had "hardened into common knowledge... In truth, people labeled neocons (con is short for 'conservative' and neo is short for 'Jewish') travel in widely different circles..."[39] Barry Rubin argued that the neoconservative label is used as an antisemitic pejorative:[40]

First, 'neo-conservative' is a codeword for Jewish. As antisemites did with big business moguls in the nineteenth century and Communist leaders in the twentieth, the trick here is to take all those involved in some aspect of public life and single out those who are Jewish. The implication made is that this is a Jewish-led movement conducted not in the interests of all the, in this case, American people, but to the benefit of Jews, and in this case Israel.​
Click to expand...

All this really tells me is that some neo-conservatives are ripping a page out of the liberals' playbook whereby any critic of any liberal policy is labeled as a racist, sexist, or homophobe in order to change the tone of the debate. In this case, some neo-conservatives are simply mislabeling critics of their idiotic policies as anti-semitic in an effort to shut the debate down. This only further suppports my position that neo-conservatives are afraid to have a genuine debate on the substance of their policies.

I just watched the first half of Schindler's List (again) last night since I just returned from Poland where I visited Auschwitz and Birkenau (again). The Nazis were the real anti-semites. For your friend to group critics of neo-conservative policies with Nazis is frankly an insult to the millions of Jews who died at Auschwitz and elsewhere.
 
Thomas Paine said:
All this really tells me is that some neo-conservatives are ripping a page out of the liberals' playbook whereby any critic of any liberal policy is labeled as a racist, sexist, or homophobe in order to change the tone of the debate. In this case, some neo-conservatives are simply mislabeling critics of their idiotic policies as anti-semitic in an effort to shut the debate down. This only further suppports my position that neo-conservatives are afraid to have a genuine debate on the substance of their policies.

I just watched the first half of Schindler's List (again) last night since I just returned from Poland where I visited Auschwitz and Birkenau (again). The Nazis were the real anti-semites. For your friend to group critics of neo-conservative policies with Nazis is frankly an insult to the millions of Jews who died at Auschwitz and elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Actually Hitler's target was the European Ashkenazim. The survivors established The State of Rothschild ( Ashkenazim ) in Palestine.

They aren't even Semitic.
 
Lucille said:
I'm sorry your friend is so sensitive. I am also sorry you feel the need to qualify the term, and demand others do the same, every time it's uttered in order avoid being labeled an anti-Semite. Way to hand the neoco... wait, the New Right Trotskyites another win!

Because I had the unmitigated gall to use a perfectly legitimate term -- neoconservative (which Ron Paul himself uses regularly) -- you have branded me an anti-Semite (a term which I can actually spell correctly!), accused me of being ill-informed of Paul's views, calling him my flavor of the month, and demand that I, and others, explain how we are not anti-Semites every time we use it.

I don't know whether to be insulted, or laugh in your bossy, Politically Correct face.
Click to expand...

When Ron Paul uses the term neocon, he uses it in reference to what it is, and he explains further what it does. He has been clear that it does not do any favors to Israel. Remember, Ron Paul says Israel would be better off if we (the United States) just got out and let them fend for themselves. He is clear that we treat Israel like some sort of second-class colony. Therefore, if a critic were to try to label him an anti-semite (it has been tried, but subsequently debunked), the label would have no weight since it is not true as proved by his message.

Now my friend is not the first to express a concern. Others have expressed similar concerns. It might be sensitive, but it is not an isolated concern. I see no good coming out of grassroots if the public perception of that group is ambiguous. Is it politically correct to be clear on where one stands with regard to anti-semitism? Maybe. Can there be any benefit of remaining murky on the issue? I don't see it, but perhaps there nonetheless is. Let me also be clear that not I nor my friend made this up. This is why I quoted the Wikipedia link. His view has been shared by some. This is an issue that must be confronted, and to try to simply sweep it under the rug and hope it will just go away will not work.

Finally, since my post has been quoted a few times, rather then edit it, I will simply say that perhaps I was too blunt. I do apologize on the comment/order that I wrote to get out (now that I read it back, it does look a little bossy as it is written). But I feel success comes with clarity. With the issue of anti-semitism lingering, how can there be clarity? The point of my point was that there is a perception of anti-semetism that I feel really must be confronted forthrightly.
 
LibertyCzar said:
When Ron Paul uses the term neocon, he uses it in reference to what it is, and he explains further what it does. He has been clear that it does not do any favors to Israel. Remember, Ron Paul says Israel would be better off if we (the United States) just got out and let them fend for themselves. He is clear that we treat Israel like some sort of second-class colony. Therefore, if a critic were to try to label him an anti-semite (it has been tried, but subsequently debunked), the label would have no weight since it is not true as proved by his message.

Now my friend is not the first to express a concern. Others have expressed similar concerns. It might be sensitive, but it is not an isolated concern. I see no good coming out of grassroots if the public perception of that group is ambiguous. Is it politically correct to be clear on where one stands with regard to anti-semitism? Maybe. Can there be any benefit of remaining murky on the issue? I don't see it, but perhaps there nonetheless is. Let me also be clear that not I nor my friend made this up. This is why I quoted the Wikipedia link. His view has been shared by some. This is an issue that must be confronted, and to try to simply sweep it under the rug and hope it will just go away will not work.

Finally, since my post has been quoted a few times, rather then edit it, I will simply say that perhaps I was too blunt. I do apologize on the comment/order that I wrote to get out (now that I read it back, it does look a little bossy as it is written). But I feel success comes with clarity. With the issue of anti-semitism lingering, how can there be clarity? The point of my point was that there is a perception of anti-semetism that I feel really must be confronted forthrightly.
Click to expand...


In other words, critics of the neo-conservatives are presumed guilty of anti-semitism until proven innocent. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! Do we live in the United States of America where the rule of law is or should be that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty or do we live in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics where it was vice versa.

Personally, I judge a person by his or her actions because talk is cheap. If your friend wants to go through life doing otherwise, then your friend is going to make a lot poor decisions.
 
neo- short for jewish? how does that work. neo- has always meant new or a new version.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Ron Paul: Biden’s Running Out of Ukraine Money? Good.
Replies
2
Views
464
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
Brian4Liberty
Heritage Turns Conservative, Neocons Freak Out
Replies
7
Views
4K
osan
osan
PAF
A Rothbardian Dissection of Javier Milei
Replies
2
Views
2K
PAF
PAF
Occam's Banana
The Rise of the Woke Cultural Revolution
Replies
1
Views
2K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
It Is Time To End the Fixation with Federal Law Enforcement
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
Voluntarist
Voluntarist
Back
Top