Neocon's Love Darkness, Because Their Deeds Are Evil
Besides war, if I am "anti-" anything, I am anti-politics, but even that is only in terms of principles, not action. I have no interest in political activism or opposition to either politicians, or their actual policies, all of which I regard as evil.
I do not support politicians either, so I am not a supporter of Ron Paul, though as politicians go, his views are probably the most consistent with individual liberty and the principles this country was founded on of any current-day politician.
It is not surprising, therefore, that most other politicians hate Ron Paul and there are none who hate Ron Paul more than the neoconservatives. This is about who and what neoconservatives are and why they hate Ron Paul so much.
What Are The Neoconservatives?
The neoconservatives call themselves, "conservatives," because they know that term appeals to the sentiments of naive freedom loving Americans, and to further deceive them, they wrap themselves in the American Flag and spout conservative platitudes about liberty and "America's interests." It is all a cover for their real agenda which is promoting big government and the military-industrial complex—the neoconservatives have never met a war they do not love.
The introduction to Karen Kwiatkowski's interview with Lew Rockwell, The Menace of Neoconservatism, says, "Neoconservatives speak of democracy and freedom. They deliver wars and bigger government. They itch to build permanent bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, to attack Iran, to stir up hatred of the Muslim Other, to topple a government they don't like, and to use WMD. ...."
Karen Kwiatkowski is a retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel whose assignments included duties as a Pentagon desk officer and a variety of roles for the National Security Agency. Kwiatkowski is primarily known for her insider essays which denounce a corrupting political influence on the course of military intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. There are more excellent articles at her Archives.
Who Are The Neoconservatives
Though you've heard most of their names, you probably don't know they are neoconservatives, because they refer to themselves simply as "freedom-loving conservatives," and associate with organizations with word's like "American," "liberty," and "freedom," in their titles. Here are some of the more important and influential neoconservatives, past and present:
Irving Kristol and Leo Strauss, who are considered the founders of the movement. Others include: Bill Kristol,
Eric Edelman, Richard Armitage,
Shoshana Bryen, Charles Fairbanks, and
Michael Ledeen. The links are all to
Right Web, which leans a bit left itself, but the details about each individual are objective on the whole. Neocons: Who's Who provides information on most of these neocons as well. I call this the, "A-list of Neocons."
The following individuals are often considered neocons because they buy into the statist militarist agenda, and belong to many of the same organizations, but with the exception of Dick Cheney, perhaps, they are not classic neocons: Christopher Hitchens,
David Frum, and
Neoconservatism, Deceit and Hubris
While it is true that the heart of neoconservatism is deceit, that does not say what neoconservatism is. There is lots of deceit in the world, neoconservatism is just one variety, but a most dangerous and effective one.
To understand what neoconservatism is, the nature of its deceit must be understood, because it is the heart and soul of neoconservatism, and was explicitly identified by the founder of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol, and
The Neocon Philosopher, Leo Strauss.
"Leo Strauss, the neocons' 'Philosopher,' taught that deception is a virtue. The neocons' 'godfather,' Irving Kristol, reports that Strauss had the 'greatest impact' on his conservative thinking. Strauss believed there was 'inherent conflict between philosophic truth and the political order.' Consequently the 'great philosophers prior to the Age of Reason ... took the greatest care in their writing so as not, as the British would say, to "frighten the horses."' (Neoconservatism, p. 8) And so, neocons hide the truth from 'the horses' and feel entirely justified in their deceptions."
The principle of neocon deceit is
clearly laid out here:
"Mr. Strauss ... was from a different Planet. A German-Jewish émigré who had been a student of medieval Jewish and Arabic philosophy, he was the quintessential philosopher. ... His students—those happy few who sat at his feet—became 'Straussians'. These students of Leo Strauss, in turn, have produced another generation of political theorists, [the neocons] many of whom have relocated to Washington, D.C.|
"Clearly Mr. Strauss thought we was smarter than almost everyone except the 'greats,' as Kristol calls them. He was very, very neo. But Strauss goes beyond condescension, and that's the problem. Not only are the elite who understand each other smarter, but the 'truth' which they know is dangerous for the 'common man.' The 'greats' knew this, and so Kristol tells us:
"'They [the "greats"] took the greatest care in their writing so as not to, as the British would say, 'frighten the horses.'
"Does 'Straussian' Thought Explain Neocon Talk? The 'horses' are, of course, those who Kristol calls 'the common man,' and this time it is not the upper class Brits calling them horses, but Kristol himself. This thinking (Strauss's and Kristol's) explains the neocons arguments as they lead America into the Iraq War. The neocons were sure that their real reasons for wanting war—to strengthen Israel, to control Iraqi oil, to move our troops out of Saudi Arabia—these reasons would 'frighten the horses.' Consequently they 'took the greatest care in their writing' and wrote only of WMD, Saddam's 'connection' to 9/11, and the need to 'export democracy.'
"This is identical to the approach that Strauss believes was taken by the great philosophers of old. Kristol explains: 'One therefore had to study—not read—their texts with a quasi-"talmudic" intensity and care, in order to distinguish between their "esoteric" [true] and "exoteric" [for the horses] views.' The same is true today of everything the neocons write. Their 'true' meaning is hidden, but if you study their writing, you will find their 'true' meaning."
Neoconservatives consider themselves the intellectual elite, with knowledge that is not only above that of the common man, but knowledge that would be dangerous for the common individual to have. That is their hubris.
Since the knowledge they have is a "true" understanding of how things should be in the world, and they ought to be the ones who are determining those things, they always seek positions that enable them to influence government policy. But since the knowledge they have would be dangerous for the common man, they must always promote their policies and actions by means of deception. That is their deceit.
Hubris and Deceit are the character and nature of neoconservatism. Their agenda (in its current manifestation) consists of six elements.
- The forced spread of "democracy."
- Opposition to Islam/terrorism.
- Defense and promotion of Israel.
- Internal "security."
- Though not a main element, they almost always support the UN.
These are the elements of their "exoteric" (visible) views and purposes. But all they do is deceitful, intended to obfuscate and hide their real "esoteric" (hidden) views and intentions. The "exoteric" view is all rhetoric and propaganda intended to deceive the average person, and incite them to demand the very kinds of policies and actions which are the "esoteric" intentions of the neocons.
The Neoconservatives Real Intentions
Since the neoconservatives will never reveal in clear explicit terms what their purpose and intentions are, I will.
The whole objective of the neoconservatives is statism, the creation of a perfect all-powerful state with complete control of the mass of humanity. Even here there is deceit. The real purpose is couched in language that sounds like their only objective is, "justice for all," a society where everyone enjoys the, "blessings of democracy," where everyone is treated fairly, and has "enough." Some neoconservatives may actually believe these things, but the hard-core neoconservatives know the real esoteric purpose is nothing but raw power, power which they intend, as the intellectual elite, to wield. The ultimate objective is the perennial objective of all forms of colletivism and statism, a world-wide totalitarian state, ruled, of course, by the neoconservatives.
A brief look at the five elements of their exoteric agenda reveals their true esoteric agenda hidden in their rhetoric.
Democracy is promoted as though it meant the same thing as, "freedom," or protection of, "individual rights." The neocons know exactly what democracy means—rule by majority, where everyone has a, "vote," and "biggest gang" wins. They promote democracy, not out of any concern for individuals or their rights, but because they know how easily the masses can be manipulated and therefore are sure they can always whip up a majority in support of their agenda.
Opposition to Islam and terrorism is promoted, not because they believe their is any real danger to any of the things they supposedly defend, like the American people, democracy, Western civilization, or peace, (which they themselves are the biggest danger to), but because both are easy to manipulate. Few people understand Islam. It is truly a backward and ignorant ideology incorporating a religion of intense superstition and those dominated by that ideology are kept ignorant and impoverished. The Islamic countries are among the poorest countries in the world. How those countries that barely manage to feed themselves are a danger to the wealthiest and most powerful countries in the world is never explained.
Most of the terrorists in the world today are Islamists, it is true, though they are not the only ones. In recent history, there have been IRA terrorist, Basque terrorists, and even today there are Hindus and non-Islamic African's committing acts of terrorism.
Islam is a degrading retrograde religion, and terrorism is a horrible evil, and there is no one who is for these things except Muslims and terrorists. But who in their right mind believes the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and if the Neocons have their way, Iran, and who knows where else, has or will prevent a single terrorist attack? They haven't and they won't
Defense and promotion of Israel of course is a major excuse for attacking Islamic countries, but neocons' promotion of Israel has nothing to do with their concern for the Jews in Israel, or even with Israel itself. They are simply using Israel for their own propaganda purposes, which happens to be anti-individual American. See "The Anti-Semitism Lie" below."
Militarism, is put over by the neocons in the name of "defending America," against the enemies of peace and democracy," and, "keeping America strong," and, "defending the American way of life," which are all patriotic rhetoric directed at gullible Americans who have no idea why the neocons are all hawks who have no interest in defending Americans, but have a supreme love for military and the defense industry.
Internal Security is the neocon euphemism for domestic control of individuals. This is also put over in the name of "defending America," against the threat of terrorism, or other "man made" disasters, but is, itself, the biggest threat to the privacy, freedom, and property of every American and the source of endless oppressive measures put over in the name of Home Land Security.
If you do not really know what the neoconservatives are all about I strongly suggest you read all of James Bovard's, 2004 article, "The Neocon War on Peace and Freedom." Here are a couple of samples:
"The main problem with Bush's war on terrorism is that he has not attacked enough foreign regimes and not sufficiently trampled the privacy of the American people. Such is the thesis of David Frum, former speechwriter for President Bush, and Richard Perle, currently on the Pentagon's Defense Advisory Board, co-authors of the new book An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror. [Emphasis, mine.]
"According to Frum and Perle, 'Terrorism remains the great evil of our time, and the war against this evil, our generation's great cause.... There is no middle way for Americans; it is victory or holocaust.' The terrorist threat is largely equated with the Muslim threat. Protecting Americans from terrorists requires toppling numerous Arab and Muslim regimes and compelling the reformation of much of Islam: 'We must discredit and defeat the extremist Islamic ideology that justifies and sustains terrorism.'"
The following explains most of today's so-called "foreign policy."
"Frum and Perle ... call for a war to the finish with 'militant Islam' ....
"'When it is in our power and our interest, we should toss dictators aside with no more compunction than a police sharpshooter feels when he downs a hostage-taker.' The authors confidently declare, 'We must destroy regimes implicated in anti-American terrorism.' 'Implicated' presumably includes simply saying nasty things about a government. As long as the United States can find some disgruntled exiles to tell lies about their former government (as happened in the case of some of the Iraqi exiles), then the United States automatically has the right to kill as many foreigners as necessary to topple the regime. As Frum and Perle make stark in their comments on Iraq, even false accusations against a foreign government are sufficient to justify an American invasion."
The Anti-Semitism Lie
Neoconservatism is lies from top to bottom, and their main weapon against anyone who would expose those lies, is more lies about those who would blow the whistle on them.
An example of this tactic of lies is this vile piece by the
"ex-Marxist" Neocon, David Horowitz, "Ron Paul Is A Vicious Anti-Semite and Anti-American and Conservatives Need To Wash Their Hands of Him"
Unfortunately many "conservatives" will believe the lies of this statist, and worse, swallow the bigger lie at the end of the piece, a lie that is destroying America, but ironically reveals the true face of neoconservatism. This is from the piece:
"At the recent CPAC conference Paul's Jew-hating storm-troopers swarmed the Freedom Center's table to vent their spleen against Israel as a Nazi state. Now Paul is making a priority of withdrawing aid for Israel ? the only democracy in the Middle East and the only reliable ally of the United States. Here is an alert from Gary Bauer about the amendment Ron Paul is proposing which may be voted on today."|
"Thursday, February 17, 2011
To: Friends & Supporters
From: Gary L. Bauer
"The U.S. gives billions of dollars a year to foreign countries that hate us and regularly vote against us at the United Nations. But, Israel votes with the U.S. 97% of the time. They are a loyal ally that shares our values. The aid they receive is used to buy military equipment from U.S. companies so the money comes back to us. Ron Paul's proposal makes no sense."
First of all, no American who understands how anti-American the totally leftist United Nations is would invoke anyone's behavior at the UN to justify American support.
This lie keeps being told over and over, "They are a loyal ally that shares our values." Of course I'm not sure whose values are meant by "our values." If it is the neocon's values, Israel probably does share them, but if it is the values of true freedom loving Americans, Israel is a socialist country, hardly American values. And as an ally, though I am opposed to all U.S. military adventurism, when was the last time Israel materially supported any American military action? How many Israely soldiers fought along side Americans in Iraq, in Afghanistan, or anywhere else? In fact, what has Israel ever done for the United States? EVER?! Some ally.
Now I have nothing against Israel. It's their country and if they want socialism, they can have it, and they certainly have every right to defend themselves against any kind of agression. I agree with Ron Paul, however, even if they are an ally, that does not justify impoverishing American Citizens to the tune of $3 billion a year. For making the sentiment clear and proposing an amendment to that end, Ron Paul is called "A Vicious Anti-Semite and Anti-American."
Here's the irony. The neocons have their panties in a wad because they think Israel might be deprived of its annual stipend of $3 billion dollars, but it has nothing to do with a concern for the Jewish people. They couldn't care less about the Jews. What do they care about? "The aid they receive is used to buy military equipment from U.S. companies so the money comes back to us." [Emphasis, mine.]
Who is "us"? It is certainly not the US taxpayer from whom the $3 billion dollars is extorted. None of the money goes to them. It all goes to the arms industry, and to those who profit from them—the stockholders in those companies and those receiving money from their lobbyists. That's who the "us" is, the neocons themselves. The neocons are all liars, but in this case they are not very good ones and one does not need to "study" what they write to know exactly what their crooked game is.
Is It Anti-Semitic?
Is Ron Paul, "anti-Semitic," because he wants to end foreign aid to Israel? It could only be anti-Semitic if Paul's reason for wanting to end that aid was because the people who live in Israel were all Jews. But, of course they aren't all Jews, and that is not Paul's reason at all. He knows the game that is being played, the game
Sybil Edmonds describes this way, as quoted in my
"... our government takes our dollars, gives it to dictator allies, and then asks them to turn around, give that money (minus the personal share for personal wealth) to our military industrial complex corporations. Then, we have those CEOs with $$$$$$$ salaries, and $$$$$$$ to the lobbyists and $$$$$$ to our elected representatives, who then in turn, sanction giving more money, aid, tax payers' dollars, to these dictators; and the cycle repeats, repeats, repeats...well, it's been repeating nonstop for more than half a century."
It's probably a lie anyway. I could find no other source confirming the so-called amendment Ron Paul is supposed to have proposed, and the neocons always lie, but if he did propose such an amendment, it was too narrow.
No U.S. aid should be going to any Middle East country, and any amendment shutting of aid should have included Egypt, Jordan, Palestinians--West Bank/Gaza, Lebanon, Algeria, Bahrain, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. As I explained in "The Egypt Gyp" combined with Israel, aid to these countries costs us over $6 billion a year?
I'm certain Ron Paul is not anti-Semitic, but just as I am, he is opposed to stealing American's money and sending it to some other country, including Israel, and we would oppose it even if Israel were populated entirely by Frenchmen or Spaniards. Only an anti-American not-so-ex Marxist neocon liar, like David Horowitz, could pretend supporting America's defense industry with money stolen from American citizens and funneled through Israel is out of some kind of love for Jews. The only love he has is love for money and power. If you point that out, you are being anti-Semitic, however, since he happens to be Jewish, as does every single neocon on the, "A-list of Neocons," above. Just being opposed to the neocon agenda automatically makes you anti-Semitic, apparently.
—Reginald Firehammer (02/21/11)