"Neo-Con" is a code word for Jew

[cmkeller]

DSeid:

As I said, it’s the principles and aims of the neocons which would benefit Israel. Granted, the specifics are a bit sticky to deal with.

[PatriotX]

@DSeid

See, for example, this bit from Adbusters in which the names of Jewish neo-cons are starred and their Jewishness implied as a reason and proof of their putting Israel’s interests above the U.S’s.

I call hogshit.
Please reproduce here the sentences, words or phrases that make such an implication.

[Captain_Amazing]

@SimonX

I call hogshit.
Please reproduce here the sentences, words or phrases that make such an implication.

Ok.

Drawing attention to the Jewishness of the neocons is a tricky game. Anyone who does so can count on automatically being smeared as an anti-Semite. But the point is not that Jews (who make up less than 2 percent of the American population) have a monolithic perspective…The point is simply that the neocons seem to have a special affinity for Israel that influences their political thinking and consequently American foreign policy in the Middle East.

(The Jewishness of neocons explains the "special affinity for Israel)

A lot of ink has been spilled chronicling the pro-Israel leanings of American neocons and fact that a the disproportionate percentage of them are Jewish. Some commentators are worried that these individuals – labeled ‘Likudniks’ for their links to Israel’s right wing Likud party – do not distinguish enough between American and Israeli interests

(“Some commentators” say neocons "do not distinguish enough between American and Israeli interests. “A disproportionate percentage” of neocons are Jewish.)

What they all share is the view that the US is a benevolent hyper power that must protect itself by reshaping the rest of the world into its morally superior image. And half of the them are Jewish.

(Oh, what a coincidence! Half of these people are Jewish!)

Why does the piece even mention the Judaism of the neocons if not to suggest there’s some link between that Judaism and their views?

[jshore]

@cmkeller

DSeid:

As I said, it’s the principles and aims of the neocons which would benefit Israel. Granted, the specifics are a bit sticky to deal with.

Isn’t this getting pretty close to tautology. Well, not quite tautology…but a pretty weak point in my book.

[spingears]

Question: If President Bush is an enlightened Christian and even Islamic in much of his thinking, how can he be presiding over the imposition of a global pagan empire?

The most compassionate explanation in answer to your question is that Bush is a compassionate conservative who has been hijacked by reactionary conservatives and radical nationalists, together often known simply as neo-conservatives, whose highest purpose is to secure the power of secular Zionism, in a unique alliance with Evangelical millennarians, all dedicated to the pursuit of imperialist policies totally incompatible with President Bush’s natural instincts.

From:The American Muslim March-April 2003 Issue
BARBARISMS, BOMBS, AND PAGAN EMPIRES: The Arab Bomb: An Ultimate Defense Against the New Pagan Empire?
By An Interview with Dr. Robert D. Crane
<Theamericanmuslim.org>

[PatriotX]

@Captain Amazing

(The Jewishness of neocons explains the "special affinity for Israel)

The article says Jewishness is not indicative of ideology
The article also says that Gentiles are neocons.
I’m not sure how one gets the idea that the Jewishness (which isn’t indicative of ideology anyway) of Gentiles is the reason for their ‘special affinity’ for Israel.

@Captain Amazing

(“Some commentators” say neocons "do not distinguish enough between American and Israeli interests. “A disproportionate percentage” of neocons are Jewish.)

This article is commentary on the commentary on neocons.
To note that some have worried that neocons do not distinguish enough between American and Israeli interests is not the same as implying that Jewishness is the “reason” for these worries let alone the “proof”.
Even ADL’s Abrham Foxman noted that it’s legitmate to question the “pro-Israel leanings of administration officials.”

@Captain Amazing

(Oh, what a coincidence! Half of these people are Jewish!)

This is not the same as “Jewishness [being] implied as a reason and proof of their putting Israel’s interests above the U.S’s.”
Noting the ancestry of a subset of a group is something other than implying that the ancestry of this subset is repsonsible for the actions or beliefs of the entire group.

More to the main thrust of the OP
Take a look at this commentary:
Israel’s Role: The ‘Elephant’ They’re Talking About
FEBRUARY 28, 2003
By AMI EDEN
… Jewish and Israeli influence in shaping American foreign policy.
…an image of President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon working in tandem to promote war against Iraq. Several of them described an administration packed with conservatives motivated primarily, if not solely, by a dedication to defending Israel.
…the role of American Jewish organizations in the equation…
“Over the past dozen years or more, supporters of Sharon’s Likud Party have moved into leadership roles in most of the American Jewish organizations that provide financial and political support for Israel.”
…lead editorial urging Bush to ignore “so-called friends of Israel who will accuse Mr. Bush of ‘appeasement’ the moment he pushes hard for territorial compromise.”

[Acsenray]

@SimonX

This is my experience; others may think differently. But what I have found is that Neo-Con has become a political code-word for “male.”

Good one. You can also do it with “white.”

[Guinastasia]

I was under the impression too that a lot of neocons are conservative fundamentalist Christians. Was I wrong?

[Captain_Amazing]

Very few neocons are fundamentalist Christians.

[Acsenray]

Indeed, the policies favored by Christian conservatives and those favored by the neo-conservatives differ widely on a number of points.

[RTFirefly]

@PaulFitzroy

This is my experience in political discussion. Whenever people, whether they be liberals or old-line conservatives, use the term “neo-con,” they’re always talking about the same people: Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Bill Kristol, and the philosopher Leo Strauss. All Jewish. Neo-conservativism is usually discussed as a type of conservatism based only on political cynicism and lacking the traditional moral values that constitute “real” conservatism. And it’s usually used as a term of contempt. And the topic of Israel always seems to seep in whenever you’re talking to someone and that “N-word” comes up.

This is my experience; others may think differently. But what I have found is that Neo-Con has become a political code-word for “Jew.”

I didn’t know Dick Cheney was Jewish! When did he convert?

[rfgdxm]

@Captain Amazing

Very few neocons are fundamentalist Christians.

More than a very few neocons are fundamentalist Christians. Biggest problem is there are different definitions of “neocon” out there. And fundamentalists Christians have changed political priorities. Back in the days of Reagan, international politics was much more important to them. The US had to fight those godless commies and all. Today, fundamentalists Christians are more focused on being anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, prayer in schools, etc. They see the biggest problems in politics today internal issues, and not the global position of the US. This perceived Jewish connection with neoconservatism is one reason fundamentalist Christians look down on neocons. The biggest supporters of Israel in the US tend to be Democrats. Jews in the US are far more likely to vote Democrat.

[Guinastasia]

True, but I’m thinking of the fundamentalists who are staunch Israel supporters, because they believe in fulfilling some destiny about the end times or whatever.

[rfgdxm]

@Guinastasia

True, but I’m thinking of the fundamentalists who are staunch Israel supporters, because they believe in fulfilling some destiny about the end times or whatever.

Most fundamentalists would hold that the power of Christ is so great that the second coming could happen if Christ wanted to without any help from the US. And, fundamentalists believe in Biblical inerrancy. Many would consider the Jews unworthy, and their leaders almost 2,000 years ago conspired to kill Jesus. Not to mention that in the US, Jews don’t tend to support their social agenda. Such as a constitutional amendment allowing school prayer.

[rfgdxm]

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/page1055.html

“Yet, ironically, it is now primarily Christian conservatives who make up the paleocons opposing aid to Israel. Instead of seeing Jews as fellow kindred, these Christians see Jews as hostile to Christianity, and therefore are less inclined to support Israel. Instead of welcoming Jews – who have generally been considered solidly liberal - into the Republican party, many paleocons are suspicious of their intentions. Paleocons accuse the Republican party of being overrun by neocons, and many paleocons believe that Jewish conservatives are behind this. The accusations have gotten quite touchy, with many paleocons accusing Jewish conservatives of using anti-Semitic accusations to bully their way around and push their own agenda. Of course, when paleocon Pat Buchanan throws around phrases like, “Congress is Israeli-controlled territory,” there is an argument that can be made that a remark like that could be construed as anti-Semitic.”

[Kimstu]

Guin: I’m thinking of the fundamentalists who are staunch Israel supporters, because they believe in fulfilling some destiny about the end times or whatever.

Those would be the self-described “Christian Zionists”. Zogby’s take on the neocon/fundamentalist axis:

This Christian fundamentalist view maintained that, although all Jews must ultimately be converted into Christianity in order to fulfill the prophecies, Israel must be supported at all costs. Hence the strong support given by the religious right to Israel.

Although the neo-conservatives are secular (and oftentimes quite liberal in their social outlook) and the religious right is theologically-based, these two currents share a number of ideas:

both currents are Manicheistic, i.e., they see the world in absolute black and white, good and evil;

both currents define the forces of good as being led by the U.S. and Israel and see the forces of evil (once defined as the Soviet Union and now [seen] as “the axis of evil” states supporting terror) as including Arabs and Islam;

both currents are confrontational and uncompromising. They believe that there can be no accommodation made with those representing evil. Both, therefore, seek confrontation and conflict, not a resolution of tensions through negotiations; and

both currents are absolutist, since their ideology will allow only for total victory.

[PatriotX]

Part of the issue is reaching a definition of who is and who is not a neocon.

Here’re some thoughts from some horses:
*cribbed from here*

**The Neoconservative Persuasion**

…one can say 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.
…neoconservative policies, reaching out beyond the traditional political and financial base, have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters. Nor has it passed official notice that it is the neoconservative public policies, not the traditional Republican ones, that result in popular Republican presidencies.

Neocons feel at home in today’s America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not.

The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives–though not with those libertarian conservatives who are conservative in economics but unmindful of the culture.
Because religious conservatism is so feeble in Europe, the neoconservative potential there is correspondingly weak.

The older, traditional elements in the Republican party have difficulty coming to terms with this new reality in foreign affairs, just as they cannot reconcile economic conservatism with social and cultural conservatism.
cribbed from here

What the Heck Is a Neocon?
Max Boot

…support for Israel – a key tenet of neoconservatism…

The National Security Strategy that he released in September – which calls for “encouraging free and open societies on every continent” – sounds as if it could have come straight from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible. [the monthly of the American Jewish Committee]

One group of conservatives believes that we should use armed force only to defend our vital national interests… The idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East they denounce as a mad, hubristic dream likely to backfire with tragic consequences. This view…[called] “realism,” is championed by foreign-policy mandarins like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker III.

…[Neocons] think…“realism” presents far too crabbed a view of American power and responsibility. …[suggesting] we need to promote our values…[because] liberal democracies rarely fight one another, sponsor terrorism, or use weapons of mass destruction. If we are to avoid another 9/11, they argue, we need to liberalize the Middle East…
…[Neocons] embrace Woodrow Wilson’s championing of American ideals but reject his reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish our objectives.
There’re the neocons who’re those that the persasion’s named for, and there’re the more recent converts to this peculiar persuasion.

I suspect that the originals are are more secular than not. The neo-neocons are a more mixed bunch. Certainly there’re a number of people who’ve came to neoconservatism (of a sort) through their local church.

Agressive wars in the name of Democracy seem to be one of the several hallmarks of neoconism. IMHO, none of it seem particularly conservative.