why are there something called "neocons"

and why are this Republican government called neocons

the word neocon is something i associate with a some sort of secret underground organization that planes to take over the control of a nations and so

Accordign to the Wikipedia article:

Of course, being Wikipedia, that should not be taken as gospel.

Do a keyword search on “neocon” or “neocons” and you’ll find a lot of GD threads discussing who the neocons are, where they come from, and what their goals are.

i’ve read somewhere that the neocons have it’s origins from the far left

It’s a fact that many neocons are jewish or very supportive of zionism and Israel

Some are Jewish; I’ve also heard that many are Christian end-of-the-world types who think the Jews need to be in Israel to confirm Biblical prophecy ( and be killed when it happens ).

Yes – many former neocons were former Trotskyites (i.e., anti-Soviet leftists, dedicated to international socialist revolution) who signed on to support the Cold War. Today, they are still rather similar to Trotskyites in their thinking, but they have substituted capitalism and democracy for socialism as their global end-goal.

One ostensibly left-wing organization generally supports the neocon agenda: The Social Democrats USA. http://www.socialdemocrats.org/

i’ve have the strong impression that all are either jewish or zionists - and as you say very religious - evangelical christians with a stong armageddon perspecive


Those people wouldn’t be neoconservatives, but paleoconservatives.

Neoconservatism is/was a movement of intellectuals and wonks, not mouth-breathing bible-beaters.

Not all zionists–Jewish or otherwise–are neocons.

I’d say “many” is an exaggeration. The only former Trotskyite I can think of right now who became a neocon is David Horowitz. Then there were some Schachtmanites who became neocons, like Irving Kristol, Sidney Hook, and Nathan Glazer, but generally, by the time they were Schactmanites, Schachtman had already split from Trotsky.

Whew! After seeing his first post cut off I was worried that the Neocon Cabal had kidnapped Minotaurus and hauled him off to their secret dungeon (glad to see that’s not the case).

Lots of people love a good conspiracy theory, Minotaurus apparently more than most.

David Brooks had this to say about perceptions of the Evil NeoCons:

*Still, there are apparently millions of people who cling to the notion that the world is controlled by well-organized and malevolent forces. And for a subset of these people, Jews are a handy explanation for everything…You get to choose your own reality. You get to believe what makes you feel good. You can ignore inconvenient facts so rigorously that your picture of the world is one big distortion.

And if you can give your foes a collective name — liberals, fundamentalists or neocons — you can rob them of their individual humanity. All inhibitions are removed. You can say anything about them. You get to feed off their villainy and luxuriate in your own contrasting virtue. You will find books, blowhards and candidates playing to your delusions, and you can emigrate to your own version of Planet Chomsky. You can live there unburdened by ambiguity. *

OTOH, a good case can be made for the neocons-as-a-very-real-evil-or-at-any-rate-stupid-conspiracy-that-really-has-landed-us-all-in-the-shit. See this article by Michael Lind, from the New Statesman, 4/7/03: http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=1189

And a critique by Alan Wald of said article: Are Trotskyites Running the Pentagon? | History News Network

And this rebuttal by Lind and counter-rebuttal by Wald:

Judge for yourself. Lind, at any rate, is a highly respected intellectual figure and not known for gullibility about anything, least of all conspiracy theories.

That’s not true. There are a lot of prominent neocons who aren’t Jewish or evangelical Christian. Jeane Kirkpatrick isn’t Jewish, Pat Moynahan wasn’t Jewish. Condi Rice isn’t, Samuel Huntington isn’t, Francis Fukiyama (who no longer identifies himself as neocon) isn’t, etc. (Then there’s Stephen Schwartz, who had a Jewish father, a Christian mother, and who’s Muslim, so I don’t know where you’d put him)

Lind also has a lot of axes to grind, and he’s not neccesarily objective about this whole issue.

Actually, they would be “Christian Zionists.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism With whom the neocons have formed a slightly uneasy (on the neocons’ part) strategic partnership. From The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge (New York: The Penguin Press, 2004), p. 215:

The paleocons, OTOH – best represented by Pat Buchanan and his America First Party – http://www.americafirstparty.org/ – are committed to social-religious conservatism, nativism (immigration control), economic populism (Main Street vs. Wall Street), economic nationalism (anti-globalization, NAFTA, etc.), and military isolationism. Buchanan is dead against U.S. support for Israel, as well as the GWAT in general. So there’s a significant schism on the American right, where Israel is concerned.

Could you expand on that?

I occasionally hear people allege that “neocon” is just a code word for “Jew,” as a number of prominent neocons in the Bush administration are Jewish. But unless Cheney, Rumsfeld and a lot of other people converted at some point, that seems patently false.

Michael Lind was a neoconservative writer for the National Interest who, after he got upset that there wasn’t more criticism of Pat Robertson from the right, had this “road to Damascus” moment, and declared in “Dissent” that conservative intellectualism is dead, and that the neoconservatives have sold out and now merely work to legitimize and apologize for the anti-intellectual religious right and the racist, anti-democratic and anti-semitic elements of the right wing.

here is an interesting article from the program 60 Minutes on CBS which was aired in 2003


That canard has its origin in a very, IMO, disengenuous article written for the Wall Street Journal in 2003 by Max Boot, who was trying to make a case that the “neocon” label does not really mean anything and the movement as such does not exist at all: Opinion & Reviews - Wall Street Journal David Brooks took that same ball and ran with it, in the article linked above by Jackmanii.