Thursday, April 20, 2006

Neocon Jibes: Who are the Neocons?

There is a great deal of confusion as to the neocons’ identity. Most americans see them as just another group of americans. However, justin raimondo and paul sheldon foote claim they’re trotskyists. "One reason for the lack of a significant opposition to the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) has been the success of the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) in infiltrating both the Democratic and Republican parties. While it is easy for communists to find a home within the Democratic Party, the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) scored a major victory in conning conservatives that neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) are former communists. As Trotskyites, they were anti-Stalin but not anti-communist. Their support for President Ronald Reagan’s efforts to cause the collapse of the Soviet Union and their claims that communism is dead have enabled them to dupe conservatives. Left-wing authors have helped the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) by accusing them of being in the extreme right wing. The fact remains that many neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) support the communist takeover of Iran by the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult) terrorists." (Paul Sheldon Foote ‘Neo-conservative (Neo-Trotskyite) Successes in the Democratic and Republican Parties’ December 30, 2005). Wouldn’t this make them russians?

Paul craig roberts describes them as "Jacobins". (Paul Craig Roberts ‘How Conservatives Went Crazy’ February 8, 2006). As does kurt nimmo, "In fact, this is the only approach, as long ago sketched out by the Straussian neocons and their Jabotinksyite overlords, and diplomacy is but a shell game introduced to make the neocons appear reasonable, when in fact they are neo-Jacobin radicals." (Kurt Nimmo ‘Profs Document Hijacking of U.S. Foreign Policy’ March 21st 2006). Doesn’t this imply they’re french? But then again weren’t the jacobins scottish or was that the jacobites?

Is it possible the neocons are really iranians? Ever since the pentagon and new york (p*ny) bombings america’s foreign policies seem to have inadvertently boosted iran’s political and military power. Firstly, the neocons supported america’s invasion of afghanistan and the overthrowing the taliban - the implacable enemy of shia iran. Secondly, they manipulated america into the invasion of iraq – iran’s biggest adversary. If this wasn’t enough, they tried to replace saddam with another dictator - ahmed chalabi - who turned out to be an iranian double agent. Thirdly, the neocons’ coalition provisional authority dismantled the iraqi army thereby giving iran automatic military supremacy over iraq. The neocons then demanded national elections which allowed iraqi shiites, allies of iran, to win and take over the iraqi state. Fifthly, they forced syria to remove its army from the lebanon giving default power to hezbollah which has been trained, armed, and financed, by iran. Sixthly, the neocons then insisted on free elections in palestine only for the palestinians to elect hamas - another iranian ally. If all this wasn’t enough, over the last couple of years, the neocons have continually denounced iran’s efforts to develop civilian nuclear energy. All this did was to alienate the vast majority of iranians who responded by voting for a hardliner, mahmud ahmadinejad, as iran’s new president. In other words, the neocons pushed iranians into voting for a hardline regime which otherwise they were unlikely to have voted for. Ahmadinejad is now promoting former revolutionary guards who fought so heroically against saddam’s army, in order to consolidate his political power. So in a matter of a few, short years the neocons have used america to boost iran’s power in afghanistan, iraq, lebanon, and palestine, and to boost the power of hardliners within iranian politics.

Perhaps the neocons are just parasites? Scott ritter thinks so. "The neocons are parasites. They build nothing. They bring nothing. They don't have a foundation. They don't stand for business. They don't stand for ideology. They use a host to facilitate and grow their own power. They are parasites that latch onto oil until it is no longer convenient. They latch on to democracy until it is no longer convenient." (Scott Ritter quoted in Larisa Alexandrovna’s ‘Scott Ritter: Neocons as Parasites’ March 30, 2005).

Raimondo regards the jews only state in palestine (jos) as parasitic on america, "The Israelis, on the other hand, are not passive recipients of aid and instructions from Washington. They, like the Brits, are forced to recognize the new world reality of American power, but, unlike London, the Israelis assume an aggressive stance. The Israeli idea of an alliance is not so much a union of interests as a symbiosis, in which one partner uses the other to pursue its own interests: the ally is treated, not as a comrade-in-arms but as a cat's-paw. It is a strategy of parasitism that has been so successful that the host is beginning to feel the first debilitating effects – fatigue, nausea, and the sudden shocking realization that something isn't quite right." (Justin Raimondo ‘With Friends Like This’ August 3, 2005); "When a parasite invades, it hides as long as it can, sucking the vital juices and draining the energy of its host. Yet there is a limit to what the host can tolerate: eventually, it either builds up an immunity to the depredations of its "guest," or it is sucked dry and exhausted to the point of near-death. Having used up nearly all available military and economic resources in Iraq, the U.S. has a choice: it can either build up an immunity to Israeli influence, even a partial one, or it can let itself be turned into a dry husk, a casualty of Tel Aviv's ambitions." (Justin Raimondo ‘Spy With a Heart of Gold?’ January 25, 2006).

Whilst raimondo believes the jos is parasitic on america he does not believe the same can be said about jews. In order to avoid the corollary that jews are parasitic on america, he switches focus from the jos (where jews are undeniably in power) to the neocons and then argues that not all neocons are jewish. He rightly argues that what is politically important about the neocons is that their prime, almost their sole, political interest, is the promotion of the interests of the jos. "Any mention of the term "neoconservatives" is taken by Dershowitz to mean "Jews" – but this is clearly not the case, as many neocons are not Jewish, although Jews are disproportionately represented in their ranks. But, then again, Jews are over-represented in the ranks of the libertarian movement, the leftist movement, the antiwar movement, and probably a good many other ideological movements of one sort or another. That the neocons put special emphasis on their affinity for and support of Israel – as a matter of high principle – is directly relevant to the argument of Mearsheimer and Walt that attributes their influence on administration policy to its present state of distortion – not because the neocons are Jews, but because they are neocons.." (Justin Raimondo ‘Smear and Fear’ April 10, 2006).

By arguing that the neocons are an ecumenical movement, raimondo believes he can avoid any accusation of anti-semitism. The leading lights of the neocons are jews. The core of the jewish lobby is jewish, "The core of the Lobby is comprised of American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel’s interests." (John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ rwp_06_011_walt.pdf March 2006 p.12). Both the neocons and the jewish lobby are thoroughly jewish. So what if non-jews jump on this bandwagon and are willing to betray their own country for the sake of the jos? They’re politically irrelevant. The bandwagon has been built by jews, it has been paid for by jews, it is driven by jews, and it is heading for the racially pure jos. So what if a few non-jewish traitors jump on for the ride – they make no difference other than helping this fifth column achieve their objectives. They are jewish groupies. They are politically irrelevant to the neocons/lobby except in so far as they enable the jewish neocons/lobby to pretend they aren’t jewish. Raimondo would rather accuse non-jews of being traitors to their own country than to accuse the neocons of being jewish traitors to america. What, it has to be asked is non-jewish about the jewish neocons and the jewish lobby?

Raimondo’s position on the nature of the neocons is reinforced by a similar stance he takes over what he calls the israeli lobby. He refuses to call it ‘the jewish lobby’ despite the fact that this is what it is called in the jos. "In fact, anyone who says that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism, even though the Israeli media themselves refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’." (John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ rwp_06_011_walt.pdf March 2006 p.24)..

Raimondo believes the jewish lobby is as ecumenical as the neocon movement. His analysis is so weak he has to resort to a misreading of john j. mearsheimer and stephen m. walt in order to give this stance any credibility. He states, "Furthermore, Mearsheimer and Walt explicitly stated that Jews are not the only or even the most influential members of the Lobby: evangelical Christians are by far more numerous and carry much more political weight in their unconditional support for the Jewish state." (Justin Raimondo ‘Smear and Fear’ April 10, 2006). As has been pointed out earlier, mearsheimer and walt state that the core of the lobby is jewish. They do not state that the christian zionists are more powerful than the jewish component of the lobby. The statement "evangelical Christians are by far more numerous and carry much more political weight in their unconditional support for the Jewish state" is raimondo’s own fantasy.

It is easy for anyone to get lost in this terminological maze that jews use to cover up their traitorous role in american politics. Why don’t people just say what they are? Thankfully one commentator is willing to do so. "The neo-con movement has been a Jewish movement from the beginning, which started with Carl Gershman at the National Endowment for Democracy, and Tom Kahn, with the AFL-CIO’s Department of International Affairs, with Richard Perle working for Henry Jackson, with Norman Podhortez, Michael Ledeen Irving Kristol, Douglas Feith, and on and on. One can count the number of non-Jewish neo-cons virtually on both hands." (Jeffrey Blankfort’s comments on Mitchell Plitnick’s ‘Myth and Reality: Jewish Influence on US Middle East Policy’ May 24th 2005). "The neo-cons who are almost exclusively Jewish and the Israel lobby got the US into the war in Iraq. The father of the President, the first George Bush was against it, the oil companies were against it. (Jeffrey Blankfort quoted in Réseau Voltaire ‘The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic’ February 20, 2006). Some jewish neocons/lobbyists are also citizens of the jos. They are not merely dual citizens but jewish traitors pushing america into moral, political, and military, bankruptcy for the benefit of the jos.

The jewish neocons used to deny they were jewish by pointing out their many non-jewish supporters. But a couple of years into the debacle of america’s proxy zionist invasion of iraq many of these non-jewish members have bailed out thereby making the jewish composition of the neocon movement even more pronounced. "It has taken more three years, the loss of tens of thousands of Iraqi and American lives, and the expenditure of $200 billion - all to achieve a chaos verging on open civil war. But finally the neoconservatives who sold the United States on this disastrous war are starting to utter three small words. We were wrong. The second thoughts have spread across the conservative spectrum, from William Buckley, venerable editor of the National Review, to Andrew Sullivan, once editor of the New Republic, now influential commentator and blogmeister. The patrician, conservative, Washington Post columnist George Will was gently skeptical from the outset. He now glumly concludes that all three members of the original "axis of evil" - not only Iran and North Korea but also Iraq - "are more dangerous than when that term was coined in 2002." Of all the critiques, however, the most profound is that of Francis Fukuyama, in his forthcoming book "America at the Crossroads." Its subtitle is "Democracy, Power and the Neo-Conservative Legacy," and that legacy, Fukuyama argues, is fatally poisoned." (Rupert Cornwell ‘What the neocons failed to foresee about Iraq’ March 12, 2006).

For many years the neocons have pretended to be an ecumenical movement but, as it has become increasingly difficult to determine america’s interests in the middle east, their non-jewish followers are deserting so the only ones left are the jewish traitors.


Post a Comment

<< Home