Hating those dreadful neocons (Part I): cavils about cabals
Neocons are the folks so many people love to hate. And hate to love.
To many, “neocon” has become an epithet. And this was true quite some time before the Iraq War.
Some of the people using the term that way haven’t any real idea of what a neocon stands for. Some have an idea, but it’s vague and/or incorrect. And, no doubt, some who hate neocons know quite well what they stand for.
One of the things that prompted this post is an encounter I had with a good friend of mine recently. She and I hadn’t discussed politics in quite a long time, after a few initial forays into the topic hadn’t gone well. She’s not very political anyway, and it’s not something I need to talk about, so we got into the “agree to disagree and leave it at that” mold.
I was stunned, however, when she brought up politics herself, much to my surprise. She was clearly agitated and quite disturbed by something; she was hemming and hawing as she said she needed to ask me a question.
Apparently she’d spoken to another friend of hers who’d insisted that neocons have a pernicious approach to, among other things, freedom of speech–to wit, they wish to end it. “Is that really true?” she asked me.
If I had then gone to my closet, taken out a Klan hood or a Nazi armband and put either (or both) on, I don’t think she would have been especially surprised. But instead, I tried to give her a little summary course on what neocons are about, including the fact that neocons actually don’t advocate invading country after country to accomplish the spread of democracy and human rights, and that the invasion of Iraq (although I don’t particularly want to raise that discussed-ad-nauseum-topic again here) was multi-determined; the goal of spreading democracy alone probably would not have been enough to have gone to war there. I also told her that neocons don’t necessarily support the exact ways in which the Bush administration has handled post-invasion Iraq, nor do they always agree even with each other.
And, of course, they’re all for freedom of speech. In fact, they advocate it. Because the type of democracy neocons favor–democracy with human rights and constitutional guarantees, so-called “liberal” democracy (ironic, that, is it not?)–includes freedom of speech, naturally.
The conversation ended–she seemed relieved, and asked for a recommendation for something to read to learn more. I mentioned a book I’m about a third of the way into, by Douglas Murray, entitled Neoconservatism: Why We Need It.
It’s one thing to disagree with neocons on substantive issues, and especially on strategy. That’s not hatred; that’s argument and differences of opinion. It’s quite another to consider them evil, and ascribe to them positions they do not advocate, although many do. This is an emotional thing; and there’s an emotional basis for it–or maybe several emotional bases (that’s why this is Part I; there’s a Part II coming).
As I said, this antipathy is hardly a result of the Iraq War; it was present beforehand. What’s it about?
It takes a different form than the rabid hatred of Bush, referred to in the blogopshere as BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). BDS has to do with a perception of Bush as stupid, theocratically inclined (for the US, that is), anti-science, nuclear-mispronouncing and of course, warmongering (remember, he planned 9/11, at least according to my spam mail).
No, except for the “warmongering” part, the neocons are hated for other reasons. They are considered smarter, though just as evil, if not more (actually, Bush is often portrayed as their clueless dupe).
Neocons are widely perceived as Jewish. Although it’s certainly not the case that all of them are, it’s true that Jews are overrepresented among them. And so it is impossible to ignore or discount the influence of that perennial favorite–anti-Semitism–on the phenomenon of neocon-hatred, although of course many people who hate neocons will try to do exactly that.
Note, for example, the predominance of the word “cabal” in so many diatribes against neocons. Here’s information on the term, which means “a conspiratorial group of plotters or intriguers.” And, of course, there’s derivation of the word, which is not at all obscure or difficult to figure out:
The term cabal derives from Kabbalah (a word that has numerous spelling variations), the mystical interpretation of the Hebrew scripture, and originally meant either an occult doctrine or a secret. It was introduced into English in the publication of Cabala, a curious medley of letters and papers of the reigns of James and Charles I that appeared in 1654.
But the use of the word “cabal” alone does not an anti-Semite make. One of the many hallmarks of anti-Semitism, however (almost a fingerprint), is a situation in which Jews are not allowed the same sort of leeway others are; when they are held to higher or different standards than the rest. So neocons are not allowed to simply be a group of people who share a particular approach to foreign policy–for example, much as the realpolitikers are–and with whom many happen to disagree. An approach which, like all approaches, is flawed, and leads sometimes to difficulties. An approach advocated by people who are sincere and well-meaning, but perhaps misguided, according to detractors.
No, they are evil plotters, bent on controlling the world for their own nefarious purposes, much like those Elders of Zion we’ve heard so much about:
…[The Protocals of the Elders of Zion] is an antisemitic literary forgery that purports to describe a Jewish plot to achieve world domination…Scholars generally agree that the Okhrana, the secret police of the Russian Empire, fabricated the text in the late 1890s or early 1900s….he Protocols are widely considered to be the beginning of contemporary conspiracy theory literature, and take the form of an instruction manual to a new member of the “elders,” describing how they will run the world through control of the media and finance, and replace the traditional social order with one based on mass manipulation….It is still frequently quoted and reprinted by antisemites, and is sometimes used as evidence of an alleged Jewish cabal, especially in the Middle East.
The idea that a small group of plotting Jews are trying to take over the world has a long and illustrious history, I’m afraid. The plotters here are seen as incredibly intelligent and almost magically powerful, not stupid–although evil.
Hitler, of course, was perhaps the best example of one who ascribes wholeheartedly to the “evil Jewish cabal” theory. Here are some words he penned as he was about to kill himself, when all was lost for his glorious Reich. To his dying day, it was still the Jews, the Jews, the evil plotting Jews. This is the form the accusation took, which is the pertinent point:
It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939. It was wanted and provoked solely by international statesmen either of Jewish origin or working for Jewish interests…[F]rom the ruins of our towns and monuments the hatred of those ultimately responsible will always grow anew against the people whom we have to thank for all this: international Jewry and its henchmen.
Am I saying that neocon-haters are Nazis? No, no, a thousand times no. But the idea that neocons are “an evil Jewish conspiracy” rather than “a group of people sincerely trying to come up with a solution to the problem of third world misery as well as the threat angry Islamic totalitarians present to us” is an example of demonization of those with whom one disagrees. Hitler represented an extreme of this same impulse.
One can certainly disagree with the solutions neocons offer in terms of theory or practicality or effectiveness. But that’s true of almost every approach to policy. It’s hard, however, to see how anyone could disagree with the ultimate desirability of the “neocon agenda,” if achieved–democracy and human rights for all, although one can easily disagree with the details of its execution (I certainly have). But demonizing the neocons themselves and their motivations, in the way of the neocon-haters, is quite another story, and indicates that something else is at play here.
[Part II tomorrow: other reasons behind neo-hatred, on both the Left and the Right.]
TC:
“I don’t espouse the view that I offered”
Yeah, you were for antisemitism before you were against it. But it is consistent with something you said previously:
“That probably doesn’t make any sense at all-sorry..”
I’m continually amazed at the outpouring of hatred against Bush and the neocons. It’s really a mental illness. There exists genuine evil in the world, but these angry people cannot see it for their hatred of Bush and the neocons.
Bush and the 109th congress, people who got MY vote, subverted democracy and systematically excluded half the country. There’s your hatred.
Now we apparently expect better of the democrats, which is why you hear the word “bipartisan” so much from republicans lately.
And if Bush isn’t stupid, well, he’s no Eisenhower. Eisenhower listened to scientists. He relied on them. Now we have THIS guy in charge of our party.
Is this what we are, really? Do we want science itself to become a “liberal” stance? Are we the Amish now?
I like your blog. Keep it up.
Bush and the 109th congress, people who got MY vote, subverted democracy and systematically excluded half the country. There’s your hatred.
No coherent argument, no facts presented, no examples given, no links, credible or otherwise, just a flat statement. Typical medium BDS. Advanced BDS involves name-calling and vulgarisms.
…and strangely enough, nothing to do with “neocons”, the subject of the post. Drive-by trolling, anyone?
Orson Scott Card, prominent science-fiction writer and moderate hawk, frequently gets blasted by people from both sides of the aisle. He recently wrote a novel called Empire, which posits a civil war between red and blue staters.
In his Afterword, he makes a cogent point about how civil wars start and how we could very well end up in one.
…everybody thinks it’s the other guy who would be the oppressor, while our side would simply “set things to rights.”
Rarely do people set out to start a civil war. Invariably, when such wars break out both sides consider themselves to be the aggrieved ones. … The moment one group feels itself so aggrieved that it uses either its own weapons or the weapons of the state to “prevent” the other side from bringing about its supposed “evil” designs, then that other side will have no choice but to take up arms against them. Both sides will believe the other to be the instigator.
I have seen “knife-sharpening” comments from Left and Right: “someday it’s gonna come to blows, you just wait and see…”
And on the Right, the grim reminder that the conservatives are better armed.
Right now it’s mostly confined to the blogosphere, but when it becomes the water-cooler talk… watch out.
.
To the left, motivation is more important than results. Since they “care” more for the poor than their opponents, they win the moral high ground, regardless of whether or not their policies have the desired effect.
Also, notice the demonization of their opponents. A prime example is Amanda of Pandagon/John Edwards. I’ve recetnly read many of her posts, and she doesn’t even attempt to rebuke any form of conservatism. The Religious Right just wants to keep her from having sex. Bush just wants to enrich his oil buddies. People defend the Duke Lacrosse players only because they’re rich white boys. The Catholic Church opposes birth control only because it wants more tithers.
Furthermore, this emphasis is a brilliant debating tactic. When discussing affirmative action, they need only say “you don’t care about black people,” so by defending yourself the topic is no longer on the merits of AA but instead on whether or not you “care.” As they bring up motivation, you end up playing defense.
Be not surprised by the hatred, Ms. Neocon, for their demonization of their opponents isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.
“Neocon” is such a convenient strawman, an easily accessible handle on which to project dire thoughts and hatred on. It’s completely an act of stereotyping, totally bringing to mind post US Civil War KKK propaganda (“Birth of a Nation”, anyone?), or the current denigrating portrayal of “Jews” among radical Islamic militants and their western enablers. So little thought behind it, little but broad suspicion and contumelious stereotyping. Yet, people who cry “Neocon” as an epithet don’t see the irony of applying it so liberally on anyone holding favorable opinions on Iraq or the military without any consideration for any of the rest of their points of view, or reasons for their stances to begin with. Such free application of stereotypes is the epitome of close minded belief, which is where the irony comes in; most who use the term “Neocon!” as invective consider themselves as liberal and open-minded. It’s somewhat sad to find that such “open-mindedness” is selective.
But it’s to be expected from most who are so willing to dump the label on people. It’s easier to cry “Neocon!” as disparagement than deal with the substance of someone’s stance, or their argument’s legitimacy.
I think the anti-semitic connection is exactly right, neo, and insightful. The only question is why it so infects the left, even the liberal-left, at this time. And the answer, as it so often is, has to do with belief systems and values that are felt to be threatened in some way. Under such conditions, when it looks as though history and reality are moving away from what used to seem so certain and righteous, and waverers within the faithful seem growing every day, there’s nothing quite so sustaining as finding a small group — a cabal indeed — to use as a focus for all that is wrong in the world, and as a bogey with which to cow the waverers. And jews, sad to say, have long had to play just that role, in culture after culture. Post-holocaust, all that’s changed is that it’s now necessary to find euphemisms for this age-old bigotry and scapegoating — now you just invoke the specter of the “zionist” or “neo-con” cabals.
Of course, for those whose identity is not quite so invested in a fading ideology — e.g., your friend — such a bogey doesn’t have quite the desired impact. A calm discussion can often be enough to counter it, at least for a while. For the truer believers, however — e.g., the more obsessive and repetitive trolls here — it’s hard to see anything overcoming their increasingly desperate fear and their need to find some group to hate. They really are like lost souls.
And the refrain of the neocons is……”the muslims, the muslims, the evil plotting muslims”
Do you people ever look in the mirror?
and the refrain of the Justaguys is….”the Jews, the Jews, the evil plotting Jews”
Do you Justaguys ever look in the mirror?
Because, of course, no muslim has ever plotted against us. Right, justa….?
Well, I get to be just a conservative and not a neo-conservative. I see conservatives as pragmatists and the new strategy for democracy=security just makes sense and certainly couldn’t be worse than the old stability=security of the realpolitik which was a proven failure. If the neocons could just hop onto the “smaller government, less social programs” bus and realize that is the opposite side of the coin for a vitalized society that is willing to defend itself (all credit due to Mark Steyn here), that would be great. But the WOT comes first.
justadixk:
Do you ever read what you write? Or, is it reflexive?
Most neo-cons of my acquaintance are the standard “liberals mugged by reality” who knew that continuing to do the same things that didn’t work over and over and expecting different results because this time the “objective reality” planets were lied up, was an exercise in futility.
I’ve never been anything other than a conservative with the exception of a couple of years when I flirted with the liberal wing of the “Republican Party. I find that the most interesting neo-cons seem to be the ex leftists and the red diaper babies, followed by left liberals.
I am disgusted by the covert and overt anti-semitism directed at them but its’ been coming ever since the Palis became leftist darlings.
Dicentra, in some of the circles I move in, its’ gone beyond knife sharpening and moved into the realm of impatience for the dance to start; a sort of initial prep of the battle ground, just to sort things out.
Justaguy: And the refrain of the neocons is……”the muslims, the muslims, the evil plotting muslims”
This is something I’ve noticed a LOT in the last four years. For the conservatives, including neoconservatives, the main enemy has always been external. For the leftists, or at least the opponents of the war and the Bush administration, the main enemy has always been their political opponents in the US.
I feel compeled to say, Neo, that every politically ideological group of people since the beggining of recorded history to the present day has always been ‘amazed’ at how much other groups ‘hated’ them, especially since they were ‘only trying to do what was best for everyone’. The idea that the Neocons are more hated, more publicly reviled, more distrusted and lambasted than common is, I think, untrue.
As for the Jewish thing, the fact is that Jewish individuals are prominent at practically all possible spaces on the political spectrum. The idea that attacks on neocons have a particularly anti-semitic tinge can easily be countered by examining attacks on liberals, or communists, or libertarians etc, all of whom have Jewish people as major figures.
Besides, the rather hysterical accusation flying from this blog (and others) against those who oppose neoconservativism (‘They WANT us to lose. They HATE America.’) leads me to believe that it’s not al respectful disagreement on your side either.
“…everybody thinks it’s the other guy who would be the oppressor, while our side would simply “set things to rights.”
Liberals and “progressives” scream the loudest about Bush shredding the Constitution and striping Americans of their rights. Only they are unable to tell you exactly which rights are being taken from them. It certainly couldn’t be the freedom of speech, they exercise that with abandon, not at all caring what effects their words have. More angry shock, the more vulgar the better.
Meanwhile, I hear that the new Democrat Congress, (Ohhh…that alone pisses them off!), is planning more “hate” crimes resolutions, which naturally, will not apply to the special political protected groups its meant to protect. Along with a “Fairness Doctrine” to demand traditional conservative talk radio make room for liberal views that couldn’t make it with their own separate networks. They often accuse us of being “Orwellian”.
Bunnies is right. Its about motivations and feelings that matter, not truth. Now, not all liberals are that way but most Ive talked to are. (Im friggin surrounded here). That’s why there must be such a degree of control on speech and thought. Liberals would like to tell you 2 and 2 equals 5. They even have scientific consensus that says so. You are a mean bigoted homophobic racist and your going to loose your tenure if you disagree.
If Bush is the guy who’s the oppressive dictator, he’s not doing such a great job of that either.
Loyal Achates: The idea that the Neocons are more hated, more publicly reviled, more distrusted and lambasted than common is, I think, untrue.
I think neocons have been treated with about the same level of hostility as communists.
The idea that attacks on neocons have a particularly anti-semitic tinge can easily be countered by examining attacks on liberals, or communists, or libertarians etc, all of whom have Jewish people as major figures.
No, the specific attack is that the neocons (especially at the top) are part of a Jewish plot. I’ve read a number of comments to the effect that they are part of Zionist control / influence over the US gov. While pointing out that Jews are prominent in other political movements (Karl Marx was Jewish) is a good counter to that argument, it isn’t the same as saying the communist party (etc.) is a Jewish plot. (Although some anti-Semites have made that claim as well — though I have only heard that claim when I specifically researched the history of conspiracy theories.)
Besides, the rather hysterical accusation flying from this blog (and others) against those who oppose neoconservativism (‘They WANT us to lose. They HATE America.’) leads me to believe that it’s not al respectful disagreement on your side either.
It’s not hysterical when the left keeps taking actions that indicate they do indeed want us to lose, and that they really don’t like America as it is (they love what they could make it, of course). This isn’t nearly universal, but it’s prominent enough to be noticed.
Neocons are united by three things — contempt of counterculture, advocacy of pro-growth economics, and being a military force for good in the world.
This is best understood in terms of the paleocons, who seek a homogenous culture, protectionist economic policies, and isolationist foreign policies. Neoconservatism is optimistic, cosmopolitan, liberal in the classic sense, and globalist.
Rather than blindly support tradition, neocons make a distinction between traditions, and dare to believe the classics have something to teach us.
Our culture is dominated by the three prophets of collectivist-liberalism: Marx, Freud, and Darwin. Marx thought that all social systems were a sham, and Freud instilled the idea that most reasons were simply rationalizations. Darwin provides the positive side of ideology, implying by his doctrine that everything is a raw struggle for power– the left’s relativist defense against a value-based politics is power itself.
Paleocons have nothing rational to say against that, except for kind words about Prudence and Wisdom. They say Providence has given us a great tradition, and if we deviate from it, we unleash the dark side of man. This argument is impotent when socialism itself becomes the tradition.
Neocons argue something different. One, like the classics, they see ought as implying is– Max Weber’s fact-value distinction is rejected. Secondly, neocons reject the Sophist distinction made through Rousseau and beyond about nature and society. Instead, neocons see men as born incomplete, as society as something that completes the programming.
So you can see why the kind of regime a society has matters to the neocon philosophy, while it doesn’t matter to the paleocon and the liberal-collectivist. You can also see why the Marxist pattern of exposing everything as hypocritcal is rejected, along with the value-free Psychological Man and the language of relativism, victimhood, and therapy that surrounds him. And the Darwinist spirit that everything is permitted identified as the self-destructive nonsense that it is — we are conscious beings, and the human soul that sits in judgment of itself has always been a problem for the crude materialist reductionist.
poskonig, Marx didn’t think all social systems were a sham. He thought there was a natural progression, with communism as the goal and final stage. He believed that every part of society (religion, family norms, etc.) was a reflection of the dominant economic system of that society, and consequently that not only the economic system, but the entire society must be destroyed to advance to the next stage. Of course, he saw it as a natural process; it was Lenin who believed you could hurry up and skip stages.
Also, there is a definite difference between what Darwin actually wrote and ‘Darwinism,’ particularly Social Darwinism.
Of course, the same is true of Marx. I guess I’ve studied Marx and Darwin, so I know what they said, as opposed to what later Marxists and Darwinists did and said in their names. In re-reading your post, I’d guess you are talking about what 20th century Marxists and Social Darwinists think, rather than what the two men whose names have been stuck to those movements thought.
pajamas–
Marx’s vision of the future was a society without order where groups existed without individuals– a formless, hazy dreamworld. Like Chomsky, Marx never spelled out how the perfect regime looks like. No positive program is ever offered, just a vision of heaven on Earth used to condemn everything on Earth.
I’ve read more than my share of Marx. I went through a socialist stage myself, and probably am the only one here who has read all three volumes of Das Kapital.
The claim that Darwin was not a Darwinist is a commonplace, and it is also false. Darwin was a Darwinist in the real sense of the term– a scientific racist in the worst way. Of course, instead of claiming Darwin was a man of his time, there is a hysterical effort to make Darwin out to be a saint, a defender of the truth against the powers that be. This happens because in the liberal-collectivist mythology, Darwinism is not a scientific theory explaining how events interlock, but an all-encompassing creation myth permeating down through every aspect of human reality.
guy in pj’s, love your stuff. I would particularly like to pick up on your external/internal distinction. I have been saying something related lately. To the liberals, the battle is for the Soul of America. Conservatives are also interested in this question, but tend to be more focused on enemies. Bush and the neocons are fighting a GWOT (whether you think he is doing that well or ill is not my point at the moment). The others, including some brands of conservative, believe that getting America right will fix the other problems eventually. Some religious conservatives use it. Our Muslim enemies certainly teach that if they can just get nations to really obey Allah, the rest will follow. It is an old idea, and one that hasn’t had much success in history.
This view may explain why the left has been so obsessed with quoting majority opinion as evidence of whether we are winning in Iraq or not. “Well, 57, 63, 72% of Americans think not!” That would be a fairly irrelevant measure of whether we were winning in Iraq. But it’s an excellent measure of whether they are winning the battle they are really fighting.
‘I think neocons have been treated with about the same level of hostility as communists.’
Really? Have there been major efforts in Congress to ban any party espousing neoconservativism as an ideology? Have people been hauled in front of investigative committees and forced to declare if they ever were a neocon and to name eveyrone else they knew who was a neocon?
‘I’ve read a number of comments to the effect that they are part of Zionist control / influence’
I’ve heard the same charge levelled at liberal Democrats, whose record of supporting Israel is exemplary. The fact is that Israel is a democracy (or so I’ve been told) and as such has widely divided public opinion on many issues. Both the Dems and the neocons tend to express views which in Israel would rang from the center to the center-right.
‘It’s not hysterical [to say the Left wants America to lose] when the left keeps taking actions that indicate they do indeed want us to lose, and that they really don’t like America as it is’
So you say. But, as I’m trying to make clear, the vast majority of them don’t see it that way. For one thing, the non-neocons don’t just include ‘the Left’ but the paleocons, liberals, centrists, libertarians, and any other political gradations I’m forgetting. That’s the majority of people. If the majority of people, by virtue of not being neocons, hates America and wants us to lose, we’re screwed.
Look, I realize that examining political prejudices apolitically is not easy, but I think if one really cares to examine how neocons and neoconservativism have been treated by their ideological opponents there’s really nothing unique about it.
note–
1) I’m poskonig above. I didn’t realize I wrote under a different name, and yes, I’ll be consistent in the future.
2) To deal with the inevitable strawmen — Yes, I believe the theory of evolution has the big picture correct. Yes, I believe science more often than not delivers objective truth about reality — I have a Bachelor’s in physics. Yes, I think Ann Coulter is a moron.
But as a theory of human beings, Darwinism is hopelessly and inevitably incomplete. David Stove’s Darwinian Fairytales and Mary Midgley’s Evolution as Religion are good places to go for a secular critique of the doctrine.
“This view may explain why the left has been so obsessed with quoting majority opinion.. That would be a fairly irrelevant measure of whether we were winning in Iraq. But it’s an excellent measure of whether they are winning the battle they are really fighting.” (AVI)
Excellent point. The MSM has triumphed, it seems, in its disinformation.
Leftist illusions about Iraq or the Muslim threat have become the ‘voice of the people,’ as Pat Leahy loudly announced this week.
JHB,
Are you poskonig? If not, I’m not sure why you’re telling me about Marx. What you say about Marx is true, of course, but has nothing to do with what I wrote.
If you have read all three books of Das Kapital, my hat’s off to you. You can deal with more intellectual pain than I.
JHB: The claim that Darwin was not a Darwinist is a commonplace, and it is also false.
No, actually it’s true. The scientists and philosophers and pundits who became ‘Darwinists’ in the 19th century actually rejected natural selection in favor of Lamarckism. Natural selection was Darwin’s contribution; if you reject that, you reject Darwin. But since Darwin’s “Origin” started the movement, they took Darwin’s name. (They were never picky about the facts, it seems.) Look at T.H. “Darwin’s Bulldog” Huxley, or nearly any of the scientists of the 1860s-1890s. Most rejected Darwin’s theory, even as they proclaimed Darwin their champion.
Darwin was a Darwinist in the real sense of the term — a scientific racist in the worst way.
This is not the historical definition. Use it if you like, but do not insist I do.
Of course, instead of claiming Darwin was a man of his time, there is a hysterical effort to make Darwin out to be a saint, a defender of the truth against the powers that be.
Yes, you are quite right about that. But that’s not how Darwin saw himself, and those who declared him saint and hero in the 19th and early 20th centuries REJECTED his main theory, natural selection. They took him up as their saint, but rejected him as a man. Those who lionize him today are mostly unaware of the history behind their claims, and how far it has been distorted by men like Draper and White, etc.
J.H. Bowden, you must have posted while I was writing mine to you.
Yes, Social Darwinism has many flaws. But Darwin didn’t have much to do with its development. Read what Darwin actually wrote, then read Huxley and those who made ‘Darwinism.’ Two different things.
AVI, likewise. I’m enjoying your series on language.
This view may explain why the left has been so obsessed with quoting majority opinion as evidence of whether we are winning in Iraq or not….
Very interesting point. I’ll have to think about that.
LA: Really? Have there been major efforts in Congress to ban any party espousing neoconservativism as an ideology? …
Ah, good point. I was thinking communists after 1970. I should have been more specific. Thanks for helping me clarify my thoughts.
me: ‘I’ve read a number of comments to the effect that they are part of Zionist control / influence’
LA: I’ve heard the same charge levelled at liberal Democrats, …
You’re still talking about individuals. The neocons, as a group, particularly as a group of presidential advisors, has been repeatedly accused of being a Zionist cabal. I have not heard this publicly about any other group, as a group, in the last 20 years or so, outside of statements by truly fringe radicals who see any power group as a Zionist cabal (or belonging to the Gnomes of Zurich, the Masonic rulers of the planet, the Illuminati, etc.).
me: ‘It’s not hysterical [to say the Left wants America to lose] when the left keeps taking actions that indicate they do indeed want us to lose, and that they really don’t like America as it is’
LA: So you say. But, as I’m trying to make clear, the vast majority of them don’t see it that way.
In that, I think you are right. They don’t see it that way, and I recognize that.
LA: For one thing, the non-neocons don’t just include ‘the Left’ but the paleocons, liberals, centrists, libertarians, and any other political gradations I’m forgetting. That’s the majority of people. If the majority of people, by virtue of not being neocons, hates America and wants us to lose, we’re screwed.
I didn’t write about ‘non-neocons.’ I specifically addressed the Left.
LA: Look, I realize that examining political prejudices apolitically is not easy,
Hear, hear!
LA: but I think if one really cares to examine how neocons and neoconservativism have been treated by their ideological opponents there’s really nothing unique about it.
I don’t know. I’ll have to think more about that part of your argument. Certainly, the treatment of Bill Clinton during the last years of his presidency is similar to how neocons are treated now. On the other hand, the hatred of the neocons goes beyond US borders, which hatred of Bill Clinton didn’t. But I guess we were talking about domestic politics …
I’m rambling, so time to call it a night.
… but I think if one really cares to examine how neocons and neoconservativism have been treated by their ideological opponents there’s really nothing unique about it.
No, and that’s precisely the point. Look, political enmities have always existed, and have frequently gone over the top, as happened with Clinton and the right in the 90’s for example. But that’s not really the point here. What’s bizarre about the left and the “neocons” lately is that the latter are singled out and attacked as a group, without any understanding of what its putative members have in common much less how they operate as a cabal. But that doesn’t make their situation unique, by any means — in fact, it makes it very similar to the kind of coded stigmatization of certain liberal and left groups by some of the traditional (i.e., paleo-) right, which saw them primarily as jewish dominated movements. So the contemporary use of “neocon” as epithet by the left is just another illustration of the disturbing parallels between this latter-day left and the much older right.
Neo, this is soooo good. I chose this one to highlight in Brief Politico-Therapy: A Quick Tour of the Psych-Bloggers
“it’s true that Jews are overrepresented among them.”
It is also true that Jews are overrepresented in ANY significant political or religious movement in the Western culture during last 150 years – after their release from ghetto, in all forms of Socialism (Marx, Trotzky, Bernshteyn), pacifism, feminism, existentialism, etc., just as in all opposite movements (Leo Strauss, Barry Goldwater), anti-Communism, etc. So what? This is a vocation of some sort, deeply ingrained in Jewish psyche, may be, on genetic level. And it is also a cultural trait, idea of “tikkun” as “correcting” the world. One need not suppose any “cabal” behind it – only admit that some tribes possess some specific traits and capabilities, both genetically and culturally. Does such admission makes anybody a racist? No. No more, than admission of obvious fact that black people are especially good at light athletics. Playing ideas is a sport of a sort, and no wonder some populations are naturally better equipped to it than the other.
think the discussion is, once again, fragmented by generalities – both in the self-reflective interpretation of neoconservatism offered by the host, and in the interpretation of the views of those who ‘hate’ or see neoconservatives as a negative force in world affairs.
Most of the ideas(as presented by neo-neocon) people have of neoconservatism are informed by a relatively small group within the United States – or rather, a network of elites from government, media organizations, NGO “think-tanks” – whose influence extended disproportionately within the Bush administration after Sept.11 2001 – an administration whose policies are widely regarded in negative terms – and in very observable and measureable ways.
These are the neoconservatives i.e Kristol, Perle, Wolfowitz, AEI, Cheney, Project for a New American Century, Daniel Pipes, the Weekly Standard, Kagan etc – who have become household names since the Iraq war(most for the wrong reasons), and whose ideas inform the general views of this ideology that are offered in said essay.
Now this particular sub-group may not be an accurate or fair representation of what neo-conservatism is supposed to be – but that is the valid framework where this ‘hate’ has come from.
And these views, I’d further offer, aren’t mostly informed by the ‘strategic’ failures of the Bush administration in handling the Iraq war. The fact that most of this branch of neoconservatives has a high degree of Jews in it – or that the President is a fundamentalist Christian – doesn’t alone explain the extreme emotional rejection being discussed. But the fact that one of the central doctrines of these neoconservatives is the goal of advancing the military dominance of Israel and the U.S in the middle east – hegemony at any price – with the aim of securing and framing U.S interests with Israel’s.
Like it or not that is the dominant theme in neoconservatism as we know it today in America.
Hey Poskonig
We shouldn’t equate the notions of “neocon: contempt for counterculture” with “paleocon: cultural homogeny” — I think the contempt would be a little more selective rather than having contempt the whole of counterculture?
TC – “advancing the military dominance of Israel and the U.S. in the middle east” is absolutely NOT the goal of neo-cons, not even of the specific people you cited. Military dominance in the middle east is recognized by neo-cons as an important tool for reaching their goals. It is not, in and of itself, a goal.
This is one of the main misunderstandings of neo-conservatism by the left that neo-neo speaks of. Because neo-cons do not shy away from the use of military power – the use of overwhelming and aggressive force – this has led liberals to make many false assumptions about them, to wit:
1) They are heartless and cruel
2) They are power-hungry tyrant wanna-bes
3) Military power is an end, rather than a means (lies are the means)
4) We have much more to fear from them than from any outside enemy.
Liberals, on the other hand, seem so reluctant to use force that they are willing to accept any outcome that avoids it, no matter the cost. Perhaps liberals would say that is untrue, and they do understand that there may, theoretically, be a case where the use of force is necessary, but the real gulf between libs and neo-cons lies in where that line is drawn.
History has shown us that freedom and democracy really do need to be protected, sometimes by force, and that fear of using force sometimes just delays the inevitable battle. History also teaches us that people willing to use force with very good intentions can do a lot of harm.
But somewhere between those extremes is where we must forge our path, and I believe neo-cons are trying to do that, and I wish liberals would recognize it. They (libs) are needed, to prevent a swing to the other extreme, not to stop all progress.
I believe that it was Jeanne Kirkpatrick that was first labeled a “neo-con”. She was Jewish?
Color me skeptical. I think the dislike for “neocons” is nothing but a new name to call people. When you do as much name-calling as liberals do, it must get boring to use the same epithets over and over (not that it stops them). So when a leftie can say “let’s drive the neo-cons back to their holes where they belong” (I actually read this on a Usenet group once) it’s _much_ better than just calling people “right-wingers” like they did back in the Reagan administration.
In a couple of years they’ll come up with something else (probably shorter and more obscene), and “neo-con” will be consigned to the ash-heap of history.
The Left is much too scared to face the real enemy—the Islamofacists—so they project their fear and anger against much safer targets, such as Bush, “Neo-cons”, Jews and the evangelicals who are supposedly plotting against their freedsoms.
They know Bush, etc., aren’t really a menace, but the Islamofacists are.
Jen: They (libs) are needed, to prevent a swing to the other extreme, not to stop all progress.
I don’t think the issue here — to the extent that we’re speaking of a genuine issue and not merely a carefully coded bigotry — is as simple as finding a line between untenable or unacceptable extremes, and hence I doubt that “libs”, as they’re presently constituted, are necessary at all. Since at least Wilson, there’s been a strain of foreign policy theory that’s sought to construct a world order in a top down fashion, by building big global organizations and padding them with the trappings of “law”. Once upon a time, this sort of “liberal internationalism” might have seemed at least idealistic, however unrealistic; now, in light of the abject failure of both the League of Nations and the United Nations, it just looks cynical or deluded (or both). “International law” is a mere facade, occasionally a useful cover for deeds that need doing, but lacking any of the legitimacy of actual law except in the minds of willing fools.
Neoconservatism, at least in its foreign policy mode, arose as a realistic alternative both to this seedy dream and to the overtly cynical, hegemonic realpolitik of Great Power “spheres of influence”. Instead, it proposed the gradual construction of a new world order from the bottom up, building democracy and the institutions that support it one country at a time. Which, in itself, has nothing to do with force. It’s simply that neoconservatives — unlike the vacant liberals for whom “force” would threaten to wake from their dreams — also don’t shrink from it when force is used or threatened against them or their allies.
I do not see anything really new in neoconservatism. For me, this is rather traditional combination of classical liberalism, libertarian economic policy and Jacksonian foreign policy.
Re: Justajerk 02.08.07 – 9:38 pm:
A truly vacuous comment if ever I saw one. The antipathy to Muslims nowadays stems from the brutal, savage and barbaric actions by many of them in furtherance of their “caliphate.” I suppose I should add the usual disclaimer that not all Muslims are terrorists, but at least 95% of terrorist acts worldwide are committed by Muslims. I consider that a valid reason to use extreme caution when dealing with members of that sect, as any prudent person would. If a similar percentage of these atrocities were committed by Jews I would be equally cautious about dealing with them.
“TC – “advancing the military dominance of Israel and the U.S. in the middle east” is absolutely NOT the goal of neo-cons, not even of the specific people you cited. Military dominance in the middle east is recognized by neo-cons as an important tool for reaching their goals. It is not, in and of itself, a goal.”
Jen – It absolutely is a stated goal – and very much of the people that I have listed – in order to achieve the ideological goal of having the middle east composed of liberal democracies allied to U.S and Israeli interests.
The problem is that liberal democracy doesn’t always have the intended outcomes – observe the election of Hamas in Palestine – and not one of the people listed has, that I’m aware of, called for the inclusion of Hamas in the political sphere that they are ‘constructing’.
Military dominance is primary to the goal of protecting U.S/Israeli interests – if democracy doesn’t have the desired outcome than it is democracy that will be suspended and not military conquest.
TC:
To equate “liberal democracy” with “the election of Hamas in Palestine” is a prime example of your ideological blinders. If you believe that that election had anything to do with real “democracy”, then there’s no use in trying to discuss anything else of substance with you.
It’s kind of like the choice between the gas chamber and the firing squad; yes, it’s a choice, but hardly “democratic”.
Well illustrated, stumbley.
TC, even if we accept the fact that Hamas was elected by the will of the people, are we to conclude that the will of the Palestinean people is the destruction of Israel and war with America? Those were Hamas’s publicly stated platforms. Gee, what a surprise that we might oppose that. Or, are you going to talk out of the other side of your mouth and say “most muslims are peaceful” and dismiss such things as “rhetoric”?
TC, earnest and naive Marxist though he be, actually has a point here. “Military dominance” is indeed necessary to protect US and Israeli interests in the benighted region of the Middle East, unfortunately. This is because without such dominance, Israel and any other friendly actors, minority or otherwise, would be quickly destroyed — the region as a whole is a fairly vicious swamp. And “liberal democracy”, while certainly a good thing and a goal, is not the only goal, and does not confer immunity from consequences. That is, no country can elect a gang of terrorists as its leaders and then expect to be embraced because, well, … they were elected. It’s precisely from suffering the consequences of their choices that people in a democracy learn responsibility — as the Palestinians may be in the process of learning now.
TC, first off, thanks for giving me your definition of ‘leftist’ on the other thread.
Next, to address your points on this thread:
TC: Jen – It absolutely is a stated goal – and very much of the people that I have listed – in order to achieve the ideological goal of having the middle east composed of liberal democracies allied to U.S and Israeli interests.
Jen’s point was that it wasn’t THE goal, but a tool. Your point is that it is A goal, which gains a tool to be used towards THE goal, so you don’t really seem to be disagreeing with Jen here. Also, I would disagree with ‘and Israeli interests.’ For neocons, Israeli interests are only important insofar as they support the overriding US interest in having a liberal democratic Middle East.
The problem is that liberal democracy doesn’t always have the intended outcomes – observe the election of Hamas in Palestine …
Liberal democracy isn’t defined by having elected leaders. You’ve left off the ‘liberal’ part, there. Also, I think the Palestinian elections had an excellent result. It forced the Palestinians to decide, to have a hand in the making of policy, and therefore a stake in the outcome. The result may be bad, but it may be very good. We don’t know yet.
Military dominance is primary to the goal of protecting U.S/Israeli interests –
The spread of liberal democracy in the ME is the single most important US interest there. The neocons will use any means to achieve that, and are currently using everything from pure diplomacy to mixed diplomacy / military force. Military force has never been the primary tool, and nowhere are we using military force alone.
if democracy doesn’t have the desired outcome than it is democracy that will be suspended and not military conquest.
False. In fact, the US has repeatedly taken actions that hurt the cause of military dominance because those actions were seen as important for the nurturing of liberal democracy. E.g., letting Sadr go last year. This has been a big frustration for many on the pro-liberation side, but it has been necessary, IMHO.
Military conquest is and always has been irrelevant to neocons outside of achieving the goal of spreading liberal democracy.
In that sense, the neocons have a lot in common with communists; both groups are revolutionary movements who will use whatever seems productive to achieve their desired political goals. Those goals are different (and therein lies the biggest point of departure), but even the motivations – the spread of the power of the people, the end of oppression and tyranny, etc. – are very similar. Each has a favored economic system which is supposed to bring out the best possible social situation. Both movements are progressive, although the marxists are deterministic and the neo-cons are not. I’m surprised you don’t see this.
stumbley – I disagree in you assessment of the Palestinian people and Hamas – Hamas has demonstrated a level of leadership and results apart from their stated objectives concerning Israel i.e social programs looking after the poor etc – without the corruption rife in the former PA.
Also Hamas, contrary to popular perception, has shown some willingness to engage in negotiations with Israel(and has carefully observed ceasefires unlike the IDF, unfortunately )- there is enough there that calls into serious disrepute the Western reaction and treatment of Hamas – that has further inflamed the occupied territories and brought shameful suffering onto the Palestinians.
Anyway – gotta run – guy in pj’s- I’d like to respond to your post but I’ve got no time right now – hopefully later…
“and has carefully observed ceasefires unlike the IDF, unfortunately”
They’ve done so well with the cease-fire between them and Fatah, too!
Really, this is beyond ridiculous.
…and do you blame Israel, when Hamas makes statements like this:
“We will never recognise Israel. There is nothing called Israel,” he told Reuters. “We, in the Hamas movement, will not abide by anything.”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Hamas-wants-West-to-end-blockade/2007/02/10/1170524329388.html
Great “negotiating” stance, don’t you think?
TC:
“Hamas, contrary to popular perception, has shown some willingness to engage in negotiations with Israel(and has carefully observed ceasefires unlike the IDF, unfortunately)”
Right, because we know from the media, firing back constitutes breaking a cease-fire.
Yeah, kidnapping soldiers is no reason to get shot at, is it, TC?
Sally and A Guy in Pajamas: Thank you for stating the neo-con position on military use so much more clearly and eloquently than I did!
TC, the thrust of my point is not just that it is incorrect to call military power the goal, rather than an important tool, but that doing so deliberately misrepresents the neo-cons for the purpose of making liberals seem to have some moral high ground.
Liberals portray themselves as being caring humanists, while neo-cons are portrayed as vicious tyrants bent on world domination, whatever the cost. That argument relies on the incorrect assertions you have been making about neo-cons love of military power, for military power’s sake alone. When you take into account and understand what it is that neo-cons are truly working for, when you recognize that liberal democracies represent the highest standard of human freedom, prosperity and achievement in the world and that neo-cons want that for everyone, everywhere in the world, regardless of race or religion, then the libs’ so-called “moral high ground” is seen for the farce it is.
Jen – I’m sorry you don’t understand.
1). The use of U.S military power is the primary tool of the goal of promoting U.S and Israeli interests in the world. This is stated explicitly and clearly in neoconservative doctrine. I notice you haven’t provided any evidence to the contrary.
2)A secondary tool is the promotion of democracy – a distinct second. I’ve provided one clear example of such with Hamas – and there are others. But again democracy is only as relevant in that it promotes the original goal – securing U.S and Israeli interests in the region i.e “Securing the Realm”(are you familiar with the term”).
The topic isn’t about what liberals or leftists portray themselves as – that is a seperate issue. If you don’t like what are verifiable facts about the American neo-conservative movement this is not the fault of liberals or left-thinking peoples.
And I have to take issue with your use of such terms as ‘love’ and ‘hate’ for my description of neoconservatives – I’m taking about a serious examination of policy, and I’m not speculating on their emotional motives – or those of their critics.
You won’t find any liberals disagreeing with your assesment of liberal democracies – you will on the right – but you will find extreme rejection to the means…
Stumbley – I’m not saying that Hamas is Israel’s greatest friend – I’m saying that there is clear avenues for diplomatic engagement that have been rejected – a mistake in my view for all parties involved.
And I’m avoiding the rhetorical, emotion laden partisanship.
It goes without saying that we’re talking about two bitter enemies with a history propping up that hatred – without any engagement and compromise we’re aren’t going anywhere….
guy in pj’s – I disagree, as you probably gather. Military dominance over the region is a goal – an examination of neononservative literature reveals a broad plan of military dominance in the region to deal with predicited resistance to U.S/Israeli interests – i.e governments backed by U.S etc; the permanent military bases(the largest in the world)clearly pointing to a prolonged if not permanent military conquest in the region. It is a certainly a goal and not a tool if the anticipation is you will have to establish it permanently in the face of predicited resistance -and yes, many neoconservatives offered to the public that U.S policies would be warmly embraced by the ME – if you look closer and their writings, Kagan etc – you find this clearly.
“False. In fact, the US has repeatedly taken actions that hurt the cause of military dominance because those actions were seen as important for the nurturing of liberal democracy. E.g., letting Sadr go last year. This has been a big frustration for many on the pro-liberation side, but it has been necessary, IMHO.”
This doesn’t contradict that military dominance isn’t a goal. A goal means something you are striving to achieve something – looking at Iraq I think it’s clear the U.S hasn’t established military dominance – and that it had to deal with the devil – so to speak – doesn’t mean that it is going to compromise it’s goals by allowing a Shia dominated theocracy to take form(look at Hamas) – but as you say it was necessary in the short term(for military reasons)to do so(and we can see now with the coming war with Shia Iran that the goal has some way to go).
I think you’d be hard pressed to deny that neoconseravatives have a firm belief in military conquest to achieve their goals – tenuous links to communism that they may/may not have notwithstanding…
Gee, TC, I thought US foreign policy in the 20th century was shaped by Woodrow Wilson: “To make the world safe for democracy”. Then, just like a Nazi, you continue to demonize Israel. Since you espouse the very things Nazis do, are we to conclude that you support the Nazis? What is it you’re saying that I can’t find in the American Free Press or from Alex Jones?
First of all, Jen, I think you’re not just clear but very eloquent yourself in your statement of the neocon position. Second, it’s mildly ironic to see someone like TC say you don’t understand. He’s like an earnest young troll (I’ve no idea of his actual age, but if he’s out of his teens then I’m afraid he’s a bit stunted intellectually), who really is only able to parrot ideas he’s been told, or picked up in some Marxist/Chomskyist tract. He misses the point of neo’s post and the thread generally, which is certainly about how liberals/leftists portray both themselves and their political opponents. And he evades ever having to provide any evidence for his own assertions, which were explicitly contradicted in neo’s post, and in the comments of yourself and others. (Childishly, he no doubt thinks it’s all about him, so that “the topic” is whatever he says it is, and it’s always the other person that has to produce the “evidence”, which he then simply dismisses.) In that sense, the only thing you or anyone needs to say in answer to him is that his opinions about neocon goals and motives are false. Period.
Stupid neo-con Wilson! and that goes for FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Reagan, too!
TC, thanks for your reply. I would like to see your evidence for your claims, links to neo-con statements that support your position being first preference, of course.
Specifically, I frankly think your claims that Israel’s interests are being advanced by US neocons, beyond the sense that they are thereby advancing US interests, are imaginary. Also, US neocons certainly believe that military force is a viable tool, but they are quite obviously using diplomacy far more, in dealing with North Korea and, so far, in dealing with Iran and Syria. Diplomacy is the preferred neocon tool, if you look at what they’ve actually done.
Third, permanent US bases in the ME, as they have done in Asia and Europe, would be aimed at providing regional stability, not military domination. Military dominance in the sense of having the most powerful military force around is a neocon goal; military domination is not.
Additionally, the goal in creating a liberal democracy in Iraq was to then support peaceful democratization in the ME, engaging opposing regimes economically (as neocons are doing w/, e.g., China) and w/ dialogue through the medium of the Iraqi people and nation, not to keep toppling governments.
It’s about the disregard for the Zionist Prtocols. Is there anyone out there that can name an untruth from the Protocols?
My personal favorite is “In order to effect the destruction of all collective forces except ours we shall emasculate the first stage of collectivism – the UNIVERSITIES”.
WELL?
TAKE A GOOD LOOK @ YOUR CUNTRY
Boy, those Zionists have really done such a fine job controlling the universities, haven’t they? What proof do you have? The fact that Nazis like you are laughed at? The fact that there are no pictures of Hitler or Engles? Huh, Ronald Branch?
So much for naming untruths in the protocols, How about “The King of the Jews” as opposed to a Prime Minister. We were killing ourselves with alcohol long before any “cabal” thought of it. Where’s the “One World Gov’t”? The fact we have a free press is PROOF of their manipulation? Shall I go on(and on and on…)?
Huh, Ronald Branch? AKA “Hitleryugen”?
In fact, I encourage everyone to access the link to his homepage(Ronald Branch). I thought I was reading ‘Mein Kampf’.
Or, as Jake Blues said to Elwood Blues: “I hate Illinois Nazis!”.
I did. This sorry soul (metaphorically speaking) thinks the “Protocols” are real. This from the Wiki:
“Scholars generally agree that the Okhrana, the secret police of the Russian Empire, fabricated the text in the late 1890s or early 1900s. Among the most notable early refutations of the Protocols as a forgery were a series of articles printed in The Times of London in 1921. This series revealed that much of the material in the Protocols was plagiarized from earlier political satire that did not have an antisemitic theme.”
Ronald, the above is the real truth. You need help. The conspiracy you believe in doesn’t exist. It was created for wackjobs by wackjobs. Get help and free your mind of this delusion.
The Left is much too scared to face the real enemy—the Islamofacists
Except the real enemy isn’t “Islamofascism” – the real enemy is Islam.
TC, recent Hezbolla-Israely war clearly demonstrated that strategic assessments made in “Securing the Realm” document were quite correct, and that the proposed solutions are the only ones bearing some hope of success.
Islam Sceptic, I completely agree. Islam is an aggressive credo of supremacists, and its ultimate goals enshrined in Koran are not negotiable. There is no hope of liberal reforms of Islam from within – at least until decisive military defeat of its most fervent zealots, may be, as result of Hiroshima scale destruction.
I can add that Wiki article about Protocols is seriously incomplete. It is not only majority of scholars opinion that these papers were fabrication; that was demonstrated in Swiss court of justice in early 30es, and recently in Okhranka archives in Russia documents were discovered that revealed names of fabricators and the whole story of the plot. It was Col. Rachkovsky, officer of gendarmerie. He found the pamphlete that was primary source of quotes used Protocols, in Paris; this was very rare brochure, so he felt safe that nobody would trace the connection. Later it was used by Sergey Nilus, a Russian Orthodox Church priest and prominent member of ultra-nationalist “storm-trooper” organization “Michael Archangel Union” to incite pogromes in Russia. I can’t provide sources for this, because they are all in Russian. This was publicated in 1989 in several wide circulation journals, with links to archive documents.
There is no hope of liberal reforms of Islam from within – at least until decisive military defeat of its most fervent zealots, may be, as result of Hiroshima scale destruction.
There is no hope of liberal reforms of Islam at all since the end result of such reforms no longer would qualify as Islam. So, basically, for all intents and purposes, Islam is unreformable.
Uh, Islamic Skeptic, you do realize there are 1,000,000,000+ Muslims in the world? Even if you’re right about Islam (and you’re not) what do you reccomend; mass conversion? Genocide?
Uh, Islamic Skeptic, you do realize there are 1,000,000,000+ Muslims in the world?
Yes, but that does not affect my argument in any way. Why do you bring it up? I am, after all, not talking about Muslims, but about Islam.
Even if you’re right about Islam (and you’re not)
Well, I believe I am right. Why do you think I am not? Feel free to argue against my claim, but remember not to fall into the trap of thinking that Islam is “what Muslims believe and do”.
what do you reccomend; mass conversion? Genocide?
Neither. Remove Islam from the West and contain it in dar al-Islam.
LA, can you offer any Qur’anic or hadith quotes to support your assertion that islamic Skeptic is wrong? To my recollection, there were approx. 60 million Germans under the Nazi regime, very few of which were actually Nazis. So how were so many kept under control? Approx. 1,000,000,000 muslims live under the most repressive regimes the world has ever seen, economic and intellectual stagnation for over 1300 years. Yet, you would leave your fellow man under such regimes because the Imams and dictators say “Islam is a peaceful religion”. If Islam Skeptic is “just wrong”, prove it. You come off like an Islamic scholar, so enlighten us.
LA, If I say National Socialism is a destructive, evil ideology, would you accuse me of prejudice against Germans? So, when people oppose the political ideology of “Submission”(Islam), why do you accuse us of hating muslims?
Why is it that lefties as a general rule oppose all religions EXCEPT Islam? Don’t you want to free people from that “mass opiate”?
You rail and rail about the “imposition of theocracy” around here, but where people actually DO live under theocracies, you say “gee, I guess a billion muslims can’t ALL be wrong”. Two-faced hypocracy, if you ask me.
I think is a good rundown of what neoconservatism is – including the debate over who and what they are.
That Sally thinks I’m wrong is a good predicator that I’m right – like clockwork you are, girl…
Just kidding – I know you can be quite bitter at times.
http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/print.php?article=1452
And another good article detailing the decisive link between the neoconservative movement within the Bush administration and Israel.
This is a matter of demonstrating this to be a simple fact – and not an exercise in demonization of neoconservatism.
Although in Pat Buchanan I can hear the howls of ‘anti-semitism’ even now.
But, please, read it.
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
Neo-neocon has more than once offered Micheal Ledeen as a rational, and reflective voice of neoconservative thought.
With that, one is left to ponder the following:
“Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. … [W]e must destroy them to advance our historic mission.”
Apparently, there are those who would like us to forget what neoconservatism is and what it’s clear and explicit goals are…
Wow, TC. What a surprise that “allies” would work together. Thank you for pointing out the “decisive link”. You don’t seem to bitch about the “British Lobby” or the “French Lobby” or the “Japanese Lobby”. Why is it that our ties to Israel are seen as something “nefarious”? Maybe you would be more at home going to Ronald Branch’s website.
TC can hear the howls of anti-semitism from Pat Buchannan, But I wonder if he sees it when he looks in the mirror.
Lenin referred to TC and others like him as “useful idiots”.
You’ve probably noticed I don’t usually bother to respond to you Lee – but in this case I will point out that the discussion is about neoconservatism -and the decisive link between military dominance in the middle east and a supposed(by neoconservatives)link between U.S and Israeli interests in that region.
That some clearly see the link as unhelpful is true – but I’m addressing some facts that seem to have been overlooked….
You also, if I may, seem confused about what U.S goals are and those of the neoconservatives in question.
No doubt for them they see U.S military power as a means of securing Israeli dominance in the middle east – but the majority of American don’t see the American military as an arm for securing Israeli interests in the middle east…
Gee, TC, I thought we were discussing the demonization of neocons and the Goebbelsesque attempts to link them to “Global Zionism”. What article did you read? When Israel is attacked, Israel defends itself. How does this establish “military dominance” in the region?
Does a nation of 6 million having a military capable of defending itself from 1.2 Billion muslims constitute “military dominance”?
The reason you usually don’t respond to my postings, TC, is that you cannot REFUTE them. So, you pretend they don’t exist and continue to propagandise.
Of course, I’m sure you didn’t see American military as an arm for securing Western European interests in Europe, either.
Or, for securing Canadian interests in Canada; Australian interests in Australia; Japanese interests in East Asia, etc.
I thought Bush said we weren’t at war with Islam. Oops.
But Islam insists they’re at war with us. Oops…
“without any engagement and compromise we’re aren’t going anywhere….”
TC, did you read the quote from Hamas? There will never be an intention to “go anywhere”…the intent is—as the Hamas charter states—the destruction of Israel. What part of the charter and statements like the one I’ve quoted do you not understand? What is it that makes you think there is any hope of “engagement” or “compromise” with people like that?
Gravatar I thought Bush said we weren’t at war with Islam. Oops.
Sadly, Dubya doesn’t seem to have recognized the true nature of Islam, and so he is acting like the world’s most powerful dhimmi (yes, I know that sounds a bit like an oxymoron):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ramadan/islam.html
stumbley – Hamas have made overtures to recognize Israel. They have a few times said they would be willing to enter talks directly or through a third party – rejected by Israel. And as I say have observed ceasefires. As I say I’m not saying they’ve become friends over night.
Lee – you haven’t made any points that I can see to refute. Which ones do you have in mind – that are serious points…?
I should say when I’m talking about Israeli ‘interests’ I’m talking about what they percieve to be interests – no Palestinian state and no observance of Israel’s commitments to the international community i.e withdrawal from occupied territories in W.Bank, Gholan Heights, Sheba farms, Lebanon, Israeli nukes etc.
Removing potential threats to Israeli military dominance in the region i.e Iraq, Iran, Syria with the use of American military and diplomatic support – in contravention of international law… basically…
But tell me what points you have, cause as I say, I don’t see any..
What I do see Lee -to be blunt – is a tepidly simplistic and mostly inaccurate portrayal of Israel’s role in the middle east – and it’s relationship to other Arab states and to Islam.
So if you really want me to refute anything – take it one point at a time…
Okay, TC, Point one: Since you assert the goal of Israel is Middle Eastern Hegemony, Why haven’t they simply “conqured” their neighbors, rather than withdraw from Cairo twice, withdraw from Damascus twice, stop at the Jordan River rather than drive to Ammon, and on to Bagdhad? Seems pretty stupid to me to leave enemies like that in power next door.
Why don’t the Israelis just nuke them into oblivion before the Arab States can get the bomb?
ESPECIALLY if their “cleary defined goals” is military dominance of the ME?
Well, TC point by point, what you gotta say?
Point two: If the U.N. came to the conclusion that America was “occupied territory” and passed a resolution ordering the withdrawal of all non-indigenous peoples from North America(you), would you withdraw from your house and return it to it’s rightful owner(me)?
After all, you STOLE the land, killed my people, and called it your own. If Israel is so bad, WHAT ARE YOU STILL DOING HERE?
Point by point; isn’t that what you wanted, TC? Huh?
“What’s the frequency, TC?”, is your Benzedrine, uh-huh.
Fine, TC. You obviously need time to “think” about it. Or, after answering your challenge, are you running away(another “point” you didn’t seem to understand)?
“Since you assert the goal of Israel is Middle Eastern Hegemony, Why haven’t they simply “conqured” their neighbors, rather than withdraw from Cairo twice, withdraw from Damascus twice, stop at the Jordan River rather than drive to Ammon, and on to Bagdhad? Seems pretty stupid to me to leave enemies like that in power next door.”
They don’t have the ability to conquer their neighbors, for one. Two – I should say specically that Israel seeks to establish military superiority over it’s neighbors as well as changing regimes militarily it regards as enemies. It doesn’t have the necessary resources to maintain an occupation of Palestine without expending alot of military resources let alone Eygpt – you can’t not be aware they have a long standing peace treaty with Israel – as does Jordan and Libiya.
Israel never conquered Damascus either – it never occupied Demascus. Maybe you should explain what you mean by conquer – if you mean defeated militarily, fine. But there was no total defeat of Syria, quite obviously or there wouldn’t be any talk of going to war with them now – would there?
It’s hard to take your points very seriously Lee – I’m sorry but it doesn’t sound like you know very much about the history therem or even what’s going on at the moment, sorry…
You could probably understand though why neoconservatives seek to exploit American military might in their objectives – rather than enter peace negogiations, and fulfil it’s territorial obligations as Israel is unanimously required to by the international community – the U.S the sole exception to this(although the U.S doesn claim it supports Palestinian statehood, expecting Israel to cease colonizing occupied territory under and to withdrawal completely from the West Bank; ignored by Israel)…
That probably doesn’t make any sense at all-sorry..
I’m off to bed -long day. Peace…..
Well, let’s see, TC, In the Six-Day war, Israel shattered the Egyptian army, crossed the Suez Canal and drove on Cairo. Then Egypt said “uncle” and Israel withdrew to the canal. In same said war, they shattered the Syrian army, blew through the Golan Heights, and drove on Damascus. Syria cried “uncle” and Israel withdrew to the heights. When Jordan got frisky, they drove Jordan out of their occupation of the West Bank, secured Jerusalem, and STOPPED at the Jordan river. If Israel wanted to effect regime change, the opportunity presented itself when the capitals of Egypt and Syria were wide open to them. You say it is because they didn’t have the ability to do so, but not only did they do so, they did it SIMULTANEOUSLY, I might add. The same scenario virtually replayed itself in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Egypt signed a peace treaty after being defeated FOUR times. Then Israel returned the Sinai. “We” only put up with Germany’s crap TWICE. Seems to me that Israel is showing remarkable restraint, rather than “dominating” the Middle East. Jordan signed a treaty only AFTER the U.S. offered them money. Syria signed a peace treaty, then they fund and support Hezbollah. Some peace. Besides, if by your asserrtion, Israel “can’t” conquer their neighbors, then what the f#*& are you bitching about? Seems like it’s your revision of history that doesn’t make sense.
And besides, you still haven’t explained why you have the right to “occupied territory” and Israel doesn’t, White Man.
Actually, I take some of that back. Someone help: Has Syria signed a treaty with Israel?
And if neocons seek to exploit military might, why do we continue to pay Egypt and Jordan to be peaceful? Seems like we should just let Israel “conquer” them and save a few bucks.
Lee – go to school….
TC: Thank you very much for the article links. However, you didn’t let neo-cons speak for themselves, and I wonder if your claims come only from neo-con opponents. If so, that doesn’t mean you are wrong, but it also does little to establish that you are right.
The Harvard article / editorial is interesting, but does nothing to establish your claims as fact. I have quibbles with it, but not ones relevant to this discussion.
The Buchanan piece doesn’t establish that neo-cons act in Israel’s interest rather than the US’s interest. That is Buchanan’s charge, but he fails to make the point. Merely noting that neo-cons support Israel doesn’t make the case that they put Israel’s interests ahead of or even on par with US interests. For many neo-cons, supporting Israel means supporting the only liberal democracy in the ME, and given their agenda of spreading liberal democracy as a keystone of US policy, it just makes sense.
For example, when Buchanan asks who will benefit from ending regimes that support terror, he only comes up with Israel. But the neo-con target list he cites conforms with well-identified supporters of terrorism, who were marked as such before neo-cons had any political power. If we’re going to fight a war against terrorism, that is the natural list of enemies.
Some of Buchanan’s claims cross over into absurdity. E.g., the claim that “Sharonites seek hegemony over the Middle East.” A few million Israelis are going to dominate a half-a-billion Muslims? And if this IS the Sharonite goal, then it is in no way coincident with the neo-con agenda (as he claims), which is establishing liberal democracy in Arab / Persian nations.
Buchanan also ignores facts that do not support his thesis. For example, the US had been at war with Iraq since 1991, so why should a plan to topple Saddam as early as 1992 be questionable? In 1998, Clinton signed into law the Iraqi Liberation Act, making regime change in Iraq official US policy. Wonder why those looking to further US interests might think toppling Saddam a good thing years before 9/11? That might be it. Buchanan ignores this and much more.
Throughout, Buchanan has cherrypicked quotes and facts, made unsupported (and IMO unsupportable) assertions, and only makes his case to those who haven’t been paying attention for the last 15 years.
Do you have anything from neo-cons, or from neutral observers, establishing neo-con support for Israeli interests over or equal to their support for US interests?
“It doesn’t have the necessary resources to maintain an occupation of Palestine”
Excuse me, but isn’t that the complaint of the Palestinians? That Israel is “occupying” Palestinian land?
Please, TC. You have made assertions that have no basis in fact; you’ve ignored the repeated factual evidence, in their own words of Hamas’ quest to destroy Israel—and said, lamely, that “they’re not going to be friends overnight”. TC, they’re “not going to be friends” ever.
“…in their own words…“:
The factual evidence is, from the Arabic, that Hamas will not recognize the Zionist state. That is Hamas proposes regime change. But otherwise they do not wish to destroy anything. We can hardly object to that.
“But otherwise they do not wish to destroy anything. We can hardly object to that.”
WR, I knew that you wouldn’t object. I’m sure that all the rockets they launch into Israel are just, sort of, like…fireworks, maybe. Yeah, that’s right…pyrotechnic displays of the love they have for Jews. And bombing pizza parlors? Just the Hamas way of saying “eat healthier, Zionists!”
You guys are too much.
“…that all the rockets they launch into Israel…“:
Are fired in support of regime change – a policy we support.
“a policy we support”
“We?” “Do you have a turd in your pocket?”
http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/m/mccabe-and-mrs-miller-script.html
“…a turd in your pocket?“:
My fellow citizens…
Oh, I see. “Regime change” in all cases, eh? Let’s knock off the Palestinians while we’re at it, then, and Iran, and Saudi Arabia…but why stop there? I’ve always liked England…
Die, straw man, die!
Solid argument, man. Solid.
“…in all cases…“:
I’m glad you have decided to agree with me even though your only motive may have been to avoid a charge of hypocrisy.
Nobody ever will be able to make peace between Arabs and Jews. This mutial hatred is eternal, it is centures old and will end only with Armageddon.
No, WR, it was sarcasm. We advocated regime change in Iraq, because it was the stated policy of the US (or had you forgotten Slick Willie’s 1998 resolution?). We don’t advocate regime change in Israel (which I think was your implication) because it’s already a democracy.
But what’s the use, you’re beyond redemption.
Riceroni: Are fired in support of regime change – a policy we support.
It’s not so much that he’s beyond redemption, stumbley — it’s just that he’s drifting off in a little bubble of his own fevered imagination.
Hey, Ricey, how are your war crimes trials coming along? Found yourself a prosecutor yet? Convened that grand jury?
I did go to school, TC, and I wasn’t indoctrinated there like you were. There, and from books, and from television, and from newspapers, I learned history, not propaganda, Goebbels Boy. If, as you assert, my brief history of Arab-Israeli wars is wrong, offer the “true” version, and I’ll let the room decide. But you can’t, so you don’t! LOSER BOY! Why do you live in “occupied territory”, paleface? Why do you refuse to answer that one, HYPOCRITE!
Also, has anyone noticed that since posting a link to WaPo’s article on the NIE, having been refuted by the NIE itself, WR has had nothing else to say about it?
Context, stumbley – context.
You guys always take a point I make and argue something else!
When I made the point about the Israeli occupation(which of course is real)I was making the point, to Lee, that the occupation of Palestinian lands is hardly sustainable – let alone occupying other Arab lands that he mentions – but really, it was a general point.
The fact is the Israel occupies Palestinian land. Period.
I haven’t ignored Hamas’ statments at all, stumbley. You are simply refusing to read properly what I am saying.
Hamas has claimed in the past that they seek the destruction of Israel. Israel in the past has claimed they want the destruction of Hamas – as well as saying there would never be a Palestinian state – which later changed to a conditional state dependent on certain factors i.e cessation of terrorist attacks.
Are Hamas not able to change policy? Are they not willing to negotiate?
Is Israel the only one capable of changing official policy?
stumbley – it isn’t that you don’t understand what I’m saying or that their isn’t any proof of what I’m saying – there is plenty.
You are unwilling to subscribe any rational motives to Hamas – just like alot of people in Palestine are unwilling to subscribe any to Israel – based on their historical record…
And they will only always be enemies if extremists on both sides are able to set the agenda and allow propaganda to dominate the narrative…
TC, the problem is that you refuse to understand that Hamas are extremists. As for Israeli “occupation”, Lee is right—the US is “occupying” “Native American” land in exactly the same way Israel is “occupying” “Palestinian” land. The fact is that all “land” was somebody else’s before the current owners showed up and settled it, either by conquest or “occupation” or both. Israel is where it is, period. If the Palestinians don’t like it, negotiate (sensible) or keep fighting (stupid, but obviously their choice).
You’d be kidding yourself if you think Hamas believes it can destroy Israel by launching it’s feeble rockets at Israel – they are an annoyance more than anything else. And lets not forget that Israel has been killing Palestinians daily and with impunity – and during ceasefire agreements.
Nobody is arguing that Hamas is Israel’s friend – they are fighting an occupation of their land and the systemic oppression of their people – and aparthied like affair that should stop and will only stop when the U.S withdraws crucial support for Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians.
Lee – Native Americans are not currently being enslaved in an outdoor prison anywhere in N. America – with regular incursions by the military; or checkpoints to monitor their travel; or ID cards; they aren’t subjected to collective punishment or deprived of crucial aid or denied their basic human rights; or tortured regularly and certainly don’t have their very existance called into question in the cold and callously racist manner bestowed upon the Palestinians.
Native Americans, while still suffering from the historical effects of dispossession and genocide are bestowed special status in certain states and in Canada – a clear and official recognition of the criminal acts perpetrated on their race by our governments.
Israel – supposedly a liberal democracy modeled after our own – has no such policies for the Palestinians.
Not even close.
Like your analogy – which is simply ignorance in the extreme….
I don’t refuse to believe their are extremist elements in Hamas – but that’s not what I was arguing stumbley – and it’s certainly not relevant to the fact that they have made efforts to talk to Israel that have been ignored.
Do you refuse to believe their are extremist elements in the Knesset? In Likuud and Labour parties?
I hope not….
TC, it’s pointless to discuss “Palestine” with you. You refuse to face the truth. So, we’ll agree to disagree. Sadly, the “Palestinians” are ill-served by their “government”, their “spokespeople”, and their supporters—like you.
Gee, TC, the reason there are no checkpoints, ID cards, etc. is because we stopped KILLING you! The Reservation System of Apartheid still exists to this day. We’re not humiliated by “Chief Wahoo” or the “Tomahawk Chop”? Ever hear the term “RED NIGGER”? I noticed though, that the instant AIM “reclaimed” Wounded Knee the Feds came down on them like Branch Davidians. So, by your standard, I would be justified in killing you.
Just an insignificant pinprick that couldn’t possibly topple the regime, but it sure would send a message, don’t you think?
stumbley – fair enough – but I’m only realloy concerned about the truth – or as close to it as we can get.
And you aren’t going to get it by ignoring inconvenient facts that undermine what is an increasingly weak and unsustainable party line…
How do you liken the reservation system to aparthied? I’m not disagreeing – assuming your a native I’m interested in how you view it.
And actually – under some
circumstances – if you felt some claim to the particular area where I lived personally – I might just accept that(no I wouldn’t let myself be killed but I wouldn’t involve myself in a fight – I’d leave. Seriously.)
But thats not really the point, Lee – at least to me.
The point currently the situation for natives in America is not anything like that in Palestine – though I completely agree with and am disgusted by the actions of our goverments in collusion with local law enforcement in their engagments with tribes with land claims.
You can’t really fix a crime that has already happened – but you can certainly accept responsibility for it and do your best to compensate for that crime…
TC, are you saying your occupation of my land is okay because you’re a “benevolent Empire”? Fine, you said you’re sorry, now prove it. PAY THE RENT, SQUATTER!
If you tell me where you live, I would be most happy to direct you to the appropriate tribe or band whose land you currently live on.
Or, as I suspect, are you just talking “smack” to appear consistent?
No.
And I’m not the one talking ‘smack’ – but this debate is starting to ‘smack’ of ‘crap’…
I don’t care what you believe of me personally – but I would like to know, again, why you would describe reservations as apartheid-like.
Or are you just talking smack to appear impartial?
“…because it was the stated policy “…because it was the stated policy of the US…“:
And it is the stated policy of Hamas. If it is good for us to adopt such a policy we cannot complain if others avail themselves of the benefits of a similar policy. To reserve to ourselves the sole right to such a policy would make us an imperial country.of the US…“:
And it is the stated policy of Hamas. If it is good for us to adopt such a policy we cannot complain if others avail themselves of the benefits of a similar policy. To reserve to ourselves the sole right to such a policy would make us an imperial country.
“TC”, folks, has already admitted to being an unreconstructed Marxist, meaning that history, evidence, and logic have no hold on him whatsoever. All he’s able to do is parrot talking points that he’s come across in some lefty indoctrination process — attempting to engage him, or the likes of him, in anything like a meaningful debate is about as useful as talking to a tape recorder.
“an increasingly weak and unsustainable party line…”
Yeah, Sally, Marxism has been that way for a LOOOONG time!
To reserve to ourselves the sole right to such a policy would make us an imperial country.
Ooohh. More war crimes trials, I guess!
Actually, of course, it would no more make us an imperial country than it would a metric. What terrorist-apologists like Riceroni always “forget” to mention is the historical and moral context for action, so they see changing a clearly tyrannical and terrorist-supporting regime (but one they’d like to see perpetuated) as equivalent to trying to destroy a generally just and decent regime. Thus does “moral relativity” slip into moral imbecility.
TC, the Resaervation System in a nutshell: “By force of arms, we decree that you will live over “there”(small piece) and we will live over “here”(bigger, better half) separate and APART from us. Apartheid.
Whoops, spelling error.
As I stated before(rementioning needed because point apparently went over your head), the reason native Americans have it better over here than “Palestineans” have over there is not because our oppressors are more benevolent, it’s because WE demonstrate RESTRAINT. In other words, we stopped killing you and as a general rule, have accepted our fate. And guess what, while the way we were assimilated was harsh, most of us PREFER to be Americans today. It should also be noted that even in our most desparate times, we NEVER used our women and children as HUMAN SHIELDS, or sent our children to confront soldiers armed with repeating rifles with ROCKS!
In fact, most of the Indian Nations succumbed to SAVE the women and children.
And yes, TC, to a certain extent(only a certain extent) I was playing Devil’s Advocate to make a point. But considering your responses, I feel I have been casting pearls at swine.
Or, to put it more “natively”: My words were dust in the wind.
Or is that more “Kansasly”? Well, my people’s reservation is in Kansas(Potawatomie), so I guess it’s appropriate either way.
It’s so unfair to call Buchanan “antisemitic” just because he idolizes Hitler, mocks Holocaust survivors, pimps Holocaust deniers and defends Nazi war criminals. It’s just those Jooooos, I mean Zionists, I mean neocons, trying to stifle debate.
“ As I stated before…“:
You know that you are in real trouble with an argument if, in order to support that argument, you feel compelled present our treatment of the native Americans in a positive light. I did not, as a matter of courtesy, wish to draw attention to you faux paux. However, you seen to be determined to persist…..
“You know that you are in real trouble with an argument if”
Lee won’t be a good little redman and stay on the Rez so you can be condescendingly paternalistic?
I believe he was pointing out why the NA were not wiped out and why they are, in general, very patriotic Americans (NA tend to enlist at higher rates than whites/Anglos). One, they loved their children and wives,and two they knew when they were “beaten”. The positive “spin” is about the intelligence and love of the NA and not how great whites are. If that’s a faux pas…
“TC”, folks, has already admitted to being an unreconstructed Marxist, meaning that history, evidence, and logic have no hold on him whatsoever.”
‘Unreconstructed’?? Actually I claimed to be a democratic socialist – and ‘loosely’ – a neo-marxist.
And I didn’t know this meant that history, logic and evidenc have no hold on marxists – but then, coming from somebody whose own complete ignorance of evidence and fact is utterly stupifying – we can at least have good chuckle while wasting our precious time reading such pathetic dribble…
Wild Rice, do you EVER actually READ these postings? I wasn’t showing condescension to whites(you). Since ENGLISH(your native tounge) goes over your head: I said WE(me, natives) demonstrate restraint, not you(white oppressors, you).
And, I personally take PLEASURE in pointing out your faux paux, time after time after time. Does your foot ever touch the floor, or, is it always in your mouth?
By the way, I don’t necessarily consider all non-indigenous people to be oppressors, just the leftie HYPOCRITES. Wild Rice, if you feel genuine guilt for what you have done to us, I offer you the same challenge as TC: Pack out, or pay the rent!
What’s good for the goose(Israel) is good for the gander(Wild Rice).
By the way WR, how is that reading of the NIE going? Or, are you going to leave that to the talking points memo boys to TELL you what it says, kool-aid boy?
“WE SHALL SO WEAR DOWN THE “GOYIM” THAT THEY WILL BE COMPELLED TO OFFER US INTERNATIONAL POWER OF A NATURE THAT BY ITS POSITION WILL ENABLE US WITHOUT ANY VIOLENCE GRADUALLY TO ABSORB ALL THE STATE FORCES OF THE WORLD AND TO FORM A SUPER-GOVERNMENT”
From the Zionist Protocols
Enjoy
The drive-by nazi has returned. I would think “troll”(if I understand the usage on this site) would be too mild a description for dear old Ronald. I do hope however, he is not blocked out, because exposing many bacteia to light does kill it.
Not to mention, I would hope most can see the eerie similarities between what people like Ron have to say, and many points brought up by our leftie friends like Wild Rice, TC, and others.
Die Juden kommen, die Juden kommen, die Juden kommen.
One last time, the Protocols were shown to be a Russian forgery long ago, and as Sergey pointed out, the Russians revealed their forgery finally in 1989. Was it P.T Barnum that said there’s a sucker born every minute? Or was it W.C. Fields?
Anybody else notice how the pro-Israel zealots on this board spit fury when the odd troll quotes from some anti-semitic literature the odd time – even while they’re ranting that Islam is an evil death cult that the West should wipe out by kiling 10’s of billions of innocent people because of their religon…
“Islam is an evil death cult”
TC: Can you please demonstrate to me how this is not true?
…and I don’t believe any of us has advocated “kiling 10’s of billions of innocent people”…oh, especially since there are only about 1 billion Muslims in the world, and only about 8 or so billion on the planet in total. We’re just worried about the 10% or so of Islam’s fundamentalist fanatics—you know, the 100,000,000 who’ve professed their desire to see us dead.
Sure stumbley – right after you demonstrate to me why the following isn’t true: Jews consider themselves the master race and consider all other ethnic/religous groups as inferior – and ultimately subordinates in a plot for world domination.
Actually – why don’t you read this instead and then I’ll answer your question – promise.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=12123
TC:
Read your article. Sorry. The criticism directed at Carter’s book is—as has been pointed out particulary by his co-researcher and director of the Carter Center, Kenneth Stein—well-founded. Carter’s distortions and outright fabrications have been documented clearly elsewhere, and I don’t feel it necessary to belabor this point. As for your blatantly idiotic statement about Jews, please indicate to me where in the Torah or any other writings by Jewish scholars are any of your outlandish accusations demonstrated?
If you’d like, I can cite several hadiths and surahs in the Q’uran that bear out my assertion.
Let me help, stumbley. The Ta’rikh or The History of Al-Tabari: Vol IX, pg.69: “Arabs are the most noble people in lineage, the most prominent, and the best in deeds. We were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah’s helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight the people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and his possessions from us. As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in Allah’s Cause. Killing him is a small matter to us.”
The religion of “peace”. Al-Tabari Vol. II, pg.11: “Shem, the son of Noah was the father of the Arabs, the Persians, and the Greeks; Ham was the father of the Black Africans; and Japheth was the father of the Turks and of Gog and Magog who were cousins of the Turks. Noah prayed that the prophets and apostles would be descended from Shem and kings would be from Japheth. He prayed that the African’s color would change so that their descendants would be slaves to the Arabs and Turks.” I wonder if Louis Farrakhan has read this hadith. Al-Tabari Vol. II, pg.21: “Ham begat all those who are black and curly-haired, while Japheth begat all those who are full-faced with small eyes, and Shem begat everyone who is handsome of face with beautiful hair. Noah prayed that the hair of Ham’s descendants would not grow beyond their ears, and that whenever his descendants met Shem’s, the latter would enslave them.”
Yep, that’s right. Noah WANTED one of his son’s descendants to be changed so Arabs would know who their slaves were to be. And Allah(most merciful, benevolent) DID it. One Hell(literally) of a god.
TC, Exposing Islam isn’t about “killing muslims”, it’s about saving them. When they can see it is a false belief system they will, I hope, reject it, thus freeing themselves from it’s tyrrany and thus freeing ourselves from the violence and terror it creates. While I don’t necessarily agree with most of Ernst Renan’s writings, he did get one thing right: “Muslims are the first victims of Islam. Many times I have observed in my travels that fanaticism comes from a small number of dangerous men who maintain others in the practice of this religion by terror. To liberate the Muslim from his religion is the best service one can render him.”
TC: I am a “pro-Israel zealot” because I immediately react against a known forgery, as well as a forgery that neo-nazis use to validate their sickness? I think the labeling of “pro-Israel zealot” says much more about you than me.
CLAP-CLAP-CLAP!(standing ovation for Ariel). Don’t worry, folks. TC has exposed himself by reference to his zmag(z for zionist). Eventually, he will realize he is not winning over any brownshirt converts here, and he will become another drive-by nazi like Ronald Branch. “Give a fool enough rope, and he will eventually hang himself.”
Jews consider themselves the master race and consider all other ethnic/religous groups as inferior – and ultimately subordinates in a plot for world domination.
Thus we see how neo-Marxists and neo-nazis are siblings in both hate and lunacy.
Hold on to your saddle there Sally.
I don’t espouse the view that I offered – I offered it as an example of stereotype and bigotry as a counter to stumbley’s ‘question’.
I don’t believe that about Jews and I don’t believe Islam is a death cult, either.
But if I wanted to I could single out portions of the torah to make a claim that I know isn’t representative of world jewry – just like taking parts of the Koran isn’t going to tell you anything about Islam.
You lot should really think about what I saying carefully…
TC, can you, really? I challenge you. Bring it! The Torah is not just a book of spirituality, it is a history book of the Jewish(Hebrew) people as well. While there are many violent periods described(some actually commanded by Yahweh), the only example I am specifically instructed to follow in the TorahGospelEpistles is that of Jesus(Yeshoua). Yet the Qur’an and hadith say over and over that the best muslims follow the sunnah(example) of the prophet(may he rest in pieces). And those “holy” books describe Muhammed as a murderer, a thief, a sexual liberrtine, a pedophile, a terrorist, and a tyrant. Some Example(and I might say, these are KIND descriptions of him).
Don’t rely on the talking points memos of the Islamic apologists, READ the Qur’an and hadith for yourselves.
“World jewry”? How deep a hole you going to continue to dig yourself into, NAZI BOY(TC)?
TC, stumbley read YOUR article. Now, ANSWER HIS QUESTION!
“Carter’s distortions and outright fabrications have been documented clearly elsewhere, and I don’t feel it necessary to belabor this point.”
Maybe you don’t – but I’m not familiar with the critic that you site – although I am familiar with the attack on Carter – baseless, ignorant and irrlevant to the major claims in his book i.e Israel is an aparthied state in violation of international law and the will of the international community.
Facts – if you wish to dispute them I’m ready to listen.
But if I were to point out parts of the both the Torah or Talmud or the Old Testament that portrayed Jews as a vicious tribe intolerant of others and bent on world domination under the guise of God’s chosen people- you would say I was a raging anti-semite(incidently though not my vocation -contrary to what some windbags would love to believe – I did read a facinating exchange between a pro-Israel zealot talking about Islam like you are with Patrick Cockburn. The facinating thing was the jewish guy who interjected to provide lengthy quotes from the very holy books I mention; all demonstrating some decidely unsavory descriptions of jews and their relationships to gentiles. A self-hating jew I guess(I’m always wonder why I never hear the term self-hating Muslim).
Anyway I’ll see if I can find it, if you really care.
Frankly, stumbley – I really couldn’t care less.
But you should be aware that you really are no better – certainly no better – than the david dukes or european neo-nazis who ‘claim’ to offer concrete evidence of ‘evil’ intent in religous texts as a way of slandering a people.
You really should. And I can’t put it any simpler than that.
And I won’t….
“Frankly, stumbley – I really couldn’t care less.”
That’s been clear for quite a while now.
And, interestingly, in that whole long post you still didn’t provide any evidence of the hateful language of the Jews (aside from an insubstantiated anecdote). Yet, Lee was pretty quick to provide texts from the Q’uran to demonstrate the incontrovertible evidence of its insistence on “world domination.” When the immutable text of a religion followed by a billion people is filled with admonitions to kill unbelievers, it’s a little disingenuous to claim that there’s “no evil intent” in the text—or the religion itself.
Thanks, stumbley. As I said, TC(to requote a phrase which you so blithely dismissed) I can give you 900+ similar quotes from Qur’an and thousands from Hadiths. And as I tell everyone who read my words or listen to them, don’t take my word for it; read them for yourselves. Ascertain for yourselves whether I speak truly or not.