A long Wiki on Neocons here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States
The one thing they are not is a Jewish movement except for those who
allege that their critics are anti-Semitics.
>>>>
Neoconservatism as a "Jewish" movement
One of the most controversial issues surrounding neoconservatism is
its alleged relation to specifically Jewish intellectual traditions;
in the most extreme form of this view, neoconservatism has been
regarded by some as primarily a movement to advance Jewish interests.
Classic anti-Semitic tropes have often been used when elaborating this
view, such as the idea that Jews achieve influence through the
intellectual domination of national leaders. David Brooks in his
January 6, 2004 New York Times column wrote, "To hear these people
describe it, PNAC is sort of a Yiddish Trilateral Commission, the
nexus of the sprawling neocon tentacles."
The controversial evolutionary psychologist Kevin B. MacDonald alleges
that neoconservatism "is an excellent illustration of the key traits
behind the success of Jewish activism: ethnocentrism, intelligence and
wealth, psychological intensity, and aggressiveness"[14], that
neoconservatism fits into a general pattern of twentieth-century
Jewish intellectual and political activism, and that Leo Strauss is a
central figure in the neoconservative movement and "the quintessential
rabbinical guru with devoted disciples". [15] Further, he contends
that like Freudian psychoanalysis and Marxism, neoconservatism uses
arguments that appeal to non-Jews, rather than appealing explicitly to
Jewish interests, and that non-Jewish neoconservatives like Jeanne
Kirkpatrick and Donald Rumsfeld represent recruitment to an ideology
with a Jewish core and an intense commitment to Jewish interests. Of
this recruitment, he writes, "it makes excellent psychological sense
to have the spokespeople for any movement resemble the people they are
trying to convince."[16] MacDonald's views of neoconservatism are not
widely accepted in the United States, though similar theories have
found a more receptive audience in some Arab media, such as Al
Jazeera. His views have been characterized as anti-Semitic and have
been condemned as "nauseating" by some, including the writer Judith
Shulevitz. (For wider discussion, see Kevin B. MacDonald)
Michael Lind, a self-described former neoconservative, wrote in 2004,
"It is true, and unfortunate, that some journalists tend to use
'neoconservative' to refer only to Jewish neoconservatives, a practice
that forces them to invent categories like 'nationalist conservative'
or 'Western conservative' for Rumsfeld and Cheney. But neoconservatism
is an ideology, like paleoconservatism and libertarianism, and
Rumsfeld and Dick and Lynne Cheney are full-fledged neocons, as
distinct from paleocons or libertarians, even though they are not
Jewish and were never liberals or leftists." [17]
Lind argues that, while "there were, and are, very few Northeastern
WASP mandarins in the neoconservative movement", its origins are not
specifically Jewish. "...[N]eoconservatism recruited from diverse
'farm teams,' including liberal Catholics (William Bennett and Michael
Novak..) and populists, socialists and New Deal liberals in the South
and Southwest (the pool from which Jeane Kirkpatrick, James Woolsey
and I [that is, Lind himself] were drawn)." [18]
[edit]
Anti-semitic charges against neoconservatism
One of the most controversial issues surrounding neoconservatism is
its alleged relation to specifically Jewish intellectual traditions;
in the most extreme form of this view, neoconservatism has been
regarded by some as primarily a movement to advance Jewish interests.
Classic anti-Semitic tropes have often been used when elaborating this
view, such as the idea that Jews achieve influence through the
intellectual domination of national leaders. David Brooks in his
January 6, 2004 New York Times column wrote, "To hear these people
describe it, PNAC is sort of a Yiddish Trilateral Commission, the
nexus of the sprawling neocon tentacles."
Lind wrote in 2004, "It is true, and unfortunate, that some
journalists tend to use 'neoconservative' to refer only to Jewish
neoconservatives, a practice that forces them to invent categories
like 'nationalist conservative' or 'Western conservative' for Rumsfeld
and Cheney. But neoconservatism is an ideology, like paleoconservatism
and libertarianism, and Rumsfeld and Dick and Lynne Cheney are
full-fledged neocons, as distinct from paleocons or libertarians, even
though they are not Jewish and were never liberals or leftists." [19]
Lind argues that, while "there were, and are, very few Northeastern
WASP mandarins in the neoconservative movement", its origins are not
specifically Jewish. "...[N]eoconservatism recruited from diverse
'farm teams,' including liberal Catholics (William Bennett and Michael
Novak..) and populists, socialists and New Deal liberals in the South
and Southwest (the pool from which Jeane Kirkpatrick, James Woolsey
and I [that is, Lind himself] were drawn)." [20]
[edit]
Relationship with other types of U.S. conservatism
The traditional conservative Claes Ryn has developed the critique that
neoconservatives are actually what he calls a variety of neo-Jacobins.
True conservatives deny the existence of a universal political and
economic philosophy and model that is suitable for all societies and
cultures, and believe that a society's institutions should be adjusted
to suit its culture. Neo-Jacobins in contrast
are attached in the end to ahistorical, supranational principles
that they believe should supplant the traditions of particular
societies. The new Jacobins see themselves as on the side of right and
fighting evil and are not prone to respecting or looking for common
ground with countries that do not share their democratic preferences.
(Ryn 2003: 387)
[Neo-Jacobinism] regards America as founded on universal
principles and assigns to the United States the role of supervising
the remaking of the world. Its adherents have the intense dogmatic
commitment of true believers and are highly prone to moralistic
rhetoric. They demand, among other things, "moral clarity" in dealing
with regimes that stand in the way of America's universal purpose.
They see themselves as champions of "virtue." (p. 384).
Thus, according to Ryn, neoconservatism is analogous to Bolshevism: in
the same way that the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy established ways of
life throughout the world to replace them with communism, the
neoconservatives want to do the same, only imposing free-market
capitalism and American-style "liberal democracy" instead of
socialism.
There is also conflict between neoconservatives and libertarian
conservatives. Libertarian conservatives are distrustful of a large
government and therefore regard neoconservative foreign policy
ambitions with considerable distrust.
There has been considerable conflict between neoconservatives and
business conservatives in some areas. Neoconservatives tend to see
China as a looming threat to the United States and argue for harsh
policies to contain that threat. Business conservatives see China as a
business opportunity and see a tough policy against China as opposed
to their desires for trade and economic progress. Business
conservatives also appear much less distrustful of international
institutions. In fact, where China is concerned neoconservatives tend
to find themselves more often in agreement with liberal Democrats than
with business conservatives. Indeed, Americans for Democratic Action -
widely regarded as an "authority" of sorts on liberalism by both the
American left and right alike - credit Senators and members of the
House of Representatives with casting a "liberal" vote if they oppose
legislation that would treat China favorably in the realm of foreign
trade and many other matters.
The disputes over Israel and domestic policies have contributed to a
sharp conflict over the years with "paleoconservatives," whose very
name was taken as a rebuke to their "neo" brethren. There are many
personal issues but effectively the paleoconservatives view the
neoconservatives as interlopers who deviate from the traditional
conservative agenda on issues as diverse as states' rights, free
trade, immigration, isolationism, the welfare state, and even abortion
and homosexuality. All of this leads to their conservative label being
questioned.
On 8/18/05, Andrew Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I just read all of Zimmy's posts in this thread and couldn't find
> any
> > > statement which could be construed to mean that the only reason
> Perle
> > > and Wolfie get attention/are known to people is because they are
> Jews.
> > > So, yes, I would like if you could point out the relevant portions
> of
> > > his mails.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > My point is that the neocon movement began and is still identified as
> a
> > jewish movement. Historically it was explicitly Jewish; a reaction to
> > jewish
> > liberals. So when people talk about Wolfowitz and Pearle there is this
> > wink wink
> > nudge nudge don't you know subtext that they are jews
>
> Geez.... hang on a cotton picking minute, who was the one going on about
> Jewish conspiracy theories being a lot of crap... and now you are saying
> there is one.... sorry, I am at a loss here.
--
Gary Denton
http://www.apollocon.org June 23-25, 2006
Most Libertarians don't realize the loss of liberty that occurs
from concentrations of power except when that power is government.
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming.blogspot.com
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
