The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Gottfried Archive
Will a Trump Victory Actually Dislodge the Neocons?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Although I fully share the jubilation of others that Donald Trump may be taking a wrecking ball to the GOP establishment, I don’t hold the view that Trump’s candidacy will reduce neoconservative power. Matthew Richer, Justin Raimondo and other writers whose columns I usually welcome all believe that Trump’s rise as a Republican presidential candidate may help bring down his bogus conservative enemies. The more Trump’s popular support soars, the more the neocons have supposedly turned themselves into paper tigers. The establishment Republicans whom they “advise” have not marginalized Trump; nor have the neocons and their clients been able to elevate as GOP frontrunner someone who serves their purposes. The fact that prominent neocons like Robert Kagan have indicated their willingness to vote for Hillary Clinton instead of a GOP presidential candidate they don’t want, has underscored the emptiness of their opposition to Mrs. Clinton. The neoconservatives’ willingness to abandon the Republican side in the presidential race if they don’t get their way dramatizes their deviousness and arrogance. Presumably others will now abandon these power-hungry careerists and perpetual war mongers.

Unfortunately, I expect none of this to happen. Indeed it would not surprise me if the neocons exhibited the staying power of the Egyptian New Kingdom, which ruled Egypt for five hundred years (1570-1070 BC) despite such occasional setbacks as military defeats. What neoconservative publicists are now doing when they bait and switch, does not seem different from what they did in the past. Prominent neocons have not consistently taken the side of eventually victorious Republican presidential candidates. In 1972 Nathan Glazer, Daniel Bell and other neocon heavyweights backed McGovern against Nixon, yet neocon and Democrat Daniel Moynihan carried great weight in the Nixon administration. In the presidential primaries in 1976 Irving Kristol and most other Republican neocons backed Gerald Ford against Ronald Reagan; nonetheless, after Reagan’s victory in 1980 neoconservatives William Bennett and Eliot Abrams came to play highly visible roles in the Republican administration.

Conceivably even if Robert Kagan and his friends support Hillary Clinton against Trump, they would still remain prominent, well-connected “conservatives.” The neoconservatives’ power and influence do not depend on their willingness to march in lockstep with the GOP. Their power base extends into both parties; and if most neocons are currently identified with the “moderate” wing of the GOP, providing their political ambitions are met and their foreign policy is carried out, other recognizable neocons like William Galston, Kagan’s wife Victoria Nuland, and Ann Applebaum have identified strongly with Democratic administrations. Neoconservatives will not likely cease to be part of the political and journalistic establishment, even if some in their ranks chose to back Hillary against the Donald.

Even less likely, will they cease to be a shaping force in a “conservative movement” that remains mostly under their wing. Since the 1980s neoconservatives have been free to push that movement in their own direction, toward a neo-Wilsonian foreign policy, toward the defense of what they celebrate as a “democratic capitalist welfare state” and toward a gradual acceptance of leftist social positions, as being less vital to “conservatism” than “national defense.” Neoconservatives demand that the government be pro-active in relation to the rest of the world. They and those politicians they train speak of “leading from the front” and place special emphasis on the protection of Israel and continued American intervention in “trouble spots” across the globe.

Neoconservatives have their own characteristic American nationalism, which is based on both energetic involvement in the affairs of other states and calls for further immigration, which now comes mostly from the Third World. Both of these foundational positions are justified on the grounds that American identity rests on a creed, which stresses universal equality. Most anyone from anywhere can join the American nation by adopting the neocons’ preferred creed; and once here these “new Americans, “ it is argued, will become hardy defenders of our propositional nationhood while providing the cheap labor needed for economic growth. Perhaps most importantly, neocons have no trouble attracting corporate donors, who hold their views on immigration and their fervent Zionism. Australian newspaper baron Rupert Murdoch, who finances their media outlets, has been particularly generous to his neoconservative clients but is far from their only benefactor.

The hundreds of millions of dollars that are poured into neoconservative or neoconservative-friendly policy institutes annually are not likely to dry up in the foreseeable future. A meeting just held on Sea Island off the coast of Georgia for the purpose of devising and executing a plan to bring down Trump, included, according to Pat Buchanan, all the usual suspects. Neocon journalist Bill Kristol,, executives of neocon policy institute AEI, and Republican bigwigs and politicians were all conspicuously represented at this gathering of the “conservative “ in-crowd , and gargantuan sums of money were pledged to destroy the reputation of someone whom the attendees hoped to destroy.

If the neocons were falling, certainly they are hiding their descent well. Finally, there seems to be a continuing congruence between the liberal internationalism preached by neoconservatives and such architects of America’s foreign policy as the Council on Foreign Relations. Although the Old Right and libertarians may lament these troublemakers, the neoconservatives do not labor alone in imposing their will. They are the most out-front among those calling for an aggressive American internationalism; and this has been a dominant stance among American foreign policy elites for at least a century.


It is hard to imagine that the neocons will lose these assets because they’ve been branding Trump a fascist or because they’re unwilling to back the GOP presidential candidate, no matter who he or she is. Powerbrokers in their own right, they don’t have to worry about passing litmus tests. They enjoy unbroken control of the “conservative movement,” and benefit from the demonstrable inability of a more genuine Right to displace them. Matthew Richer asks whether Donald Trump’s election would spell “the end of NR’s influence over the conservative movement in America.” The answer is an emphatic no, unless those who distribute the funding for the neoconservative media empire decide to close down this particular fixture. Otherwise Rich Lowry and his buds will go on being funded as agents for disseminating neocon party lines.

Moreover, those featured in NR‘s printed issues and/or on its widely visited website are routinely invited on to Fox-news and contribute to other interlocking neoconservative enterprises. Rich Lowry and Jonah Goldberg will not be thrown out of work, because they dumped toxic waste on Trump. And Max Boot will not lose his position at the WSJ because of his over-the-top tirades against Trump, after having railed non-stop for several weeks against Confederate monuments and Confederate Battle Flags. There is nothing the neocons say when they’re reaching leftward or revealing their leftist colors that the leftist media aren’t also saying, even more stridently. Pointing out the silliness of neoconservative assertions about history or the current age may help us deal with our irritation. It does not mean that we can dissuade those who fund the neoconservatives from giving them more money. They are being kept around not for their wisdom or the elegance of their prose but because they are useful to the powerful and rich.

Finally I should observe that the neocons have done so well in marginalizing their opposition on the right that it seems unlikely, as George Hawley points out in Right-Wing Critics of the Conservative Movement (University of Kansas, 2016), that the balance of power between the two sides is about to change. How exactly will a genuine Right that has not been contaminated by the neocons gain enough influence to replace them? How can such a Right, given its modest circumstances, even compete with the neocons for access to the public and for friends in high places?

The neocons would never yield ground to competitors on the right. Indeed they have fought them so relentlessly, because they view them as nothing less carriers of anti-Semitism and other things that the neocons fear. Further, leftist allies would join the neocons in preventing our side from ever gaining ground. And this kind of alliance has worked well before, e.g., when the neocons made their opposition disappear with an assist from the Left in the 1980s and early 1990s. Although there are isolated journalists like Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan who resist the neocons from the Right while enjoying prominence, these are the exceptions. Most of those who attack the neocons from the right languish in relative obscurity. Indeed most right-wing critics of the neoconservatives, as Hawley underscores, have been effectively removed from media visibility. This isolation suits the regular Left as it does the Left’s more moderate neoconservative wing.

To those who hope to see the neocons swept from power as Donald Trump and his backers prosper politically, I am offering the sobering message that your expectations are unrealistic. Although the neoconservatives can be challenged from the Right, such a challenge can only work on the media level if the would-be counterforce is as well-equipped as what it’s fighting. Simply saying that the neocons are losing ground or are now in freefall won’t make one’s wish come to pass. Needless to say, I’d be delighted if proven wrong in this matter.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Conservative Movement, Donald Trump, Neocons 
Hide 135 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. This seems to be saying that the Forces of Sanity can’t win because Neocons control the Media. They do control the broadcast media, but they don’t control the Internet, and eg Breitbart seems to be hugely popular now and definitely not Neocon-controlled. Sane media can be developed and can challenge the Neocon media, and being based in reality is likely to become more popular.

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @unpc downunder
  2. Quebeker says:

    I think it is far too late to see real change coming from the ballot box.

    Either Trump is a decoy to give the populace something to distract their attention, or he is the ‘real McCoy’, and something will happen before he reaches the presidency, or shortly thereafter

    • Replies: @Ace
  3. Q: Will a Trump Victory Actually Dislodge the Neocons?
    A: Are you kidding?

  4. Sean says:

    The prime difficulty, as we have seen, is that of discovering the means by which a scattered, mobile and manifold public may so recognize itself as to define and express its interests.

    To form itself, the public has to break existing political forms. This is hard to do because these forms are themselves the regular means of instituting change. The public which generates political forms is passing away, but the power and lust of possession remains in the hands of the officers and agencies which the dying public instituted. This is why the change of the form of states is so often effected only by revolution (The Public and Its Problems: An Essay in Political Inquiry By John Dewey, Melvin L. Rogers)

    Ilana Mercer has been prescient about Trump, I think he can shake things up by defining and expressing the aforementioned interests. In foreign policy, Trump will not rush into war, and might allow developments in Israel’s neighbouring countries which will lead to Israel doing what it needs to do and most Jews who actually live in Israel want to do. Neocons don’t dare consider the said option, but if under a Trump presidency Israel sent its problems across the river, that would discredit the neocons as useless to Israel. The neocons would lose confidence and have to shut up about the desirability of immigration, if Trump brought about the transfer that according to Mondoweiss most Israelis want. Benny Morris also thinks it is the best option.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    , @Art
  5. @Sean

    if under a Trump presidency Israel sent its problems across the river,

    is that a coy way of advocating for population transfer?

    in what way is the final solution of Israel’s Arab problem by population transfer not something the neocons would heartily endorse?

    also, how does such a final solution represent justice? Jews get to keep all the land they stole and non-Jews get a letter of apology while the door — to their own homes — hits them on the backside?

    finally, aren’t there some international agreements proscribing population transfer?

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @random observer
    , @Karl
  6. DaveE says:

    Seems to me what you’re really asking is, where is the line drawn. True, neocon control of the media won’t end with Trump. But people are tuning out the MSM in droves.

    Neocon control of the military won’t end overnight, but enlistment is declining, last I checked, as people wake up. Neocon control of congress won’t end, but CAN be eliminated over time. Neocon control of the judiciary is a tough one, but we’ve seen a lot of local victories when people stand up.

    The zionist stunt commonly called 9/11 brought this war to American soil. People ARE waking up and realizing who the enemy is.

    The question is, how much will we take before we start to get serious about self-defense. A little interpolation of recent history says to me that the answer is NOT what the neocons want to hear.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  7. Rehmat says:

    YES – Paul Gottfried, I agree, Donald Trump doesn’t pose a threat to AIPAC, which just announced him to be one of the keynote speakers at its annual US-Israel Love Conference addressed by Benjamin Netanyahu last year, year before, and year before.

    American ‘Kingmaker’ AIPAC has invited all presidential candidates to address its annual conference on US-Israel relationship on March 20-22. All of these Israel-Firsters attended the conference in 2008.

    Democrat frontrunner Hillary Clinton was the first one to accept the invitation followed by GOP frontrunner Donald Trump. Bernie Sander has not announced his decision but I’m sure he cannot afford to miss an invitation from his tribe.

  8. Sean says:

    Israel’s 1967 acquired Arabs represent one side in a conflict and conflicts have outcomes, not solutions. As you helpfully point out the West Bank Arabs’ view of just desserts means they will never accept anything less than a real state which cannot happen unless an Israeli government orders most Jewish settlers to leave. The Israeli government did do this some extent in Judea and Samaria in 2008 a mass expulsion of Jewish settlers by the IDF is surely impossible given how many there are now. Apartheid or full rights for the West Bank Arabs are no more acceptable than an Israeli state mandated withdrawal, because both the former mean the inevitable end of a Jewish state.

    A spread of the current Sunni radicalism into Jordan would mean war against the Jews and Israel would become involved. I think Trump thinks getting involved in Sunni wars to uphold failed state entities should be avoided, and he would not object to Israeli operations against a West Bank Arab fifth column. Of course it all depends if the west bank Arabs take the side of an ISIS type government in Jordan against Israel. I think they might well. Trump is the best hope for Israel to get out of the impasse that they are locked into by current US policy, and the neocons concentration on Iran . Compared to the ever-growing internal Arab threat, Iran is irrelevant.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  9. Realist says:
    @Simon in London

    “This seems to be saying that the Forces of Sanity can’t win because Neocons control the Media.”

    What is a Neocon?

  10. Stan says:

    Neocon militarism is satanic. The neocons, responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the tens of thousands of Americans who were maimed and crippled, will pay one day.

    • Agree: Bill Jones
  11. dfordoom says: • Website

    But people are tuning out the MSM in droves.

    I’d love to believe that. But how many people visit this site, for example, compared to the number of people who watch network news?

    I have an awful sinking feeling that the droves tuning out the MSM actually reprsent a tiny handful of the population.

  12. @dfordoom

    This site is still pretty small, but Breitbart is growing, and the Fox News audience is dying out. Audiences shifting online don’t necessarily mean the end of MSM, of course, but right now it means that they can’t control the narrative online quite as well. The power of politically connected tech behemoths like Google and Facebook who are not above censorship is troubling, however, and alternative views on the net might not last, or might be effectively marginalized, but network TV is irrelevant to younger generations, even if most of them go to left-wing sites that aren’t really outside of the mainstream. Right now we’re at a point where the old guard media titans are dying, but the new ones haven’t quite established sufficient dominance to be able to suppress narratives they don’t like, so there currently is a window in which we can act to change things, but it probably won’t last forever.

  13. Hepp says:

    Neoconservatives have their own characteristic American nationalism, which is based on both energetic involvement in the affairs of other states and calls for further immigration, which now comes mostly from the Third World. Both of these foundational positions are justified on the grounds that American identity rests on a creed, which stresses universal equality.

    Gottfried’s reasoning:

    A) I hate neocons
    B) I hate immigration
    C) Ergo, neocons must love immigration.

    As a matter of fact, neocons are all over the place on immigration, from those that want basically open borders (Max Boot) to those who are almost Sailerian (David Frum), with many in between (Bill Kristol). Immigration is nowhere near central to neo-con thinking, nor are they unified on the topic..

    • Replies: @Quartermaster
  14. Hepp says:

    Regarding the larger point, the president can do whatever he wants in foreign policy. For example, Obama can just open up trade with Cuba, even though he’d never get such a thing passed in Congress in a million years.

    So if neo-cons don’t have the presidency, they don’t really have much power to shape foreign policy. Trump is a threat to them, and they know it.

    • Agree: tbraton
    • Replies: @Quartermaster
  15. LondonBob says:

    Lets take what victories we can, and see where we go from there.

    Agree about the new media, Trump has mastered that and bypassed the old gatekeepers.

  16. Dr. X says:

    The problem is that the neocons have the flag-waving, Pledge-reciting types on their side who think that we went to Vietnam, Iraq, Korea, and D-Day to “fight for our freedoms.”

    The types who spout nonsense like “If we hadn’t fought Hitler, we’d be speaking German right now!” The types who think that the government and the cops are their friends. The types who think that there is nothing wrong with the government engaged in massive electronic surveillance because “I ain’t got nothing to hide.” The types who leap up and bark like trained seals in the circus every time their government trainers shout “Terrorist! Terrorist!”

    For these folks, Uncle Sham can do no wrong. If you tell them otherwise they’ll treat you like you’ve got three eyes.

    • Replies: @random observer
    , @utu
  17. iffen says:

    Decius says:


    March 11, 2016 at 3:27 pm GMT • 800 Words
    @Wizard of Oz


    I think it is a stretch to call AEI “neo-con”. Or, at the very least it points to the limitations of, and confusion surrounding, the phrase.

    The original neo-cons were liberal social scientists who, in the 1960s, had the intellectual honesty to admit that their research tended to show that old social arrangements were better than what the left was trying to replace them with, and also that empirical evidence tended to show that massive government intervention was not working out as intended. For this they were denounced by their former friends and allies on the left. Michael Harrington (leftist) coined the term “neo-conservative” as an insult. Irving Kristol embraced it and tried to make it over as a term of approbation, and he was largely successful in doing so. Some others (Moynihan, Daniel Bell) went back to the left. And others like Glazer tried to stay more or less centrist. But this latter group rejected the term.

    All these guys were liberal internationalist Cold War anti-Communists, as was the entire mainstream left at the time. But as the New Left pulled the Democratic Party much further in the direction of anti-anti-Communism, the “neo-cons” remained anti-Coms and began to drift to the Republicans.

    Norman Podhoretz is considered a neo-con, and considers himself one, but he didn’t come to it the way Kristol’s generation did. He was a literary guy (Lionel Trilling student) not a social scientist. He started to drift right, first, over cultural and racial issues and secondarily over foreign policy.

    What united these factions was opposition to “détente,” which is to say, they came together because of what they saw as Nixon and Ford being too soft on the commies. This lead to the creation of “Team B” and most of them signing up with Reagan.

    As to AEI, it goes back to WW2 and business opposition to the feds wanting to keep all that central planning that they established during the war. There was also at the time a real intellectual current that the Soviets had proved that a planned economy was better, they were the wave of the future and we had better change to be more like them or else they would bury us. AEI was founded by the business community to oppose that.

    Kristol joined AEI in (I think) 1976. This was considered a big deal at the time. He was the first one and he brought others, many of them a sort of Reagan staff in exile. Many then joined Reagan in the government, though Kristol did not, and returned to AEI after Reagan was gone (Bush mostly purged his admin of intellectuals, and not just neo-cons).

    AEI in the Clinton era especially was second only to Hoover as THE place where Republican worthies would go after government service was over. They had a very eminent collection of people.

    What really got AEI identified as “neo-con” were the scholars that assembled there in the 1990s who opposed Clinton foreign policy, at least the early foreign policy, Also, the Weekly Standard was founded in 1995 and moved into the same building. So you had Kristol father and son literally on different floors of the same building. Then there was PNAC, which is a long story, but the basic idea was—Clinton is weak on foreign policy, America could lose its post Cold War preeminence, here are all the things we should be doing to stay on top.

    This crowd more or less served as unofficial (and sometimes unasked) intellectuals for the post 9.11 strategy and the Iraq war. By this time “neo-conservatism” had lost any connection to its domestic policy roots and when people said “neo-con” they meant “assertive hawkish US foreign policy” and also “naïve attempts to spread democracy where it will never take root.” Oh and to some it also meant “Jew.”

    It’s funny because DeMuth, who rain AEI during that time, was a very sober-minded man and regulatory expert. Yet he’s the one who beefed up the foreign policy shop with all those “naivecons”. Arthur Brooks, who replaced DeMuth, is a much more stereotypical neocon in temperament (messianic belief that all the problems of the world can be fixed) but he fired many of AEI’s neocons and dramatically downsized its foreign policy operation. Though, one must admit, he kept many of the key neocons as well.

    However, AEI was and is always more than just the neocons, and is known as neo-con primarily for the foreign policy shop circa 1993-2007 or so, but that shop has been largely dismantled.

    Murray is a neo-con in the original sense: a data-driven social scientist. I don’t think he self-identifies as such, but the similarities are there.

  18. @Realist

    Neo-conservatives are people that firmly hold to Wilson’s idea of democracy and it’s spread. Wilson had the idea that everyone had an American inside them trying to get out and he was willing to go on a crusade to establish American style democracy around the world. That leads to the nonsense of nation building like we have seen attempted in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The Neocons were firmly in the camp of the Democrats as recently as the 70s. After Carter’s incompetence as POTUS, the neocons infiltrated the GOP and burrowed under the skin of the GOP to feed like the parasites they are. US foreign policy has been dominated by Neocons since about 1982.

    Unfortunately, the most prominent Neocons, such as Feith and Perle are US Jews and some have, as a result, made the accusation of the term “neocon” being a synonym for Jews. That is a false accusation used to try to quiet criticism of the Neocons.

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @Rex May
  19. @Hepp

    Frum may, or may not, be a Neocon. he’s all over the map, so it’s hard to tell. The Neocons that have been the most influential are all for open immigration.

    • Replies: @Elsie Adare
  20. @Hepp

    neocons are quite influential in Zer0’s maladministration. Not as much as during Dubya’s, but they are there.

  21. Fascinating, clarifying, and probably on the money.

    But this bit leaves me with questions:

    “Since the 1980s neoconservatives have been free to push that movement in their own direction, toward a neo-Wilsonian foreign policy, toward the defense of what they celebrate as a “democratic capitalist welfare state” and toward a gradual acceptance of leftist social positions, as being less vital to “conservatism” than “national defense.” ”

    Not least since I have always been curious about the evolution of neocons from where they started in the 1970s to today. Especially that bit about gradual acceptance of leftist social positions.

    I first encountered the neocons and that name for them in the 1980s, looking back at their work in the 1970s. Most of the attention seemed to be on their writing on domestic social issues like welfare and education, their application of social science techniques [admittedly learned while they were collectively in leftist New York academia but professional techniques nonetheless], and their comparatively reactionary observations and conclusions about the collapse of the black family and society, the limits of social policy, the negative effects of welfare, and the limits of education to remedy any of this. Granted, not driven by behavioral genetics, but still looking like the sort of thing one might hear from Derb even now.

    How did all that square with their emphasis on Wilsonian foreign policy, which demands a very high expectation of what government intervention can do, quickly, on a large scale, and against even more intractable and rooted norms?

    And what happened to drive neocons on the domestic policy side toward acceptance of leftist social positions their movement started out criticizing?

    Separately, “democratic capitalist welfare state” doesn’t sound all that different from proto-Trumpism. He seems entirely at home with and in favor of medicare, single-payer, social security, as do the bulk of his electorate. He does not seem to be running a campaign on tailored marginal tax cuts. And he and Sanders are the only candidates even theoretically opposing hard core neoliberal globalism, the main force for gutting electoral democracy, welfare systems, and national statehood.

  22. @SolontoCroesus

    There are such agreements and allowing such a transfer would probably drive the international system into catatonia, so deeply rooted is that norm. as perhaps it should be, and not only for Israel.

    Sadly, in reality it’s happening all the time. I expect large numbers of Africans now refugees will never really go home, though the situation will drag on for ages and no one will ever say they are definitively displaced. It was different in the 1940s, the origin point of the Palestinians as refugees. Pretty much everywhere else there were population transfers in the wake of World War 2 they were accepted as permanent at a fairly early point.

    Israel is unique in two ways on this issue. I agree with many here that they get a free pass from the system for even thinking about this kind of thing, speaking of it openly, and perhaps even implementing it by stealth with the settlements, a pass that would be given to no one else. On the other hand the Palestinians are the only large refugee population from the 1940s whose eventual return to their old homeland and rightful claim on all of it is such a shibboleth for so many in the international system. Other refugees from that era were more or less told to get on with it somewhere else, or in a smaller segment of their land. [The Germans of eastern Europe and eastern Germany are the obvious example and, all questions of ethics aside, it was the price of losing the war. But other peoples got shifted around too.]

    On the whole, I am tired of both groups. Perhaps it’s just because I came of age in the 1980s that I tend to break [fraction about 10%] on the side of Israel, perhaps it’s just because I live in a country of settlement, or perhaps it’s just because they are the nationalist, rooted, land-hungry version of Jews, the kind of Jews I can understand better than the diaspora.

    Or perhaps it’s the all or nothing principle. The Palestinians were a non-sovereign people content to accept outside rule if it was Muslim [the Ottomans, Jordanians- nobody gave a relative crap about the West Bank as “Palestine” or as an “occupation” when the Jordanians were in power] and prepared to tolerate it if it was British [apart from the Jewish policy]. They claim now to only want a viable state on a viable territory, but in 1937 and even in 1948 wanted every inch and couldn’t win it on the battlefield even with the whole region on their side. They were all or nothing kinds of guys and since they can’t have it all they should get nothing.

    On the other hand, if they ever managed to drive Israel into the sea I’d be impressed and accept that settlement as similarly justified by effort and success.

    As far as I can see, that makes me neutral.

    But either way, a terminological correction. Whatever Israel does now, it’s not a “final solution” unless the Jews are planning to shove the Arabs into gas chambers rather than just stealing their land.

    • Replies: @Dr. X
    , @utu
  23. @Dr. X

    Americans’ freedoms, no. American strategic interests including the country’s overall economic prosperity, trading position, and freedom of action in the world, yes. Those things are not always unrelated to the freedom [and wealth] of Americans at home- America was never at any time an economic autarky.

    If foreign policy is to be cold, rational, and about the survival of the American nation, these were valid motives to intervene, even in Asia [as it happens I would except Vietnam from that; it probably was never necessary or a good idea, at least the way it was done, outside the realms of Kenndy/Johnson ideology]. Intervention in Europe was 100% in the interest of the US, even in 1917. A German Europe, even under the Kaiser, would have been less beneficial to the US than one that remained divided among several more or less equal powers. [The US interest and the British one were the same on that]. A German Europe in the 1940s would have just meant the US was in a Cold War with the old world, earlier, and with richer and more useful countries ceded in advance to the enemy than was the case in 1945. So, Americans would not have been speaking German. Maybe never, certainly not in the first generation or two. But many more of the people America had to work with in the world would have been speaking German than ever spoke Russian.

    If foreign policy is to be about sentiment and emotions, which is often the prevailing mode on this site [‘we should only fight for Americans’ freedoms’ is not actually that unrelated to ‘we should fight for everyone’s freedoms’, and itself could result in unwarranted adventurism the next time the US gets it in mind to go to war to avenge some American citizen who did something stupid or went somewhere dangerous without adequately informing himself or herself of local conditions and has fallen victim to local laws and or political events] then perhaps gratitude is in order.

    The US enjoyed a long period of peace and security in the western hemisphere and was able to promulgate the unbelievably presumptuous and imperialistic Monroe Doctrine to extend its paternalism across the Americas only because the Royal Navy controlled the Atlantic. Once the bilateral disputes were settled in the wake of 1812-15, American ships engaged in commerce throughout the world on seas largely defended by the British. Fighting for their freedom was returning a favor. Ditto France, pain though they might be and quasi-war of the 1790s notwithstanding. Until 1917, the US had not repaid the independence won for them by the French army and navy.

    Still, I get your sentiments. If Americans were a mature people, it would not be necessary to couch everything in chants of “Freedom!”. Instead, this mentality has been exported and now peoples like the British can only do anything if it is cast in similarly simpleminded terms. Although the specific ideas vary a bit.

    Of course, America’s policy of sending conscript armies to places like Korea and Vietnam was never going to end well.

  24. Utter and final FAILURE will “dislodge” the neocons. The intention to rule the world by force of arms is harbored in people who are deep down dog shit stupid. The empire that is supposed to realize the dreams of these evil morons is in steep decline as we speak largely due to neocon overreach. How exactly will a food stamp nation with a yard sale economy dominate the ascendant Russia and China? The neocon empire is a cold monster, incapable of anything save destruction. Thankfully, if not Obama, then Hillary will be the last American Emperor.

    • Replies: @iffen
  25. But either way, a terminological correction. Whatever Israel does now, it’s not a “final solution” unless the Jews are planning to shove the Arabs into gas chambers rather than just stealing their land.

    Firstly, “shoving _____ into gas chambers” and suggesting it defines “final solution,” is, one assumes, supposed to evoke the meme that Jews were “shoved into gas chambers” in vast numbers — figures in the millions, a pragmatically unsupportable proposition. No matter how many times that ludicrous narrative is repeated, enforced, and dogmatized, there is no good evidence to support it.

    Second, numerous Jewish authors and influence-leaders have used the term “final solution” to mean something that had nothing to do with gas chambers but did refer to the need to acquire “billions of dollars” and to population transfer — of Jews.
    Specifically, and with respect to the usage to describe an ideology, in his diaries Theodor Herzl used the term “final solution” to describe zionism itself:

    In Vol. 1 of his Diaries Herzl initially alluded only to the “solution,” as in:

    “I have the solution to the Jewish question . . . I know it sounds mad . . . I have found the solution, and it no longer belongs to me; it belongs to the world.” (p. 110)

    and later

    “I believe I have found the solution to the Jewish Question. Not a solution but the solution, the only one.” (p. 118)

    Herzl’s focus shifts from Zionism as the final solution to practical matters of the requirements for implementation of the final solution — money:

    “The only possible, final, and successful solution of the Jewish Question requires a billion francs. This billion will be worth three in twenty years–three billion exactly, as you will se later.”

    In a memo to the Tsar of Russia, Herzl wrote that Zionism is the “final solution of the Jewish question ” —

    “It is to the graciousness of His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Baden, who has consented to become the exalted sponsor of my humble request for an audience with Your Imperial Majesty that I owe my permission to submit the Zionist plan for the final solution of the Jewish Question. The Zionists wish to benefit their unfortunate brethren, draw them away from subversive doctrines, and set them on the way to a more exalted morality in the very interest of all humanity.”
    (Memo of Nov. 22, 1899. R. Patai, ed., The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl (New York: 1960), Vol. 3, p. 888.)

    Herzl’s Diaries are enlightening: browsing through just two or three of the half-dozen volumes Herzl published, one notices frequent mention of the reluctance of wealthy (i.e. German) Jews to contribute their money to the zionist project in Palestine — “If we cannot do it with the help of the wealthy Jews, we shall do it in spite of them.” One is riveted by statements such as, “The Jews who don’t go with us could fare badly,” (p. 136) a statement made that much more salient when one recalls the Feb. 14, 1933 directive of Louis Brandeis to Rabbi Stephen Wise, that “All Jews must leave Germany . . . I urge that no Jew — none of the 587,000 German Jews — remain in Germany.” (in Wise’s autobiography, The Challenging Years, p. 242).

    Edwin Black reports that Jewish leaders used the term, final solution, at the time of the development of the Zionist ideology and nascent project:

    “On May 13, 1933 Sam Cohen’s deal was accepted. . .

    “Cohen’s deal was, in fact, only the preliminary agreement. When discovered by the international Zionist hierarchy, it would be considered inadequate, delivering too little money and too narrow a variety of merchandise to Jewish Palestine. If the Jewish state was to be built, it needed more than . . .the sale of a few dunams of orchards. It needed the building blocks of a new society–everything from taxis to bridges. And it needed more than the mere transferred wealth of a million reichmarks; it needed a sizable portion–in cash–of the billions that constituted German Jewish wealth. The result of a broadened transfer would be more than the expansion of a . . .few settlements, it would be the expansion of all settlement, and the towns and villages, into an economically, geographically and politically cohesive state–Israel. A massive, historically irreversible agreement was sought–a final solution to the persecution of Jews.”

    In summ, Random Observer, your terminological correction is misguided; Jews labeled their schemes for population transfers of Jews from Germany – and later, other Eastern European locales — as the final solution; Jews used the term final solution to refer to methods of acquiring the wealth to build a state for Jews on land that was inhabited by Muslim and Christian Arabs.
    The NSDAP cooperated with zionists in implementing Brandeis’s directive and the expansion of Sam Cohen’s plan to build a state. Thus, when reference is made to Hitler stating that full implementation of the final solution must wait until after the war, it can only mean that Jewish emigration will be competed after hostilities cease.

    • Replies: @Mark Green
    , @Sherman
  26. Dr. X says:
    @random observer

    Americans’ freedoms, no. American strategic interests including the country’s overall economic prosperity, trading position, and freedom of action in the world, yes. Those things are not always unrelated to the freedom [and wealth] of Americans at home- America was never at any time an economic autarky.

    You’ve given the prefect defense of Neoconism. You pass “Neocon 101” with an A! Perhaps you can apply for a job at National Review.

    If foreign policy is to be cold, rational, and about the survival of the American nation…

    It is — the entire founding generation believed that the purpose of he American nation was to defend the interests of Americans. Period. Washington explicitly warned us to avoid alliances with foreign nations, and to avoid military establishments. John Q. Adams wrote that Americans “go not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” Good advice — we should listen to it.

    Intervention in Europe was 100% in the interest of the US, even in 1917. A German Europe, even under the Kaiser, would have been less beneficial to the US than one that remained divided among several more or less equal powers.

    It was? How so? Germany wanted war with Russia to establish dominance in Eastern Prussia. Had the Schlieffen Plan been successful and Germany quickly defeated Russia and not gotten bogged down on the Western Front, how would that have affected us? It wouldn’t have. In fact, things would have turned out for the better. Wilson, who lied to the public in his 1916 re-election campaign, saying he would keep the U.S. out of the war, got us into it in 1917 and insisted that the Kaiser abdicate and Germany become “democratic.” It did, and voted NSDAP in 1932. Brilliant, Prof. Wilson. Just brilliant. You really saved the world with that stunt.

    • Replies: @Giles
  27. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    “American identity rests on a creed”

    If neocons are all about universal creed, why do they insist Americanism must be about blind loyalty to tribal Israel?

  28. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    How about we start calling them con-men instead?

  29. The last commentator raises a good question about how neoconservatives reconcile their view of Americanism as a universal creed with their fervent support of the Israeli nationalist Right. There are two answers: One, some neoconservatives, most conspicuously Douglas Feith, affirm the validity of the double standard, by arguing that unlike the US , which was founded as a “propositional nation,” Israel was created as an ethnic nation. Because of its function as a Jewish homeland, its cooperation with the US, and its exemplary democracy, Israel is the best ethnic nation.The other answer is that Israel exemplifies global democratic ideals and human rights and therefore deserves the support of America as the most powerful example of the same ideals. Needless to say, a neocon who starts with the first answer will often elide into the second, and then go back to the first.

    • Replies: @Dr. X
  30. iffen says:

    people who are deep down dog shit stupid

    Not so WC, they are very smart, that is why these people have been calling the shots for a long time and unless lightning strikes with Trump they will continue ruling for a long time (just as Prof. G. has written). This writer is very perceptive and needs to be read closely. Just remember, if he and others like him had not been given the boot, he would be in the ruling clique, not on the outside with you and me.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  31. The truth about the Neocons: 70% of their stuff is good, at least in the old days, before they became feminists and gay rights activists. Further, I don’t see why we shouldn’t support Israel, its not like we need another failed state in the Middle East. If you need further proof, just look at who supports the Palestinians.

    Now, Wilsonian Interventionism is completely nuts, and imperialism on the cheap, that is, sans the high birth rates, malevolent levels of ethnocentrism, and political ruthlessness necessary for successful imperialism, is a couple delusion. Further, the neocons clearly don’t play well with others, but. . .

    The further back you go in the neocon movement, the sharper the thinking, the clearer the understanding, and the stronger the determination. The fact is, the modern neocon is completely decadent, no ideas, no insights, no knowledge, they are just a well-funded army of second rate hacks. Give a moron a big megaphone, even a WSJ-sized megaphone, they remain a moron. So whatever their structural advantages, it is hard to see the dynasty continuing past a third generation, notwithstanding Paul Gottfried’s prophesy. House Rothschild they are not.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  32. polistra says:

    Sanders is the most interesting wild card. Because he belongs to the tribe, he’s less susceptible to the usual blackmail tactics. He has already resisted the blackmail on issues of banking.

  33. Dr. X says:
    @paul gottfried

    some neoconservatives, most conspicuously Douglas Feith, affirm the validity of the double standard, by arguing that unlike the US , which was founded as a “propositional nation,” Israel was created as an ethnic nation.

    Feith is factually wrong. The U.S. was created as a “propositional nation” specifically among white, ethnic English Protestants who subscribed to Locke’s Second Treatise and the English Bill of Rights of 1688. As Washington wrote in his Farewell Address, “With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits and political principles” to which he might just as well have added “race, language, and ethnicity,” as Indians and blacks, who were unfamiliar with Locke and English law, were rightly excluded from the polity.

    The other answer is that Israel exemplifies global democratic ideals and human rights and therefore deserves the support of America as the most powerful example of the same ideals.

    This second answer contradicts the first, and thereby renders itself an oxymoron. Israel cannot simultaneously be an “ethnic nation” and a specifically “Jewish homeland” AND exemplify “global democratic ideals.” If Israel exemplifies “global democratic ideals,” it should give Palestinians and other Arab Muslims an unlimited “right of return” along with the franchise, and see how long it lasts.

    Frankly, I am not opposed to Israel asserting itself as a Jewish ethic state, so long as the U.S. can assert itself as a white, Christian state. The idea that what is good for the goose is not good for the gander strikes me as rank hypocrisy.

    • Replies: @Singh
    , @KA
  34. nickels says:

    “What is a Neocon?”

    A liberal secular humanist that goes to the synagogue (maybe church) from time to time, pays lip service to the societal benefits of religion, claims that anyone who wants to block immigration or fight the welfare state is an anti-semite, adores America supporting Israel, laughs supportively at the stupidity of zionist evangelicals, gets a stiff one everytime America topples an Arab regime in the name of holy (but utterly unattainable) democracy, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY doesn’t really hold any real convictions that they wouldn’t ditch in 2 seconds if it meant their media or political career could be advanced by doing so.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  35. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    To Harshmellow:Rather peculiar reasoning about why not to support Israel. The Question needs to be”Why SHOULD we support Israel?” the answer, of course, is that we should not Support or be Allied, to the point of War, with ANY Country. Would these Failed States exist without the Meddling of the West. I doubt it, Although I am not sure which States you mean. Maybe you could Clarify that. How we Extricate ourselves is certainly a large problem, but we must if we wish
    to survive as a Republic. Empires are really not that good of an Idea. They never end well, particularly for the Common Folks. Let us TRADE with the World, and leave the Fighting and Killing to Others. Maybe they will Tire of it. We certainly do not seem to.

  36. MarkinLA says:

    Trump has 8 years (at most) and the neocons have a lot of money, bought and paid for politicians, and the media. They can wait him out. Will there be a change in the electorate such that Trump can force other politicians to follow him? Who knows but it is not likely. Trump would have to end the empire and make a real peace with Russia while making sure the American public was well aware of the behind the scenes plotters trying to destroy it all.

    Maybe the stars will align and the Trump Presidency will coincide with an economic boom (I don’t give President’s much credit for most of what happens in the economy) then the wind will be at his back and some progress can be made on the foreign policy front and kicking the neocons out of government.

    They often bring up Reagan as a guy who changed everything, but did he really?

    • Replies: @Giles
  37. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    Mr. Gottfried makes a lot of good points.

    It is true that Neocons will have lots of money on their side.

    But no amount of money can sustain a broken narrative.

    I mean neocons pumped so much money into Jeb and Rubio, but it didn’t matter.

    When something is dead, it is dead. It cannot be revived with money alone.

    Is Neoconism dead? Not really, but it fails with all groups.

    Why would Libs and Progs need Neoconism?

    And white Cons no longer care about neocon talking points.

    Ann Coulter and Ted Nugents’ tweets are of the times.

    Identity politics is the future, and Neocons only have identity for Jews, not for whites.
    This is where the narrative is falling apart.

  38. @nickels

    A neocon is quite the opposite of a humanist.

    • Replies: @nickels
    , @nickels
  39. @iffen

    With respect iffen I do not ascribe intelligence to murderers. Cunning perhaps. And I think tomorrow will not be like today. It will not be imperial business as usual much longer. The police state will remain but imperial aggression abroad will become unaffordable. As you know I suspect normalcy bias in extrapolations of the status quo regarding the Anglo/Zio Empire.

  40. Realist says:

    “The Neocons were firmly in the camp of the Democrats as recently as the 70s.”

    I agree with your definition. Many include people such as Dick Cheney as neocons. This is patently untrue. Cheney has always been a conservative. The only true neocons I can think of are Jews.

    • Replies: @utu
  41. Neoconned [AKA "trumped"] says:

    As always, Gottfried has an excellent and sobering column. If the information access and media power stayed at its current rate, he would be 100% correct. However, the hell that ron paul and now trump have given the neocons utilizing social media, and in the process exposing the truth to millions more, has already made a big impact.

    For instance, if trump were running this exact same campaign but was doing it fifteen or twenty years ago, I don’t know if he would have been able to win a single primary or caucus. The difference is that every year the ratings for network news and newspaper circulation decline, while more and more people get their information from blogs, youtube, facebook/twitter, etc – the rise of sites like lewrockwell, vdare, unz, and the spread of such info on social media that would have otherwise been censored and unknown. Control of the narrative is already shifting, and it is only going to be get worse for the establishment – each year more and more people are cutting the cord on cable tv and ditching newspapers. It is also why the huge amount of negative tv ads against trump have basically had no impact on him when just ten or fifteen years ago they would have destroyed him – even the people who still subscribe to cable tv have dvr technology allowing them to fast forward and ignore the ads.

    I can safely say that the chances are very high that I would have never been able to read the work of people on unz, vdare, and lewrockwell if it were not for the alternative internet. Control of the narrative is dependent upon controlling the information – and sites like unz are exploding in popularity and influence. For one last example, how many people would have even thought it was possible that an unknown college professor could defeat the current majority leader in a primary?

    The kid who ran the campiagn for bratt was a ron paul volunteer who regularly read – and once he had been shown the evil of the establishment and neocons there was no going back. And that is the point – alternative internet media sources are allowing millions to see the matrix for what it truly is. These people will only stay motivated and dedicated to bringing down the neocon empire in a force multiplier manner in the future regardless of what happens in this election or the near future.

  42. Fed Up says:

    The Republican leaders need to WAKE UP! Because should Clinton (or Sanders) win in November, we will degenerate to a one-party system for the rest of this century.

    Common sense tells you the Democrats will bring in a minimum of 3 to 4 MILLION aliens a year. With each one effectively sworn to vote for the Democrat party for life. With that many new voters in 2020, there’s no way the Republicans could hope to win — no matter who their 2020 candidate would be. With the constant flow of immigrants, 2024 would simply mean an even greater loss for Republicans — with no future prospects in sight.

    Why the incredible support for Trump? American voters are tired of being sold out by political hacks like Hillary, Bernie, Cruz and Rubio. This is (or certainly should be) OUR COUNTRY. With an end to immigration from third-world countries. We read. We think. We see the problems in Europe caused by the Muslim invasion. Just as we see the problems here caused by the Latino invasion, by the constant dumping of H1b visas. With unemployed American workers faced with unfair competition from H1b visa holders willing to underbid American workers for jobs.

    Look at Lying Hillary. Claiming to want to end OUTSOURCING — after selling tens of millions of American workers out between 1992 and 2000. Persuading corporations like Wal-Mart to buy Chinese-manufactured goods. Persuading corporations to move manufacturing to Pacific Rim Countries.

    This is WHY so many of us hope and pray for Trump to win in November. Our lives, our future depend on it.

    • Agree: Ace
  43. Bearspaw says:

    The recent kerfufle at Breitbart concerning Shapiro’s resignation should indicate that Breitbart has long been infiltrated by SJW’s, neos and cucks.

    • Replies: @Hbm
    , @Hbm
  44. Hbm says:

    The only thing that could stop Neocons is world-killing asteroid.

    Despite the tedious howling, Trump is not Adolf Hitler. But if Trump becomes President, it would be nonstop slander against him out of the press– like our very own domestic Putin, and probably countless plots and machinations, too, since the usual suspects are upset the goyim might elect a leader the Chosen Ones don’t have a receipt for.

  45. Hbm says:

    Except that’s exactly wrong. Breitbart is not kosher enough anymore for Shapiro, which is why he (he and Terris and their shiksa stooge Fields) slandered it and tried to damage it with his little ginned-up bullshit plot against Trump’s campaign manager. It sets Shapiro’s beanie spinning and his sick inbred brain cooking-up petty intrigues that Breitbart is not Neocon anymore and supports Trump.

  46. Sam says:

    How exactly will a genuine Right that has not been contaminated by the neocons gain enough influence to replace them?

    It is normally always safe concur with the opinion of Prof. Gottfried. However I will say that he gives the neocons too much credit. Institutionally, he is right because presumably neocons will not resign from the commanding heights of the conservative movement that they clawed their way into decades ago. On the other hand Trump would create space for a new conservatism or populism and I assume that the some conservatives will continuing being as opportunistic as they have always been and cling to the republican Trump presidency. Assuming I’m right and that conservatives will start to tailor the ideology it would mean a partial , and perhaps irredeemable, break in the neocon led movement as we have known it. The mere fact that neocons have already decided that they are anti-Trump means a potential intellectual civil war is looming if Trump is elected. There will be a time for choosing and thankfully I suspect a fair amount of conservative opportunists will follow the power. Furthermore if Trump creates a new winning coalition for other Republicans to emulate it would also weaken the neocons who have long been telling Republican politicians how to win.

    In short, a Trump victory signifies a coming weakness of neoconservatism’s hold on the movement. The alternative right/paleo’s have only needed an opening and they might finally get one.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  47. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.
    “What is a Neocon?” A zionist, A bolshevik, a jew, as traitor to the United states. Any questions?

    • Replies: @Giles
  48. @Sam

    Moshe Ya’Alon is in Washington, DC negotiating an insurance policy with Ashton Carter against the possibility that the American people might awaken

    (Joe Biden having already been humiliated in Israel )

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  49. nickels says:

    Intereseting article about neocons. Novak tries to argue that neocons are not humansists and then he throws in this:

    Seldom in recent centuries has the intellectual situation been so open to metaphysical and religious argument .

    If America was once (as Tocqueville judged) a place where the cause of liberty and the cause of religion coincided, it should become today the place in which the cause of intellect and the cause of religion are one .”

    At best this is Hegelian.

    But I call it atheism, the god-man, progressivism.

    Religion is a matter of faith, not of the intellect.

    I would argue that the necons have no conviction, no faith that a rational spurt of intuition (like a big paycheck) can’t toss aside.

    “Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god”

    Which is exactly what trying to reconcile the intellect and God is.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  50. TB2 says:

    Survive a Trump victory? Why not, they survived Bush II’s defeats. It’s odd to read of neocons in the 1970s, I realize they have roots going back that far but the truth is the weed didn’t burst forth until sometime in the 90s, and didn’t bloom until The Compassionate Conservative’s reign. That timing and that “Compassionate Conservative” are the real keys. The neocons prosper because the Republican party leadership and Conservatism, Inc. can’t deal in any way, shape, or form with race in American politics, and they need furrin’ enemies to take the minds of their overwhelmingly white constituency off of that fact (the rubes went for it!). Off of the fact that the petty con-men and small town shysters that run the Republican party aren’t going to do a thing about the left/non-white coalition’s destructive white-hating racism They’re so cowed by the racist left that they’re even siding with them and excusing the brown-shirtism being used against their own party. The neos will exist as long as the Republican party exists in its present form as an amoral business lobby masquerading as a political party.

    What makes a cuck a cuck is not that he isn’t pro-white, or that he doesn’t support serious immigration restrictions, etc., it’s that he collaborates with the very real and murderous white-hating racism of the political left while denouncing the largely fictional racism of whites. Anti-racism is a code word for anti-white isn’t just a tag, it’s reality, and as long as the rank and file of the Republican party and conservatism go along with the charade, go along with their own destruction, there will be a place for neocons in the Republican party.

  51. sarz says: • Website

    If Trump simply decrees open answers to FOIA requests re 9/11, the neocons will dissolve in a puddle, like the wicked witch watered by Dorothy.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  52. nickels says:

    Even better:

    “Because of Strauss’ teachings, Kristol continued, “There are in Washington today dozens of people who are married with children and religiously observant. Do they have faith? Who knows? They just believe that it is good to go to church or synagogue. Whether you believe or not is not the issue — that’s between you and God — whether you are a member of a community that holds certain truths sacred, that is the issue.” Neoconservatives are “pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers.”

  53. Neocon’s are like rats, they will jump ship, scurry from one subway tunnel to another but they always come back. The key is to never declare victory, always be vigilant and when they pop back up, knock um back down, swiftly.

  54. D says:

    Neocons are about the only thing that makes me want to believe in religion – only so I could know that those a$$holes will burn in hell.

  55. @Simon in London

    There are two sides to the media – reporting on events (which only the professional MSM has the resources to do on a large scale) and interpretation of these events (which anybody can do). The MSM has already lost control of the later, which is why it heavily censors comments on opinion articles, but still controls the former.

    However, the MSM is suffering from a serious profit crisis and doesn’t have the luxury of ignoring stories it doesn’t want to talk about for ideological reasons (like how badly neo-con friendly candidates are doing in the polls). The oxygen of publicity is a vital aspect of political success and Trump knows that while the MSM may be biased against him, it can’t afford to ignore interesting, politically incorrect stories that will draw in readers and viewers.

  56. utu says:
    @random observer

    “On the whole, I am tired of both groups. ” – The whole world is tired. They both seem to complain that there is not enough land for two groups. What if the rest of the world would kill half of Jews of Israel and half of Palestinians once every 50 years. It would be a way of giving each group more land (per capita).

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  57. Maj. Kong says:
    @random observer

    If one considers the Right as being dedicated to shrinking the %GDP of .gov spending to pre-WW1 levels, then the neocons are certainly against that. Of course, about 80% of the US shares that position.

    The first generation, or the real intellectuals, of the neoconservative movement were made up of people who had experienced WWII, and the rapid destruction of the legitimacy of fascism as a political concept. Further, as some of them were former Trotskyites (Podhoretz and friends), they thought you could defeat Stalin’s communism (which they called red fascism) just as quickly. More or less it looked in the early 90s that they were right on that part.

    That brings us to the second generation, or the regressed to the mean. Today we don’t have a massive clash of ideology, despite attempts to promote jihadism as such. We are in a civilization level struggle with Islam, but we also have equally important internal conflicts. To add more confusion, the neocons won’t identify Islam itself as the enemy. (You might mention Frank Gaffney, but he’s one guy with little influence). I consider this a strategic error on this part, in order to preserve their immediate position on mass immigration.

    To understand their foreign policy position, as distinct from the rest of the liberal internationalists, its mainly a tendency to resort to ‘hard power’ earlier than others. During the Bush years the left considered the neocons to be ‘averse’ to diplomacy, but that isn’t really the case. Just look up a certain John Negroponte. Their real difference is a neocon skepticism towards ‘soft power’. They like bombing things, but don’t actually like occupations and rebuilding. (Quite an irony for those that consider them the key drivers of the Israeli ‘occupation’)

    But to a man they all hate Russia, and I can only explain this in terms of ethnic hatred due to their roots as Eastern European Jews. The average Joe Sixpack conservative might believe that Putin is still a Communist, and the slightly more informed would say something about Dugin wanting world domination. I honestly think the foreign policy establishment has pegged Putin exactly, they fear him because he is a real nationalist that challenges the liberal post-1945 cultural order.

  58. Karl says:

    >> Jews get to keep all the land they stole

    They couldn’t believe their eyes, when we revived our language and restored it as the Sovereign in its indigenous place.

    But that’s nothing Solonto…. wait till we do the same for Aramaic and Coptic.

  59. @Sean

    You write of the forced evacuation of their West Bank settlements by the settlers and rightly IMO see it as almost impossible. But the West Bank, as I understand it, has been so sliced and diced by Israel that no state could be made out of the bits and pieces left to Palestinian control. Perhaps a number of city states could be viable, but failing that, what about simply creating a West Bank state and giving the settlers the right to stay and vote in Palestine or leave for Israel proper? Of course I don’t think it is at all likely but it is worth considering why it should be assumed that the settlers have to be removed as if there were no other possibility.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
  60. Mark Green says: • Website

    You are exactly right. In fact, Hitler and the NSDAP worked with Jewish agencies for some eight years–until America’s entry into WWII–to safely deliver some 60,000 Jewish refugees from Germany to Palestine. It was called the Transfer Agreement.

    I have an entire chapter devoted to this neglected historical episode in my book ‘Persecution, Privilege & Power’.

    • Agree: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @bunga
  61. @sarz

    Has Obama supported restriction on Freedom of Information wrt to 9/11. (If yes, particulars please). And if so also why?

  62. Giles says:

    Probably the vote will be rigged.

    Trump campaign is phase 1 of
    regime change in ussa similar to ussr.

    When change via voting is sabotaged
    the movement goes to stage 2:
    something like ratifying a constitutional amendment or a national referendum.

    With the momentum unstoppable the ussa version of the ussr will fall sooner or later probably 2-5 years just as the movement for regime change in 1985 took until late 1991 to end the ussr. The usa is facing petrodollar bankruptcy. Only a world war off or on u.s. soil is a card that the insider elite can play. This includes all war bio chem cyber psywar etc.

  63. Giles says:

    If you do not distinguish between the elite jew aka rothschild jew and the jewish people you hit the target but miss the bullseye. The internatiinal jew is a notorious part of the international elite inclusive of the british crown and the vatican heirarchy major international corporations and royal bloodlines back to sumeria and atlantis or so they believe in their divine right to rule. Expose the international jew but do not stop short of total disclosure of the rulers of the earth or you fail again.

  64. Giles says:

    Trump said

    You need someone like me to deal with the $17 trilion debt.

    Trump would restructure this debt at the impending world bankruptcy reorganization. The brics and the atlantic economies need to hit the reset button. This will hurt but is key to world economic recovery.

    As a cynic i doubt trump will prevail over vote rigging and then then we will pay the price of being forced by events.

  65. Giles says:
    @Dr. X

    2016 is of course the 100th anniversary.

    We hope that history does not repeat.

  66. @nickels

    You’re a bit over my head nickels. I really am working class. But I agree with this:

    I would argue that the necons have no conviction, no faith that a rational spurt of intuition (like a big paycheck) can’t toss aside.

    And this:

    “Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god”

    My father was such a man. But the neocons, whether they are capable or not, are neither ethical nor moral.

    • Agree: nickels
    • Replies: @nickels
  67. @Realist

    Jewish Republican.

    They support Israeli, Iraq War, hawkish foreign policy, tax cuts, Wall Street, deregulation, immigration, diversity.

    They are a huge part of our current ruling class.

  68. Neocons are strong in politics because they are supported by the Donor Class. Once a non-owned candidate like Trump becomes president, neocons won’t have influence in his administration.

    If patriotic conservatives (Coulter, Sessions) gain power in the Trump administration, that’ll translate into media clout too.

    Neocons won’t be gone, but they’ll be marginalized to an extent.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  69. Macilrae says:

    Of course a lot will depend upon how wisely Trump picks his government if elected: if he can minimize his obligations pre-election it is a glorious thought that he might have a pretty free hand to do this (remembering however that Congress has to approve many of his appointments!) – likely he’d have a freer hand than any other president in recent history.

    In particular his choice for vice-president would be extremely important. Given history, he probably ought to pick a person who, should they succeed in the event of assassination or incapacitation, would be a far less palatable choice than Trump himself – a Spiro Agnew possibly?

    Any suggestions for the various roles?

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  70. If neocons have no constituency will their backers continue to throw money at them? If they can’t put voters in booths, will Republican politicians continue to ignore their base to favor them? If not, they are nothing more than Democrats in Republican clothing. Why throw money at neocons, when everyone sees them as naked?

  71. AndrewR says:

    I’m afraid it will take nothing less than a revolution to end the neocon grip on power. While they are guilty of high treason, for which execution is hardly an inappropriate punishment, I’m open to sparing the lives of neocons, assuming a number of basic conditions are met. But at a minimum they must all be either permanently exiled or imprisoned, Jew and goy alike. They must never be allowed even the remotest possibility of regaining power. We must make it crystal clear that we will never allow American blood and American gold to be sacrificed primarily (let alone (as has seemed to have happened more often than not) exclusively) for the benefit of a foreign power.

  72. AndrewR says:

    What??? Do you know anything about Sessions? He is the epitome of a neocon, even if his view on immigration is more restrictionist than most neocons.

    “The group who spoke here the other day did not represent the American ideals of freedom, liberty, and spreading that around the world. I frankly don’t know what they represent, other than to blame America first.”

    This is far more vile than anything David Duke has said in recent decades, if ever. If Trump “disavowed” Duke he should have disavowed Sessions even more loudly.

    “Invade the world, keep out the world” is completely morally untenable. If you destroy my house, you damn well better let me stay at yours.

  73. AndrewR says:

    As much as I have come to despise Bernie for his cowardice and utter capitulation to BLM and La Raza, he would probably be the best choice.

    • Replies: @macilrae
  74. nickels says:

    The really messed up up thing about neocucks is pointed out in the reason article I linked.
    Despite being, at heart, raving mad atheists, they oppose evolution because they think it will reduce religious spirit.
    Similarly pseudo scientific Boasian anthropology.

    Big raving hypocrits. Manipulators.
    One can see the commie written all over them.

    And there are plenty of gentiles amongst their sordid herd.

  75. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I can’t see what’s supposedly conservative about this group of people called neocons. They strike me as being radicals hell-bent on interfering in other countries to the point of launching wars of aggression as well as world-wide subversion. On the other side of the aisle there’s nothing liberal about people like ‘liberal humanitarian interventionists’ such as Samantha Power. All these people love war. The difference might just boil down to the type of domestic constituencies they patronize and toss money to. They have a lot in common, just work the other side of the street.
    Trump seems to be the first major public figure to have come right out and denounce Bush as a liar on national television. He pretty much broke the ice, every other politician just pretending that it was all just due to ‘bad intelligence’. Thousands of American soldier’s lives were thrown away and many more disabled and mutilated under Bush and then Obama based on these people’s lies. Were Trump to become president one of the greatest things he could do would be to go through the various institutions such as the State Dept and clean house, getting rid of all the various infiltrators that have wormed their way in. Also, to look at these complex proposed trade deals and determine whether they’re good for the majority of Americans. People don’t want the same old song and dance, lies and deception they’ve been getting and want to jump ship.

  76. Sherman says:

    Now, what was that part about your parents teaching you to respect Jews?


  77. TG says:

    Well said, and an excellent point.

    To recap: the core of the problem is that we have some very wealthy people who control large sections of the media and academia. As long as these people continue to throw their money and patronage at the neocons, the neocons will be invulnerable to either public opinion or the press of reality. By analogy, it’s like you are fighting a guerilla war, and the enemy has a safe haven over the border and an external source of supplies that you can’t touch. You can beat them back temporarily but never get rid of them, the war will continue.

    On the other hand, one sign of light: Trump trashed Dubya’s stupid Iraq war, and not only got away with it but rose in the polls. Ditto when Trump bad-mouthed Senator (bomb bomb bomb Iran) McCain. If the general public comes to regard the neocons as corrupt and ridiculous, if they can maintain this healthy skepticism even when someone less flamboyant than Trump is leading the way, perhaps there is some hope for us after all.

    They say that a Democracy needs an informed electorate. I don’t think that’s right. First and foremost, a real democracy needs a skeptical electorate.

  78. Agent76 says:

    February 26, 2015 The Neoconservative Threat To World Order

    Scholars from Russia and from around the world, Russian government officials, and the Russian people seek an answer as to why Washington destroyed during the past year the friendly relations between America and Russia that President Reagan and President Gorbachev succeeded in establishing.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  79. Agent76 says:

    Aug 21, 2015 No, Clinton Operative Donald Trump Is Not Going to “Save” America

    It’s kinda hard to believe I actually had to make this video wherein I had to pretend like any of the words that are coming out of this person’s mouth are even 0.0002% genuine. That really just happened. Wow, America. Just… Wow!

  80. Rex May says: • Website

    A very good definition, Quartermaster. I’ve made a quibcag out of part of it.
    Will Trump Solve All Our Problems?

  81. Singh says:
    @Dr. X

    If Israel is a jewish state & you’re a christian one, you’re both jewish states silly abrahamic cuck. You even circumcise your boys like good goyim.

  82. @Quartermaster

    Still learning over here…why are they so in favor of open immigration? I’m not so green that I don’t know there’s got to be something in it for them…

  83. @dfordoom

    I always loved how those that question “the media” will trust FactCheck or Snopes to decide.

  84. neutral says:

    Perhaps the way to get rid of the neocons completely is to use the same tactics neocons use in foreign policy – relentless belligerence.

    • Replies: @alexander
  85. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    Keep dreaming. Trump is ‘Hope and Change v 2.0 and the people are buying it beautifully. Do you truly think a billionaire is going to kick out the system that helped make him rich?

    Besides, the Neocons don’t control the MSM or the FED or the Treasury or have a choke-hold on Congress, it’s the Zionists.

    • Replies: @neutral
  86. Sam Shama says:

    Small observation [Ha’aretz got it wrong]: Biden broke with Obama on Israel. The 1600 additional settlements were announced in honour of Joe, with his implicit support and the joint rejection of hitrapsut [therefore flipping the metaphoric bird] at Barack. He will get an advisory spot in Killary’s administration.

  87. bunga says:
    @Mark Green

    Does it mean that instead of Germany ,US and UK would have been paying for the reparations all these years if Hitler won on not so dissimilar charges and accusations?

  88. joe webb says:

    “….justified on the grounds that American identity rests on a creed, which stresses universal equality. Most anyone from anywhere can join the American nation by adopting the neocons’ preferred creed; and once here these “new Americans, “ it is argued, will become hardy defenders of our propositional nationhood while providing the cheap labor needed for economic growth. ”

    I expected to see a questioning of the viability of this creedo argument especially with regard to mexicans, etc. who would not understand it in the first place. Ditto blacks. Whites can understand it, but do not care any more about civics lessons. We want out country back…that is the simple gut reaction. Mr. Gottfried appears to think this can go on and on. Abstractions without content…bloodless, and suited for normal times….we are entering not normal times.

    Mr. Gottfried is very good on the ins and outs of the conservatives: cucks, neocons, and all . However, Trump’s populism does not give a hoot for “our” analyses of the GOP or anything else the elites have to say.

    It is time for a mindless conservatism…family, country, race , and so on. That seems to be happening. This mindlessness will be based on instinct, blood, anger, and genetic similarity. The political process will be taken away from the wordsmiths, the scribblers, the Beltway, etc.

    The whole stinking mess will largely be swept away by this “atavism”… that is, on the right.

    The left will continue to champion worthless blood, as Tacitus put it, and urge them to vote against Whiteness. We will see. White Liberals however have creedo fatigue, they are faltering. The Jewish attack will continue however, but it is not guaranteed success, especially around immigration.

    Joe Webb

  89. utu says:

    ” The only true neocons I can think of are Jews.” Absolutely!

    • Replies: @nickels
  90. utu says:
    @Dr. X

    “The problem is that the neocons have the flag-waving, Pledge-reciting types on their side who think that we went to Vietnam, Iraq, Korea, and D-Day to “fight for our freedoms.”

    The types who spout nonsense like “If we hadn’t fought Hitler, we’d be speaking German right now!” The types who think that the government and the cops are their friends. The types who think that there is nothing wrong with the government engaged in massive electronic surveillance because “I ain’t got nothing to hide.” The types who leap up and bark like trained seals in the circus every time their government trainers shout “Terrorist! Terrorist!”

    For these folks, Uncle Sham can do no wrong. If you tell them otherwise they’ll treat you like you’ve got three eyes.”
    Would America be any better w/o neocons? America was never meant to be just another country for its citizens. From the day one Project America was a masonic project to spread liberal (democracy….) revolution throughout the world. The NWO is America. It was from the beginning. The neocons are just new class of functionaries whose job is to accelerate the process. There might be minor squabbles between Anglo-American masons and Zionist and Kabbalah Jews about who will eventually rule and whether the center of power will be in Jerusalem or Washington.

    • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir
  91. nickels says:


    Bush, McCain, Romney, Cruz
    Jeane Kirkpatrick, James Woolsey, Robert Bartley, John Bolton, and William Bennett
    etc etc

    Now it certainly has Jewish intellectual roots, but look around and tell me anything that doesn’t.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  92. @utu

    ” From the day one Project America was a masonic project to spread liberal (democracy….) revolution throughout the world.(…)”

    The importance of freemasonry to the American Revolution is greatly exaggerated, in many cases by overly-enthusiastic and historically ill-informed U.S. freemasons.

    Yes, Washington, Paul Revere, and other prominent Revolutionary figures were freemasons. So, however, were General Lord Cornwallis, and many of his officers. The duke of Sussex, one of the younger sons of George III, was a freemason and eventually became Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England. Freemasonry originated in Britain and was spread throughout the world by the British, many of them in military lodges that travelled with British regiments.

    The founder of negro freemasonry in the United States, Prince Hall (c. 1734-1807), was initiated in 1775 by such a lodge, no. 441 of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, attached to British forces stationed in Boston. His fellow blacks, being rejected by the white masons of Massachusetts, applied for and obtained a charter from the Grand Lodge of England, whose Grand Master at the time was HRH the Duke of Cumberland and Strathearn, a younger brother of George III.

  93. Art says:

    “(Trump) might allow developments in Israel’s neighbouring countries which will lead to Israel doing what it needs to do and most Jews who actually live in Israel want to do.”

    Of course what Sean is saying – is for the Jew to either kill or deport all Palestinians out of Palestine – every last one. Sean says Israel – but of course that means all Jews.

    The heart and soul of the Jew persona is not Mosses and the Ten Commandments – it is Esther and Mordecai and death to Jew enemies. Esther used her wiles to turn the Persian king’s head in favor of the Jews. The Jew Mordecai was then put in a position of power. He then slaughtered 75,000 Persians – not because they were a direct threat to the Jews, but because they potentially could be. Purim celebrates this great tribal victory. It is the Jews number one religious holiday.

    Death to the enemy of the Jew beats in the background of the Jew religious tribal mindset. Passover is not a celebration of the Ten Commandments – it is a three-thousand-year celebration of the death of the first born of every Egyptian family (how sick and how untrue). This celebration of death is the second most important holiday of the Jews.

    Today the Palestinians are in the Jew’s way – clearly they see them as the enemy – so – death to them. Only the condemnation of the world stops them.

    p.s. Burnie Sanders will be crying as he drop-kicks the last Palestinian baby over the Jordan River.

  94. neutral says:
    @Greg Bacon

    Can you name a neocon that is not a zionist ?

  95. Ace says:

    People are fed up. The opportunity society as withered at the hands of financial manipulators, bankers, and legislators, judges, and corporations with no loyalty to the U.S. The people will express their anger with precise and minute strokes of a scalpel or an airbrush but with a bulldozer.

    Much cleverness will prove to be just mist when this gets going. This is an inflection point and it will last longer than a Trump candidacy or a Trump presidency. No one knows what awaits at the bottom but our present arrangements and the present correlation of forces won’t be playing a big part.

    No nation can be in thrall to a small, distant nation (Israel) and its minute number of domestic advocates, wage endless and expensive foreign wars, reject its most fundamental law in favor of a judicial tyranny, import a loathsome political force and blithely call it a religion, embrace fiscal and monetary insanity, and worship foreigners, parasites and deviants (and import them when they are deemed in short supply) and survive. We have ceased to be a nation and betrayed our ancestors. No one will ever be able to convince the survivors of the coming catastrophe that this was anything other than indecency.

    • Replies: @Ace
  96. KA says:

    The debate between Trump and Clinton might unravel Clinton’s so called legacy. The foreign policy disasters will loom large. Will that trajectory open up the wounds wrought by the neocons
    over the years?
    At this moment the fear is that a fresh knowledge and new awareness of the Neo Canine ctivities would definitely poison the minds of the powerless American citizen. They will not forgive the neocon . It may not dislodge them . But they most likely wont be appreciated by American no more than the Saudis are appreciated by theYemenis and Syrians.
    The day of reckoning as Rubio is referring to will be on them instead.

  97. Rurik says:

    Now it certainly has Jewish intellectual roots, but look around and tell me anything that doesn’t.

    how about philosophy


    iron age

    bronze age

    the arts






    baroque culture

    industrial revolution

    to name just a few off the top of my head

    but give the Jews their due:

    the bible and all of that


    modern banking

    contemporary pop culture

    I’m sure I’m leaving a lot of stuff out on both lists

    • Replies: @nickels
  98. Paul Gottfried makes a lot of good points. I wonder too what’s going to happen to all the money now used to fund the neocons, R2P types and all the rest? Even if various media outlets and “talent” become liabilites, the people who currently fund them will surely start looking around for new ways to influence policy.

  99. alexander says:

    The way to get rid of the Neocons is simple, neutral.

    Simply apply the law and remainder them all to federal prison or Guantanamo Bay.

    The charges could not be more clear:

    Conspiracy to defraud the American People into committing the supreme act of international terrorism…..Initiating a war of aggression in Iraq.

    Our current national debt has just exceeded the “obscene” $19,000,000,000,000.00 mark.

    It was 5.7 trillion before the Neocons staged their 9-11″coup” and took over the shop.

    That is nearly 14 trillion dollars they have defrauded out of our purses into their pockets.

    This is thoroughly unacceptable.

    A Great President could initiate operation”clean sweep” and have them all rounded up.

    and locked up.

    Seizing all their assets in the process would contribute substantially to paying down the humongous debt they defrauded us into.

    Righting the ship of state means just applying the law.

    Electing a President who has the “cojones” to do just that, should be our highest priority.

    The future of our country is at stake if we don’t.

    It is a very sad thing to have to say, but its true.

    Everything else is just a bunch of BS.

    • Agree: edNels
    • Replies: @Sam J.
  100. Any one can come to the US and become American by embracing the creed?

    OK – so per that reasoning… any Palestinian or Persian in Tel Aviv who can eat gefilte fish, wear a yamulke, and dance to kletzmer thereby becomes a good and desirable Israeli? Or is the sauce not good for the gander somehow…

  101. Definitely no!
    But he will put them in the state of hibernation.

  102. joe webb says:
    @roger erickson

    I read the above referenced url and thought to myself, sounds like beyond the beyond, PCR….bingo! it was PCR, imagine that.

    Now just a teency amount of reading history and one will discover that big power try to influence smaller powers, and arguably the other way around as well like the Judenstaat.

    Sorry that this upsets some puerile lefties. We need a Peter Pan Planet for these folks.

    Joe Webb Trump would probably help to shrink the US ego a bit. Save us some dough as well.

  103. Ace says:

    has withered

    The people will not express their anger

  104. nickels says:

    I figured that line would get a rise !

  105. Sam J. says:

    I think you’re right on target.

    • Replies: @alexander
  106. @utu

    Try bribed birth control to curb the excess breeding of Palestinian martyrs and Ultra-ultra-Orthodox inbreeders who produce half-wits (OK, as well as preserving a lot of Ashkenazi genes which may produce 22nd century Nobel Prizes – but what discount rate do you apply to that?).

  107. @roger erickson

    As for Joe Webb my heart sank when I saw that the link was to a typical Paul Craig Roberts outpouring of what’s in his mind without it reliably telling you what anyone else thought, said or did. Spare us.

  108. Unfortunately Paul Gottfried is probably right. As he usually is.

  109. macilrae says:

    Probably the VP ought to be a person who is strongly anti-neocon. Ron Paul would be perfect but probably too old – still, what a combination!

    • Agree: SolontoCroesus
  110. KA says:

    Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, has unveiled his new foreign policy team, stacked with some of the most aggressive hawks imaginable, saying they are a group of his “trusted friends” who believe in a “strong America.”

    At the center of his team is neoconservative ultra-hawk Frank Gaffney, a loudly anti-Muslim figure who believes in a wild array of conspiracies, including that a number of top political figures from both parties of being part of a secret Muslim cabal plotting the conquest of America.

    Gaffney had previously been speculated to be a Trump adviser, as his dubious work has been cited by that candidate repeatedly in trying to back up his proposals to ban Muslim immigration. Gaffney’s overt hostility toward Muslims in general made him a virtual pariah during the 2012 campaign. Incredibly, a number of Republican hopefuls have courted him this time around, with Cruz declaring him “clear-eyed” and “a patriot.”

    Also featuring prominently in the Cruz team is Michael Ledeen, the man at the center of the yellowcake uranium forgeries, among the pretexts for the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq. Ledeen has been involved in a litany of scandals, dating all the way back to Iran-Contra. He was also, notably, the man who got Israeli spy Jonathon Pollard his job at the US Navy.

    Of course speaking of Iran-Contra, one must inevitably discuss Elliott Abrams, who famously pled guilty to two charges of withholding information related to the scandal from Congress, and is likewise a central player in the new Cruz team. In addition to the Contra scandal, Abrams was involved in myriad ugly Reagan-era operations, and was a close ally of both former presidents Bush, receiving a pardon for his Reagan-era crimes by George H.W. Bush, and being appointed as a special adviser to George W.

    During his tenure with the later Bush, Abrams was accused by The Guardian of being at the center of a failed 2002 US-backed coup attempt against Venezuela, and was said to have personally given the go-ahead for the effort.

    Abram’s most recent media comments, interestingly enough, were railing against Cruz, accusing him of being anti-semitic for even using the term “neocon.” Now that Cruz is establishing himself as the neocon candidate of choice, that allegation has been quickly brushed aside.

    With this team and more, Cruz is surrounding himself with warmongers and criminals of the highest caliber. While the attempt appears to center on making him a more straightforward Republican insider, to serve as a counter to Trump, the jingoist and xenophobic policies these advisers portend also threatens to sabotage any hope he has of presenting himself as a safer alternative.

    Cruz hires liars,conspiracy theorist,ex,current and possible future felon -Abrams
    but NYT allows the intentionally misleading mischaracterizing David Brooks to pen columns calling Trump liars,ignorant ,unprepared ,no capacity to learn,have no advisors and most dishonest.( in page A25 NYT -David Brooks 3/18/16)

    Neocons are protected by the system promoted by Cruz,and purveyed to Ametican as good products who are not liars not misleading,not closed minded not criminal ,not unprepared by the media .
    We have to wait to see if David Brooks helps America recognize the dangers that are inherent in the nature of the neo con beasts from the known display of their vile uncouth tribal behaviors in a few past administrations . Instead for reason unknown ( only to the unwashed clueless ) he tries to warn Americans of what could happen from someone who hasn’t hurt American interests or destroyed American life if he gets elected.

  111. alexander says:
    @Sam J.

    Hey Sam,

    If the Neocons, as they have often boasted. consider themselves “so powerful they can create their own reality ” then shouldn’t they have to pay for “the debt” their reality has created ?

    Why should we (the American People) have to?

    Why should our kids and grand kids and great grand kids have to, either ?

    That is $19,000,000,000,000.00 and change the Neocons owe the American People, thank you very much.

    We need a President who will make them “pay up”, big time, on THAT reality !

    Or at least find themselves breaking rocks in Sing Sing til they do.

    God speed.

  112. KA says:

    Rabbis plan boycott of Trump speech to pro-Israeli group
    Rabbis are hurt and enraged and sad because of his anti Muslim anti Mexican polemic.

    It will be a lot easier if the Rabbi had protested against the conference being held and blocked the attendees go inside the meeting.
    Its the meetings where the delegates want to do an ” Iraq” on Iran and Where wars are planned and executed against Muslim,countries .

    Florida is one of the birth place of Republican Islamophobic rants . Did I hear these guys before?

  113. Solemnity says:

    Trump can indeed break the stranglehold that Jewish Americans hold on US policy in the Middle East and towards Russia – if he is determined to do so.

    It should be part of a new US foreign policy that pulls back the American Empire.

    If Trump articulates a clear and reasonable policy, and directs the money the US gives to Israel to truly American causes, it will be supported by most people, and the pro-Israel lobby will not be able to play one side against the other.

    What are Jewish Americans going to do, withhold money from the Democratic AND Republican parties? Then they lose their influence with both parties.

  114. LondonBob says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I think Trump means he will seek a peace deal in Palestine. With the Golan Heights still contested I think a reasonable deal for all sides could be worked out. Syria needs funds for reconstruction so they might be willing to give up some of the Golan Heights, demographically Arabs are a large part of Israel so a population swap could be done etc. I think most Israelis would go for a deal but not sure the diaspora and the religious (and secular) hardliners would go for it. I think it would wise to do so as Israel is burning through the world’s goodwill at a rapid rate.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  115. A depressing piece, with which I must reluctantly agree. The neocon cancer has spread too far. I think that Dr. G should dismiss any notion about being proven wrong.

  116. ka says:

    Before Mr G can dislodge ever any neoocns he has to look at at the lay of the lands . It is depressing and does not inspire much confidence .

    Here in USA the well known bell weather of what is permissible and what should be as NYT is known ,is carrying a full one page ads on A7 by THE WORLD , organized and produced by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
    asking Hillary fire Sid Blumenthal because
    he said certain things:
    1 The policy of the present Israeli government is endangering the lives of teh American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan- 7/62000
    2 The flotilla raid was not bungled .The IDF detailed its violent strategy in advance – 6/4/2010
    3 Settlers theft of water from Palestine town-7/6/2010″

    Can an American take out one page ad in NYT denouncing the political grovelling to AIPAC or Israel?
    Can a Palestinian -American publish even a letter portraying Israeli action as it is felt across the neighbors?

    No it will not be able.If it were so ,NYT would have invited the long the military personnel ,academicians and columnists who have said same things during the entire post 2001 period time after time , to come and explain it for common public.

    American will know only partial fact expounded by Israelis in distorted details . Only awareness can make them free of bias and make them vigilant of the neocon

  117. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Breaking up Syria was the plan all along.

    Wikileaks posted the State Dept email telling all about it —
    as usual everything — the destruction of Syria, that is — was planned and carried out to protect the villa in the jungle.

    -Hillary clintons email archive new iran and syria wikileaks

    Israel must be protected from the possibility that a strong Iran will constrain Israeli’s ability to attack Lebanon or Gaza

    Lawrence Wilkerson at a conference yesterday said something interesting: Israel has never, ever assisted the USA in its military activities in the ME.

    So what is Israel doing with all that money that US gives it to spend on weapo0ns? Israel is the most powerful military in the region.
    Gaza has stones and fire-cracker rockets.

    Israel uses the most sophisticated army in the world to attack defenseless people.

    When people actually do find out how evil Jews are, there will be hell to pay.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  118. KA says:
    @Dr. X

    Feith and his ilk operate on the principle that by the time one arrives at the second analytical sentence,he or she should have forgotten the first analysis and should start working from a new even opposite premise to suit the goal of the Zionist..

  119. @Anonymous

    NoYour link looks pretty dodgy to me [not that it wouldn’t be a plausible enough forgery: that after all would be the point of forging].

    1. “Unclassified” Really?

    2. A 2000 date on one of them.

    3. The 2015 date was after Mrs Clinton ceased to be Secretary of State.

    4. Has Wikileaks been actively receiving and disclosing docs as recently as the alleged email dated 2015?

    5. Where is the indication of who was author and who were recipients?

    I’m beginning to think that a bit of Googling would show this stuff to be fraudulent.

  120. Art says:

    C Span had the defense minister of Israel on the other day.

    He had the gonads to say that there was no apartheid in Israel – a TOTAL lie.

    He got in America’s face and insulted us with a giant lie. He claims to head the most moral army in the world. Dam – but these Jews can lie. Lying pushes people apart.

    Clearly the Jew think that they can get away with this forever – they think they can stay ahead of us all, by propagating an endless series of falsehoods. The result is that every day more people are justifiably hating on the Jew.

    Jesus said “the truth will set you free” – these lying Jews condemn themselves. They will never know peace. No honest person can stomach them. There will be a reckoning.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  121. Rolando says:

    The author says, “Both of these foundational positions are justified on the grounds that American identity rests on a creed, which stresses universal equality.”


    The justification grounds are money and white guilt.

  122. @Agent76

    That link to Paul Craig Roberts showed him as more coherent than usual on UR though still given to overstatement and the grand evidence free assertion. But it leaves me with a small question. He is given an honorific “Honorable” in one citation. Why might he be entitled to call himself the Hon. Paul Craig Roberts?

    (I asked this question of a visiting speaker from DC with a dodgy past as an academic and got some vague reply about something he had been or done during the Reagan Administration. His lawyer wife I was interested to see had “Esq” after her name on her card. Is that a usual affectation amongst American female lawyers? When I was a child one was taught to address letters to adult males who were one’s social equals as X Y Esq. even though Esquire was traditionally a rank above an ordinary gentleman and below a knight. I don’t think junior barristers were entitled to it ex officio, only King’s/Queen’s Counsel).

    • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir
  123. @Art

    I can’t see why people get so excited about the appicability of a particular Afrikaans word, to wit “apartheid” to Israel’s law and practice with respect to Palestinians – and Bedouin if you’re interested?

    • Replies: @Art
  124. @Wizard of Oz

    Roberts was an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. This entities him to use the prefix “Honorable” under U.S. government protocol.

    Although the customary law degree granted by U.S. law schools is now the Juris Doctor (J.D.), the American Bar Association discourages its holders from styling themselves “Doctor,” presumably out of consideration for those older practitioners who were granted the LL.B. degree after having taken essentially the same three-year course. Perhaps because lawyers cannot use an academic style, the practice has grown up of using the post-nominal “Esq.” to denote their status as members of the bar. This reflects the assumption that since a lawyer is an officer of the court, he, like the holder of a military or naval commission, must be a gentleman. As women entered the legal profession they also adopted the usage even though there is no historical precedent or social justification for it.

    Lost completely is the original sense of the title, namely that its holder was not only a gentleman, but one entitled to a coat of arms – hence écuyer, the bearer of a shield. An armigerous woman, even a peeress in her own right, to this day has her arms blasoned on a lozenge or an oval, rather than a shield, and hence could not be so styled. Such a nicety is lost on the American legal profession.

    It is unfortunate that the United States cannot devise a more suitable distinction for lawyers that is not at such odds with its egalitarian and republican pretensions, such as the French usage, maître, or the Latin American licenciado.

  125. Thank you. Interesting. I once had a job where I had reason to learn about titles in the British Commonwealth such as the important information that a letter to Sir John Smith should not, if he was a Privy Councillor be addressed to him as The Rt Hon Sir John Smith PC, GCMG (or whatever) because the PC was redundant. The Right Hononorable was sufficient. Likewise the informal note to your luncheon host at the House of Lords addressed to Lord Smith was addressed “The Lord Smith” with the “The” being short for “The Right Honourable” though I am not absolutely sure that I recall correctly that one would put PC after the name of a peer to indicate that he was a member of the Privy Council because he would as a peer be for example The Rt Hon Viscount Smith of Lower Ditchley.

    Personally I enjoyed introducing a contemporary with a well earned knighthood to a hereditary baronet (Sir Gerald I shall call him) with “Henry, I would like you to meet Gerald who has a proper title: absolutely no merit at all”.

    A cousin who is entitled to call himself Honorable for much the same reason as PCR but only after a certain time in the position is inclined to say either that he got it for “time served” or that he found the cheapest and most demanding way to become honourable.

    You would understand why I had to be restrained from including derisive remarks in a speech I made in the US about the way Americans could become “Ambassador” or whatever for life even while the FBI was investigating them for insider trading.

  126. Art says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “I can’t see why people get so excited about the appicability of a particular Afrikaans word, to wit “apartheid” to Israel’s law and practice with respect to Palestinians”

    Oh – I see – that is a crime – comparing Israel with Africa.

    Dare anyone use an African word to describe the Jew.

    p.s. What lying word do you Jews use to describe your evil of walling off the Palestinians?

  127. You should limit yourself to reporting facts or, in case anyone is interested, your opinions. Engaging in debate is not for someone so dim that he can’t see or remember that my point was in reference to a report of an Israeli taking objection to Israel being accused of apartheid, and who can’t help repeating the surely obvious untruth that I am a Jew.

  128. va-con says:

    I’m glad that I found this site. This is the kind of discussion I’ve been looking for. You don’t learn this stuff at NRO…

  129. There exists a permanent electrostatic charge in neocons that re-attaches them to things as quickly as they are removed. They are a parasitic entity that can exist only in an alien host and shape it in it’s own likeness. Having already accomplished that mission with the Democratic Party in 1933, it moved on the the Republican side in later decades.

  130. @random observer

    I’ve had the same exposure to the neo-con’s of the late 70s and 80s. At that time Irving Kristol’s and Nathan Glazer’s Public Interest seemed to be the pearl of the neo-con public intellectual universe. Norman Podhoretz’s Commentary was stridently anti-Soviet, pro-Zionist, but engaged in heavy ridicule of Leftist social experiments, and even went after pop-culture Leftism in their long movie reviews by writers like Richard Grenier. Midge Decter, Mrs. Norman Podhoretz, was scathing about the alternative family and sexual experiments of the New Left types. Irving Kristol’s articles in the WSJ were full of commonsense on economics and skeptical of social experimentation. However, underneath it all was a fear of any kind of nationalism or cultural conservatism based on the inherited traditions of Anglo-America. In the end it was their cosmopolitanism and their fear of distinct nationality that won out after the fall of Communism. I think it was also a generational thing, the original neo cons came from that Marxist/Old Left tradition which was basically ascetic and was distrustful of revolutionary and anti-bourgeois sexual experimentation. The neo-Wilsonianism is a replacement for the universalist ideology that was lost when the Marxism of their youth sputtered out and with the fall of Communism the vacuum had to be filled with a replacement.

    • Replies: @alexander
  131. alexander says:
    @Michael Brennick

    Mr Brennick,

    Let us all be crystal clear…the Neocons believe in, and have actively promoted “war of aggression”(which is 100% illegal and 100% unconstitutional) to the tune of what amounts to an obscene $19,000,000,000,000.00 national debt.

    That is nearly four times what it was a mere 15 years ago.

    This is an “overspending catastrophe”.

    Nobody could despise more the solvency and credit worthiness of the United States than the Neocons.

    Nobody could despise more our constitution or way of life than the Neocons, look at how they have shredded it, Mr Brennick.

    The proof is in their Neocon pudding, and the facts are laid bare for any to see.

    Having staged their post 9-11 “coup”, they began their illegal, criminal rampage in the middle east, laying waste to the lives and homes of over 60,000,000 innocent people.

    60,000,000 people ! ….Mr Brennick.

    They don’t care a damn about “democracy promotion” and they don’t give a hoot about the tens of millions of lives they have destroyed.

    They have defrauded our nation out of tens of trillions of dollars into committing the supreme international crime.

    Tens of trillions of dollars !

    Wake up, Mr brennick, to the reality their catastrophic policies have created.

    Forget your Neo-Wilsonian baloney, these people are criminal frauds , plain and simple.

    They are evil to the core.

  132. you have to joking thinking trump will really change anything.stop for a minute with your exuberance and think .its the congress that makes laws and changes and if the democrats have either one nothing will get done and second his own party hate his guts .so prey tell how is he going to change anything??and third he is an israeli firster and has doen 180 on palestine and israel and now says he backs israel 1000% for life and names jerusalem capitol of israel that will make matters 1000 times worse than they are now.he also has done a 180 on russia ,saying they are the ones who broke the cease fire and bombed the civilians.get real here and stop with the trump is going to change the regime .the neo con israeli s have worked for at lerast since 1913 fed res.and really way before that to get where they are now .no trump or anyone else will change that .only a total military coup under patriot officers ,if any still exist!! and a political leadership not of neo con israeli wall street agenda.but that doesn t exist either.

  133. Anonymous [AKA "Irish_bob"] says:

    Neo con = Israeli firster.

    One who views the interests of America and the state of Israel as one and the same.

  134. Well, three and a half years after this article was penned, and the answer to the title’s question is a most decidedly “nope.”

    What a fucking pity.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Paul Gottfried Comments via RSS