The term "neo con"

[Psychoblues]

Fools, fools, simply fools.

 

[ronpaul2008]

This is a dangerous accusatorial political behavior that is reminicent of the times and has frozen our country politically. The two most important issues of our time are how to respond to the 9/11 attacks and what to do about the rampant immigration changing the racial and cultural makup of our country at an astounding pace. However anyone who gives their views on these issues is swiftly and easily swept aside by someone accusing them of being racist. People will claim if you support neoconservativism you are racist against Arabs, others if you oppose it you are racist against Jews.

From my experience the people pointing the fingers yelling racism are actually the racists themselves. From my experience whites are the least racist people, and other races throw out the accusations because most whites will make any concessions, do about anything to avoid being accused of this. Take for instance many liberals. Their two biggest issues were labor, pro union; a living wage, and preserving the remaining environment in the USA. Both these issues would lead them to oppose mass immigration. When there is low demand for workers, ie unlimited supply from a pourous border, wages are low. However the powers that control the liberals were told it is xenophobic and racist to oppose limiting immigration, and without any fight they became pro immigration. Communism, like neoconservatism, can also be called a Jewish movement. From Marx to the Bolsheviks, to the ones in Germany or America who promoted it. The hard core anti communist Bircher society types are often accused of being anti-semitic. So where are these accusations of racism freezing whites in their tracks taking us? The democratic party has basically become socialist/communist and the republican has become neoconservative. The roots of these movements are Jewish so if you strongly oppose either of them you will be suspected of being anti-semitic. Most Americans go around pretending not to care. I would say if someone falsly accuses you of being racist, they are your enemy. They are throwing out the term to damage you. The accusation of racism is too negative for people to be allowed to throw it out without evidence. It should be fought, whether peacefully in court or by any means necessary.

 

[Annie]

This is a dangerous accusatorial political behavior that is reminicent of the times and has frozen our country politically. The two most important issues of our time are how to respond to the 9/11 attacks and what to do about the rampant immigration changing the racial and cultural makup of our country at an astounding pace. However anyone who gives their views on these issues is swiftly and easily swept aside by someone accusing them of being racist. People will claim if you support neoconservativism you are racist against Arabs, others if you oppose it you are racist against Jews.

From my experience the people pointing the fingers yelling racism are actually the racists themselves. From my experience whites are the least racist people, and other races throw out the accusations because most whites will make any concessions, do about anything to avoid being accused of this. Take for instance many liberals. Their two biggest issues were labor, pro union; a living wage, and preserving the remaining environment in the USA. Both these issues would lead them to oppose mass immigration. When there is low demand for workers, ie unlimited supply from a pourous border, wages are low. However the powers that control the liberals were told it is xenophobic and racist to oppose limiting immigration, and without any fight they became pro immigration. Communism, like neoconservatism, can also be called a Jewish movement. From Marx to the Bolsheviks, to the ones in Germany or America who promoted it. The hard core anti communist Bircher society types are often accused of being anti-semitic. So where are these accusations of racism freezing whites in their tracks taking us? The democratic party has basically become socialist/communist and the republican has become neoconservative. The roots of these movements are Jewish so if you strongly oppose either of them you will be suspected of being anti-semitic. Most Americans go around pretending not to care. I would say if someone falsly accuses you of being racist, they are your enemy. They are throwing out the term to damage you. The accusation of racism is too negative for people to be allowed to throw it out without evidence. It should be fought, whether peacefully in court or by any means necessary.

What would you consider of a top tier money raiser candidate, that had substantial backing from proudly racist groups? You would be cool with it just riding along, without pointing it out or investigating?

 

[ronpaul2008]

My point is that the term racism is so subjective that it is basically meaningless. Like I point out how you feel on neoconservativism can be construed as racism. The only way you can avoid being 'racist' is to have no position at all. There is an academic movement where many phd's say all whites are racist. Therefore they could conclude that any white person donating to any campaign is doing it for racist reasons, expecially if the candidate is white as well. Honestly it doesn't really matter if the person giving money is racist, but if the candidate is advocating racist policies to be put in place it does. I suppose the example that pops to mind that I can think of is the NAACP. They are a racist organization by definition and they support putting racist policies into place for grant moneys, entrance into education/jobs, and obviously thats a dangerous precident to support. And I don't think that there is anything wrong with pointing out these policies would be racist. The problem is if people accuse others of being a racist, which is a severe charge that has instantly ruined many great men, this charge should not be thrown at an individual level at a person because they hold some political belief. Even though I think the NAACP supports racist policies, I would not accuse a member/supporter of the NAACP or a candidate they support of being a racist. Inevitably though like the origonal poster we may have a suspicion that the other person feels that way politically to gain a racial advantage. This is leading me to wonder if multicultural societies can even work over the long haul. Even if there was 0 racism, simply this suspicion of racism would cause a backlash causing racism and racist tension to return.

 

[Gunny]

My point is that the term racism is so subjective that it is basically meaningless. Like I point out how you feel on neoconservativism can be construed as racism. The only way you can avoid being 'racist' is to have no position at all. There is an academic movement where many phd's say all whites are racist. Therefore they could conclude that any white person donating to any campaign is doing it for racist reasons, expecially if the candidate is white as well. Honestly it doesn't really matter if the person giving money is racist, but if the candidate is advocating racist policies to be put in place it does. I suppose the example that pops to mind that I can think of is the NAACP. They are a racist organization by definition and they support putting racist policies into place for grant moneys, entrance into education/jobs, and obviously thats a dangerous precident to support. And I don't think that there is anything wrong with pointing out these policies would be racist. The problem is if people accuse others of being a racist, which is a severe charge that has instantly ruined many great men, this charge should not be thrown at an individual level at a person because they hold some political belief. Even though I think the NAACP supports racist policies, I would not accuse a member/supporter of the NAACP or a candidate they support of being a racist. Inevitably though like the origonal poster we may have a suspicion that the other person feels that way politically to gain a racial advantage. This is leading me to wonder if multicultural societies can even work over the long haul. Even if there was 0 racism, simply this suspicion of racism would cause a backlash causing racism and racist tension to return.

I disagree on your use of terms. One can easily avoid being racist and that, in and of itself is a position on the issue.

The only way you can avoid being biased is to have no position at all.

 

[Psychoblues]

Disagree or not, your "avoidance" of being called a racist is well documented.

I disagree on your use of terms. One can easily avoid being racist and that, in and of itself is a position on the issue.

The only way you can avoid being biased is to have no position at all.

And confusing "bias" with factual recognition is dishonest at best.

 

[William Joyce]

My point is that the term racism is so subjective that it is basically meaningless. Like I point out how you feel on neoconservativism can be construed as racism. The only way you can avoid being 'racist' is to have no position at all. There is an academic movement where many phd's say all whites are racist. Therefore they could conclude that any white person donating to any campaign is doing it for racist reasons, expecially if the candidate is white as well. Honestly it doesn't really matter if the person giving money is racist, but if the candidate is advocating racist policies to be put in place it does. I suppose the example that pops to mind that I can think of is the NAACP. They are a racist organization by definition and they support putting racist policies into place for grant moneys, entrance into education/jobs, and obviously thats a dangerous precident to support. And I don't think that there is anything wrong with pointing out these policies would be racist. The problem is if people accuse others of being a racist, which is a severe charge that has instantly ruined many great men, this charge should not be thrown at an individual level at a person because they hold some political belief. Even though I think the NAACP supports racist policies, I would not accuse a member/supporter of the NAACP or a candidate they support of being a racist. Inevitably though like the origonal poster we may have a suspicion that the other person feels that way politically to gain a racial advantage. This is leading me to wonder if multicultural societies can even work over the long haul. Even if there was 0 racism, simply this suspicion of racism would cause a backlash causing racism and racist tension to return.

This is exactly right.

For those of us who are white advocates, we have already seen that if you are white, you will be called "racist" no matter what, so you might as well go ahead and say how you really feel. A room full of conservative white Republicans, all of whom deny "racism", are just as marked for destruction as a room full of Stormfronters.

Someone like jillian, for instance, is going to sniff out "anti-Semitism" in anyone who takes a position she doesn't like. Big deal. If that's the way the game is played, then be an anti-Semite. Move it to the next level.

What whites need to understand is that there is a multi-front race war being waged against them and their very existence. They need to start fighting back much, much harder. Conservatism has proven ALMOST useless in that endeavor, because its core purpose is 'discredited' by elites. So check out white nationalism. It's shocking, yes, but you are on a solid rock and you never have to dance around like a moron about the question of 'racism'. Just look 'em in the eye and say 'You're goddamn right I'm for whites.'

 

[Psychoblues]

Neo-cons are one world power nuts. They are Jewish, and Christian and even some Islamists. The almighty wealth of their domination is the driving factor and religion is not among their considerations.

Suck up, Americans, and face that fact. After all, we are all only pawns in the game of the neocons. Can we stop that scourge of American principles and values? I hope so and am working to do exactly that.

 

[Gunny]

Disagree or not, your "avoidance" of being called a racist is well documented.




And confusing "bias" with factual recognition is dishonest at best.

I don't avoid being called racist. I deny being racist, and will not be called racist without response simply for some PC nitwit to use a dismissive term they think covers the fact they have no logical argument on the topic.

I am not confusing bias with factual recognition, and said nothing of the sort. This however, is a poor attempt by you to confuse one with the other.

Taking a stance/having an opinion REQUIRES bias simply by choosing one over the other. As you are a perfect example of however, factual recognition is NOT required.

 

[rayboyusmc]

These folks have been with us throughout history by one name or another. They think they are the elite, they are smarter, they usually are wealthier. There will always be some who have power and believe they are the ones who need to run the masses.

If the masses ever got their sh!t together and organized (the unions are one example) we could kick these people out. Unfortunately today, too many of the Masses are watching Britney Spears, Survivior, Sound Bites etc.

 

[jillian]

These folks have been with us throughout history by one name or another. They think they are the elite, they are smarter, they usually are wealthier. There will always be some who have power and believe they are the ones who need to run the masses.

If the masses ever got their sh!t together and organized (the unions are one example) we could kick these people out. Unfortunately today, too many of the Masses are watching Britney Spears, Survivior, Sound Bites etc.

Just curious, but who are "these folk"?

 

[eots]

the neo -cons are the ones who orchestrate events such as this

Double Agent Gadahn Threatens Bush In Neo-Con Stunt
Jewish Zionist who once called Muslims "bloodthirsty terrorists" helps Giuliani's flagging numbers before New Hampshire primary

Prison Planet | January 7, 2008
Paul Joseph Watson

Adam Pearlman, the Jewish Mossad agent who once wrote stinging essays condemning Muslims as "bloodthirsty terrorists", has once again popped up as an "Al-Qaeda spokesman" to boost the Neo-Con's imperial agenda by threatening George Bush on the eve of his trip to the middle east.

In a new videotape, Pearlman, now calling himself Adam Gadahn, states, "The occupied territories are awaiting their first visit by the crusader Bush and the mujahideen are also waiting for him," reports ABC News .

According to the tape, Gadahn promises to welcome Bush "with bombs and traps."

Gadahn 's appearance is also perfectly timed to boost the flagging poll numbers of Rudy Giuliani and other establishment Republican candidates who have invoked the imaginary threat of terror for political points scoring before the New Hampshire primary tomorrow.

But who is the myster ious Adam Yehiye Gadahn?

The FBI lists Gadahn's aliases as Abu Suhayb Al-Amriki, Abu Suhayb, Yihya Majadin Adams, Adam Pearlman, and Yayah.

Adam Pearlman is his real name and his grandfather is none other than the late Carl K. Pearlman; a prominent Jewish urologist in Orange County. Carl was also a member of the board of directors of the Anti-Defamation League, which was caught spying on Americans for Israel in 1993. Mike Rivero has the scoop at WhatReallyHappened.com .

Israel's Mossad intelligence agency was caught in 2002 creating a phony Al-Qaeda group to justify attacks on Palestinians.

Pearlman has a knack of releasing his tapes at the most politically opportune time for Bush, having first burst onto the scene shortly before the 2004 presidential election and then again right after Katrina when the President's approval rating was tanking fast.

Even more mainstream publications, like the Los Angeles City Beat , have dismissed Pearlman before as nothing more than "cartoonish propaganda."

Pearlman had a hippy upbringing, a brief but intense flirtation with death metal and before a sudden transformation, once referred to Muslims as ?bloodthirsty, barbaric terrorists.? Pearlman was a hardcore Jewish Zionist and wrote essays and screeds bashing the Muslim faith. He even got into fights at mosques and beat up Muslim worshippers.

Pearlman, the hardcore Jewish Zionist who trashed Muslims and beat them up, grows a beard and suddenly becomes an "Al-Qaeda spokesman" - nothing suspicious here, move along!

Pearlman's personal history and the highly suspicious nature in which he suddenly professed his conversion to Islam in a single Internet posting and later appeared on the scene as a spokesman for "Al-Qaeda" are all the ingredients needed to draw the conclusion that Pearlman is working as a double agent and most likely for Mossad.

The new tape is once again the work of As Sahab, Al-Qaeda's alleged media arm and was released by the U.S. government affiliated IntelCenter organization.

The previous Pearlman tape, released at the end of May last year, was also obtained by the IntelCenter group, a U.S. government contractor, and its head Ben Venzke gave the tape credence in media interviews concerning the story, as he has done again on this occasion.

It also emerged that Gadahn was the scriptwriter for the September 11, 2007 Bin Laden tape in which segments of Bin Laden's previous statements were hastily slapped together and the contrast altered to make his dubious beard appear darker, an attempt to hoodwink viewers into thinking the tape was new material.

In our previous groundbreaking expose , we unveiled the ties between Intelcenter, a group that regularly 'obtain s' Al-Qaeda tapes and the Pentagon. Intelcenter is an offshoot of IDEFENSE, which was staffed by a senior military psy-op intelligence officer Jim Melnick, who has worked directly for Donald Rumsfeld.

http://infowars.com/articles/terror/gadahn_double_agent_threatens_bush_neocon_stunt.htm

 

[Taomon]

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.

I use the term neo con. I am not anti-semetic. I have spoken out against the actions of the Israeli state, but I like Jewish people. They are very nice.

But I am one who leans left. To me neo con is exactly the root words: neo, meaning new and con short for conservative. The new conservative.

Neo cons emerged under the Reagan umbrella of huge surpluses of defense budget and covert ops, big business friendly protectionism, and step on the necks of the poor policies.

They were called the crazies, but they served a purpose with Reagan and Bush. Purposes that made the 1980's a decade of regret and denial. Revisionist history from that era still prevail today in the rhetoric of GOP talking heads like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.

That is the neo con to me. A political belief system bent on consolidating wealth and power to a cabal of wealthy investors, and to curtailing all of those pesky civil liberties that get in the way of raping us all.

 

[Psychoblues]

I thought it had something to do with new convicts!?!?!?!??!!? In other words, I know a neo con when I see one and those that I haven't met yet I will see on the news or in court.

 

[Taomon]

I thought it had something to do with new convicts!?!?!?!??!!? In other words, I know a neo con when I see one and those that I haven't met yet I will see on the news or in court.

Isn't that what I said?

 

[Psychoblues]

Very close but not precisely.

Isn't that what I said?

Could you put it in more layman terminology?

 

[Taomon]

Very close but not precisely.




Could you put it in more layman terminology?

Ha!

 

[Psychoblues]

If you are scared, say you're scared!!!!!!!!

Ha!

"Ha" ain't shit to me.

 

[Taomon]

If you are scared, say you're scared!!!!!!!!




"Ha" ain't shit to me.

As in Ha Ha, I thought you were making a joke. Our posts are saying the same thing.

 

[Psychoblues]

I like to joke a lot, tm.

As in Ha Ha, I thought you were making a joke. Our posts are saying the same thing.

But, I've been banned for some well thought out jokes, know what I mean?