Defining Terms: What is a Neoconservative (Neocon)?

[FrankRep]

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0028740211.01._SX140_SY225_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg (http://tinyurl.com/kz3xgoj)

Neo-conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (http://tinyurl.com/kz3xgoj)
- Irving Kristol

======


Neoconservatism's deadly influence:

A look at the roots of neoconservatism and the reasons why this deadly movement must be rejected in favor of the true conservatism as envisioned by our Founders


John F. McManus | The New American (http://www.TheNewAmerican.com/)
Jan 22, 2007



A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.

--Irving Kristol


The above definition has joyfully and repeatedly been cited by many defenders of neoconservatism. They consider their branch of political thought a benign movement even though its clout has been recognized as dominant over the Bush administration. Kristol likely hopes that everyone who learns of his quip will emit a slight chuckle and remain convinced that neoconservatism is no threat to the nation.

But Irving Kristol, who has willingly accepted the title of "Godfather of Neoconservatism," earlier produced a more incisive definition of the movement he helped to create. In his 1995 book Neoconservatism: the Autobiography of an Idea (http://tinyurl.com/kz3xgoj), he wrote:



It describes the erosion of liberal faith among a relatively small but talented and articulate group ... (which gradually gained more recruits) toward a more conservative point of view: conservative but different in certain respects from the conservatism of the Republican party. We ... accepted the New Deal in principle, and had little affection for the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism.


There you have it: neoconservatism's most prominent adherent wants it to be linked to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal socialism and, because of its rejection of "isolationism," to be further identified as a champion of meddling in the affairs of other nations. The opposite of isolationism, of course, is interventionism, a tactic favored by all neoconservatives. Earlier, in 1983, Kristol claimed that "a conservative welfare state is perfectly consistent with the neoconservative perspective." Old-line conservatives would justly label the phrase "conservative welfare state" a classic oxymoron. By 1993, in a piece he authored for the Wall Street Journal, the Godfather lauded Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and Medicaid, even a cash allowance for the children of unwed mothers. Virtually any socialist program can count on support from the neoconservative camp.

As for interventionist meddling, neoconservative Charles Krauthammer candidly presented the movement's attitude in a 1989 article appearing in Kristol's journal, The National Interest. Boldly calling for the integration of the United States, Europe, and Japan, he yearned for a "super-sovereign" state that would be "economically, culturally, and politically hegemonic in the world." Not satisfied with such a novel creation, he further urged a "new universalism [which] would require the conscious depreciation not only of American sovereignty but of the notion of sovereignty in general." And he added: "This is not as outrageous as it sounds." Maybe not to a neoconservative, but a real conservative and especially a constitutionalist wouldn't hesitate for a moment in labeling such ideas "outrageous."

Neoconservatism's Roots

During the 1960s and into the 1970s, the "small but talented and articulate group" Kristol haughtily described sought a new home for its ideology. Leftists to the core, most were followers of Leon Trotsky, the revolutionary communist leader who was expelled from Russia following a power struggle with Stalin in the 1920s. They didn't like Stalin, but they did like the style of communism advocated by Trotsky. In his 1995 book Neoconservatism, Kristol proudly stated, "I regard myself as lucky to have been a young Trotskyite and I have not a single bitter memory." As students of the communist movement well know, Trotsky broke with Stalin in 1927 merely over which tactics would best succeed in achieving the world domination each sought. Run out of Russia by his former partner in monstrous crime, Trotsky ended up in Mexico, never renounced his desire to communize or socialize the world, and went to his Maker when one of Stalin's henchmen plunged an axe into his skull in 1940.

The Trotsky link provides a key to understanding neoconservatives. Writing in 1995 in the CFR journal Foreign Affairs about John Erhman's The Rise of Neoconservatism, reviewer John Judis confirmed that "the other important influence on neoconservatives was the legacy of Trotsky.... Many of the founders of neoconservatism including The Public Interest founder Irving Kristol ... were either members of or close to the Trotskyite left in the late 1930s and early 1940s." Other important early leaders of the movement included Commentary Editor Norman Podhoretz, his wife Midge Decter, Ben Wattenberg, Edward Luttwak, Elliott Abrams, Carl Gershman, Michael Ledeen, and Nathan Glazer. Among later adherents could be found Michael Novak, William Bennett, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Daniel Moynihan, Wall Street Journal editorialist Robert Bartley, and Kristol's son William, who currently presides over The Weekly Standard.

Many of the early neocons were Democrats. But in 1972, they were repulsed by the Democratic candidacy of George McGovern because of his isolationism and his embrace of the countercultural excesses of the New Left (drugs, free love, radical feminism, homosexuality, etc.). What they saw propelled the early neocons to seek a new home in the Republican Party. Irving Kristol explained that the South Dakota senator's strident opposition to the Vietnam War and willing acceptance of the New Left's attack on traditional values "signified that the Democratic Party was not hospitable to any degree of neoconservatism." He wrote that he and a few others arrived at the "obvious conclusion that we would have to try to find a home in the Republican party." Find a home they did! And they were giddily accepted, not only by liberal Republicans but also by many anti-communist GOP conservatives who seemed oblivious to the fact they were welcoming socialists and internationalists into their midst.

Neocons didn't exert much influence during the Ford- and Carter-led 1970s, although many more moved into the GOE They found they had a good friend in Ronald Reagan when he courted them during his 1980 campaign and then gave several of them administration posts when he triumphed. Long on pleasing rhetoric but short on comparable performance, Reagan named Jeane Kirkpatrick ambassador to the UN, and Richard Perle and Elliott Abrams were given posts in the Defense Department. To a man, neocons joined Kristol in praising Reagan for being "the first Republican president to pay tribute to Franklin D. Roosevelt."

More Neocon Successes

No review of the rise of neoconservative prominence is complete without noting the role played by William F. Buckley in bringing it about. In 1991, Buckley sponsored an invitation-only, three-day conference for two dozen conservative Republicans. Enthusiastically described by Kristol, the event saw attendees arrive as conservatives first, but "by the end of the meeting, a significant reversal had occurred.... Most were Republicans first and conservatives second." They would now accept increased taxation, more federal controls, and the use of America's military under UN auspices to build George H.W. Bush's "new world order." (Though Bush never defined the term "new world order," it has long been known to mean socialism and world government, the cardinal tenets of neoconservatism.) Newly identifiable neocons in the first Bush administration included Defense Department leaders Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle. Delighted to be in charge of the world's only remaining superpower, they set out to use America's armed might to force their brand of "democracy" on the world.

Buckley's little-known preference for the neocon agenda, both its foreign and domestic policy elements, deserves mention. In 1952, while he was serving in the CIA in what he later termed a "deep cover" assignment in Mexico, the widely accepted leader of American conservatism wrote in Commonweal magazine of the need for "Big Government for the duration," and for "large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards and the attendant centralization of power in Washington--even with Truman at the reins of it all." Even before Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and other neocon luminaries, and even before anyone had even heard the term neoconservative, Buckley was promoting its agenda. More than any other individual, Buckley succeeded during 50 years of clever duplicity in taking real conservatives away from their roots and into the grasp of the neocons. *

In a 1996 edition of The Essential Neoconservative Reader, editor Mark Gerson jubilantly observed, "The neoconservatives have so changed conservatism that what we now identify as conservatism is largely what was once neoconservatism. And in so doing, they have defined the way vast numbers of Americans view the economy, their polity, and their society." In that same year, veteran conservative columnist Sam Francis observed:



As the Cold War wound down, "exporting democracy" and opposing "isolationism" became the major neoconservative foreign policy goals, reflected in their almost universal support for NAFTA, the World Trade Organization, and United Nations "peacekeeping" missions.


Francis and Gerson, holders of completely contradictory views about the neocon takeover, were nevertheless in solid agreement about its success. A steady stream of neocon policy began flowing from such Washington-based think tanks as the Committee on the Present Danger, American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century, the National Endowment for Democracy, and more.

When the 1994 elections produced huge Republican victories, Irving Kristol considered the stunning GOP success a neocon triumph. He knew, as many others did not, that GOP leader Newt Gingrich would be his ally. The Georgia Republican who was to become House Speaker had backed federal aid to education, land controls, foreign aid, NAFTA, GATT (which became the WTO), the Mexican bailout, the Export-Import Bank, the use of U.S. military force to "democratize" the world, the United Nations, and whatever else would take America away from limited government and non-intervention. His vaunted "Contract with America" was largely inconsequential fluff that kept the GOP from relying on the Constitution. Buckley and the neoconservatives were delighted, and the proud owner of National Review saluted Gingrich as a "greatly gifted" leader. There was little objection from the Clinton White House.

In 2003, one Republican congressman who has never been swept into the neoconservative camp addressed his colleagues in a speech entitled "Neoconned." Dr. Ron Paul noted that replacing the Clinton Democrats with the George W. Bush Republicans "has not made a difference." He attributed the lack of change to neoconservatives who had "diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence." Among the modern-day neocons he named were Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, William Kristol, Michael Ledeen, James Woolsey, Bill Bennett, Frank Gaffhey, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. The redoubtable Texan then summed up the problem facing our nation:



Neoconservatism is not the philosophy of free markets and a wise foreign policy. Instead, it represents big-government welfare at home and a program of using our military might to spread their version of American values throughout the world.


In his speech, Paul condemned American Enterprise leader Michael Ledeen's 1999 characterization of the attack on Pearl Harbor as a "lucky" event that led our nation away from neutrality. Ledeen had actually longed for another such event that could be used to entangle our nation in more overseas adventures. Paul also pointed to the Project for the New American Century's hope expressed in 2000 for "a Pearl Harbor event" that he said "would galvanize the American people to support their ambitious plans to ensure political and economic domination of the world."

Paul never accused neocons of support for or knowledge of the 9/11 event, but he stated very clearly that it has been used "to promote an agenda that strict constitutionalists and devotees of the Founders of this nation find appalling."

After listing 17 neocon beliefs, each of which he rejects, the Texas congressman urged that those responsible for fastening neoconservatism on America must be "exposed" and "their philosophy of pervasive government intrusion rejected." Count this author and this magazine in solid agreement.

* See John F. McManus' book William F. Buckley, Jr.: Pied Piper for the Establishment (http://tinyurl.com/mpjb7pn) for the history of why Buckley became the favorite of liberals and neocons.


SOURCE:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_2_23/ai_n24999554/pg_4/?tag=content;col1

[FrankRep]

Conservatives, Neoconservatives and Constitutionalists


John F. McManus, John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/) President
August 2010


Early members of The John Birch Society commonly labeled their own and the Society’s political preference as “conservative.” These doughty Americans were opposed to government controls, the United Nations, and anything that smacked of communism. Occasionally, someone with a bit of history under his belt would interject that liberals of the 19th Century were the equivalent of conservatives in the 20th. True enough, but “So what!’ was the frequent rejoinder. It had already become obvious that the terms conservative and liberal weren’t defined with any precision.

Jump ahead 20-30 years and JBS members found themselves being lumped together with so-called conservatives who were advocating bigger government and foreign interventionism. Mercifully, some prominent promoters of these very un-conservative views adopted the term “neoconservative” for themselves. The most prominent of the neocons, journalist Irving Kristol, reveled in being characterized as “the godfather of Neoconservatism,” a title he richly deserved.


http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQxKy0xWYQfTN6FrdrHgBH3flC8bukVQ fZsNmmWsNY1zGbX29c&t=1&usg=__xhP1W-LdDRoNYWQ_XDzrcOAXIhA=
Irving Kristol took delight in being characterized as “the godfather of Neoconservatism.”


Kristol spelled out neocon belief in his 1995 opus Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (http://www.amazon.com/Neo-conservatism-Autobiography-Idea-Irving-Kristol/dp/1566632285). He said that it squared with Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” and wanted nothing to do with “the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism.” There you have the definition of neoconservatism: socialism and internationalism. Kristol went so far as to candidly admit, “I regard myself as lucky to have been a young Trotskyite and I have not a single bitter memory.” The partner of Lenin in communizing Russia, Trotsky later fell into disfavor for backing the slower route to deadly totalitarianism. If one accepts Kristol’s definition, and there is no reason not to do so, Trotsky was the first neoconservative.

Though few knew for many years, William Buckley actually preceded Kristol as a neocon, although he postured as a conservative while leading many otherwise patriotic Americans into the neocon swamp. In 1952 while working in “deep cover” (his term) for the CIA in Mexico, Buckley penned an article in the Catholic periodical Commonweal in which he called for “Big Government for the duration,” “a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores,” “large armies and air forces,” and “the attendant centralization of power in Washington.” No neocon ever said it more clearly.

Buckley, of course, is still lauded by unthinking conservatives, especially for his incessant and dishonest castigation of The John Birch Society. If he is the epitome of conservatism, JBS members of the 21st Century want nothing to do with it. Which is why the term “constitutionalist” has been adopted. Unlike conservative or liberal, constitutionalist can be defined. And it can’t be shifted into backing tomorrow what it rejected yesterday. The mass media may refer to the two Bush presidents, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, John McCain, William Kristol and a host of others as “conservatives” but even these propaganda organs wouldn’t call them constitutionalists.

The Constitution is defined. Conservatism is not. Neoconservatism has taken conservatism’s place and, while we emphatically disagree with what Irving Kristol wanted for America, we can at least thank him for his honest definition. Not so with Bill Buckley who bared his real beliefs in 1952 but then dishonestly postured as America’s premier defender for decades.

Today’s neocon favors the United Nations, undeclared wars, a form of socialism slightly milder than what is offered by Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, steps toward world government such as phony free trade agreements, open borders, and a Supreme Court peopled by justices who will “interpret” rather than obey the U.S. Constitution. It is increasingly obvious that Americans are discovering (some are re-discovering) the Constitution. There’s hope for the future there. Let’s do all we can to spread awareness of the worth and the need to enforce the “supreme law of the land.”


John Birch Society
http://www.jbs.org/

[StilesBC]

What is a neoconservative?

A corporatist.

They support intervention to benefit corporations or "business." A socialist supports intervention to benefit "workers." A Libertarian doesn't believe intervention is ethical, productive or sustainable.

The notion that neoconservatives are "more free-market" than modern day liberals really needs to be challenged with the understanding that being "pro-business" is not akin to being "pro free-market." It is just socialism for a different class of people.

[Agorism]

Just say an it's an interventionist. We all know it means more than that but otherwise you will fall into political correctness problems.

[LibertyEagle]

What is a neoconservative?

A corporatist.

They support intervention to benefit corporations or "business." A socialist supports intervention to benefit "workers." A Libertarian doesn't believe intervention is ethical, productive or sustainable.

The notion that neoconservatives are "more free-market" than modern day liberals really needs to be challenged with the understanding that being "pro-business" is not akin to being "pro free-market." It is just socialism for a different class of people.

I think this is good. But, I'm not sure if both don't go further than that. At the top, they both pay little heed to the Constitution and would like to see it trashed in favor of a world government. Just two different paths to the same end goal.

[FrankRep]

I posted this because so many people abuse the term "Neocon" to mean anything they want it to mean. For Example: "He supports War. He's a Neocon!"

Irving Kristol, the Father of the Neoconservative Movement, explains quite clearly what a real Neocon is.

[heavenlyboy34]

I posted this because so many people abuse the term "Neocon" to mean anything they want it to mean. For Example: "He supports War. He's a Neocon!"

Irving Kristol, the Father of the Neoconservative Movement, explains quite clearly what a real Neocon is.

It was a good post, IMHO (even though I don't revere the constitution as McManus does). It reminds of how often "libertarian" and "anarchist" are misused and abused.

[Lib111]

Most Neocons are Zionists promoting wars for Israel's benefit.

[FrankRep]

Most Neocons are Zionists promoting wars for Israel's benefit.

Neoconservatives are rooted in left-wing Trotskyism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism), but calling them "Zionists" fighting for "Israel's benefit" is not the complete story and sounds a bit like you're trying to blame "The Jews," which is not the case.


How Neoconservatives Conquered Washington – and Launched a War (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lind1.html)

Michael Lind | AntiWar.com
April 10, 2003



....
Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history. Their admiration for the Israeli Likud party's tactics, including preventive warfare such as Israel's 1981 raid on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, is mixed with odd bursts of ideological enthusiasm for "democracy." They call their revolutionary ideology "Wilsonianism" (after President Woodrow Wilson), but it is really Trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution mingled with the far-right Likud strain of Zionism. Genuine American Wilsonians believe in self-determination for people such as the Palestinians.

The neocon defense intellectuals, as well as being in or around the actual Pentagon, are at the center of a metaphorical "pentagon" of the Israel lobby and the religious right, plus conservative think tanks, foundations and media empires. Think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) provide homes for neocon "in-and-outers" when they are out of government (Perle is a fellow at AEI). The money comes not so much from corporations as from decades-old conservative foundations, such as the Bradley and Olin foundations, which spend down the estates of long-dead tycoons. Neoconservative foreign policy does not reflect business interests in any direct way. The neocons are ideologues, not opportunists.

The major link between the conservative think tanks and the Israel lobby is the Washington-based and Likud-supporting Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa), which co-opts many non-Jewish defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel. It flew out the retired general Jay Garner, now slated by Bush to be proconsul of occupied Iraq. In October 2000, he cosigned a Jinsa letter that began: "We ... believe that during the current upheavals in Israel, the Israel Defense Forces have exercised remarkable restraint in the face of lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of [the] Palestinian Authority."

The Israel lobby itself is divided into Jewish and Christian wings. Wolfowitz and Feith have close ties to the Jewish-American Israel lobby. Wolfowitz, who has relatives in Israel, has served as the Bush administration's liaison to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Feith was given an award by the Zionist Organization of America, citing him as a "pro-Israel activist." While out of power in the Clinton years, Feith collaborated with Perle to coauthor a policy paper for Likud that advised the Israeli government to end the Oslo peace process, reoccupy the territories, and crush Yasser Arafat's government.

Such experts are not typical of Jewish-Americans, who mostly voted for Gore in 2000. The most fervent supporters of Likud in the Republican electorate are Southern Protestant fundamentalists. The religious right believes that God gave all of Palestine to the Jews, and fundamentalist congregations spend millions to subsidize Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.
....

[Corto_Maltese]

Ron Paul defined the neocons well: YouTube - Ron Paul exposes the Neo-Cons in Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKfyzS_Q1W4)

[Fozz]

Neocons are warmongers who support war and intervention above anything else. Of course this is not a complete definition of a neocon, but it gets the main idea of what they are about.

Conservatives can support the war without being a neocon. Jim DeMint is not a neocon, because he cares more about limited government and the free market than he does about war.

Lindsay Graham and John McCain are neocons, because they actively work to promote war, and they neglect the principles of freedom.

[FrankRep]

Neocons are warmongers who support war and intervention above anything else. Of course this is not a complete definition of a neocon, but it gets the main idea of what they are about.

Being a warmonger doesn't make you a Neocon.


This is a Neocon:


Today’s neocon favors the United Nations, undeclared wars, a form of socialism slightly milder than what is offered by Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, steps toward world government such as phony free trade agreements, open borders, and a Supreme Court peopled by justices who will “interpret” rather than obey the U.S. Constitution.

[cindy25]

neocons are basically Nazis; fanatically nationalistic, anti-immigrant, mandatory IDs, conscription, endless war, all to support large corporations.

[Brian4Liberty]

neocons are basically Nazis; fanatically nationalistic, anti-immigrant, mandatory IDs, conscription, endless war, all to support large corporations.

Lol! You may have a couple of things backwards there...

[Cowlesy]

People should define neoconservatism the way the guy who founded it, defined it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=219142

[FrankRep]

A Neoconservative is a Liberal who has been mugged by reality.

--Irving Kristol (Neocon Godfather)

[susano]

The Fraud of Neoconservative "Anti-Communism"
by Max Shpak
Neoconservatives and their apologists would have the public believe that the neocons were former Leftists who saw the light and came to reject liberal or Marxist ideology as a matter of conviction and principle. Regrettably, this official line has come to be conventional wisdom, no doubt reflecting neocon efforts to hide the fact that their transformation was neither sincerely motivated nor sincerely enacted. To understand the real agenda that drove and continues to drive much of neoconservatism, one needs to look back to the origins of the movement and the cultural backgrounds of those who lead it.

It is a well-established fact that many of the early luminaries of neoconservatism (most famously Irving Kristol in the 1940's, a more recent famous example being David Horowitz) came from Marxist backgrounds, and that neoconservatism (like Marxism itself) began and continues to be a largely a phenomenon of Jewish intellectualism. In the early part of the 20th century, Marxism attracted a disproportionate pool of Jewish recruits for a number of obvious reasons. There are a number of complex psychological and social reasons for the attraction, all of which largely stem from the fact that Marxist internationalism is an ideology which by its very nature finds disciples among a rootless, anti-religious urban intelligentsia.

More important for the purposes of this analysis, however, are the practical reasons for Jewish sympathy with Bolshevism. European and American Jews alike carried deep-seated hatreds for the traditional regimes and religions of the European continent, particularly Czarist Russia and various Eastern European nations due to (real and imagined) "persecution" and "pogroms" that occurred there. Thus, when the Bolsheviks overthrew the Czar, destroyed the hated Orthodox Church, rendered powerless the landed religious peasantry, and replaced traditional Russian authority with a largely Jewish Commissariate, world Jewry (including alleged "capitalists" like the Schiffs and Rothschilds) embraced the Revolution and Marxist ideology alike.

With Russia becoming an effective Jewish colony where "anti-Semitism" was an offense punishable by death and the native gentile culture was effectively stamped out (thanks to a leadership consisting mainly of Jews such as Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Severdlov, held together under the stewardship of the obsequious philosemite Lenin), Jews throughout the world put their hopes in the possibility of similar revolutions elsewhere. Indeed, their comrades in arms were hard at work affecting similar changes in Hungary (Kuhn), Austria (Adler) and Germany (Eisner). The rise of Fascist and Nazi movements only served to further polarize Jewish support in favor of international communism.

This near unanimity would change as a result of two developments: a shift in the character of Soviet Communism on the one hand and the foundation of the State of Israel on the other. Stalin's purges of many of his former Bolshevik colleagues (including Trotsky, who was assassinated while in exile), his 1939 pact with Hitler, and rumors of Stalin's own anti-Jewish prejudices gave many would-be supporters pause. When Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, it became clear the Russian masses would not fight for the sake of Bolshevism, an ideology that brought them so much misery, but rather for the sake of Russian blood and soil. From then on, the Soviet leadership had to court the very Russian nationalist elements that the early Bolsheviks had worked so hard to stamp out. This lead to an increasing tolerance towards the Russian Orthodox Church and a decreased Jewish presence in the Soviet politburo and KGB. Thus, the USSR was "betraying" the very elements that made it attractive to the Jewish establishment to begin with.

Perhaps even more significant a factor in the origins of neoconservatism was the emergence of an independent Israeli state. While many Jewish Marxists eagerly supported the Zionist state, the more intellectually consistent Left opposed Zionism on the grounds that all nationalisms, including Jewish ones, are enemies of global proletarian revolution. Thus, Jewish leftists who once advocated internationalism for gentile nations were forced to come to terms with the implications of this ideology for their own nationalist sentiments. Thus, they needed an ideology which would let them have their cake (opposing gentile nationalism) and eat it too (by supporting Israel), and they found just such a worldview with neoconservatism.

At the same time, although the Soviet Union initially courted Israel during the 1948 wars of independence, it became clear to the Israeli government that in world polarized between the United States and the Soviet Union the former would be wealthier and more pliant cash cow to milk. By the 1950's and the coming of the Suez Wars, regardless of residual Jewish loyalties to Communism, the battle lines were already drawn, with Israel in the US/Western camp and the Arab nations forced to make alliances of convenience with the Soviet Union.

It is hardly a coincidence that the changing character of Soviet Communism and the status of Israel as a US ally came at the same time that neoconservatism was becoming an influential political movement. For all of their talk about "capitalism," "democracy," "freedom," and "free markets," the fact that so many Jewish leftists turned on a dime to back the US in the Cold War because America could serve as a life support system for Israel and a bulwark against resurgent Russian "anti-Semitism" makes their real agenda entirely transparent. One can witness an identical phenomenon taking place today, as many Jewish liberal Democrats switch party ranks and join the GOP because of the latter's stronger support for Israel and harder line with the Arab nations. All of the window dressing about their newfound "patriotism" and "Americanism" is a sham designed to mask the fact that the question for the neocons has always been and will always be "is it good for the Jews?"

The different agendas driving neocon Cold Warriors as opposed to their erstwhile Old Right allies could be seen on any number of fronts. The most obvious one has been the different reactions in the two camps to Russia after the end of the Cold War. While paleoconservative leaning Cold Warriors such as Pat Buchanan have pushed for normalized relations with Russia, the neocons continue to fight on the Cold War, enthusiastically supporting Chechen separatists as "freedom fighters" and advocating NATO expansion. The reasons for this difference are entirely obvious: the Old Right's enemy was Communist ideology, while neoconservative Jews nurtured a hatred for Russian nationalism. Thus post-Communist Russia is still very much a threat to the latter, particularly with resurgent Russian "ultra-nationalism" and "anti-Semitism," while in the absence of Communist rule the above are of little concern to the Old Right.

For all their talk about "anti-Communism," the real engine driving neocon Cold Warrior instincts was punishing the hated Russian goyim for the sin of "anti-Semitism," not any opposition to residual or latent Marxism. As further evidence that this is the case, one need only consider the fact that while the Old Right championed Christian dissidents such as Solzhenitsyn, to the neocons the only legimate "dissidents" were Zionists like Natan Sharansky, just as the only "refugees" championed by the neos were invariably Jewish (including today's shady Odessa Mafiosi). Solzhenitsyn represented the Russian nationalism and Orthodox Church that made so many of the neocons' predecessors embrace Bolshevism, thus Solzhenitsyn and the plight of Christian dissidents were relegated to obscurity in neocon publications, while Zionist noise-makers in the USSR were given a hero's welcome.

In this regard, the neocons are the true heirs to Leon Trotsky, who condemned Stalin and his followers not so much for their brutality (as commander of the Red Army and overseer of Lenin's terrorist CHEKA, Trotsky was no stranger to brutality and sadism) but for their "anti-Semitism" and "betrayal of the Revolution." Trotsky's main critique of Stalinism seemed to be that Stalin was moving Russia in a nationalist direction rather than working towards the establishment of an international "proletarian" vanguard. The fact that the intellectual ancestors of neoconservatism had not an unkind word to say about Bolshevism while Leninist-Trotskyite goals were being fulfilled suggests that it was not so much ideological reconsideration as tribal self-interest that drove these most unlikely conversos.

Because their move from the Left to a pseudo-right was insincere, one would expect to find a whole range of issues where the neocons retain leftist instincts and remain true to their Trotskyite heritage. Indeed this is the case. In their portrayal of the Cold War as a struggle between "capitalism" on the one hand and "socialism" on the other, the neocons try to minimize the fact that in many ways the conflict between the Bolsheviks and the West was over much more than economic systems. To most on the Old Right, the economic issues were at best peripheral: Marxism was opposed because it was materialistic, atheistic, and because it rejected nationalism and patriotism in the name of global revolution.

Most neocons came from a culture that was every bit as materialistic and cosmopolitan as the early Bolshevik leaders, so it is rather unlikely that they would have any quarrel with these aspects of Communist doctrine. The fact that neoconservatism is an ideology which is materialistic in nature and internationalist in focus (with its talk of "global democracy" and "global markets") makes it obvious that the fundamental underpinnings of the Marxist Left are alive and well among the scribblers of Commentary and The Weekly Standard. Their "conservative" pretenses seem limited to the fact that they oppose "socialism" (of the nationalist variety) in the name of "capitalism" (of the internationalist variety), and for all too many naïve people that seems to be sufficient and believable.

Understanding the true nature of the neoconservatives illuminates the essence of the struggle between the Right and the Left. It was never a struggle between "capitalism" and "socialism" as neoconservative or Communist progaganda would have one believe. Rather, it was always a conflict between spiritualism and materialism, between nationalism and globalism, between tradition and subversion, between the defenders of Western Civilization and its enemies. With the battle lines drawn as such, it is abundantly clear where the neocons stand. Many "capitalists" understood that economic means are not significant, only the desired end. Jacob Schiff understood it when he financed the Bolsheviks, just as Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner, Marc Rich, Boris Berezovsky, and George Soros understand that their form of "capitalism" is fully compatible with the essence of the Left, and that they can find friends and allies among the ostensibly conservative neocons.

Unfortunately, many Rightists are not nearly as perceptive in their choice of allies.

May 15, 2002

http://www.originaldissent.com/shpak051502.html

[Imaginos]

Neocons are traitors who put special interest ahead of ours.
They are mainly funded by the Military Industrial Complex and AIPAC.

[susano]

Neocons are traitors who put special interest ahead of ours.
They are mainly funded by the Military Industrial Complex and AIPAC.

Jewish banksters funded the Bolsheviks. It's no coindence that Lynn Rothschild is out there testing the waters for her neocon buddy Hillary Clinton.

[Zatch]

neocons are basically Nazis; fanatically nationalistic, anti-immigrant, mandatory IDs, conscription, endless war, all to support large corporations.

Anti immigrant? Neocons are for open borders.

[susano]

neocons are basically Nazis; fanatically nationalistic, anti-immigrant, mandatory IDs, conscription, endless war, all to support large corporations.

Please read the thread and get educated about who and what they really are. They are NOT nazis, they are commuists. They are NOT anti immigrant, nor are they necessarilly pro conscription.

[Dripping Rain]

I dont think its easy to have one description for all neocons. There are neocons who believe in nothing mentioned here except probly for their support for Israel. I.E. Eric Dondero the famous libertarian who was fired from Dr Ron Paul's congressional cadre
Its also sometimes not easy to point out a neocon. they come in all shapes and forms. But their ideology of perpetual war and affection for soft communism as well as their youthful leftist fascination and promotion is something most of them share.

[FrankRep]

bump. People keep misusing the "Neocon" term.

[angelatc]

bump. People keep misusing the "Neocon" term.

You mean, people keep calling you neocon when they mean Islamophobic neocon tool? Splitting hairs.

[Captain Shays]

Thanks Frank. Good stuff.

[FrankRep]

You mean, people keep calling you neocon when they mean Islamophobic neocon tool? Splitting hairs.
No, people calling Obama a Neocon. LOL.

[BuddyRey]

No, people calling Obama a Neocon. LOL.

Sounds accurate to me.

[FrankRep]

Sounds accurate to me.
Obama never claimed to be a "Conservative."

[FrankRep]

I dont think its easy to have one description for all neocons.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0028740211.01._SX140_SY225_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1566632285/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399349&creativeASIN=1566632285)

Neo-conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1566632285/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399349&creativeASIN=1566632285)
- Irving Kristol


Irving Kristol, the godfather of Neoconservatism, lays out the Neocon philosophy.

[ForLibertyFight]

In Liberty Defined, this is how Ron Paul describes the Neoconservative philosophy in the chapter: Noble Lie.

- The elite have a responsibility to deceive the masses.
- Rulers are superior and have a right and obligation over those who are inferior.
- A cynical use of religion is important for delivering the message to a compliant society, arguing that this prevents individuals from independent thinking.
- External threats unite the people; fear is a necessary ingredient for success. According to Machiavelli, if an external threat does not exist, the leaders must create one.
- This unites the people and they become more obedient to the state. Neoconservatives argue that this is in the best interest of the people since individualism is basically evil and the elite must meet their obligation to rule the incompetent.
- Religion, lies and war are the tools used by the neoconservatives to suppress individualism and fortify a ruling elite. These views in various degrees and on certain issues are endorsed by the leaders of both political parties. This is why philosophy of the Founders has been so severely undermined. Neoconservatives will always deny they believe in these principles (part of their noble lying) since it would blow their cover.
- They actually do the opposite, claiming title to super patriotism, and anyone who disagrees with their wars and welfare schemes is un-American, unpatriotic, non humanitarian, against the troops, and on and on.

[FrankRep]

In Liberty Defined, this is how Ron Paul describes the Neoconservative philosophy in the chapter: Noble Lie.

A "Noble Lie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie)" is a tool used to advance an agenda, it's not a philosophy.

[ForLibertyFight]

A "Noble Lie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie)" is a tool used to advance an agenda, it's not a philosophy.

Yeah I know.
I was saying that in the chapter, Noble Lie, Dr. Paul talks about the Neoconservatives and their use of the Noble Lie. He then lists some ideas that permeate the neoconservative philosophy which is what I listed.

[AGRP]

No, people calling Obama a Neocon. LOL.

He is.

[FrankRep]

He is.

Obama is now. Kinda.


http://dc-cdn.virtacore.com/2011/03/kristol.jpg


Bill Kristol calls Obama "Born-Again Neo-con" (http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/30/bill-kristol-declares-obama-a-born-again-neo-con-days-after-consulting-with-him-on-libya-policy/)


Daily Caller
March 30, 2011



On Wednesday’s “Red Eye” on the Fox News Channel, Kristol took things a step further and declared Obama “a born-again neo-con.”

Host Greg Gutfeld asked Kristol how he felt about Obama coming to him for help (reportedly the president had met with him and others prior to his Monday night address).

“He didn’t come to me for help, of course,” Kristol said. “I’m not going to acknowledge that. He came to me to make sure I was supporting his sound policies. Of course, since his sound policies are more like the policies people like me have been advocating for quite a while, I’m happy to support them. He’s a born-again neo-con.”

[FrankRep]

http://thenewamerican.com/images/stories2011/11aFebruary/2705-cs-cpac.jpg (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/5576-neocon-control)



Neoconservatives gained control of the Republican Party by subverting conservatives and the conservative message, but their political pillar has many cracks.



Neocon Control (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/5576-neocon-control)


John F. McManus | The New American (http://thenewamerican.com/)
24 February 2011


Many Americans, including a growing number of political figures, claim to be conservatives. Not only do some attach this label to themselves, media operatives fasten it on a veritable parade of others, some of whom they wish to harm with the label and some of whom they seek to boost, however unworthily. But the wide-ranging views, some even contradictory, issued by these individuals should result in a good deal of head scratching. Why? Simply because, currently, there isn’t any commonly accepted definition of what it means to be a “conservative.”

This identity dilemma was starkly illustrated during the recent 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the annual extravaganza sponsored by the American Conservative Union that features speakers, panelists, and exhibitors representing what is widely considered to be the veritable Who’s Who of the conservative movement. For the second year in a row, CPAC found itself convulsed with controversy over including GOProud, a self-described “gay conservative” group, as a cosponsor of the three-day event. “Gay conservative”? This would have been considered an oxymoron by almost everyone just a few years ago, when the efforts of homosexual activists to force acceptance of their lifestyle were universally recognized by self-identified conservatives as a revolutionary attack on the basic moral, social, and political foundations of our society. After heated internal wrangling, the forces of “diversity” triumphed. The CPAC organizers ruled that GOProud would stay — even though the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, the American Principles Project, American Values, the Capital Research Center, the Center for Military Readiness, Liberty Counsel, and other groups that have been past CPAC participants dropped out in response to this cave-in on a matter of fundamental concern.

Still another indication of this identity crisis can be seen in this year’s CPAC presentation of the “Defender of the Constitution Award” to former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, arguably one of the most notorious recent offenders of the Constitution. Rumsfeld’s attempts to set up his own unconstitutional military tribunals, his suspension of habeas corpus, and, in general, his running roughshod over the Constitution’s Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, make CPAC’s choice to present him with such an award seem downright Orwellian.

So, it might be worthwhile to ask if the label “conservative” really means anything. What is it that those who call themselves conservatives are trying to conserve? In years past, some would have insisted that the term “conservative” had been defined by Russell Kirk in his The Conservative Mind (http://tinyurl.com/k5aqouh) (1953), or by Senator Barry Goldwater in his Conscience of a Conservative (http://tinyurl.com/mp4l4tr) (1963). Both of these seminal volumes are still admired in most CPAC circles, and the names of both men are regularly invoked at CPAC gatherings. But the direction toward which many current conservatives have been steering the movement cannot reasonably be equated with the principles enunciated by Kirk and Goldwater.

Among the essential hallmarks of conservative thought set forth by Dr. Kirk are belief in transcendent truth — the Divine Law and the Natural Law — as well as the idea that one has an obligation to posterity and futurity to uphold the Christian moral order bequeathed to us by our nation’s Founders. He also maintained that the great conservative minds fought against the prevailing “liberal” trend of our age that seeks to centralize and concentrate all power into the hands of the unitary state. He was a firm believer in the constitutional principle that the federal government has been granted minimal powers that are, in James Madison’s words, “few and defined.” Along with our Founding Fathers, Kirk saw imperial ambitions and foreign entanglements as mortal dangers to our Republic.

Senator Goldwater, likewise, hewed to a philosophy that adamantly opposed the federal government’s unconstitutional intrusions into virtually every area of our lives, and its usurpations of personal, local, and state responsibilities. And he saw increasing national indebtedness and the squandering of ever more of our citizens’ wealth by Washington, D.C., as a deadly trend that must be reversed. Over the past few decades, however, many “conservatives” not only joined the liberals in praising Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, but enthusiastically endorsed the federal government’s accelerated wasteful spending and egregious usurpations.

Already existing confusion about who is and who isn’t a conservative grew when the two Presidents named Bush and their appointees were regularly labeled “conservative” by the media. Both Bushes openly supported larger government, a soaring national debt, and a deepening of international entanglements. They could hardly identify with what Kirk and Goldwater had written years earlier. Journalists Fred Barnes, William Kristol, David Brooks, George Will, the late Robert Bartley, Charles Krauthammer, and numerous other pundits have claimed, or have been awarded, conservative status while generally adhering to and expounding political, economic, and moral principles that one would not associate with traditional conservative thought. Among politicians, Newt Gingrich leads the pack for talking the conservative talk but refusing to walk the conservative walk. It ought to be obvious that jamming such an amalgam of books, authors, political leaders/staffers, journalists, academicians, and others under a single conservative umbrella can’t be done.

It appears there simply is no longer any agreed-upon definition for “conservative,” just as there isn’t one for “liberal.” Yet there is need for a label to identify traditionally minded Americans, one that can substitute for the watered-down appellation “conservative.” We suggest “constitutionalist,” signifying adherence to the document created by our Founding Fathers, the one overwhelmingly accepted by the first Americans, and one so cavalierly sworn to by so many. In other words, go to the U.S. Constitution for what Americanism means and skip using “conservative” to describe anyone.

In the Constitution of 1787, one finds strictly limited government, non-intervention in the affairs of other nations, and — because of a near-total absence of restraints on the American people — conditions allowing for more individual freedom than mankind had experienced in all of history. This is what conservatism once meant, but not anymore. In fact, even though the Constitution still exists, and even though government officials, military leaders, and others solemnly swear to adhere to its provisions, the document is regularly ignored by most — even by conservatives.

Over the past several decades, while the conservative label has been applied almost willy-nilly, the stage has been set for something else to emerge. That something else is neoconservatism. Happily, this brand of political thinking has been narrowly defined — by none other than the man who is widely touted to be its “godfather.” In his 1995 book Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (http://tinyurl.com/kdv9rfh), the late Irving Kristol wrote:



It describes the erosion of liberal faith among a relatively small but talented and articulate group … (which gradually gained more recruits) toward a more conservative point of view: conservative, but different in certain respects from the conservatism of the Republican party. We … accepted the New Deal in principle, and had little affection for the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism.


There you have it, and it comes from the godfather himself. Neoconservatives seek unconstitutional, socialistic big government (à la Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal) while they champion America’s meddling in the rest of the world’s affairs, even to the making of war. They have succeeded in making repugnant any slight leaning toward, or even mention of “isolationism.” Change that once-useful term to “non-intervention in the affairs and wars of other nations” and most Americans will nod in agreement. But many have been scared away from such good sense by fear of being labeled an “isolationist.”

The political figure who most effectively opposed Roosevelt’s revolutionary New Deal was Ohio Senator Robert Taft, the brilliant legal scholar who was known by both detractors and supporters as “Mr. Republican.” As the ideological leader of the Republican Party in the post-World War II era, Taft championed a policy calling for non-intervention in the affairs of other nations. By holding such an opinion, Taft was faithfully echoing the sage advice given by America’s Founders. George Washington advised not to “entangle our peace and prosperity” with others. Thomas Jefferson urged avoidance of “entangling alliances.” And John Quincy Adams declared that America “goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.” Taft, who agreed with these early Americans, was the leading conservative of his day. But that was an era prior to the term becoming attached to many who never shared his views. As a non-interventionist and a firm opponent of socialism, he epitomized the precise opposite of what has become known as neoconservatism. He represented the kind of Republican Party from which Irving Kristol pointedly distanced himself.

According to their own leaders, neoconservatives want government programs to deal with any and all problems, meaning they want a larger and more intrusive and socialistic-style government. In keeping with their desires, they favor spending enormous sums of money, some of it financed by onerous taxation and much of it acquired through borrowing. Increasing the National Debt, a necessary consequence of outlandish spending, has been a regular item in the neocon agenda.

Also, neoconservatives prefer world government to independence. Some are outspoken champions of the United Nations, others merely mildly critical of the UN but supportive of our nation’s entanglements in the world body and its various offshoots such as NATO, IMF, and WTO. As for the Declaration of Independence and its insistence on America being a sovereign nation, they never mention it. And the attitude of the typical neocon toward the U.S. Constitution varies from disdain as a relic of a bygone era to a need to “reinterpret” it to meet current needs. In 1989, neocon Charles Krauthammer went so far as to author an article for Irving Kristol’s The National Interest that called for integration of Europe, Japan, and the United States to create a “super-sovereign” entity. For any who missed the full impact of what he recommended, he said it would “require the conscious depreciation not only of American sovereignty but of the notion of sovereignty in general.” And he added, “This is not as outrageous as it sounds.”

Godfather Kristol, who never shied away from his desire to have the United States entangled in the affairs of the rest of the world, also never backed away from his affinity for socialism. Always a supporter of New Deal socialism, he frequently supplied particulars to back it up. As far back as his 1983 Reflections of a Neoconservative (http://tinyurl.com/mlbwxsz), he had written that “a conservative welfare state … is perfectly consistent with the neoconservative perspective.” Conservative welfare state? Most constitutionally minded conservatives would no sooner embrace that contradiction than they would a boa constrictor. Regularly advocating one socialist initiative after another, Kristol detailed in a 1993 Wall Street Journal article his backing for “Social Security,” “Medicare,” “food stamps,” and even “a children’s cash allowance” for the offspring of unwed mothers. We can be grateful to Kristol for defining what neoconservatism truly is.

Recently deceased Harvard professor Daniel Bell, one of Kristol’s close friends and neocon colleagues, famously described himself as “a socialist in economics, a liberal in politics, and a conservative in culture.” In truth, the neoconservative label fits him very well. In The Essential Neoconservative Reader, editor Mark Gerson jubilantly observed: “The neoconservatives have so changed conservatism that what we now identify as conservatism is largely what was once neoconservatism. And in so doing, they have defined the way that vast numbers of Americans view their economy, their polity, and their society.” Who can disagree?

Irving Kristol served as the guiding force behind the neocon magazine The Public Interest. His close allies Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter guided Commentary, still another unabashedly neocon magazine. Like Kristol, Podhoretz defended the welfare state, especially focusing on ways to direct human action toward neocon desires. Always contending that welfare benefits are sacrosanct, he wrote that a committed neocon could identify “the precise point at which the incentive to work [would be] undermined by the availability of welfare benefits.” In addition to her writings, Midge Decter served with George W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, as co-chair of the Committee for the Free World, an organization formed to promote democracy throughout the world, even force it on nations and people who don’t want it. Along with husband Norman Podhoretz, she was a signatory with numerous others of the war-mongering Project for the New American Century. Neocons such as Decter always promote democracy and never point to our nation’s founding as a republic, or to the strong antipathy toward democracy expressed by America’s Founders.

In general, the term neoconservative refers to journalists, pundits, policy analysts, politicians, and organizations who agree with all or a large part of the godfather’s preferences.

Neoconservatism’s Roots

More than anyone, the man most admired by the founders of neoconservatism has always been Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky. First a partner with Vladimir Lenin in the seizure of Russia in 1917, he then teamed up with Joseph Stalin as Lenin’s health problems led to his death in 1924. Complicit in the murder or enslavement of millions, Trotsky never veered from being an unrepentant Marxist and atheist. His eventual break with Stalin centered on which tactics should be employed to seize control of the world. After Stalin exiled this former close ally, Trotsky took up residence in Turkey, then in Vienna, and ended up in Mexico, where he was murdered by one of Stalin’s agents in 1940. Yet, in his 1995 book, Neoconservatism, Irving Kristol candidly stated, “I regard myself lucky to have been a young Trotskyite and I have not one single bitter memory.” His attitude toward Trotsky was enthusiastically shared by his neocon ally Norman Podhoretz.

The year 1972 was pivotal in the rise of neoconservatism. Its importance began when Max Shachtman, a Trotskyite and former Communist Party member, along with his followers, surprised many socialists by backing Richard Nixon for President. Considered a conservative by most Americans because of his mostly undeserved reputation as an anti-communist (neocons detest communism while they back its socialist partner), Nixon famously adopted Keynesian economics and even imposed wage and price controls on the nation, two key indicators of his socialist leaning. During that year, many neocons became especially disenchanted with George McGovern, the Democratic Party’s choice for President. The outrageous excesses of his anti-Vietnam War entourage actually drove neocons toward the GOP. Kristol explained what happened:



In 1972, the nomination of George McGovern, an isolationist and a candidate of the New left, signified that the Democratic Party was not hospitable to any degree of neoconservatism. Only a few of us drew the obvious conclusion that we would have to try to find a home in the Republican Party, which had always been an alien entity, so far as we were concerned. But with every passing year our numbers grew.


Grow they surely did. Spurred on substantially by the Wall Street Journal’s Robert Bartley, who sought out Kristol as a regular columnist and named him to the Journal’s board of contributors, prominent neocons gravitated to the GOP. Then, in early June 1991, Kristol wrote in a Journal column about the invaluable assistance the movement received from William F. Buckley, Jr. Without ever naming the two dozen leading conservatives who attended a Buckley-sponsored three-day conference in 1991, neocon godfather Kristol delightedly reported what happened. He wrote:



The conference was sponsored by William Buckley’s National Review, and most of those attending regarded themselves as conservatives first and Republicans second. By the end of the meeting, a significant reversal had occurred…. Most were Republicans first and conservatives second.


These Buckley invitees didn’t shift their priorities from conservative to Republican, they shifted their allegiance to neoconservatism even while remaining Republican. This, of course, is why Kristol wrote so glowingly about the event. He specifically enthused about one conclusion they reached: “President Bush is now the leader of the conservative movement within the Republican Party.” In other words, these freshly minted neocons were now backing sharply increased taxes called for by the man who emphatically had stated, “Read my lips! No new taxes.” They were also now supporting the imposition of more fascist-style federal controls over business and industry, as well as sending U.S. forces into Desert Storm, the undeclared war against Iraq. Kristol announced that foreign policy wasn’t discussed during the three-day session because the participants had chosen to leave all of that to the President.

Kristol was aware that President George H.W. Bush had spent months brazenly pointing to the need for the war that would bring about a “new world order” and accomplish a “reinvigorated” and “newly activated” United Nations. Were these neocon goals? Absolutely! No wonder that Kristol could write four years later: “So I deem the neoconservative enterprise to have been a success, to have brought elements that were needed to enliven American conservatism and help reshape American politics.” Conservatism wasn’t enlivened, it was fundamentally altered. And important assistance in making the “enterprise” a success was provided by William Buckley.

Columnist Sam Francis, a veteran foe of every part of neoconservatism, summarized in January 1993 that “the whole concept of ‘conservatism’ in America is virtually devoid of meaning, in large part because conservatives made the seminal error of allowing dilettantes like Mr. Buckley to define it for them in the first place.” Francis would later note:



Almost none of the neoconservatives showed any interest in American constitutionalism or federalist or states’ right issues, and arguments based on constitutionalism were muted in favor of the “empirical” arguments drawn from disciplines like sociology and political science in which the neoconservative academics tended to concentrate.


...More...

[FrankRep]

Preference for War

In his book Crisis and Leviathan (http://tinyurl.com/khj3fm4), economic historian Robert Higgs looked over history and concluded both that war is the handmaid of tyranny and a non-interventionist foreign policy is necessary to keep statists from using war to create a base for their power-seeking ambitions. Higgs was echoing warnings given by many including a) Plato, who noted in the pre-Christian era that would-be tyrants were “always stirring up some war”; b) Alexander Hamilton, who worried about the potential misuse of military forces by future Presidents in “schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community”; and c) Shakespeare, who had King Henry IV advise son Prince Hal, “Be it thy course to busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels.”

Over the centuries, philosophers and ethicists have debated what is or isn’t a just war. Many have concluded that only in response to an attack could a war be termed just, only a struggle that is essentially defensive. That was the view adopted by our Founding Fathers and by all leading conservatives. The neoconservatives, by way of contrast, have promoted the idea of a “preemptive war,” a conflict begun without having been attacked and therefore an unjust war. In his 2002 State of the Union speech (four months after 9/11), President George W. Bush gave an emphatic thumbs up to preemptive war by advocating an attack on Iraq, even though Iraq had not attacked our nation. The speech, written for him by neoconservative David Frum, was immediately championed by neoconservative William Kristol, the son of Irving and the editor of the Weekly Standard magazine, a leading domestic mouthpiece for neoconservatism. Neoconservative-style foreign policy had now completely taken hold in the White House.

Too few of today’s self-styled conservatives seem to recall that one of the major attacks used by George Bush and the Republicans against Bill Clinton and the Democrats was Clinton’s propensity for using America’s military for UN nation-building operations.

During a debate with then-Vice President Al Gore on October 11, 2000, Bush said:



I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation-building.... Maybe I’m missing something here. I mean, we’re going to have a kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not.


However, as President, George W. Bush made nation-building a central element of American foreign policy — and his neocon enablers successfully deluded legions of “conservatives” into accepting this heresy, all in the name of promoting democracy in Islamic lands.

The neoconservative dominance of much of U.S. foreign policy began during the administration of George H.W. Bush (1989-1993). Neoconservative Dick Cheney served as Secretary of Defense when the elder Bush decided to attack Iraq and oust Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The President frequently stated that his twin goals were to build “the new world order” and “reinvigorate” the United Nations. Known as Desert Storm, the first Iraq War (1991) derived its authorization from a UN Security Council resolution, not a constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. It ended abruptly after Saddam Hussein’s almost ragtag troops had been chased out of Kuwait by the UN coalition made up almost entirely of U.S. forces. The UN Security Council resolution authorizing the operation called merely for ousting Hussein’s forces from Kuwait — which is why it ended so surprisingly. Every aspect of this operation fit neocon-style preemptive war to enhance the stature of the United Nations. Our nation certainly hadn’t been attacked; there was no declaration of war; the only authorization for the conflict had been supplied by the UN; and the UN determined what its goals were and when it should end.

Immediately after the Desert Storm operation (spring 1991), Cheney directed his top assistant, neocon stalwart Paul Wolfowitz, to devise future military policy for our nation. Wolfowitz promptly drew up a plan to attack Iraq again, remove Saddam Hussein from power this time, and bring about regime change. But the neocons weren’t able to carry out this plan because Cheney and Wolfowitz lost their posts when Bill Clinton bested the elder Bush in 1992. Cheney joined the neocon American Enterprise Institute and then accepted the post of CEO at Texas-based Halliburton, a leading defense contractor. Wolfowitz went back to academia.

Early in 1998, top neocons turned their attention to the leading GOP candidate for the next presidential election, George W. Bush. Cheney, Wolfowitz, former Secretary of State George Shultz, future Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and several others formed a “brain trust” at a meeting in Shultz’s California home in April 1998. Their purpose: train George W. Bush to be the next President. They did so with frequent seminars in Texas and with continuing conferences via telephone and e-mail. Once he secured the nomination, Bush named Cheney as his running mate. After being certified as the nation’s 43rd President, Bush turned to neocon Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, and brain trust participant Rice became National Security Advisor. Rumsfeld immediately tapped Wolfowitz as his top assistant, and numerous other neocons were awarded staff positions or named as advisors.

Mentioned earlier for the assistance he supplied to Irving Kristol in reshaping the thinking of prominent GOP leaders, William F. Buckley, Jr. nevertheless continued to be widely touted as the nation’s premier conservative. That he spent a career shifting the thinking of many Americans toward neoconservatism and away from the conservatism held by his own father has been a carefully guarded secret. But many have already been awakened by the thoroughly documented history of the man I call the “Pied Piper for the Establishment (http://tinyurl.com/lu9heer)” in my 250-page book.

In 1952, the recent Yale graduate was in Mexico serving the Central Intelligence Agency in an assignment he never fully described except to say he was in “deep cover.” While there, Buckley penned an article for the Catholic weekly Commonweal in which he wrote:



We have got to accept Big Government for the duration — for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged, given our present government’s skills, except through the instrumentality of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores … and the attendant centralization of power in Washington — even with a Truman at the reins of it all.


That was neoconservatism even before anyone had used the term. November 1955 saw Buckley launch National Review magazine. Once the magazine gained a reputation as the conservative standard bearer, it began to have readers accept views that moved left of center and toward internationalism. Space doesn’t allow for a listing of all of Buckley’s betrayals, but it became obvious to many that whenever leftists needed America’s conservatives disarmed, Buckley performed on cue. He and his magazine backed the United Nations (Buckley even accepted appointment as a U.S. delegate to the UN Human Rights Committee); supported the giveaway of the Panama Canal; sanctioned foreign aid for Russia; approved passage of the UN’s Kyoto Protocol dealing with non-proven global warming; backed the UN’s Genocide Treaty; and much, much more. On the domestic scene, Buckley defended Richard Nixon’s “I am now a Keynesian in economics” claim, supported new gun-control measures, defended the imposition of wage and price controls, and registered approval of pornography, abortion, prostitution, “gay rights” legislation, and national service for youth.

Overall, the major accomplishment of “Mr. Conservative” saw him steer millions of Americans into substituting his definition of what is and isn’t acceptable “conservatism.” Buckley steadily and assiduously redefined and reoriented traditional paleoconservatism into neoconservatism. The new orientation jettisoned the U.S. Constitution, the standard by which policies and politicians should be judged. Buckley’s rare mentions of the U.S. Constitution came, for example, when he sought to destroy it, as in his advocacy of a constitutional convention that would have power to rewrite our founding covenant.

Perhaps nothing better illustrates and explains the betrayal of conservatism by Buckley and the neocons than their longstanding close ties to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the premier internationalist organization working to undermine American sovereignty and establish a UN-led global government. This magazine has been in the forefront of exposing and opposing the CFR’s treasonous agenda for the past three decades. (For a more extensive treatment of the CFR’s destructive influence on U.S. domestic and foreign policy over much of the past century, see our many articles available online at The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/) and James Perloff’s The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline (http://tinyurl.com/mhdz83j).)

As the CFR’s role in so many of our nation’s debacles gradually became more publicly recognized and began receiving deserved condemnation, Buckley had one of its members defend the organization in National Review — and he then proudly announced his own membership in the council. The CFR had already welcomed neoconservative leaders Kristol, Podhoretz, and others to membership. Many other prominent neocons are also CFR members: Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Charles Krauthammer, Elliott Abrams, Newt Gingrich, Condoleezza Rice, Henry Kissinger, Robert Kagan, and Rupert Murdoch. Their pseudo-conservative messages are regularly retailed to millions of unsuspecting conservatives through daily infusions from Murdoch’s Fox/Wall Street Journal/New York Post media empire.

Most importantly, for many years Buckley dutifully carried out the CFR’s dirty work of attacking those who opposed the CFR’s globalist policies. He strongly suggested that real conservatives such as Patrick Buchanan, Joseph Sobran, Sam Francis, and others who were outspoken opponents of the neoconservative takeover were closet anti-Semites. And he waged incessant warfare against The John Birch Society and anyone else who dared conclude that America’s problems resulted from conspiratorial design.

One Voice in Congress 
Condemns the Neocon Takeover

In 2003, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) addressed his colleagues from the floor of the House of Representatives about the dangers of neoconservatism. After claiming that neocons had successfully taken over the George W. Bush administration, he named as prominent neocons Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, William Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Bill Bennett, Frank Gaffney, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. He defined neoconservatism as follows:



Neoconservatism is not the philosophy of free markets and a wise foreign policy. Instead, it represents big-government welfare at home and a program of using our military might to spread their version of American values throughout the world.


In summation, neoconservatives can be identified as advocates of more government, increased spending, international entanglements, and misuse of America’s military. They also refuse to rely on the true meaning of the Constitution, preferring instead to support the tortured meanings supplied by liberal judges, liberal pundits, and the liberal mass media.

Many more Americans must be made aware that neoconservatism is a deadly enemy of our nation. While gaining that necessary understanding, they must be steered toward the U.S. Constitution as the nation’s standard.


John F. McManus is president of The John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/) and publisher of The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/).



SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/5576-neocon-control

[RonZeplin]

Obama never claimed to be a "Conservative."

He's about as conservative as McCain and Mitt... "severely conservative", neocon.

[dillo]

a hawkish liberal, recently using their religous views to justify their agenda.

[Brian4Liberty]

Is bumping this thread in any way related to Ted Cruz? ;)

[FrankRep]

Is bumping this thread in any way related to Ted Cruz? ;)
I usually bump the thread when people start misusing the term "Neocon" or "Neo-Conservative."