Posted under Interventionism & Iraq & NeoCons
How does he do it? The man is a genius, I tell you! Back in the fun days of the Neocon Wars, when W the Magnificent was strutting around in his, uh, enhanced flight suit, the Lizard King cheered on American power as it whupped Muslim butt in Afghanistan and Iraq. And back then, Charles agreed that the Islamization of the West was an evil to be resisted, as he argued in his post entitled One Third of Muslim Students OK with killing for Islam. In his post Radical Islam Marches in London, he warned that Muslims in the West supported their fellow Muslims rather than the Western nations they lived in.
Lately, however, he’s dropped his former pretense that the Neocon Wars were aimed at keeping the West Western. Today, he’s claiming Pam Geller’s “Stop the Islamization of America” is guilty of “increasingly open bigotry.” He ends his post with this show-stopper:
Now that high profile conservative figures like Sarah Palin are also endorsing hatred of Muslims and not-so-veiled calls for violence, decent Americans need to make their voices heard. The so-called “anti-jihad” movement has metastasized into something ugly and hateful.
Violence. Right. What do you call it when you cheer on the invasion of nations that had not threatened us that wipes out a million innocent people?
Apparently, invading Muslim nations is okey-dokey, but trying to defend one’s civilization is bad, bad, bad. Got it.
Note to conservatives who supported the Neocon Wars: You were used. You were fooled into thinking these illegal wars were about protecting America, including its traditional culture of liberty. They weren’t; they were about expanding the Empire’s reach and power at home and abroad. Out liberty is significantly diminished, and the Neocons are using their power to complete the globalization of America.
S.L. Toddard on 24 Jul 2010 at 4:09 am #
The so-called “anti-jihad” movement has metastasized into something ugly and hateful
I don’t think this is objectionable because it is untrue, but because it is inaccurate. The “anti-jihad” movement has always been something ugly and hateful, no? It is something distinct from America First, anti-immigration paleoism, I think. Am I wrong, or does the “anti jihad movement” consist mostly of neoconservatives and war-loving Republicans? That seems to describe most of the anti-jihadists I am familiar with, anyway.
RonL on 24 Jul 2010 at 7:19 am #
Johnson is a liberal who made an exception, which he now rejects. Stop abusing the term “neocon”.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 24 Jul 2010 at 12:05 pm #
RonL,
Neocons believe in:
1 – Big, centralized government
2 – The National Security State
3 – Aggressive military interventionism
4 – The US-Israeli “special relationship”
5 – Universalism, that is, the belief that liberal democracy is best for all people, despite the “historical accidents” of culture
CJ smugly pushes that exact agenda, and is contemptuous of those who reject it. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck …
John S on 24 Jul 2010 at 7:12 pm #
They weren’t; they were about expanding the Empire’s reach and power at home and abroad.
They weren’t even about that. They were primarily for the benefit of Israel, and designed to eliminate any state that Israel could, in its paranoid fantasies, ever imagine attacking it.
The expansion of the Empire is simply the means; the bolstering of Israel is always their real goal, and they don’t care how many goy lives are lost in the process.