NeoCon is short for NeoConservative, one of a group of largely Jewish patter merchants pushing a particular philosophy which is totally Zionist. They have been highly influential and run the White House in all but name. George Bush is the President of America and their puppet. How they control him is one question. How they influence America is another. A stranglehold on the media is a large part of it. Infiltration of higher education is another. Politicians are controlled by money. They need lots of it to run their election campaigns. Jews supply it. He who pays the piper calls the tune and the tune is Zionist, the tune of Israeli supremacism.Neoconservatism was in the news in a big way when the Neocons were pushing for war. They wanted America to invade Iraq. It happened. They had their way. It meant controlling George Bush, the president. They had to have Congress and the Senate in hand too. It meant bribery, blackmail, lies about Saddam Hussein, about Weapons of mass destruction. What it took was what it got.

They killed thousands of Americans, many thousands of Iraqis, destroyed billions, cost trillions. So we should ask what, who, why, how. The Wikipedia is seriously misleading in its write up, but then it is one of the players, a propaganda machine with an axe to grind. This makes it that much more important to find out, to know. Various perpetrators are named at Neocons

The Neoconservative Threat to International Order
They are evil. They are setting up World War III.


Neoconservatism ex Wiki
Neoconservatism is a variant of the political ideology of conservatism which combines features of traditional conservatism with political individualism and a qualified endorsement of free markets.[1] Neoconservatism (or new conservatives) is rooted in a group of former liberals [ Mainly Marxist Jews in fact - Editor ] who in the late 1960s, began to oppose many of the policies and principles associated with President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs.[2] The term "neoconservative" was initially used in the 1930s to describe American liberals who criticized other liberals who followed a path closer to Soviet communism.[3]

The term "neoconservative" was popularized in the United States in 1973 by Socialist leader Michael Harrington, who applied it his opposition to the policy ideas of Daniel Bell, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Irving Kristol.[4]

The "neoconservative" label was embraced by Irving Kristol in his 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.'"[5] His ideas have been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.[6] Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy".[7][8] In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the neoconservatives were driven by "the notion that liberalism" had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about, " according to E. J. Dionne,[9]

The term neoconservative, which originally was used by a socialist to criticize the politics of Social Democrats, USA,[10] has since 1980 been used as a criticism against proponents of American modern liberalism who had "moved to the right".[5][11] The term "neoconservative" was the subject of increased media coverage during the presidency of George W. Bush,[12][13] with particular focus on a perceived neoconservative influence on American foreign policy, as part of the Bush Doctrine.[14] The term neocon is often used as pejorative in this context.


[edit] Administration of George W. Bush

The Bush campaign and the early Bush administration did not exhibit strong support for neoconservative principles. As a presidential candidate, Bush had argued for a restrained foreign policy, stating his opposition to the idea of nation-building[47] and an early foreign policy confrontation with China was handled without the vociferousness suggested by some neoconservatives.[48] Also early in the administration, some neoconservatives criticized Bush's administration as insufficiently supportive of Israel, and suggested Bush's foreign policies were not substantially different from those of President Clinton.[49]

U.S. President George W. Bush with the (at that time) President of Egypt Hosni Mubarak at Camp David in 2002. In November 2010, Bush wrote in his memoir Decision Points claiming Mubarak supported the administration's position that Iraq had WMDs in the lead up to the war with the country, but kept it private for fear of "inciting the Arab street."[50]

Bush's policies changed dramatically immediately after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Bush laid out his vision of the future in his State of the Union speech in January 2002, following the September 11, 2001, attacks. The speech named Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as states that "constitute an axis of evil" and "pose a grave and growing danger". Bush suggested the possibility of preemptive war: "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."[51][52]

Some prominent defense and national-security personalities have been quite critical of what they believed was neoconservative influence in getting the United States to war with Iraq.[53]

Nebraska Republican U.S. senator Chuck Hagel, who has been critical of the Bush administration's adoption of neoconservative ideology, in his book America: Our Next Chapter wrote:

"So why did we invade Iraq? I believe it was the triumph of the so-called neo-conservative ideology, as well as Bush administration arrogance and incompetence that took America into this war of choice. . . . They obviously made a convincing case to a president with very limited national security and foreign policy experience, who keenly felt the burden of leading the nation in the wake of the deadliest terrorist attack ever on American soil."

[edit] Bush Doctrine

The Bush Doctrine of preventive war was explicitly stated in the National Security Council text "National Security Strategy of the United States," published September 20, 2002. "We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed . . . even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack... The United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."[54]

The choice to not use the word 'preventive' in the 2002 National Security Strategy, and instead use the word 'preemptive' was largely in anticipation of the widely perceived illegality of preventive attacks in international law, via both Charter Law and Customary Law.[55]

Policy analysts noted that the Bush Doctrine as stated in the 2002 NSC document bore a strong resemblance to recommendations originally presented in a controversial Defense Planning Guidance draft written in 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz, under the first Bush administration.[56]

The Bush Doctrine was greeted with accolades by many neoconservatives. When asked whether he agreed with the Bush Doctrine, Max Boot said he did, and that “I think [Bush is] exactly right to say we can’t sit back and wait for the next terrorist strike on Manhattan. We have to go out and stop the terrorists overseas. We have to play the role of the global policeman. . . . But I also argue that we ought to go further.”[57] Discussing the significance of the Bush Doctrine, neoconservative writer William Kristol claimed: “The world is a mess. And, I think, it’s very much to Bush’s credit that he's gotten serious about dealing with it. . . . The danger is not that we’re going to do too much. The danger is that we're going to do too little.”[58]

[edit] 2008 Presidential election and aftermath

John McCain, who was the Republican candidate for the 2008 United States Presidential election, supported continuing the Iraq War, "the issue that is most clearly identified with the neoconservatives". The New York Times further reported that his foreign policy views combined elements of neoconservative and the main competing view in conservative circles, pragmatism, also called realism:[59]

Among [McCain's advisers] are several prominent neoconservatives, including Robert Kagan . . . Max Boot . . . John R. Bolton . . . [and] Randy Scheunemann. "It may be too strong a term to say a fight is going on over John McCain’s soul," said Lawrence Eagleburger . . . who is a member of the pragmatist camp, . . . [but he] said, "there is no question that a lot of my far right friends have now decided that since you can't beat him, let's persuade him to slide over as best we can on these critical issues."

Barack Obama campaigned for the Democratic nomination in 2008, by attacking his opponents, especially Hillary Clinton, for originally supporting Bush's Iraq-war policies. He gave the impression he would reverse such policies. However, Obama adopted the main points of the Bush policy in Iraq, naming Clinton to the State Department and keeping Robert Gates (Bush's Defense Secretary), and David Petraeus (Bush's top general in Iraq), as well as implementing the Bush "surge" of military force. Yet by 2010, U.S. forces had switched from combat to a training role in Iraq.[60]

[edit] Evolution of views


  • Neoconservatism: Why We Need it is a 2006 book written by Douglas Murray. The book's main aim is to describe how neoconservatism offers a coherent platform from which to tackle ...​Neoconservatism:_Why_We_Need_​it




    Isolationism is the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, foreign ...


    isolationism n. A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries


    This quasi-isolationism shows that the US was interested in foreign affairs, but was afraid that by pledging full support for the League, the United States would lose the ability ...​non-interventionism



    Isolationism In America
    Non-interventionism, the diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to direct territorial self-defense, has had a long history in the United States. It is a form of "realism".

    Non-interventionism on the part of the United States over the course of its foreign policy, is more of a want to aggressively protect the United States' interests than a want to shun the rest of the world.

    Non-intervention, sometimes referred to as military non-interventionism, seems to some to be the antithesis of isolationism.[1] Maintaining the participation of the United States in global economic affairs is thought to likely boost trade and expand US diplomacy, in the view of Edward A. Olsen.[1]


    Early background
    Thomas Paine is generally credited with instilling the first non-interventionist ideas into the American body politic; his work Common Sense contains many arguments in favor of avoiding alliances. These ideas introduced by Paine took such a firm foothold that the Second Continental Congress struggled against forming an alliance with France and only agreed to do so when it was apparent that the American Revolutionary War could be won in no other manner.

    George Washington's farewell address is often cited as laying the foundation for a tradition of American non-interventionism:

    The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

    Believe the Wiki? Maybe. If it's political it's dodgy.


    NeoCon is short for NeoConservative, one of a group of largely Jewish Subversives pushing a particular philosophy which is totally Zionist. They have been highly influential and run the White House in all but name. George Bush is the President of America and their puppet. How they control him is one question. How they influence America is another. A stranglehold on the media is a large part of it. Infiltration of higher education is another. Politicians are controlled by money. They need lots of it to run their election campaigns. Jews supply it. He who pays the piper calls the tune and the tune is Zionist, the tune of Israeli supremacism.

    Leo Strauss
    Leo Straus [sic ], was a German-born Jewish-American political philosopher who specialized in the study of classical political philosophy. He spent most of his career as a Political Science Professor at the University of Chicago, where he taught several generations of devoted students and published fifteen books. Since his death, he has come to be regarded as an intellectual source of neoconservatism in the United States.


    Harper, Bush Share Roots in Controversial Philosophy
    What do close advisors to Stephen Harper [ the Prime Minister of Canada - Editor ] and George W. Bush have in common? They reflect the disturbing teachings of Leo Strauss, the German-Jewish émigré who spawned the neoconservative movement.

    Strauss, who died in 1973, believed in the inherent inequality of humanity. Most people, he famously taught, are too stupid to make informed decisions about their political affairs. Elite philosophers must decide on affairs of state for us.

    Strauss defined a regime as a set of governing ideas, institutions and traditions. The neoconservatives in the Bush administration, who secretly conspired to make the invasion of Iraq a certainty, had a precise plan for regime change. They weren't out to merely replace Saddam with an American puppet. They planned to make the system more like the U.S., with an electoral process that can be manipulated by the elites, corporate control over the levers of power and socially conservative values.

    Usually regime change is imposed on a country from outside through violent means, such as invasion. On occasion, it occurs within a country through civil war. After the American Civil War, a new regime was imposed on the Deep South by the North, although the old regime was never entirely replaced.

    Is regime change possible through the electoral process? It's happening in the U.S., where the neocons are succeeding in transforming the American state from a liberal democracy into a corporatist, theocratic regime. As Canada readies for a federal election, the question must be asked: Are we next?
    If you don't think that England is being screwed in the same way you haven't been paying attention or you are one of the perpetrators.


    Richard Perle's Outrageous Lies
    I have just finished listening to an enlightening 2-hour radio interview with hosts Mark Glenn and James Morris and guest Kevin MacDonald, and including an interesting call-in appearance from Stephen Sniegoski. The general topic was Jewish power, but one point in particular stood out: Recently, a premier architect and promoter of the neocon war against Iraq, “Prince of Darkness” Richard Perle, has been escalating his campaign to deny the neocon role in American politics. Let me explain............

    Finally, I arrive at the point of this column: Despite the massive proof of neocon involvement in America’s decision to go to war with Iraq and despite the overwhelming evidence that neoconservatism qualifies as a Jewish movement, central neocon figure Richard Perle [ one of The Israel Lobby ] has, with a straight face, stated that neocons do not exist. And it follows that if they don't exist, they certainly are not a Jewish cabal............

    And for people who are not deceived by all this, there is little doubt that organizations like the ADL will step in to label as anti-Semites anyone who publicly states that neoconservatism is a Jewish cabal. Indeed,  the ADL has already done so. As usual, such charges will keep public discussion of these issues to a minimum, and respectable politicians will be loathe to discuss the topic.

    How the American people react to these brazen attempts by the Jewish neocons to whitewash their role in steering America on such a disastrous course will show their maturity and determination to get to the truth of the matter, or it will show their lack thereof. The proper response, of course, is to forcefully reject these outrageous lies.
    Remember that Israel Lobby got very annoyed when it was written up by Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer. It claimed very loudly that it did not exist. It is much the same bunch of crooks as the NeoCons

    Neocons fingered by The Wiki


    Government officials


    Public intellectuals


    Neoconservatives Inciting War Against Russia [ 5 March 2015 ]
    Washington’s reckless and irresponsible destruction of the trust achieved by Reagan and Gorbachev has resurrected the possibility of nuclear war from the grave in which Reagan and Gorbachev buried it.  Again, as during the Cold War, the specter of nuclear Armageddon stalks the earth.............  But first you should understand what nuclear war means.  You can gain that understanding here.
    Who is causing the problem? The short answer, the simple answer, the true answer is Neoconservatives, that is the Zionist crazies who control America's Zionist Occupation Government [ ZOG ].



    Errors & omissions, broken links, cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or whatever; if you find any I am open to comment.

    Email me at Mike Emery. All financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to keep it private, use my PGP KeyHome Page

    Updated  on Sunday, 26 March 2017 20:27:24