Posted under BookLog & Christianity & Classical Texts & Conservatism & Culture & Education & Europe & Free Trade & Globalism & Immigration & Interventionism & Iraq & Israel & NAU & NeoCons & Neoliberals & Political Correctness & Political Philosophy & Politics & Religion & Terrorism
Here is the inception of the NeoCon Lexicon. If you can think of any additions or corrections, please post them below, or email them to: editors[at]conservativetimes.org
——-
THE NEOCON DICTIONARY
The Amen Corner: The neocon’s “useful idiots,” naive Christians unknowingly committing self-destruction by backing the neocon secularist/globalist agenda.
Blood and soil: The basis of traditional patriotism, practiced by Zionist neocons, but forbidden to Christians of Anglo/European descent.
Allan Bloom: Jewish homosexual, hostile towards Christianity, died of AIDS, and author of Closing of the American Mind, which reads like “a civics textbook designed for New Deal Democrats†(Gottfried).
Neocon Calendar: Always set to 1939, where “if drastic action is not taken on X, then a second Holocaust is just around the corner.”
FDR: Hero to neocons. Soft socialism mixed with perpetual foreign war is a fine wine to the neocon pallet.
Abe Foxman: A Leftist fellow traveler, hater of Christianity, checks the right flank for the neocon by attacking real conservatives, so the neocon can further secularize and globalize the West.
Free trade: The neocon method of destroying Western economies – while making a fast buck too!
Genophilia: Instinctive attachment to family and tribe, practiced by Zionist neocons, forbidden to Christians of Anglo/European descent.
Globalization: In the guise of free trade and unlimited immigration from the Third World, a slow form of suicide spoon-fed to the West by the neocon.
Great-Books Programs: Reading the Western Canon (in translation) with an explicit Jacobin bias seasoned with a subtle flavor of Zionism. (A left-wing alternative to the traditional, conservative approach: a classical eduction.)
Historicism: One of the principal bogeymen for neocons. A historicist is a non-neocon who takes prides in his own ancestral traditions, and is public enemy #1 for the neocon. (Edmund Burke’s value-centered historicism becomes fascism through the neocon-lense.)
Immigration (from the Third World): The slow but certain means of the neocon to destroy the West and its people.
Iraq War: Wilsonian nation building repackaged as “conservative.”
Islamofascist: The bogeyman who hides in your closet at night, whereby neocons can spend billions of American dollars to secure the borders of Israel and Iraq, while simultaneously supporting the open-borders, third-world invasion of the U.S.
Kith and kin: a traditional type of ancestral loyalty practiced by Zionist neocon, but forbidden to Christians of Anglo/European descent.
Christopher Hitchens: Good buddy of the neocon, claims Christianity is a disease.
Irving Kristol: Trotskyite mugged by Likud.
1950s Liberalism: Utopia for Neocons.
Nativism: The practice of Westerners refusing to roll over and watch their countries become third-world wastelands.
Racist: A patriotic Westerner who puts his own people’s interests ahead of Israel or Glogalization.
Leo Strauss: a mediocre scholar and self-proclaimed liberal, who wallpapers over the real West and its people with Enlightenment universalist abstractions, always invoking the bogeyman of “historicism.”
Regime Change: Straight from the Marxist annals, repackaged as “conservative.”
Tel Aviv: New D.C.
Trotsky: Intellectual inspiration for most neocons.
Green Tory on 10 Oct 2007 at 2:05 am #
Funny and sad at the same time.
Andrew T. on 10 Oct 2007 at 2:47 am #
Bede, I can’t say that I find this to be in good taste.
Ron Paul 08 on 10 Oct 2007 at 3:11 am #
The is the most frank, yet truthful, account of neocons I’ve read.
Weaver on 10 Oct 2007 at 6:03 am #
Anti-Semite: one who wins an argument with or otherwise gets in the way of a neocon. Even Orthodox Jews are not safe from this slander.
Compassionate conservatism: see 1950s Liberalism.
RonL on 10 Oct 2007 at 8:00 am #
TJ
I am very disappointed. You have fallen for ignorance and anger over reasoned discourse. You presume that Neocons are uber-Zionists, a questionable assertion, and then throw in Jews and Israel in attacks on Neocons. This sloppy reasoning is what allows for charges of Anti-Semetism to stick.
“Blood and soil: The basis of traditional patriotism,
practiced by Zionist Jews, but forbidden to Christians
of Anglo/European descent.”
When was the last time a neocon said anything nice about blood and soil in Israel? They speak of Israel in liberal terms. They may oppose land for pieces of paper, although some like Wolfowitz support it, but do so only in terms of security or terrorism. This is a New York Times argument. It is an unprincipled exception to liberalism, not an affront to conservatism.
“Allan Bloom: Jewish homosexual, hostile towards Christianity, died of AIDS, and author of Closing of the American Mind, which reads like “a civics textbook designed for New Deal Democrats†(Gottfried).”
Allan Bloom was an atheist and hostile to to the Torah as much as Christianity. Liking lox is no different than a homosexual liking stained glass.
As for “Closing of the American Mind” it is a flawed book but has been a far more influential attack on post-modernism than anything written by Professor Gottfried.
“Abe Foxman: A Leftist fellow traveler, hater of Christianity, checks the right flank for the neocon by attacking real conservatives, so the neocon can further secularize and globalize the West.”
Foxman has also attacked Jewish conservatives. They have attacked everyone from the JDL, and Kahanist groups, to Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership and even a Jewish neocon like Dennis Prager
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1755092/posts
“Genophilia: Instinctive attachment to family and tribe, practiced by Zionist Jews, forbidden to Christians of Anglo/European descent.”
When was the last time you caught a neocon talking about intermarriage? They are liberals.
“Great-Books Programs: Reading the Western Canon (in translation) with an explicit Jacobin bias seasoned with a subtle flavor of Zionism. (A left-wing alternative to the traditional, conservative approach: a classical eduction.)”
That is laughable. The alternative is no canon or an explicitly anti-Western one.
Moreover, name one “Zionist” text promoted at say the University of Chicago or Columbia.
“Immigration (from the Third World): The slow but certain means of the neocon to destroy the West and its people.”
No disagreement but what makes you think that Israel exists separately from this suicide or that the death of the West is in the interests of Israel.
“Islamofascist: The bogeyman who hides in your closet at night.”
Please come with me to Paterson NJ, Atlantic Avenue Brooklyn, most suburbs of Paris, or Malmo, Sweden.
Instead of screaming that Islamists are imaginary, look around and note that they are the worst of immigrants.
“Christopher Hitchens: Good buddy of the neocon, claims Christianity is a disease.”
Claims religion is a disease. Do you thinking that Judaism is exempt?
“Irving Kristol: Trotskyite mugged by Likud.”
Ignorant quip.
Kristol was “mugged” in the 1960s 10 years before the Likud was formed.
He was mugged on communism, socialism, and the Great Society.
“Racist: A patriotic Westerner who puts his own people’s interests ahead of Israel or Glogalization.”
Please. Any serious blood and soil nationalist is called a racist or worse if he is a Zionist or even Israeli.
Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter and called racist far more than Ron Paul by neocons.
“Leo Strauss: a mediocre scholar and self-proclaimed liberal, who wallpapers over the real West and its
people with Enlightenment universalist abstractions, always invoking the bogeyman of “historicism.â€
He was a liberal in the European sense. You do know the difference, I presume.
Have you read Strauss’s analysis or non-Western cultures or do you get by on third-hand sources?
“Tel Aviv: New D.C.”
I don’t get it. Tel Aviv is the analogue to NYC and LA. It is the metropolitan center and secular center.
Jerusalem is the capital. Clearly you know nothing about Israel.
Weaver on 10 Oct 2007 at 8:47 am #
The neocons “mistake Tel Aviv for the capitol of the United States” (Russell Kirk) is what I think Bede was referring to.
Podhoretz and Kristol aren’t Zionists? Podhoretz defends Israel fiercely here
—
I’d say it’s because:
Eastern Jews came over with immigrants, are not a part of the core population, and do not share in the core religion; thus they feel more comfortable with supporting open borders and undermining religion and other social ties that exclude them.
Bede on 10 Oct 2007 at 10:44 am #
Ron, Ron, Ron,
We often agree on things. I think you are taking this the wrong way.
First, you are not even a neocon, from what I understand, so you should not personally be insulted.
I’ll address your points.
Regarding blood and soil patriotism / kith and kin / genophilia, neocons may not openly say they support these things, but they most certainly do. Come on, you know they do. And you know it is denied for Christians of Anglo/European descent to do the same. I do not begrudge neocons for supporting these things. I wish them the best. But I want the same for my people.
Bloom and Strauss are not conservatives. I have actually read quite a bit by Strauss and Bloom. They are liberals. In Giants and Dwarfs, Bloom says he’s a man of the left. Bloom was taken back by the extremism of the 1960s Left, and rightly criticized it. But essentially he’s a 1950s liberal. In a few places, Strauss says he’s defending the liberal – not the conservative – tradition. But Strauss’s leger de main is that instead of openly supporting the modern liberal tradition, he superimposes it upon the ancient world. They are both actually quite hostile towards historical conservatism (e.g. Burke and De Maistre). Claes G Ryn says that the real reason Strauss hates Burke is because of Burke’s championing of “the ancestral.” (Remember: such pride is prohibited to Westerners.)
Great-Books Programs are a liberal alternative to the 19th-century curriculum, which was a modified version of the traditional, Medieval curriculum. Great-Books Programs were originally designed as a dumbed-down way to provide culture to the proletariate. They are much easier than the traditional, classical curriculum. And neocons largely use them to instill Jacobin ideals. I speak from first-hand knowledge. I’m a product of great-books programs. I suppose they are better than some modern alternatives, but one must see them for what they are and put them in their historical context.
Regarding Hitchens, the neocon alliance with Hitchens demonstrates that neocons put one issue ahead of all others, and that the other issues are expendable.
Regarding Islamofascist, I just think it’s a dumb word. You know that I think the Muslim threat is real. I’ve seen the Muslim ghettos in Paris, Hamburg, etc, and they are quite scary. But it is hardly fascist. I support disengagement from the Muslim World. We should (1) withdraw from the Middle East, (2) end all immigration from the third world, (3) deport all Muslims from the West, and (4) end all aid to the Middle East.
Jan Rogozinski on 10 Oct 2007 at 12:14 pm #
Blood and soil–The author is entirely correct. Not all Jews are fanatical about “ethnically cleansing” every inch of what they consider to be “Biblical” Israel by any means need, including genocide. There are a few exceptions. But ethnic cleansing has been the policy of most Jews and always the policy of all Jewish governments since Zionism began.
Jews make this insane argument that “there are already are 27 Arab states” which can take in the Palestinians when the Jews force them out of Palestine.
This is the purest racism and crazy. The only Arab state in Saudi Arabia. The others Middle Eastern states are Muslim but not Arab. Often racial Arabs often are in the minority. (For example Iran). It is true that the Arabic language is spoken in those countries. But if language is the criterion, then we all should call Jews “Hebes” for their use of Hebrew.
And many of those linguistic Arabs have been Christan since the Resurrection of Jesus. The Jews are driving ever Christian out of Isreal and the US is driving every Christian out of Iraq.
Thus no Christian supports the Jewish State or the war in Iraq. Anyone that supports them is fanatically anti-Christian.
Alice Britno on 10 Oct 2007 at 12:52 pm #
You are a garden variety bigot. People who hate Christians also hate Jews – and it does not even matter if they are devout. You must have gone to Madison Square Garden bund rallies in the 1930′s with your pals. Your hatred of Jews and of Israel is mind boggling.
Bede on 10 Oct 2007 at 1:11 pm #
Alice,
I resent such characterizations. To use a well-worn cliche, “I have Jewish friends.” Seriously, I have no problem with Jews. Ron L who regularly comments here is Jewish; if we ever were to meet, I’m sure we would probably get along. What I do have a problem with, however, is: (1) Zionist neocons promoting their double standards, and (2) their interference in American foreign policy and resulting wars that are in no way in the American interest. And what I especially resent is shills like you who try to silence any criticism of the neocons as “anti-semetic.”
Mariel on 10 Oct 2007 at 2:22 pm #
By Neocons asserting THEIR kith and kin and denying to other people of Anglo and European culture, you would seem to be talking about New World Order Jewish elitists. My reading indicates that the neocons are mostly of Anglo and European non-Jewish background, although many Jews participate, having decided to join a prosperous cabal.
I have been reading on this group to try to understand what conservatism is. I am not gaining understanding, so far, although the Kirkian discussion brought knowledge to an otherwise feebly educated Stanford graduate.
roho on 10 Oct 2007 at 6:06 pm #
Thank you Bede!……..This is one of the best laundry lists of “Neocons” I’ve seen.
Weaver on 10 Oct 2007 at 7:03 pm #
I lost my internet connection yesterday…
—
Neoconservative leaders are largely Jewish.
It’s perhaps bad to criticise the Zionism of the neocons because in doing so we 1. undermine pro-Western Zionists such as Ron 2. undermine patriotism in general. 3. undermine those Zionists who did not wish for war in Iraq and now Iran.
However, highlighting the neocon’s Zionism does reveal them to be the hypocrites they are.
Also, Zionists in general support the American wars in the Middle East, do they not? Though oil and the NWO are a large part of the wars, the Zionism of the neocons oughtn’t be ignored either. Though we can make common cause in certain areas, Zionists oughtn’t be in charge of US foreign policy and their bias ought be made general knowledge.
—
Another possible reason to use Tel Aviv rather than Jerusalem as the capital is the neocons are largely atheists.
—
Podhoretz wrote in The prophets: Who They Were and What They are
according to Ann Pettifer at left wing Counterpunch.
—
Source:
Faith or Fear: How Jews Can Survive in a Christian America. – Review – book reviews
National Review, July 28, 1997 by Michael Medved
—
So, the two godfathers of neoconservatism are… Zionists.
—
Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith are 3 more powerful Jewish neocons. Abrams, son-in-law of Podhoretz, is another though he’s been mentioned, and… he has a book out.
Feith and Perle defend Israel strongly in “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” written for Likud Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
Anyway, have any of them openly supported intermarriage? Wolfowitz enjoyed his famous fling… but he was previously married to a Jewish anthropologist, who gave him 3 children.
—
Rupert Murdoch is rumored to be Jewish (a rumor I believe considering how pro-Israel he is…). He backed the war and also backs open borders.
—
As I think Gottfried (as most know, he’s Jewish) has said, it would seem opposed to Jewish interests to support open borders and free trade, but neocons and Jews in general, especially eastern Jews, do anyway.
Ron, some your Zionist pals are deeply anti-Western. You, Epstein, Gottfried and others (most notably those who work with the BNP) would seem to disagree with the neocons on what is best for Jews. Perhaps the neocons though do not think rationally and simply hate us (Westerners) for our freedom
Lindy's Revenge on 10 Oct 2007 at 7:49 pm #
Great post Bede, and very true. I don’t really care what the Zionists do in Israel, my problem is that their influence on the U.S. through lobbying and bullying brings us into it. I have nothing against Muslims in the Muslim world (in Europe is a different matter), and really don’t care to be brought into some Middle Eastern blood fued. We should return to a policy of Pan-American realism and military non-intervention overseas like Buchanan advocates in ARNaE, and establish friendly ties with Russia to contain the coming Chinese aggression. I also think that it is in the West’s interests to separate the Muslim problem in Europe from the Middle East as much as possible, not to bring them closer together. The neocon Zionists are endangering all of these goals.
Allan Bloom was a 1950s liberal, as are all the neocons. Some of their enablers are not, Ms. Coulter being an example that comes to mind, but the neocons themselves are. Bloom was an imperialist and rabid Germanophobe, but those sentiments are not unforgivable in and of themselves in my eyes. So was Rudyard Kipling, one of my favorite writers and a paleo-minded thinker in virtually every other way (culture, race, free trade, feminism, immigration, political correctness, even Lincoln and the South!). It’s Bloom’s universalist, Jacobin, globalist ideology that makes him forfeit any claim to being a conservative thinker. His quarrel with postmodernism was that it is not liberal and draws from anti-progressive, anti-universalist philosophical inspirations.
The neocon attack on “historicism” reveals much about neoconservatism. By “historicism,” the neocons mean a sense of rootedness in history. To them, any suggestion that a people’s history may make them incompatible with their definition of universal “values” is fatalistic and anyone who suggests it is a heretic. Anyone who dissents from the Great Propostition Nation has a place in neocon demonology. Their problem is clearly not with anyone invoking Rousseau or Marx or any other loser who failed to understand human nature, but anyone who dares suggest a people’s political outlook is shaped by its history, whether from anti-Western leftist or a pro-Western conservative perspective, is an “unpatriotic” doomsayer and is immediately suspected of invoking Oswald Spengler or some other odious anti-Semitic Hun and should be reeducated in a dekrautification camp.
Alice Britno on 10 Oct 2007 at 8:47 pm #
you do not know what my religion is! Secondly, you seem obsesssed with “Jews” or “Zionists” or whatever. You are truly obsessed and filled with hatred. It is frightening – and the bit about “some of your best friends” doesn’t do it for me!
Alice Britno on 10 Oct 2007 at 8:50 pm #
You are OBSESSED with people’s religion – particularly if they belong to the Jewish faith. I call it like I see it. You guys are off your gourds.
Weaver on 10 Oct 2007 at 9:14 pm #
No one is obsessed with Jews? No one hates Jews?
The neocon leadership is largely Zionist and Jewish. The thesis of this post: Neocons support free trade and open borders, and yet they are hypocritically Zionist.
Bede on 11 Oct 2007 at 1:51 am #
Lindy: “I don’t really care what the Zionists do in Israel, my problem is that their influence on the U.S. through lobbying and bullying brings us into it.”
Exactly.
I don’t have anything against Zionism. I just object to their interfering in American foreign policy.
And I have no objection to their support of kith and kin loyalties. I just think it should not be denied of Christians of Algo/European descent.
Lindy: “The neocon attack on “historicism†reveals much about neoconservatism. By “historicism,†the neocons mean a sense of rootedness in history. To them, any suggestion that a people’s history may make them incompatible with their definition of universal “values†is fatalistic and anyone who suggests it is a heretic. Anyone who dissents from the Great Propostition Nation has a place in neocon demonology. Their problem is clearly not with anyone invoking Rousseau or Marx or any other loser who failed to understand human nature, but anyone who dares suggest a people’s political outlook is shaped by its history, whether from anti-Western leftist or a pro-Western conservative perspective, is an “unpatriotic†doomsayer and is immediately suspected of invoking Oswald Spengler or some other odious anti-Semitic Hun and should be reeducated in a dekrautification camp.”
Beautiful.
RonL on 11 Oct 2007 at 6:18 am #
I believe that my comments were not as clear as I had thought.
Weaver,
Of course Kristol, and Podhoretz for that matter, is a a Zionist, in so far as he supports the continued existence of the Third Commonwealth of Israel. However, his inherent anti-nationalism limits his Zionism largeley to rampbling about democracy (something that would be turned against Israel in a second) or making unprincipled excpetions for Israel. The truth is taht he, like amny neocons actually does make unprincipled exceptions fo the US as well, just not as many.
My point about him not being mugged by the Likud was a simple truism. Some people confuse all Zionists with the Likud because they don’t know Israeli politics or history.
It is a little like defining the US in terms of the GOP.
Weaver, your comments about Eastern Jews is interesting.
1. You admit that bias against Israel boils down to bias against liberal Jews in America.
Has it occurred to you that most liberals in America don’t like Israel? Liberal Jews might support Israel in unthing theory, but not in practice.
2. The liberalism thing is actually a single generation of Eastern European Jews. Those who came after World War 2 tended to be much less liberal. They fled socialism and had no love affair with FDR.
In Israel, true eastern Jews, ie those from the Middle East, Persia, or Central Asia tend to be conservative. It is a more complex picture in the US.
However, even those who vote for welfare benefits live traditional lifestyles. (In fact, some are rather scary. Syrian Jewish women must be married by 20 if they want to marry in their community.)
Bede:
“Regarding blood and soil patriotism / kith and kin / genophilia, neocons may not openly say they support these things, but they most certainly do. Come on, you know they do. And you know it is denied for Christians of Anglo/European descent to do the same. I do not begrudge neocons for supporting these things. I wish them the best. But I want the same for my people.”
Some neocons support it, but not ideologically. It is an unprincipled exception to the natural mixing they support. Call them on it, but do so in a way that respects their inherent, but unprincipled and non-ideological nationalism. Don’t attack them for hypocracy, but call them to virtue.
“Bloom and Strauss are not conservatives. I have actually read quite a bit by Strauss and Bloom. They are liberals. In Giants and Dwarfs, Bloom says he’s a man of the left. Bloom was taken back by the extremism of the 1960s Left, and rightly criticized it. But essentially he’s a 1950s liberal.”
Yes, but unlike Hofsteder, he does not call true conservatives paranoid.
“a few places, Strauss says he’s defending the liberal – not the conservative – tradition. But Strauss’s leger de main is that instead of openly supporting the modern liberal tradition, he superimposes it upon the ancient world. They are both actually quite hostile towards historical conservatism (e.g. Burke and De Maistre). Claes G Ryn says that the real reason Strauss hates Burke is because of Burke’s championing of “the ancestral.†(Remember: such pride is prohibited to Westerners.)”
Then again is not retaking and modernizing the classics of Western thought an inherently historicist act?
“Great-Books Programs are a liberal alternative to the 19th-century curriculum, which was a modified version of the traditional, Medieval curriculum. Great-Books Programs were originally designed as a dumbed-down way to provide culture to the proletariate. They are much easier than the traditional, classical curriculum. And neocons largely use them to instill Jacobin ideals. I speak from first-hand knowledge. I’m a product of great-books programs. I suppose they are better than some modern alternatives, but one must see them for what they are and put them in their historical context.”
Then note the context. Your initial assault was devoid of this. Given that they are one of the few places where students are still exposed to Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Polybius, Cicero, the Bible, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke?
I believe the
core at Columbia is more solid than the Great Books program and requirement at most other institutions.
Between
Contemporary Civilization,
Literature Humanities, Masterpieces of Western art, and Masterpieces of Western music I was exposed to far more than Jacobin and Marxist rants. Of course Columbia is a somewhat unique, if quickly decaying institution.
“Regarding Hitchens, the neocon alliance with Hitchens demonstrates that neocons put one issue ahead of all others, and that the other issues are expendable.”
True. Sadly the reverse is also correct for many paleoconservatives and paleolibertarians.
“Regarding Islamofascist, I just think it’s a dumb word.”
I think it is a generally misleading word, unless one is specifically speaking of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood during its flirtation with fascism or with the use of the term by opponents of Islamists in Algeria.
“You know that I think the Muslim threat is real. I’ve seen the Muslim ghettos in Paris, Hamburg, etc, and they are quite scary. But it is hardly fascist. I support disengagement from the Muslim World. We should (1) withdraw from the Middle East, (2) end all immigration from the third world, (3) deport all Muslims from the West, and (4) end all aid to the Middle East.”
As you know, I don’t disagree on 2, 3 and 4. However, I have seen the Muslim youth taunt and harass their way through Sweden. Shops are boycotted, vandalized and then torched. Nazi rhetoric is specifically and purposely used.
RonL on 11 Oct 2007 at 6:37 am #
Jan,
“Blood and soil–The author is entirely correct. Not all Jews are fanatical about “ethnically cleansing†every inch of what they consider to be “Biblical†Israel by any means need, including genocide. There are a few exceptions. But ethnic cleansing has been the policy of most Jews and always the policy of all Jewish governments since Zionism began.”
I wish. That said, were we different in the US?
“Jews make this insane argument that “there are already are 27 Arab states†which can take in the Palestinians when the Jews force them out of Palestine.
This is the purest racism and crazy. The only Arab state in Saudi Arabia. The others Middle Eastern states are Muslim but not Arab. Often racial Arabs often are in the minority. (For example Iran). It is true that the Arabic language is spoken in those countries. But if language is the criterion, then we all should call Jews “Hebes†for their use of Hebrew. ”
No one is talking about forcing all the Arabs out of all of 1922 Palestine, not even Kahanists. 3/4 of that land was set aside in 1923 as (Trans)Jordan for the Arabs. Moreover, aside from the Kahanists no one is speaking of transfering all the Arabs in the remaining 1/4 out. For the legal parties in Israel the questions are what to do with the Jewish and Arab populations of the disputed territories of Gaza and the West Bank, which constitute 10% of Palestine.
Most of the world wants to tranfer most, if not all, the Jews from most, if not all, of this land.
I support the reverse.
Your knowledge of Middle Eastern Ethnicities is quite limited. While Iran does have an ethnically Arab population this accounts for about 3%. 51% are Persians, the population we normally think of when we think of Iranians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Iran#Major_Ethnic_Groups
The term “Arab” is either ethnic (one whose family is from Arabia or specifically the Hijaz), linquistic (a speaker of Arabic), or Political (a citizen or subject of a self-declared Arab state).
It is complex. However most Muslim Arabic speakers, who do not actively keep another culture, are Arabs by default.
“Hebrew” was a term used for Jew until quite recently. It was also the ancient term used by non-Israelites speaking about them. The Egyptians called their Israelite slaves “Hebrews”.
“And many of those linguistic Arabs have been Christan since the Resurrection of Jesus. The Jews are driving ever Christian out of Isreal and the US is driving every Christian out of Iraq.”
Laughable. Christians move to Israel. They have been fleeing territories Israel has given up to the Muslim Arabs.
RonL on 11 Oct 2007 at 6:54 am #
Weaver,
“Another possible reason to use Tel Aviv rather than Jerusalem as the capital is the neocons are largely atheists.”
You are looking for straws. Taht is like calling NY and LA the capitol of the US.
“Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith are 3 more powerful Jewish neocons. Abrams, son-in-law of Podhoretz, is another though he’s been mentioned, and… he has a book out.”
Wolfowitz is often mentioned and it is presumed taht he is some Israel firster. The only problem is that he supports “land for promises” and is dating a Muslim woman.
regarding Podhoretz’s comments
Probably the most conservative statement I have heard in a while.
There are two modes for Jews. We can either live as examples or try to actively fix the world. Given the history of false messiahs and post-Kaballistic lunacy (Frankists, Sabbatarians…) and secular/communist Jews wishing to immanentize the eschaton, Zionism and religious tradition are the better choice.
Winston Churchill was largely correct when he said that Jews really have three options
1) completely integrate
2) become communists
3) Become Zionists or opt out as traditionalists
The famous marriage quote is actually aimed at the ADL folks who have no understanding that this is not Russia in 1905.
“As I think Gottfried (as most know, he’s Jewish) has said, it would seem opposed to Jewish interests to support open borders and free trade, but neocons and Jews in general, especially eastern Jews, do anyway.”
Part of the problem is taht most neocons and liberals don’t think about this rationaly. Those who are Jewish FEEL an atavistic threat and build a rational.
I would note that most Neocons ideologically are closer to Locke than any classical Jewish thinking. They are just driven by the emotions of a minority.
Bede on 11 Oct 2007 at 10:48 am #
Ron,
I think we are probably largely in agreement. I think that you too think that most of the neocons are hypocritical, right?
I am not opposed to Zionism. But I am opposed to how it interferes with American foreign policy. I don’t think the US Gov. should be involved at all. (This is probably where we differ.)
And I also have no problem with Jews having kith and kin loyalties. I only am upset that the same comforts are not allowed for Christians of Anglo/European descent.
Weaver on 11 Oct 2007 at 12:39 pm #
Ron,
Zionist is the preferred. I was just pointing out that the neocon leaders were largely Zionists and not only globalists, though make no mistake some are likely anti-Zionist globalist, e.g ex-neocon Fukuyama whom I suspect wouldn’t want any sense of patriotism.
Yes, Jews are largely behaving as a minority group and cannot be blamed anymore than can other regular citizens for a similar lack of rational behavior. But the neocon leaders ought to know better, and with them it’s as blatantly hypocritical as is La Raza calling Americans “racists.”
Weaver on 11 Oct 2007 at 12:45 pm #
This post was meant I think to undermine those neocons who criticise patriotic Americans. It was not meant to undermine Zionism.
—
I just pulled 2 (will delete one if it’s an exact duplicate) posts from spam filter. No time to alter response atm.
Alice Britno on 11 Oct 2007 at 8:43 pm #
The hatred that I am seeing on this site towards Jews, “neocons” and Zionists is mind boggling. The extreme left and the extreme right unite in their hatred of Jews. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.
Filmer on 11 Oct 2007 at 9:13 pm #
Ms. Britno,
I have personally avoided a lot of the Jewish/neocon/Israel discussion because I think it just invites a big ol’ pissing match. The real issue is whether we should have a non-interventionist foreign policy or an interventionist foreign policy. I think non-interventionism is the only policy consistent with conservatism.
That said, please show me one thing on this website written by one of the Editors that demonstrates “hatred.” Not toeing the PC line is not the same as hate. I would be delighted to know what you think demonstrates hate.
Andrew T. on 12 Oct 2007 at 12:00 am #
This is the most intelligent and productive blog discussion I’ve seen in a long, long time!
David Allyn on 12 Oct 2007 at 3:41 am #
Alice Britno on 11 Oct 2007 at 8:43 pm #
The hatred that I am seeing on this site towards Jews, “neocons†and Zionists is mind boggling. The extreme left and the extreme right unite in their hatred of Jews. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.
>>> nobody is forcing you to read these posts – if you don’t like – you can shove it where the sun doesn’t shine
Andrew T. on 12 Oct 2007 at 6:41 pm #
David Allyn,
You should have responded with something that can actually win sound minds.
David Allyn on 12 Oct 2007 at 6:57 pm #
Andrew T – with her comments, it is clear that Britno lacks any kind of mind…
Jan Rogozinski on 27 Oct 2007 at 10:24 pm #
Read the founding fathers [and mothers] of Zionism. Several of the most influential did honestly admit that Palestine already was populated by the Palestinians, so that the Jews would have to dispossess the natives either by driving them out of Palestine or through genocide. But today’s neo-conservatives are less honest and Deny the reality on the ground in Israel.
The question no one answers is, if a “Jewish State” is permitted, then what on earth is wrong with a “Christian state” or a “Sharia state”? At present American dollars and soldiers are used to defend the imposition of Jewish law on non-Jews in Israel. Simultaneously, American dollars and soldiers are used to prevent the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Cognitive dissonance at this extreme level is extraordinary. Yet the politically correct in America pretend they’re sane.