In the 1800s, the Jewish intellectual Karl Marx formulated the ideology of Marxism, and his immediate followers were the political leaders of the Russian Bolshevic Movement who were mostly Jewish. Also, the American Communist Party of the early 1900s was started by Jewish radicals. But then, as Stalin came to power in Russia, he supported anti-Semitic policies and rejected Israel. The Left also did not support Israeli Zionist Policies. So Jewish political leaders decided to leave Marxism and instead they then formulated the ideology of Neo-Conservatism (different from Traditional Conservatism, or Paleo-Conservatism). This new Conservatism would support radical capitalism, but instead of the ethnocentrism, nationalism, protectionism, anti-war stance, and anti-Israel/anti-Semitism of the Old Right, this new conservatism would support multi-culturalism, feminism, open-borders, empire building, and especially Israel, Zionism, and the Jews. Additional sources:
I’m not sure multi-culturalism, feminism and support for open borders are hallmarks of the current administration, which has many neo-conservatives in it. Your post also contains or implies a number of overgeneralizations.
Nah. A number of early founders of Neo-Conservatism were Jewish and strong support for Israel is a Neo-Conservative trademark, but there are a lot of neo-cons who are not Jewish and there is nothing “Jewish” about that political philosophy.
We had an interesting discussion on this topic from a different perspective (complete with the usual vituperation, calumny, and, occasionally, a fact) in the previous thread “Neo-Con” is a code word for Jew.
We have also entertained an actual Ask the Neo-Con thread. (Note, also, the Wikipedia article on Neo-Conservatism linked in this thread)
(Note, also, that the word “neo-conservative” is of fairly recent coinage–much later than the 19th century antecedents purported in some of the links of the OP–indicating a typically American style liberal who has changed his political outlook to be a “new” conservative.)
Not to sidetrack the OP’s Jew hunt, but since we’re dicussing neocons - from this Wikipedia quote on Neoconservatism in the United States I’m interested in this underlined part. Ny all accounts the neo-cons in the GWB Adminstation were mainly the ones making the case (by hook or by crook) for invading Iraq. How does that square with the underlined characterization below?
A friend of mine is a Conspiracy Theory believer. Here’s his take (as I remember it): Many Neo-Cons are Fundamentalist Christians. These fundies take the Bible literally and believe in the prophesies (in Revelations, I think). In order to bring about the Second Coming of Christ, Heaven on Earth, etc., we need to have the Battle of Armageddon. They believe that Israel is critical to bringing about Judgement Day. They believe (again, according to my friend) that the Jews will accept Jesus in the end. (Those who don’t will be cast into Hell.) So he says that the Neo-Cons are supporting Israel to bring about Judgement Day.
That’s pretty damned wacky. But then I look at the current administration, and… :eek:
Wickipedia is no unimpeachable source of reliable information–let alone an authoritative arbiter on precisely how relatively new additions to the English vocabulary are to be defined–a fact they’re upfront about.
A passage of Wickipedia’s stance on neoconservatism you omitted reads as follows: "Neoconservatism is a somewhat controversial term referring to the political goals and ideology of the ‘new conservatives’ in the United States. The ‘newness’ refers either to being new to American conservatism (often coming from liberal or socialist backgrounds) or to being part of a ‘new wave’ of conservative thought and political organization. "
Merriam Webster’s defines neoconservatism as “a former liberal espousing political conservatism.”
Not so much different, except where Wickipedia adds the the secondary definition where neoconservatism represents a “…‘new wave’ of conservative thought and political organization.”
I’d say Wickipedia overstepped their boundaries. But there’s another take on neoconservatism, offered by www.socialpolicy.ca/n.htm: “An ideological term characterizing parties or politicians who not only advocate an end to government expansion, but believe in reducing its role via downsizing, privatization, and deregulation.”
Ok. I’m willing to accept that as a definition (Sometimes you must look beyond Merriam Webster’s conservatism in order to see all the baggage a new word has collected in its adolescence). The problem is there’s nothing neo, i.e. new about any of that. Reducing the role of Government? Privatization? Deregulation?
Neoconservatives may have cast off Greg Wilson’s careful sifting of statistics–pointing at every Jewish name he sees dispersed upon the globe after the Diaspora as justification for his I-crawled-out-from-under-a-rock antisemitism–but that issue aside, I don’t see how new conservatives differ fundamentally from the old.
Neo-conservativism is Jewish. Liberalism (and their control of the media) is Jewish. Capitalism is Jewish. Communism is Jewish. Radicalism is Jewish. The conspiricy of the status quo is Jewish.
Funny that. Jews are like light, wave and particle at the same time quantum-like.
Non-pc truth be told, there have been Jews involved in most intellectual movements of Western thought … sometimes even within Christian theology. So yes, name your political stripe or your intellectual interest and you can find your Jews to blame.
However, it has a bit of truth in it. “They” are different from “us”. -Xenophobia. “They” are just like us". So how will “we” know who “they” are. - Paranoia. No matter what it is, someone wants to blame “them” for it. -Scapegoating.
Your central thread of logic seems to be: Marxism was attractive to many Jews. Marxism becomes communism (many Jews) which equals “the left” (and we know how many Jews they have).
Social justice is a big thing for Jews. A big thing. It should come as no surprise that this new economical model would be appealing to many Jews. It was probably attractive to many non-Jews. How come we never hear anything about them?
Secondly, I believe that Stalin was actually an early supporter of the State of Israel. Czeckoslovakia at his bidding, helped armed the nascent state
I see neo-cons as pro-intervention people who desire strongly to take out strong dictators aound the world, conservative and liberal, especially those who proved destructive to their region, and hostile to US interests.
As former liberals, they were lobbying for decades for Democrats to take some out. They finally found resonance in Karl Rove, and Bush, especially after 9/11.
I’m fuzzy about the historical specifics of that time period, but were the attacks on the US left leading to McCarthyism seen as targetting “the Jews”?
Did people at the time make the same assumptions we often hear about the current neo-conservative movement? (i.e., Jewish dominated)
I see neo-cons as pro-intervention people who desire strongly to take out . . . [governements] around the world . . . who proved . . . hostile to [their perceived] US interests.
There has been no call from any neo-con to do anything about Hosni Said Mubarak, Pervez Musharraf, Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, Amir Jabir al-Ahmad al-Jabir Al Sabah, or the Saud family. I am not arguing that all of them deserve to be removed, but neo-con calls to bring down the Syrian government while ignoring the Jordanian government display their less than impartial (or realistic) response to the world situation.
Basically, they do not really care whether a governement is “liberal” or “conservative” or a dictatorship or elected. They only care that (their odd view of) U.S. interests be preserved, regardless of the cost. In this, they are little different than most of their predecessors. Their singular difference in the Middle East has been a loyalty to Israel regardless of Israel’s policies and a fervent belief in Wolfowitz’s term paper that if we can impose a democracy on Iraq, all the rest of the region will overthrow their tyrants to establish a US. style pluralistic, republican form of government, ignoring all the religious and ethnic divisions and culture that currently exist among them.
I think the perceived absolute loyalty to Israel is part of what inspires the idea that “neo-conservatism is a Jewish movement”, even though there are prominent non-Jewish neo-cons.
But is the loyalty to Israel that simple and absolute? I don’t see the neo-con loyalty to Israel as a desire to serve the best interests of Israeli citizens, or Jewish people in general.
And I don’t think it’s a matter of loyalty “regardless of Israel’s policies”, but more that the neo-cons admire and seek to emulate the policies of the more hard-line Israeli governments over the years.
Of course, it is too broad brush to speak of “the neo-cons”, just as it is to speak of “the Jews” or the Muslims".
I think some neo-cons are “true believers”, and some are simply paying lip service and using those believers for purely personal selfish and greedy ends.
I think that Wikipedia article is somewhat poorly worded. It’s not saying that the neocons aspired to the views described in the underlined section, but rather that they were opponents of those views, i.e. they were the neocons’ target for attack.
