The term "neo con"

[AllieBaba]

Okay, I guess I'll sink this here...

Does anybody besides me think the term "neo-con" is a term used to hide anti-semitic leanings? It's been my observation that the people who throw the term around the most (and I haven't seen it here, so I feel safe bringing it up here) are people who are socialist, anti-religion, and specifically anti-Jew. When I objected to the way a person was using the term on another board, I was unceremoniously tossed out on my ear. Now I've gained access to that board (I don't expect it to last for long) and that same person is still going on about "Neo-cons"...and also going on about all the reasons abortion is okay, and touting basically eugenestic (sorry, you hopefully know what I mean) strategies for eliminating un-desirables.

So that's the question. Am I off my rocker? Because this wasn't my only experience in seeing that. It seems to me that every time I see someone on a "Neo-con" rant, i.e., ranting against the neo-cons, calling people neo-cons, etc., they are actually ranting against Jews in power and will actually detail all the harm that has done, and then go on an anti-Israel spiel.

No, this is not directed at Shogun, who thank GOD hasn't gone down the neo-con hatred road yet.

 

[Gunny]

Okay, I guess I'll sink this here...

Does anybody besides me think the term "neo-con" is a term used to hide anti-semitic leanings? It's been my observation that the people who throw the term around the most (and I haven't seen it here, so I feel safe bringing it up here) are people who are socialist, anti-religion, and specifically anti-Jew. When I objected to the way a person was using the term on another board, I was unceremoniously tossed out on my ear. Now I've gained access to that board (I don't expect it to last for long) and that same person is still going on about "Neo-cons"...and also going on about all the reasons abortion is okay, and touting basically eugenestic (sorry, you hopefully know what I mean) strategies for eliminating un-desirables.

So that's the question. Am I off my rocker? Because this wasn't my only experience in seeing that. It seems to me that every time I see someone on a "Neo-con" rant, i.e., ranting against the neo-cons, calling people neo-cons, etc., they are actually ranting against Jews in power and will actually detail all the harm that has done, and then go on an anti-Israel spiel.

No, this is not directed at Shogun, who thank GOD hasn't gone down the neo-con hatred road yet.

The term is used here. I'm not sure what it is you take offense to. Do you know what a neo-con is? Most of the lefties who sling it around have no clue. Just wondering if you do.

 

[Diuretic]

I don't think it's being used to hide anti-Semitic feelings - by which I assume you mean, anti-Jewish feelings. I think it's more of a shorthand term to refer to those who support the agenda as laid out by the PNAC. One of the reasons I say it's not anti-Jewish is that not all PNAC supporters are Jewish. Some are. I suppose some are Protestants, some are Catholics, some are Evangelicals, some are even atheists I would think, perhaps agnostic. But all are nutters

If someone wanted to express anti-Jewish feelings they can do it without resort to some sort of shorthand, it hasn't stopped too many folks who are proud of their bigotry.

 

[Gunny]

I don't think it's being used to hide anti-Semitic feelings - by which I assume you mean, anti-Jewish feelings. I think it's more of a shorthand term to refer to those who support the agenda as laid out by the PNAC. One of the reasons I say it's not anti-Jewish is that not all PNAC supporters are Jewish. Some are. I suppose some are Protestants, some are Catholics, some are Evangelicals, some are even atheists I would think, perhaps agnostic. But all are nutters

If someone wanted to express anti-Jewish feelings they can do it without resort to some sort of shorthand, it hasn't stopped too many folks who are proud of their bigotry.

"Neo Con" is a term that was applied to people who were Democrats and considered liberal until Jimmy Carter moved the rug left, and out from under the moderate liberal base. The result was former moderate "liberals" who voted Republican being re-labelled moderate "conservatives", and not being "true" conservatives, we got labelled "neo cons."

Taken a step further by liberal extremists, the term has since been used as a slur, with little real knowledge as to what it means or who it identifies.

I don't know that antisemitism applies at all to those who use the term in derogatory fashion. Ignorant does though.

 

[Diuretic]

"Neo Con" is a term that was applied to people who were Democrats and considered liberal until Jimmy Carter moved the rug left, and out from under the moderate liberal base. The result was former moderate "liberals" who voted Republican being re-labelled moderate "conservatives", and not being "true" conservatives, we got labelled "neo cons."

Taken a step further by liberal extremists, the term has since been used as a slur, with little real knowledge as to what it means or who it identifies.

I don't know that antisemitism applies at all to those who use the term. Ignorant does though.

And people think Canadian politics is complex....chuck this in and also Yellow Dog Democrats and Blue Dog Democrats (?) and Dixiecrats...and....my head hurts...

 

[William Joyce]

Yes and no.

Yes, in that "neocons" are pretty much exclusively Jews who seek an Israel-first foreign policy.

No, in that some who hate that don't really hate all Jews.

http://www.vdare.com/macdonald/030918_neoconservatism.htm

Over the last year, there’s been a torrent of articles on neoconservatism raising (usually implicitly) some vexing issues: Are neoconservatives different from other conservatives? Is neoconservatism a Jewish movement? Is it “anti-Semitic” to say so?

The dispute between the neocons and more traditional conservatives — “paleoconservatives” — is especially important because the latter now find themselves on the outside, looking in on the conservative power structure.

Hopefully, some of the venom has been taken out of this argument by the remarkable recent article by neoconservative “godfather” Irving Kristol (“The Neoconservative Persuasion,” Weekly Standard, August 25, 2003). With commendable frankness, Kristol admitted that

“the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.”

And, equally frankly, Kristol eschewed any attempt to justify U.S. support for Israel in terms of American national interest:

“[L]arge nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns… That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.”

So, basically, the "King Neocon" admits it's a Jewish thing.

 

[Gunny]

Yes and no.

Yes, in that "neocons" are pretty much exclusively Jews who seek an Israel-first foreign policy.

No, in that some who hate that don't really hate all Jews.

http://www.vdare.com/macdonald/030918_neoconservatism.htm

Over the last year, there’s been a torrent of articles on neoconservatism raising (usually implicitly) some vexing issues: Are neoconservatives different from other conservatives? Is neoconservatism a Jewish movement? Is it “anti-Semitic” to say so?

The dispute between the neocons and more traditional conservatives — “paleoconservatives” — is especially important because the latter now find themselves on the outside, looking in on the conservative power structure.

Hopefully, some of the venom has been taken out of this argument by the remarkable recent article by neoconservative “godfather” Irving Kristol (“The Neoconservative Persuasion,” Weekly Standard, August 25, 2003). With commendable frankness, Kristol admitted that

“the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.”

And, equally frankly, Kristol eschewed any attempt to justify U.S. support for Israel in terms of American national interest:

“[L]arge nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns… That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.”

So, basically, the "King Neocon" admits it's a Jewish thing.

That's crap. I haven't noticed that racism had a damned thing to do with it, nor it with racism. Go get your own damned label and stop trying to hijack one that's already been taken.

 

[Psychoblues]

Neo-Cons Are One World power nuts that seek to destroy anything in semblance of democracy.

They have no particular race, religion or even an exact creed. They are simply people over obsessed with themselves that they will cheat, rob, torture or steal anything that they feel increases their own power. In short, they are those that represent themselves as American Republicans circa 2000. History will reveal them much more clearly than anything I can tell you about them now.

 

[AllieBaba]

It seems that some, but not all, who use the term "neo-con" use it as a synonym for political Jews.

I've seen people say some really nasty things about "neo-cons" and it was obvious what the prejudice was. But it must not be as common as I thought.

Thanks folks.

 

[Paulie]

It seems that some, but not all, who use the term "neo-con" use it as a synonym for political Jews.

I've seen people say some really nasty things about "neo-cons" and it was obvious what the prejudice was. But it must not be as common as I thought.

Thanks folks.

I would think that if you yourself are so uninformed as to what exactly a neo-con even is, than to begin by equating it to anti-semitism is irresponsible and insulting.

Gunny gave a good succinct description, but it goes much farther than that.

I made a thread about this a while ago, check it out:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=50232

 

[AllieBaba]

I do know what a neo-con is and I never said I equated neo-cons with anti-semites. Just the opposite. I asked what the consensus was regarding the use of the term "neo-con" by neo-con bashers.

 

[Paulie]

I do know what a neo-con is and I never said I equated neo-cons with anti-semites. Just the opposite. I asked what the consensus was regarding the use of the term "neo-con" by neo-con bashers.

Well then you're just allowing yourself to be caught up in the hype and propaganda by even asking this, i guess.

The MOST prominent neo-cons I can think of in the current administration are jews. That doesn't, and SHOULDN'T pigeonhole neo-conservatism as a whole as being a jewish conspiracy.

They have many ideologies that they adhere to, but the prominent one these days seems to be US hegemony internationally through the use of strong military force. I personally see that having been used by many influential people in the corporate world, especially the military-industrial complex, to achieve certain agendas. War certainly is a profitable business venture.

Paint me as partisan, but I've always had a problem with the fact that especially in the Bush admin, so many people within it have such close ties to corporations that have benefitted from this new wave of neo-conservatism. I don't need to name names there, do I?

 

[Gunny]

Well then you're just allowing yourself to be caught up in the hype and propaganda by even asking this, i guess.

The MOST prominent neo-cons I can think of in the current administration are jews. That doesn't, and SHOULDN'T pigeonhole neo-conservatism as a whole as being a jewish conspiracy.

They have many ideologies that they adhere to, but the prominent one these days seems to be US hegemony internationally through the use of strong military force. I personally see that having been used by many influential people in the corporate world, especially the military-industrial complex, to achieve certain agendas. War certainly is a profitable business venture.

Paint me as partisan, but I've always had a problem with the fact that especially in the Bush admin, so many people within it have such close ties to corporations that have benefitted from this new wave of neo-conservatism. I don't need to name names there, do I?

Why lat that solely on this administration? The last corporation unfriendly President I recall was Reagan. At least where AT&T was concerned. The rest look like peas in a pod to me where that topic is concerned.

 

[jillian]

Well then you're just allowing yourself to be caught up in the hype and propaganda by even asking this, i guess.

The MOST prominent neo-cons I can think of in the current administration are jews. That doesn't, and SHOULDN'T pigeonhole neo-conservatism as a whole as being a jewish conspiracy.

They have many ideologies that they adhere to, but the prominent one these days seems to be US hegemony internationally through the use of strong military force. I personally see that having been used by many influential people in the corporate world, especially the military-industrial complex, to achieve certain agendas. War certainly is a profitable business venture.

Paint me as partisan, but I've always had a problem with the fact that especially in the Bush admin, so many people within it have such close ties to corporations that have benefitted from this new wave of neo-conservatism. I don't need to name names there, do I?

Really? The most prominent neo-cons in the administration are Jews? I think Dick Cheney might take umbridge at that.

I also think you're confusing topics. Corporatists are not neo-conservatives. The issues are wholly unrelated. They happen to overlap in certain conservative members of this administration, but I think you'll find that neo-conservativism is more a means of viewing the manner in which the middle east should be handled. Neo-cons, at least according to the PNAC materials, believe U.S. power should be used to "reshape the middle east". That has nothing to do with the use of private corporate profiteers... that's just a happy coincidence for the Bush/Cheney crew.

 

[Gunny]

Really? The most prominent neo-cons in the administration are Jews? I think Dick Cheney might take umbridge at that.

I also think you're confusing topics. Corporatists are not neo-conservatives. The issues are wholly unrelated. They happen to overlap in certain conservative members of this administration, but I think you'll find that neo-conservativism is more a means of viewing the manner in which the middle east should be handled. Neo-cons, at least according to the PNAC materials, believe U.S. power should be used to "reshape the middle east". That has nothing to do with the use of private corporate profiteers... that's just a happy coincidence for the Bush/Cheney crew.

It has been in our national interest on both sides of the aisle to ensure a safe supply of oil from non-hostile nations for decades. That has nothing to do with political ideologies and a lot to do with national self-interest.

 

[jillian]

It has been in our national interest on both sides of the aisle to ensure a safe supply of oil from non-hostile nations for decades. That has nothing to do with political ideologies and a lot to do with national self-interest.

It's the manner of doing so which separates the PNAC and neo-cons from others, though. I've never agreed with the way they view the world. In fact, I think its fairly short-sighted foreign policy, as was proven with Iraq.

 

[Gunny]

It's the manner of doing so which separates the PNAC and neo-cons from others, though. I've never agreed with the way they view the world. In fact, I think its fairly short-sighted foreign policy, as was proven with Iraq.

And the "pretend it ain't there" policy was no better.

 

[Diuretic]

It has been in our national interest on both sides of the aisle to ensure a safe supply of oil from non-hostile nations for decades. That has nothing to do with political ideologies and a lot to do with national self-interest.

Bush/Cheney blew it though, invading another nation for its energy resources. Who's next? Canada for its water? Sooner those bums are out of the White House the better.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Bush/Cheney blew it though, invading another nation for its energy resources. Who's next? Canada for its water? Sooner those bums are out of the White House the better.

Sure thing, remind us of the billions we have stolen from Iraq, I mean come on, it can not be hard to prove, you and your buddies make this claim all the time. Then run away from it when shown to be the fools you are.

Iraqi oil was never big on the US import list, in fact we got something like 5 percent of our oil from that region of the world at the time. But do prattle on.

 

[Gunny]

Bush/Cheney blew it though, invading another nation for its energy resources. Who's next? Canada for its water? Sooner those bums are out of the White House the better.

Well except that Bush/Cheney did not invade another nation for its energy resources. That's a baseless accusation.

And no, it isn't going to be "better" given the current choices. Barring some unforeseen candidate, it's going to be worse.

But then, you don't really care how we have it here. You just want to criticise when we have a President who isn't bowing and gomen asai -ing everyone else.