← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Franco
Thread ID: 18841 | Posts: 24 | Started: 2005-06-26
2005-06-26 04:37 | User Profile
6-25-05
[B]Neoconservatism: What Is It?[/B]
[I]While many people today know what "neoconservatism" is, some still do not. This is designed for the average citizen, and offers a brief education about neoconservatism[/I]
Many people know what a political conservative, aka, a "right-winger," is. He or she is a person who is politically and socially conservative. He or she holds fast to tradition and is wary of liberal trends such as feminism or handgun control.
A liberal, aka, a "left-winger" or "leftist," of course holds views opposite those of a conservative - as a rule, at least.
But what about neoconservatism?
Neoconservatism emerged as a force in America in the 1980s. The father of neoconservatism was a Jewish philosopher named Leo Strauss (1899-1973). It is significant that most of the influential followers of Strauss are also Jewish. Also significant is the fact that Strauss himself once publicly admitted that his ideology was centered around the Jews.
Neoconservatism, despite its name, is not a political movement per se, but is instead a racial movement: an ethnically-Jewish movement despite the fact that some non-Jews advocate neoconservatism.
Neoconservatism is a movement both created and run by Jews, most of whom were once leftists and who usually seemed unconcerned about Israel. Those Jews later "rediscovered" their ethnic roots and became pro-Israel Zionists. They created and spread neoconservatism largely for one reason: to use America in an ongoing effort to protect the Jewish state of Israel. Neoconservatives seek to unite America and Israel together in order to oppose any country in the world which objects to ideas that are "good for Israel" or, similarly, "good for Jews." Such an agenda, of course, strains America's relationships with many countries across the globe.
The neoconservative movement is steered by Jews within the federal government, major universities, private organizations and the media. Neoconservatives and their supporters often point to the relatively few non-Jewish advocates of neoconservatism as "proof" that the movement isn't Jewish.
Importantly, neoconservatism is a proactive, not a reactive, movement. In that sense, it is aggressive in nature.
The standard neoconservative agenda includes:
reshaping the Middle East for Israel's benefit by using American soldiers to wage war in that region, while, at the same time, referring to such war as being in America's best interests and/or referring to such war as a necessary part of the "war on terrorism" (note that America was never targeted by Arab terrorists until U.S. foreign policy began to heavily support and arm Israel after the 1973 Middle East war).
advocating American foreign policies which benefit Israel - usually at the expense of other countries;
reshaping the political and social spectrum of the Middle East by using various methods other than war;
referring to anyone who doesn't embrace the neoconservative agenda as "anti-American" or "unpatriotic;"
criticizing and even penalizing any country which doesn't support the neoconservative agenda.
President George W. Bush's foreign policy is a neoconservative foreign policy. In fact, America's foreign policy has been neoconservative since at least the 1980s.
Today, thanks to both powerful Jews and Jewish groups in America and Israel, U.S. foreign policy revolves around plans which benefit Israel at the expense of other countries. Given the fact that America is not a Jewish country but a gentile one, that seems to be an unwise policy.
2005-06-27 03:32 | User Profile
Tell me, Franco, what is the difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism? I am a confused conservative trying to find out whether or not I could be accurately labeled a paleoconservative. I am unhappy with the neoconservatives for two reasons: They don't seem to be making any effort to limit the power of federal government to those authorized by the US Constitution in the tradition of our Founding Fathers. And they don't seem to agree with President George Washington that our nation ought to avoid "entangling alliances." I believe in limited government and waging war only when invaded by a foreign enemy.
On the other hand, I hear a lot of discourse among advocates of "traditional" or "paleo" conservatism that sounds anti-Semitic to me. I myself feel that America's interests ought to come first before those of Israel. And I don't believe that Israel ever should have been created in the first place. But since the USA and Britain were complicit in the creation of the state of Israel, don't we have an obligation to see that all those Jews are not driven into the sea as their enemies would like to do?
Forgive me if these questions are inappropriate in this forum. I am a new member trying to get a better understanding of this neo vs paleo debate going on among conservatives. I am so upset by the war in Iraq and the rights we are losing in this country, I just don't know what to do.
2005-06-27 03:56 | User Profile
But since the USA and Britain were complicit in the creation of the state of Israel, don't we have an obligation to see that all those Jews are not driven into the sea as their enemies would like to do?
No. The Jews pushed for their own nation-state on the front porch of a billion Arabs, and they can make their own go of it.
2005-06-27 04:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=JohnWRedelfs]Tell me, Franco, what is the difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism? I am a confused conservative trying to find out whether or not I could be accurately labeled a paleoconservative. I am unhappy with the neoconservatives for two reasons: They don't seem to be making any effort to limit the power of federal government to those authorized by the US Constitution in the tradition of our Founding Fathers. And they don't seem to agree with President George Washington that our nation ought to avoid "entangling alliances." I believe in limited government and waging war only when invaded by a foreign enemy.
On the other hand, I hear a lot of discourse among advocates of "traditional" or "paleo" conservatism that sounds anti-Semitic to me. I myself feel that America's interests ought to come first before those of Israel. And I don't believe that Israel ever should have been created in the first place. But since the USA and Britain were complicit in the creation of the state of Israel, don't we have an obligation to see that all those Jews are not driven into the sea as their enemies would like to do?
Forgive me if these questions are inappropriate in this forum. I am a new member trying to get a better understanding of this neo vs paleo debate going on among conservatives. I am so upset by the war in Iraq and the rights we are losing in this country, I just don't know what to do.[/QUOTE]
These days, most Jews refer to "anti-Zionism" and "anti-Semitism" as being the same thing. Years ago, most Jews didn't.
I really don't concern myself with either term, however. Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are simply reactions to Jewish behavior.
2005-06-27 06:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=JohnWRedelfs]Tell me, Franco, what is the difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism? I am a confused conservative trying to find out whether or not I could be accurately labeled a paleoconservative. Franco isn't a conservative BTW himself, don't take his words as the litmus test.> I am unhappy with the neoconservatives for two reasons: They don't seem to be making any effort to limit the power of federal government to those authorized by the US Constitution in the tradition of our Founding Fathers. And they don't seem to agree with President George Washington that our nation ought to avoid "entangling alliances." I believe in limited government and waging war only when invaded by a foreign enemy.
Certainly qiualifies in my book, compared to most conservatives.
On the other hand, I hear a lot of discourse among advocates of "traditional" or "paleo" conservatism that sounds anti-Semitic to me. I myself feel that America's interests ought to come first before those of Israel. And I don't believe that Israel ever should have been created in the first place. But since the USA and Britain were complicit in the creation of the state of Israel, don't we have an obligation to see that all those Jews are not driven into the sea as their enemies would like to do? If the jews by some amazing event were driven into the see, in spite of their mamooth supply of nukes, they would simply sail away on their yachts to their passports elsewhere. As if that has the slightest chance of happening.Don't waste sleep over it.
Forgive me if these questions are inappropriate in this forum. I am a new member trying to get a better understanding of this neo vs paleo debate going on among conservatives. I am so upset by the war in Iraq and the rights we are losing in this country, I just don't know what to do.[/QUOTE] Do like us, hunker down in our catacombs. as Sam Francis described the paleo condition today.
2005-06-27 06:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Franco isn't a conservative BTW himself, don't take his words as the litmus test.[/QUOTE]
One might argue that White Nationalists are[I] true [/I]conservatives.
2005-06-27 07:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]One might argue that White Nationalists are[I] true [/I]conservatives.
--------[/QUOTE]As NeoNietschze did, except that as a Nietszchien one has a rather ambivalent relationship with truth, as Nietzsche said "there is no truth in truth".
2005-06-27 07:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]As NeoNietschze did, except that as a Nietszchien one has a rather ambivalent relationship with truth, as Nietzsche said "there is no truth in truth".[/QUOTE]
Well, I don't follow any philosopher as a rule.
2005-06-27 08:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=JohnWRedelfs]But since the USA and Britain were complicit in the creation of the state of Israel, don't we have an obligation to see that all those Jews are not driven into the sea as their enemies would like to do?[/QUOTE]
Well no, we already did our part. Israel exists and every jew should live there. I don't begrudge them their own homeland for I want the same thing for my kith and kin.
However, they need to stand or fall on their own merit. As an American paleo-con the prescription is quite simple: end all foreign aid and bring every last American home from that armpit of the world. Once that's done, armed neutrality and live and let live are the guiding principles of American foreign policy. We've got no dog in Israel's fights, or the Arab-states for that matter. If they want to do some peaceful and profitable mutual trade, then great, we'll do that if it makes sense for Americans. But no entangling alliances or wars fought on behalf of foreign interests. The entire Middle East is not worth one drop of American blood or one plug nickel from our treasury.
2005-07-05 04:55 | User Profile
Simply put, neoconservatism is simply bogus conservatism, and its adherants fake conservatives.
2005-07-05 22:01 | User Profile
As an American paleo-con the prescription is quite simple: end all foreign aid and bring every last American home from that armpit of the world. Once that's done, armed neutrality and live and let live are the guiding principles of American foreign policy.
As a million conservatives of convenience will rush to correct you, "the world is a far far more complex and difficult place now and such simplistic, 18th-century prescriptions as yours would result in [u]unprecedented global disaster[/u]".
But if my longheld religious skepticism has taught me anything it's that the sky is [I]always [/I] falling and the Last Days are [I]always [/I] here - except it never is, and they never are. Ziocons and their left-lib cousins are merely acolytes of an opposing religion, only their Chicken Little alarmism re [I]America's place in the world [/I] tends to mask the fact that they [B]do [/B] have vested-interest dogs in this fight - the power and wealth and influence they've seized and will kill, gladly, to keep.
Rest assured, if we were to "end all foreign aid and bring every last American home", the sun will rise tomorrow; and the day after, and the day after [I]that[/I]. And the moment that realization sank in - that mushroom clouds will [I]not [/I] blanket the earth, nor toads rain on the land, nor the first born all die in their beds if we don't allow our elites to lead us without question- the party would be [U]over[/U] for our Judaized elites, with sickening finality.
Of course, turning the nation, slowly but surely, into 500 million multi-ethnic/racial day laborers jabbering 100 different languages as they scramble and climb one over the other, effectively makes such a scenario moot. How can a refugee camp exercise "sovereignty"....or even [I]attain [/I] it?
2005-07-06 03:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=solutrian]Simply put, neoconservatism is simply bogus conservatism, and its adherants fake conservatives.[/QUOTE] Right on the mark---it's a 'cheap' version of conservatism that pales in comparison to the real-deal.
It best describes as well as the "conservatism" for liberals and others that want to seem like conservatives, but can't bring themselves to admit their lib tendencies were wrong all this time. This would require reflection.
neoconservatism is in all respects a cop-out
2005-07-06 04:03 | User Profile
First of all that first post on this thread was excellent.
Here is my oppinion on Neo-conservative. They support Government Intervention to enforce things that may come off as conservative, whereas paleoconservatives are for small Government. A neo-conservative pretty much is very similar to a fascist (except on Israel). It is using Government intervention to accomplish non-hippyish goals, whereas a conservative just wants to back the Government out. Neo-conservatism is basically alien Fascism, as the Jews control other countries.
2005-09-06 04:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Neoconservatism: What Is It?[/QUOTE] Marxism!
2005-09-06 17:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]Marxism![/QUOTE] May I suggest neocons are Globalists rather than Marxists? They don't want the state to dissolve, as a Marxist would, since the State is a useful tool for them to use to control the masses.
That's what it looks like to me.
AE
2005-09-06 20:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]May I suggest neocons are Globalists rather than Marxists? They don't want the state to dissolve, as a Marxist would, since the State is a useful tool for them to use to control the masses.
That's what it looks like to me.
AE[/QUOTE]The state dissolving is now an extremely small and esoteric theoretical point in Marxism.
But I do think globalism is certainly at least a very important part of what they are ideologically.
2005-09-06 21:18 | User Profile
Okiereddust,
Yes very true. One could say globalism is a form of marxism.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]The state dissolving is now an extremely small and esoteric theoretical point in Marxism.
But I do think globalism is certainly at least a very important part of what they are ideologically.[/QUOTE]
2005-09-07 05:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]Okiereddust,
Yes very true. One could say globalism is a form of marxism.[/QUOTE]
Especially Trotskyism. Leon Trotsky wanted global revolution. Joe Stalin really didn't, at least not like Trotsky did.
In fact, Trotsky [who was a Jew] was far more extreme than Stalin, if you can believe that.
2005-09-07 23:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Especially Trotskyism. Leon Trotsky wanted global revolution. Joe Stalin really didn't, at least not like Trotsky did.
In fact, Trotsky [who was a Jew] was far more extreme than Stalin, if you can believe that.[/QUOTE] Two different sorts of extremists, one far more practically minded than the other.
Also, - duh, I remember now --the linkage, Comintern, Globalism, The Internationale anthem.
It fits.
AE
2005-09-08 01:22 | User Profile
Are you a neoconservative? Take this quiz to find out.
[url="http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html"]http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html[/url]
[img]http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/specials/neocon/images/neocon_banner2.jpg[/img]
2005-09-28 00:39 | User Profile
Long, but good.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[color=black][font=Verdana]Neoconservatism, a Treacherous Hoax (by James Owens - February 2004)
Not only treacherous in its brazen hijacking of the traditional ââ¬Åconservativeââ¬Â identity, the ââ¬Åneoconservativeââ¬Â movement has become a national-security threat as devastating in its potential harm to America as was the USSR nuclear arsenal of the ââ¬Åcold warââ¬Â decades. These charges are severe but, I think, warranted.
Identity Theft, grandiose style. Now that we know what they are, from Irving Kristolââ¬â¢s recent ââ¬Åtell-allââ¬Â article in The Weekly Standard,1 we must marvel at the monstrous fraud and sheer arrogance of the neocons (neoconservatives). For several decades they have hoodwinked the American people with a fake identity, posing as bone-deep conservatives while orchestrating at the nationââ¬â¢s highest centers of power, very quietly and ââ¬Åunder the radar,ââ¬Â an agenda totally opposite all traditional conservative principles. A rough summary of the platforms when stripped of rhetorical euphemisms and the essentials laid bare:
Traditional conservatives strive to conserve the original America, the core values of Americaââ¬â¢s founders as explicitly enunciated in the American Constitution:
Neoconservatives, in stark contrast and now made ââ¬ÅKristol clear,ââ¬Â advocate:
Who are the neocons?
They, of course, would never say, camouflaged for decades under ââ¬Åconservativeââ¬Â Republican garb. Until very recently, the neocons studiously proclaimed themselves just old-fashioned traditional conservatives. Talented and think-tank neocons gradually infiltrated into leadership and gained control as the partyââ¬â¢s cutting-edge reformers, reshaping the Republican party to unseat Democrats by exploiting the domestic political realities of the 21st century and the necessary foreign-policy initiatives to match it. Neocons excelled at expert verbal manipulation, converting the neocon agenda into patriotic-sounding generalities.
Today, key architects of national policy at the very top of the Pentagon and White House hierarchies are neocon leaders such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and William Kristol (<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />
It is no coincidence that much of the neocon agenda mimics that of the liberal Left. The original neoconservatives of the 1970s were ex-liberals, disillusioned with that political wingââ¬â¢s slow and ambivalent pace against communism and toward their own vision for the nationââ¬â¢s future. They mutated into Reagan-like anti-Communist ââ¬ÅRepublicansââ¬Â but then shifted the course of conservatism to ââ¬Åmake the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters,ââ¬Â as Irving Kristol now explains the neocon beginnings. (Emphasis added.) The Republican party, to survive, needed a ââ¬Åbigger tent,ââ¬Â more inclusive; had to enlarge its base to attract new voting blocs: blacks, the poor, foreign-born immigrants, welfare recipients and other groups to be diverted from the Democratic base (hence, for example, Bushââ¬â¢s campaigning as the ââ¬Åcompassionate conservativeââ¬Â). For politicians, whether Democrats or Republicans, whose all-consuming passion is reelection by any means, the new electoral appeal to ââ¬Åa majority of American votersââ¬Â struck home. Republican leaders, incumbents and hopefuls seized the new directions as the formula for their own personal career success and their partyââ¬â¢s dominance of the White House, Congress and the nation.
The counterculture movement of the 1960s, maturing in the 1970s as Frankfurt-school cultural Marxism, had shaken the two political parties at their roots and fractured their usual predictable bases. Led by Herbert Marcuse, the charismatic guru of university elites, revolutionary cultural Marxism ââ¬Ådeconstructedââ¬Â core Western values and harangued blacks and other minorities into intense political activism.2 Nonwhite immigration soared to and beyond critical mass creating new and critical voting blocs.
Neocons exploited these revolutionary transformations to shift the course of the Republican party ââ¬â hard to the left. Decade by decade, the party became more liberal-left and, in its essential but camouflaged domestic policies, a knockoff of the liberal Democrats. Today there is no serious difference between the two parties at all. Concealed even more carefully, the neocons pursued their global agenda toward a ââ¬Ånew world orderââ¬Â and
Hoodwinking the ââ¬Åconservativeââ¬Â base
It seems inconceivable that the many millions who comprise the historical base of traditional conservatives (mostly Republicans) could all be duped into supporting the neocon platform as outlined above. All of it is diametrically opposite their basic values. But, after two decades of neocon reform of the Republican party, most conservative Republicans, without realizing it, have been voting for and supporting the neo-conservative agenda, not their own.. Right now, in 2004, we have a ââ¬Åconservativeââ¬Â Republican president as head of state ââ¬â and the conservative base voted him into office. But examining President Bushââ¬â¢s specific missions and his administrationââ¬â¢s core policies, item by item, heââ¬â¢s not a traditional conservative at all. Except for his tax cut (but no spending cuts to offset), his agenda is almost entirely on the neocon platform list above. It is debatable whether Bush was a long-time closet neocon or was converted to it by neocon handlers when he was candidate Bush and a prospect to execute the neocon agenda from the nationââ¬â¢s most powerful office. Now elected, with neocon financial and other support, he is politically obligated to them and the chief agent for the neoconsââ¬â¢ immediate agenda even if Bush himself is not fully aware of their ultimate objectives (imperialist hegemony throughout the world).
How did the neocons manage such a magic feat of misdirection? By propaganda, of course, but specifically by a bold and massive name game. They hijacked the very name ââ¬Åconservativeââ¬Â and its magnet-like name-recognition value; and they exploited the age-old propaganda art of euphemistic keywords and slogans, Orwellian style. Military intervention in Islamic lands is ââ¬Åprotection of the homeland;ââ¬Â expanded welfare programs are ââ¬Åcompassionate conservatism;ââ¬Â open-borders immigration from
Most working voters are much too busy to dissect the camouflaged distinctions between ââ¬Ånewââ¬Â or ââ¬Åjust plain oldââ¬Â conservatives. Theyââ¬â¢re rushing through an endless hassle of career deadlines, piles of bills, tax forms, kidsââ¬â¢ soccer games, grocery stores, doctors, and so on, dawn to dusk; much too busy to keep up with minor shades of conservative gray or in-house squabbles. The neocon verbal shell game is more than a match for such busy minds, even otherwise brilliant professionals with advanced degrees but overloaded schedules. After several decades of this gradual and systematic name game, the so-called conservative (Republican) party is, in fact and platform, thoroughly neo-conservative and advancing that agenda. Ironically, most Republicans, calling themselves conservatives, are now neocons ââ¬â without knowing it. Theyââ¬â¢ve been scammed because theyââ¬â¢re too busy to pay close attention. They just follow the accustomed code words to the ballot box and vote the Republican slate led by George W. Bush, conservative-in-chief. After all, Bush is president ââ¬â and a conservative Republican; so are his top advisors, Pentagon chiefs and the majority of Congress ââ¬â all conservatives. Voting is almost automatic; just keep voting Republican to ââ¬Åconserveââ¬Â our core conservative principles. Now accomplished, this neocon hoax is identity theft on a grand ââ¬â and treacherous - scale.
The Neocon Agenda
Identity theft is a neocon tactic. The supreme treachery, however, is the neocon ultimate objective, its strategic design for
The
The U.S., after winning the ââ¬Åcold war,ââ¬Â is now the only superpower on Earth and, for neocons, its natural future is progressive hegemony over as much of the world as possible, beginning with domination over the entire
Led by neocon influence at the Pentagon and White House, the
Is this ââ¬Åimperialism?ââ¬Â
The word "imperialism" sports many meanings. The Roman empire (or Alexander the Greatââ¬â¢s), with its slaughter of resisting peoples, is hardly an apt parallel to the subtle American 21st-century-style global expansion. But flashback a mere century to the sophisticated British empire circa 1900 and parallels abound. Many historians and political scientists conclude that the U.S. today is, indeed, an empire, an extension of the not so distant British empire. Middle-east expert, Karl E.. Meyer, in book-length detail, cites example after example of the similarity between the two ââ¬Åempires,ââ¬Â especially the attitude of forcing Western-style civilization upon every part of the world lacking it.3 Today we hear President Bush vowing, in solemn rhetoric on the worldââ¬â¢s TVs, that ââ¬Åwe willââ¬Â do everything necessary, spend whatever is needed, to liberate enslaved peoples from dictators and give them the gift of ââ¬Åfree democracyââ¬Â which they deserve.
A century or so ago British statesmen, such as Lord Curzon, likewise extolled their world imperialism as a moral mission of good works, ââ¬Åthe greatest instrument for good the world has ever seen.ââ¬Â Niall Ferguson, British historian and U.S. foreign-policy analyst, featured at a conference of the American Enterprise Institute, wryly spelled out Americaââ¬â¢s position in the world and characterized the U.S. as an ââ¬Åempire in denial.ââ¬Â American leaders refuse to admit that the U.S. is now an empire, but the rest of the world knows that it is. Ferguson concludes that the U.S. picked up where the British left off, beginning with the Middle East, that the U.S. ââ¬Åbears an uncanny resemblanceââ¬Â [to the British empire] ââ¬Åexcept for the fact that Britain never had the lead over its imperial rivals that the U.S. currently enjoys.ââ¬Â4
Neocon resurrection of British imperialism.
A brief recall of the British empire evokes a current seerââ¬â¢s sage recognition of ââ¬Ådeju vu all over again.ââ¬Â A mere century ago, the British empire was a superpower, dominating lands, people and resources worldwide. Along with the financial rewards and strength provided by their colonies, British statesmen had elevated foreign domination into a noble and godly mission: a strong and civilized nation had the right, indeed the duty, to rule a backward group of humans and impose advanced civilization where there was none. British imperialism was unashamedly a policy of self-interest but its almost equally explicit objective was to significantly improve the lives of their colonial subjects with modern medicine, administrative skills, production methods, elementary education ââ¬â and enlightened moral values. Every Englishman serving in Britainââ¬â¢s foreign lands was sorely aware of his duty to the native state and population. Few writers, more than Rudyard Kipling, depicted this solemn British duty to uplift the colonists they ruled. His poem, The White Manââ¬â¢s Burden in 1899, vocalized vividly the often exhausting British benevolence. The poem begins: ââ¬ÅTake up the White Manââ¬â¢s Burden; send forth the best ye breed; go bind your sons to exile to serve your captivesââ¬â¢ need.ââ¬Â
Like the noble neocons of today, offering aid and good government globally for submission to their will, the same do-good layer of British imperialism is evident to historians. Even the politically correct Time-Life History of the World acknowledges Englandââ¬â¢s guiding ââ¬Ånotion of trusteeshipââ¬Â [of its 19th-century colonies], ââ¬Ågeneral abolition of slavery in all British territoryââ¬Â [beginning about 1830], ââ¬Åthe idealism inspiring imperialists,ââ¬Â ââ¬Åsuppression of intertribal warfare,ââ¬Â that ââ¬Ålanguages, Christian monogamy, entrepreneurial, new knowledge, all contributed [to the civilizing process]ââ¬Â¦.. From such influences would emerge the new Africans [and Indians] of the twentieth century. Without imperialism, for good or ill, these influences would never have been so effective so fast.ââ¬Â (Emphasis added.)5
Despite its benevolent, but firm, rule over its foreign peoples, an imperial scheme far advanced over previous empires, the British empire collapsed. As all empires do; their overreach is unsustainable - and they grossly underestimate the relentless determination of native peoples to own their own nations and live by their own religions and customs.
But, a century later, the U.S. changes course from its historical ââ¬Åavoiding of foreign entanglementsââ¬Â onto the path of unrestrained intervention and hegemony throughout the world - a.k.a. empire building. Neocons assure us that this is not repeating history British-style. It is a brand-new and different American destiny, both its right and its duty as the greatest superpower in history. Indeed, they deny that it is imperialism at all.
Imperialism, Neocon-style
American forces in post-war Iraq have searched for months and found no WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) nor any connection between Iraq and the 9/11/01 attacks against the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. The frantic searching, now a farce, continues for one simple reason: Saddamââ¬â¢s WMDs were the sole justification for the Bush administrationââ¬â¢s pre-emptive war and regime-change in Iraq, Saddamââ¬â¢s WMDs and ââ¬Återrorismââ¬Â a passionate harangue of daily speeches deluging American TV, European leaders and the United Nations in the long pre-war propaganda buildup for the war.
This massive campaign of WMD rhetoric was a gigantic façade and treacherous hoax, camouflaging the real neocon agenda driving foreign policy for many years. DOD (Department of Defense) plans for pre-emptive war against Iraq were already in place in the Pentagonââ¬â¢s ââ¬ÅNational Security Strategyââ¬Â policy statements even before Bush took office in January 2001 ââ¬â and before the 9/11 ââ¬Återrorismââ¬Â provided rhetorical ââ¬Åcoverââ¬Â for the neoconââ¬â¢s real global strategy. After 9/11, the perfect pretext, ââ¬Åopportunityââ¬Â in neocon code, fell into their hands to execute the Iraq war plan. The ââ¬Åpatriotismââ¬Â of the American public was cleverly galvanized by 9-11 into pre-emptive war against Saddam and his lethal arsenal of WMDs threatening the U.S. and its Middle East ââ¬Åalliesââ¬Â (we know today, a year after the invasion of Iraq, that there were no WMDs, Iraq's "terrorist threat" merely the pretext for pre-emptive war and military bases in a subjugated Iraq). The real terrorists were not in Iraq but the core agenda of the neocons was.
For a decade or more, the neocons at the helm of government had prepared the National Security Strategy statements that guide White-house administrations in American foreign policy. When Bush took office he signed off on them. The neocon agenda was launched into action but disguised as the ââ¬Åwar on terrorism.ââ¬Â Earlier the agenda was presented as ââ¬Åsupport for American global leadership.ââ¬Â The latter phrase is among the ambiguous ââ¬Åcodeââ¬Â slogans in the neoconââ¬â¢s 1997 Statement of Principles at its Internet headquarters called the ââ¬ÅProject for the New American Centuryââ¬Â (PNAC, chaired by William Kristol, Irving Kristolââ¬â¢s son). Another ââ¬Åprincipleââ¬Â therein: ââ¬ÅWe need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values.ââ¬Â (Emphasis added.) The statement concludes with a clarion call all conservatives will follow, marshaling their hero, Ronald Reagan, to the neocon cause: ââ¬ÅSuch a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of the past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.ââ¬Â (Emphasis added.)6
Such rousing, patriotic and ambiguous rhetoric becomes much clearer about specific neocon intent in later DOD National Security Strategy reports. The year 2000 report was constructed by arch-neocons such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. This report calls for: permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America, in Southeast Asia and other strategic sites where no such bases exist. ââ¬ÅAt no time is history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals.ââ¬Â The clear intent is a global ââ¬Åpax Americana,ââ¬Â world peace orchestrated and enforced by U.S. military power and global hegemony. Regimes hostile to these ââ¬ÅU.S. interests and valuesââ¬Â must be changed by persuasion or, when necessary, by pre-emptive military force.
This distortion of the defensive Reaganite foreign policy against the communist USSR became the neocon doctrine of global intervention in the carefully guarded documents circulating through ower centers and controlling foreign policy. However, the average old-fashioned conservative never detected it. Too busy to ferret out the secretive distinctions between Reaganism and neoconservatism, inadvertently they kept supporting the latter, hoodwinked by the superb neocon name game. Including the war for regime change in Iraq. Conservatives joined Bush with patriotic fervor to defend the homeland from Saddamââ¬â¢s WMDs and cheer our fighting troops on foreign soil. Ironically, every traditional conservative supporting the Iraq war was, in fact, in the neocon camp, just cleverly duped into it. It never even occurred to most that our soldiersââ¬â¢ intervention ââ¬â and causalities ââ¬â were utterly unnecessary; not U.S. national defense but U.S. global hegemony, starting with control of the Middle East.
In the months of super-charged harangue and appeals to all ââ¬Åpatriotic Americansââ¬Â building up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, most mainstream media were either equally hoodwinked or reluctantly supportive for fear of appearing ââ¬Åunpatriotic.ââ¬Â However, some few had the courage to hazard the role of the solitary child questioning the publicââ¬â¢s universal approval of ââ¬ÅThe Emperorââ¬â¢s New Clothes.ââ¬Â One such is Jay Bookman, editorial page editor of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution who closely tracks the neocon movement. In a September 2002 article, asserting that ââ¬Åthe official story on Iraq has never made sense,ââ¬Â no connection between Iraq and Al-Qaida terrorists evident in any way at all, he continued: ââ¬ÅThis war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the U.S. as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years in the making, carried out by those [neocons] who believe the U.S. must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the ââ¬ËAmerican imperialistsââ¬â¢ that our enemies [the Islamic world] always claimed we were.ââ¬Â Bookman is, of course, unsurprised at the Pentagonââ¬â¢s virtual lack of a post-war exit strategy, unnecessary ââ¬Åbecause we wonââ¬â¢t be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the U.S. will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including Iran.ââ¬Â7
At the same time Bookman was raising red-flag alerts in America, the press abroad was sounding alarms. A British Sunday Herald reporter, Neil Mackay, combed the legion of recent, and increasingly candid, neocon writings at its PNAC website.6 He cited most of the neocon agenda outlined above but found buried in PNAC writings more ominous aims such as: ââ¬Åpreclude the rise of any great power rival;ââ¬Â ââ¬Åshape international security in line with American principles and interests;ââ¬Â ââ¬Åthis American strategy must be advanced for as far into the future as possible;ââ¬Â ââ¬Ådiscourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global roleââ¬Â (especially the U.N.); permanent military bases in the Middle East needed since ââ¬ÅIran will prove as great a threat to U.S. interests as Iraq has;ââ¬Â future ââ¬Ådemocratization of China;ââ¬Â ââ¬Åcreation of U.S. space forces to dominate space;ââ¬Â ââ¬Åtotal control of cyberspace [Internet];ââ¬Â ââ¬Åpinpoint North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes justifying the creation of a worldwide command-and-control system.ââ¬Â Alarmed and clearly anti- neocon, he concludes: ââ¬ÅThis is a blueprint for U.S. world domination ââ¬â a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasizing Americans who want to control the world.ââ¬Â8
Pax Americana - or Perpetual War
The date, 9/11/01, is now a familiar noun throughout America. One need only say the word, ââ¬Å9-11,ââ¬Â and the horror of the massive terrorist attack in the American homeland springs to mind. The emotional content radiating from the word overwhelms the nation. It is remembered with the same grief ââ¬â and anger ââ¬â as the Japanese attack against Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941, which rallied America into total world war. President Roosevelt had only to mention that ââ¬Åday of infamyââ¬Â and, wielding its emotional power, extract from Congress and the public immediate assent to any administration initiative. Today the Bush administration has only to mention ââ¬Å9-11ââ¬Â to gain instant patriotic passion for its war on world terrorism starting with destruction of the Taliban and Al-Qaida in Afghanistan and the arsenal of WMDs in Iraq ââ¬â and terrorist regimes anywhere in the world. Personalizing the enemy, we hunt down Osama bin Ladenââ¬â¢s Al- Qaida, Saddam in Iraq and their henchmen. Vivid images of these villains are ubiquitous on TV, even a deck of cards with a mug-photo of each, burned into the emotions of the viewing public, even the smallest child.
Americaââ¬â¢s struggles and casualties over the past two years in Afghanistan and Iraq have deluged the media daily and need not be chronicled again here. But the success of the war on terrorism is dubious at best or more likely a quagmire like Vietnam - even if we accept the Bush administrationââ¬â¢s stated objectives of building democratic governments with American-style human rights and freedoms. (For the neoconsââ¬â¢ real objective of permanent military bases in the Middle East, they, of course, perceive genuine progress.) Some Taliban and Al-Qaida terrorists have been neutralized in Afghanistan but the entire country, except the capital, is still firmly ruled by war-lord dictators. Saddamââ¬â¢s regime has been demolished by our high-tech war but his followers and other insurgents have organized a full-scale guerrilla war of terror and ambush similar to our (lost) war in Vietnam. Now, a year after invading Iraq, this interventionism has killed almost 500 American soldiers and many more civilians as Islamic terrorists flood across borders to join the guerrilla resistance. Over and above the cost of the war itself, our occupation of Iraq is costing $4 billion per month; total costs of the war and its aftermath approaching $200 billion from taxpayersââ¬â¢ pockets. And the process of a reconstructed Iraq shows no end in sight. Nor in Afghanistan ââ¬â or Palestine.
The ââ¬Åroadmap to peaceââ¬Â in Palestine is in shambles, Israel following the same strategy as its ever-supportive U.S. ally: zero-tolerance of all terrorists anywhere in their region. U.S. control of the Middle East and protection of the Israeli state is prime Israeli policy. The Islamic world knows this well and vents its terrorist rage against both these enemy nations.
As far as the eye can see, the U.S. is launched into perpetual war abroad, not a ââ¬Åpax Americana.ââ¬Â And, at home, ever-increasing federal power as protection of the homeland.
The Department of Homeland Security
Since 9-11 and over the two years of our war on terror, America has been transformed into an entire nation under siege at home on its own soil. And a siege of the most sinister kind by worldwide terrorist organizations capable of secret infiltration, suicide bombing and attacks like 9-11 throughout the U.S. any time, anywhere, with no warning. Every American is at risk, vulnerable day and night to a surprise terrorist attack by angry and determined enemies driven by unrelenting religious fervor. To defend against this unprecedented war on American soil, an entire new federal bureaucracy has been created, the Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. Americans now live with an almost paranoid siege mentality, reminded daily and ever aware of terrorist threats by color-code alerts, media reports of suspected terrorist activity, draconian airport searches, guarded buildings accessible only by suspicious screening and a security atmosphere shrouding much of daily life. Public anxiety isnââ¬â¢t the energizing fear of a known and specific danger; itââ¬â¢s bewildering dread of unknown assassins attacking from the dark.
The terrorists we defend against are foreign but infiltrate into our own cities, live secretly among us, plot, plan and attack in our midst. Such were the terrorists who demolished the World Trade Center after walking through out airports. The enormity of this unprecedented threat silently at work among us has thrust upon Americans homeland security tactics which themselves are unprecedented surveillance and invasion of privacy in a free America. In the hysteria following 9-11, a safety-obsessed public caved in to the government and media outcry for homeland security; this daily theme trumped all murmurs about creeping surrender of Constitutional freedoms. A month after 9-11, in warp-speed for a usually snail-paced Congress, Bush signed into law the Orwellian-titled USA Patriot Act granting law enforcement agencies such as the FBI police powers totally alien to Americaââ¬â¢s tradition of individual freedom and arguably annulling the Constitutionââ¬â¢s 4th-Amendment prohibitions against ââ¬Åunreasonable searches and seizures.ââ¬Â
The Patriot Act, already two years old and expanding in broad ââ¬Åinterpretationsââ¬Â via government executive orders, exudes unmistakable signs of an incipient police state, appearing mild in infancy but set upon the slippery slope toward typical dictatorshipââ¬â¢s monitoring, intimidation and control of every citizen. Core concepts of the 2001 Patriot Act include: minimizing the role of judges in prior authorizing of police searches, secret searches of homes and personal records, bypassing certain rights of due process, expanded electronic surveillance, detentions without trial, and so on. Although aimed at terrorist suspects embedded in the U.S., citizen or not, ââ¬Återroristââ¬Â is a term very prone to increasingly broad interpretation, including political dissent (for example, dissent against neocon global intervention). Indeed, reports are beginning to surface detailing police usage of the Patriot Act not on Al-Qaida cells but on U.S. citizens charged with common crimes.9 Such escalating of police power is already spawning more ââ¬ÅPatriotââ¬Â laws to broaden and legitimize government police power (following the familiar government pattern of initiating tiny programs, such as the IRS or racial integration, then enlarging them into nationwide giants engulfing every citizen).10
Currently, the more ominous Patriot Act ââ¬ÅIIââ¬Â law, radically expanding policing authority, is crawling through Congress. Blocked by lobbying groups, fearful of the new threats to individual freedom, it seems unlikely to become law yet. But, governmentââ¬â¢s daily updates of dire threat from terrorists and emotional media replays of the 9-11 horrors fuel a public frenzy of fear and the will to tradeoff freedoms for personal safety by a protective ââ¬ÅBig-Brotherââ¬Â government. Patriot IIââ¬â¢s passage seems assured in the near future. Too far back in Americaââ¬â¢s history for todayââ¬â¢s new breed of Americans to recall is Ben Franklinââ¬â¢s quip: ââ¬ÅThey that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.ââ¬Â
Neocon Globalism and Islamic Jihad
The enduring theme pervading all neocon ambitions is a single word: power. The neocon agenda clearly envisions a uniform, meek and dependent public here in America ruled by a benevolent but all-controlling central power elite; and, abroad, global hegemony imposing this U.S. form of ââ¬Ådemocracyââ¬Â (ââ¬Åsoft totalitarianismââ¬Â11) everywhere on Earth.
The domestic agenda has already been accomplished by our past half-centuryââ¬â¢s transformation of America into a welfare state peopled by multicultural masses, the founding free-minded and self-reliant white race soon to be merely one minority among others (circa 2050). Even now, over and above Americaââ¬â¢s already overwhelming nonwhite population, 33 million residents today are foreign born, from third-world countries, with such immigration continuing unabated.12 Local and individual freedoms have largely been surrendered to the federal monolith. The 10th-Amendment powers and rights of the states have been nullified, cosmetic rather than real; both states and individuals firmly regulated by egalitarian ââ¬Åcivil-rightsââ¬Â laws and a ââ¬ÅNanny-stateââ¬Â web of non-stop mandates from the centralized power structure. Finally, 9-11 shocked Americans into a ââ¬Åtime-of-warââ¬Â submission to any level of ââ¬Åmartial lawââ¬Â urged by governmentââ¬â¢s daily intelligence reports of broadly-suspected terror attacks, specifics of time and type always unknown. The resulting hysteria offered neocons a golden opportunity for a quantum leap of power grabbing in the noble name of protection of the homeland and its vulnerable public. The opportunity was pure gold: the ââ¬Åwar on terrorââ¬Â has all signs of being permanent war ââ¬â and permanent martial law. The Patriot Acts, as they keep enlarging the police state, will consolidate all necessary power over a domestic ââ¬Åempireââ¬Â of multicultural, docile and easily ruled subjects.
The crushing of American freedoms at home fades into mere background behind the front-stage neocon foreign interventionism in Islamic lands, fueling their fanatic terrorist vengeance. Only power-blinded fools would dare charge into the hornetsââ¬â¢ nest of a billion-strong Islamic world of religious fanatics willing to martyr themselves to defend against their invaders. But, driven by the arrogant treachery of the neoconsââ¬â¢ reckless passion for global power, America marches blindly into that hornetââ¬â¢s nest. Our interventionism has transformed America into an enemy hated worldwide - and into bankrupting hemorrhages of military spending. Americaââ¬â¢s military bases and bullying intervention in the Middle East, especially its explicit backing of Israeli anti-Arab aggressions, directly threaten the very heart of the Islamic world, its passionate religion and age-old way of life. Unsurprisingly, the Islamic world is infuriated, hates America; thousands of its religious ââ¬Åmartyrsââ¬Â enlist to ââ¬Återrorizeââ¬Â the ââ¬Ågreat Satanââ¬Â and drive it from their lands by all terrorist means imaginable.
Neocon rhetoric hoodwinks the public with Islamic blame, ââ¬Återrorists who hate our very freedoms,ââ¬Â ignoring Islamic reality: they not only donââ¬â¢t envy our freedoms; they avoid them as Western immorality. Neocons exactly reverse the causes and effects of 9-11: Americaââ¬â¢s threatening of Islamââ¬â¢s way of life caused 9-11; the Islamic martyrs were only their desperate response to our aggression in their lands. This ever-intensifying Jihad ââ¬Åholyââ¬Â war against America was entirely avoidable; it was brought on only by Americaââ¬â¢s neocon-orchestrated interventions and meddling in Islamââ¬â¢s holy lands and their passionately believed religious customs. Just the presence of our military bases in Osama bin Ladenââ¬â¢s sacred soil of Saudi Arabia created the Al-Qaida organization of ââ¬Återroristsââ¬Â (they would say ââ¬Åfreedom fightersââ¬Â). Our uncritical support of Israel and its armed-force colonization of Islamic lands in Palestine infuriates the Islamic world. Neocons hold pro-Israel doctrine absolute but the conflict between Arabs and Israelis is their business, not ours.
Americaââ¬â¢s foreign interference, daily increasing Islamââ¬â¢s rage against it, is a more treacherous, insidious and never-ending threat to America than even the nuclear arsenals of the ââ¬Åcold-warââ¬Â era. The neocon doctrine of ââ¬Åpre emptive warââ¬Â is an insanely reckless precedent, especially in our nuclear age, inviting any nation to imitate it ââ¬â and strike us first. These ominous threats to Americaââ¬â¢s survival can be removed only if we first remove the neocons themselves from government, sharply reverse our foreign- intervention policies which enrage the world ââ¬â and just get Americans out of other peoplesââ¬â¢ lands and local affairs.
ENDNOTES 1 In The Weekly Standard, August 25, 2003, Irving Kristol, in a kind of chest-thumping brag about the origins of neoconservatism and his ââ¬Åfoundingââ¬Â of it, shed all pretense and broadcast its basic tenets in very ââ¬Åplain English.ââ¬Â 2 For comprehensive coverage of the Frankfurt School, see Chapter 4 of Patrick J. Buchananââ¬â¢s recent book, The Death of the West (St. Martinââ¬â¢s Press, 2002); also The Essential Frankfurt School Reader, A. Arato and E. Gebhardt (eds; Oxford, 1978 ââ¬â or paperback 1982). 3 Karl E. Meyer, The Dust of Empire, Public Affairs publications, 2002 4 Louis R. Golino, ââ¬ÅImperial America,ââ¬Â The Washington Times Weekly Edition, August 18, 2003, p. 10 5 J. M. Roberts, The European Empires, Time-Life History of the World, Vol. 8, 1998, pp. 33, 45 & 58 6 PNACââ¬â¢s full Statement of Principles is at its website: [url="http://www.newamericancentury.org/"][color=#22229c]www.newamericancentury.org[/color][/url]. The Statement is signed by some twenty-five leading neocons including Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Kagan, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. The quotations, unless otherwise attributed, are from the neocon writings at the PNAC website. 7 Jay Bookman, ââ¬ÅThe presidentââ¬â¢s real goal in Iraq,ââ¬Â The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, September 29, 2002. Bookmanââ¬â¢s articles, including his ââ¬ÅThe next 5-50 years,ââ¬Â are also available at Coloradoââ¬â¢s policy group, ââ¬ÅCommunicating for a Sustainable Future:ââ¬Â [url="http://csf.colorado.edu/forums"][color=#22229c]http://csf.colorado.edu/forums[/color][/url]. 8 Neil Mackay, ââ¬ÅBush planning Iraq ââ¬Ëregime changeââ¬â¢ before becoming president,ââ¬Â The Sunday Herald (Scotland), September 15, 2002 9 David Caruso, Associated Press writer, ââ¬ÅAntiterror laws used vs. common crooks,ââ¬Â The Free Lance Star (Fredericksburg, VA), September 15, 2003, p. 1 10 The Internal Revenue system was hardly noticeable 50 years ago but has mushroomed into todayââ¬â¢s unmanageable monolith. The 1954 Brown v. Board Supreme-Court ruling (some would say ââ¬Ålegislationââ¬Â) initiated racial integration but only in schools (arguing that ââ¬Åseparate but equalââ¬Â was unfair). Less than a decade later, in the 1964 ââ¬ÅCivil-rightsââ¬Â act, racial integration was enlarged to include most public accommodations such as restaurants. The program was enlarged a year later in the act of 1965 (voting rights). Finally, in 1968, the ââ¬ÅFair Housing Actââ¬Â integrated all American neighborhoods. 11 The term ââ¬Åsoft (or sophisticated) totalitarianismââ¬Â fits todayââ¬â¢s America perfectly. Unlike the usual ââ¬Åhardââ¬Â dictatorship version with blunt armed force and bloodbaths standard procedure, a people made docile, regulated and dependent on governmentââ¬â¢s distribution of income via IRS taxation under ââ¬Åsoftââ¬Â totalitarianism becomes gradually indoctrinated to want and keep electing its benevolent but all-controlling rulers. The term, linked to the notion of the ââ¬Åtherapeutic state,ââ¬Â is fully elaborated in Paul Edward Gottfriedââ¬â¢s Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt, University of Missouri, 2002 12 Census Bureau, 2002. See ââ¬Å33 million residents not born in USA,ââ¬Â The Washington Times Weekly Edition, September 8, 2003, p. 23.
Dr. Owens is a professor emeritus at The American University School of Business in Washington, D.C. His email address is: [email="owensva@ix.netcom.com"][color=#22229c]owensva@ix.netcom.com[/color][/email].<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
2005-09-28 00:59 | User Profile
Good article, MaineMan, and welcome to the board. :thumbsup:
2005-09-28 01:03 | User Profile
Thanks for the welcome. Great board.
2005-09-28 04:56 | User Profile
More here:
[url]http://wsi.matriots.com/neoconservatism.html[/url]