Zionist originally meant “Israeli nationalist” and was turned into a pejorative term later. It connotes the very strong support for Israel that is, as far as I can tell, unanimous among neo-conservatives - even the hyper-Christian ones. Some of the prominent neo-cons are Jewish (Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith), and in fact several of them have advised the Israeli government. December, as per usual, is ignoring what the author plainly means.
Neo-conservative is a specific type of conservative. There are also moderates in the administration, the most high-profile one being Colin Powell. John McCain is a conservative, but he’s not a neo-conservative. There’s no tautology here at all.
It’s true that it’s not a precisely defined position, but that doesn’t make it an anti-Semitic slur either.
Rummy and Cheney are players from the Reagan administration and much older hands in Washington, I suppose that might be one difference. They’re not always excluded from the list of neo-conservatives, it was apparently a choice made by this author.
The Disclaimer means that your cite is intended as humor (although I didn’t find it funny.) So, it isn’t really the case that anti-semites are accusing Alien abductors of being Jewish. But, it really is the case that some blatant anti-semites use the term “neo-con” as an anti-Jewish slur. It’s not a lie to complain about it.
In fact, excluding Cheney from that list is probably a poor choice, since he was so involved with the Project for the New American Century, which has spelling out the ideology of this administration.
No, your examples did not “refute” the OP. They showed two limited examples of where some individual or small group of anti-semites has used neocon and anti-semitic rhetoric in parallel, without demonstrating that the two ideas were specifically linked in the general media.
The OP was rather clearly indicating a general usage through either society or sections of the media. Citing Carol on the Web or Vanguard for evidence of a general usage is identical to citing any other white supremacist organization to identify general usage. You can find similar sites that directly link “liberal” and “Jew” in different contexts. (I found several at the Vanguard site, that I won’t link against SDMB policy. In fact, Vanguard expressly labels Ashcroft a Liberal. Were are not talking anything resembling a connection to reality, here.)
I appreciate your thoughtful post, Marley23, even though we don’t agree.
Actually the term “Zionist” was in use before Israel existed. It originally meant someone who supported the formation of a Jewish homeland.
But, I agree with you that today “Zionist” has two meanings: Israeli Nationalist is the postive one. Or it’s a pejorative. You are correct that some of the “neo-cons” strongly support Israel.
However, Dunham’s entire phrase was “even a Zionist cabal.” A cabal is a conspiracy, a secret scheme or a plot. The word “cabal” carries a negative connotation. The word “Zionist” alone might not be pejorative, but the phrase “Zionist cabal” sure is. Especially because a traditional bit of anti-semitism is the alleged Jewish conspiracy.
No it doesn’t. But, it does raise the question of just what Dunham meant by it. After all, he could have used the term “ultra-conservative” or “far right” or “hawk.”
Indeed it was his choice. That’s what makes it look like this author associates neoconservatism with Jews, even though some others don’t.
On preview, I see you have pointed out that “excluding Cheney from that list is probably a poor choice.” You see how that strenthens my point.
tomndebb, I showed two examples, but unfortunately they weren’t limited examples. That gross Vanguard site used neo-con as a Jewish slur in article after article as I showed just from the titles.
I disagree with your assertion that “The OP was rather clearly indicating a general usage through either society or sections of the media.” In fact, the OP actually said, “It has absolutely no basis in truth, and is totally unsupported.” (emphasis added)
That’s what I meant, but I should have phrased it that way.
Kind of you to agree on something that’s a fact. Are you aware of any neo-cons that don’t support Israel? I think it’s a requirement.
He IS talking pejoratively about these people. That’s plain. But I did that too. It’s not the same as being an anti-Semite either. He’s calling them a small group of powerful people with an agenda and bad intentions. Since you admitted Zionist doesn’t necessarily mean the whole evil Jew thing, I think your ground is as shaky as ever.
If he’d done that, you’d have said that “ultra-conservative” or “far right” or “hawk” was an anti-Jewish slur.
Looks. Like. I think you settled this without me. Looks like does not equal is.
Excluding Cheney was a poor choice because I would argue he’s at the forefront of this group. But the author also excluded Jewish PNAC members like Eliot Cohen, but that doesn’t strengthen your point a bit, now does it?
Except that neocon is not used as a racist slur, even in your examples. The authors simply link random adjectives together and throw them all out as pejoratives as long as they include some reference to Jews or blacks. Neocon isn’t used to mean semitic or Jewish, it is simply one more adjective (like Liberal) that gets thrown at people the haters are attacking.
(Actually, I would disagree with the OP from the other direction. There are rather few Republicans (and only one Republican apologist) in my experience that claim that neo-con is a code word for “Jewish” or “Jewish controlled.” I don’t think there is a great need to defend against an attack that is insignificant.)
First you have the prefix “Neo,” denoting a cool kung fu guy in shades and black leather trenchcoat, and then you have “con” which stands for Conservative.
I’m picturing Rush Limbaugh dressed in black in one of those slow motion fights while Ann Coulter does somersaults in tight plastic pants.
december, your Carol on the Web cite also uses the word “Republican” in its screed (right after “neocon” if you’re looking). Does that mean that calling someone a Republican is also an anti-Semitic slur? Or are you just pulling things out of the air again?
See, the problem is that you equate all the hateful language in your cites. I can see how “Zionist” is used as a slur in some cases. Marley23’s posts were more helpful in that regard. However, I must point out that equating “Zionist” to “nigger-lover” in your earlier post is ridiculous beyond words. “Zionist” has neither the cultural nor the historical significance of the infamous n-word, and tossing it out as carelessly as you did shows how little you understand about. You criticize others for not doing their homework above, but clearly it’s time do do your own. If you still don’t get it, try reading this.
The real problem here is that you think finding a couple hateful blogs that happen to use the word “neocon” or “neo-conservative” proves your point. They don’t. As I read your cites, I see “neocon” being used as an identifying label, even though what it identifies is unclear. You have not shown that those blogs use “neocon,” specifically, as an anti-Semitic statement. To do so, you’ll have to show how they use it differently than the similar label (also used) “Republican.” Personally, I don’t see a difference. As tomndebb point out, its just an adjective, one of many used in the blogs cited.
Your point remains unsubstantiated, december. Try again.
P.S., the OP’s allegation was about whether “neo-con” was ever used as an antisemitic slur. So, it doesn’t make sense to now complain that the examples of such use come from anti-Semites.
That wasn’t the OP, you are mistating. He asked whether neo=antisemtic:
Citing a few anti-semtic sites, is not proof that neocon EQUALS "Jew"con, especially in the mainstream. It only proves that anti-semtics will use whatever means they can to ‘point’ out the ‘jewishness’ in everything, they don’t agree with.
As Avalonian asked
Using your source, can i HONESTLY now consider Republican an anti-semtic term? if not, why?
You’re close. The Nazis considered theoretical physics to be “Jewish.” That was fortunate for us, since theory led to the development of the atomic bomb. This point is an important aspect of the recent Broadway hit, Copenhagen, which recreated a meeting between Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg.
Suppose someone in 1942 had written your version of the OP, minty:
Well, that would have simply been wrong, because the Nazis did hold that view.
holmes, the OP was far too strong. It claimed that there was “absolutely” and “totally” wrong to think neo-con was ever used antisemitically, so that anyone who claimed there was any basis at all was lying. If one goes back to my original comment on the other thread, I said
My examples demonstrate that some antisemites do indeed use the term that way, so the word does have a trace of that connotation.
December I’m not trying to beat a dead horse, but you are wrong. The OP doesn’t “…claimed that there was “absolutely” and “totally” wrong to think neo-con was ever used antisemitically, so that anyone who claimed there was any basis at all was lying.”
He’s saying that the word NeoCon isn’t interchangable with Jew, and questioning why anyone would consider it to be.
That is not the same as saying that it’s never been used in an anti-semitic way. Please, I’ve heard “flame on” used as a anti-semitic slur, does that now mean that I can call Marvel Comics or the Fantasic Four anti-semitic?
