Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner Get Rabbinic Pass To Ride in Car on Inauguration Shabbat

Know the enemy: Who are the Neocons?


Neoconservatives are pro-bombing, pro-empire Washington policy wonks (almost never with a business or military background) who have filled the vacuum on the Right, where most Americans have little interest in foreign policy and know little about foreign nations. They dominate Republican foreign policy because they care about it, whereas most Americans don't. NATO expansion was an example; most Americans don't think about it and don't care. "Neo-cons" do. If they leave the Republican Party in ruins after the next election, they can easily return to the Democratic Party from whence they came. One editor explains, "Neoconservatives can trace their roots to Trotskyist anti-Stalinism." They are close to the European Social Democrats. They support the welfare state and are seldom heard from in the battles to preserve constitutional freedoms.

Americans, who have lived abroad and know foreign cultures, are rarely "Neocons." Indeed Neoconservatives themselves are notable for their absence of experience in foreign nations (except sometimes England, or, more rarely France), most never lived abroad, don't speak foreign languages, and never served in the military themselves. They provide the brains, while the Military/Industrial/Congressional complex provides the brawn of the WAR PARTY, meaning those who want, or thrive during, wars or preparation for war.

Often allied with neo-cons are other minor players with particular interests. One is the "English Contingent," that is Englishmen who want to see an American World Empire on the mode of England's old imperium. Another are European origin ethnics such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, who have particular nationalist concerns, e.g. wanting to prevent Russia from returning to any imperialist intentions or abilities by having NATO expand to look after Poland and a beneficent American empire. However, he well understands that America becoming the enemy of the Moslem world will curtail American power in the whole Eastern Hemisphere and eventually strengthen Russia. It is already having the effect of weakening American/European ties. Brzezinski wants peace with the Arabs, unlike the Neo-con empire wanters.

A key leader of the neo-cons and with a typical background is Richard Perle. (More Perle and even more on his other conflicts of interest). His WHO'S WHO biography shows a lifetime in government or academic work with foreign study only in England. See AMERICAN PROSPECT for more on Perle. Another, John Bolton, now Assistant Secretary of State, is a Phi Beta Kappa from Yale, but also with no little foreign affairs education until becoming Chief Counsel (a lawyer job) for the Agency for International Development during the Reagan Administration. He is noted for arguing that international law should have no validity because it might constrict U.S. unilateralism abroad. (See link to his name). There has now (update 3/13/03) been a major breakthrough in discussion with Perle questioned on Meet the Press about his loyalties.

FLASH Buchanan Shines Media into Neo-con Swamp 3/03 TOLEDO BLADE Breakthru on Neo-Cons running Bush Administration

Now we also have William Bennett leading a collection of Neo-cons (Americans for Victory over Terrorism) with a full page ad in the NEW YORK TIMES. He is subsidized by pro-Likud fund raiser Lawrence Kadish from Florida.

The "Neo-con" flagship publications are the NEW REPUBLIC, WEEKLY STANDARD (a recent editorial urged that any budget surplus be used to buy more weaponry) and COMMENTARY; but "Neo-cons" equally control the editorial pages of the WALL STREET JOURNAL (it's op-ed distortions and even lies are the worst of all major newspapers at ever printing a non War Party view or arguments of anti-Sharon/Settler Israelis, and NATIONAL REVIEW (although Buckley's columns are less so, he delivered NR into Neo-con War Party hands). The WASHINGTON POST is fair, but its main columnists, especially Will and Krauthamer are solid war/empire promoters The NEW YORK TIMES editorial page is very fair with different opinions. The WASHINGTON TIMES definitely supports empire but does publish a few varied opinions. The CHICAGO TRIBUNE publishes some very fair op-eds. FOREIGN AFFAIRS publishes excellent analyses. To understand the differences, it's worth keeping in mind that New York thrives on and thinks of trade. Washington thinks and thrives from war. "War is the Health of the State" (read Big Government), is the classic proverb of Randolph Bourne.

The Kosovo war weakened the "neocons" past virtual control of conservative publications on foreign policy, but 9/11 was a Godsend for them; now they rule President George Bush. The WASHINGTON TIMES, for example, published many anti-empire views during the Kosovo war, but now has returned to publishing almost only neo-conservative op-eds. It rarely publishes any op-ed reflecting Jewish or Israeli views for compromise and peace in order to make the appearance that all Jews favor the LIKUD and settlements on the West Bank.

In Washington "neocon" views dominate the major networks' Sunday talk shows, but MEET THE PRESS' Tim Rustert is pretty good and balanced. They are specifically represented by Bill Kristol (WEEKLY STANDARD), Paul Wolfowitz, Fred Barnes, Morton Kondracke, Elliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer, Frank Gaffney (former aid to Richard Perle and WASHINGTON TIMES columnist), Robert Kagan (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), columnist Cal Thomas, a dispensationalist, and others. Strong opposition to the Neocon line is presented on CNN by Robert Novak and formerly by Pat Buchanan and all over the INTERNET. Also on NBC by John McLaughlin of the Group, who last 11/15/99 brought attention to the plight of "500,000" dead Iraqi children from the UN/US blockade. You'll never hear "Neocons" express much sympathy for the civilian casualties of their wars. In the print media there is much open resistance to the "neocons" by Paul Craig Roberts, Joseph Sobran, Charley Reece, Don Feder (at least as far as Europe is concerned-not for the Middle East) and others. See Conservatives opposed to bombing. from WASHINGTON TIMES. See also War Wanters Biographies--Few Know Outside World

"Neoconservatives" are mostly former leftists/liberals who converted to conservatism during the '70's and when Ronald Reagan became President. In domestic policy they tend to be moderate "welfare" Republicans. However, their major concern is foreign policy. They strongly favor US military interventions overseas and becoming the world’s policeman. They promoted the First Iraq War and are constantly the instigators for more confrontation with Iraq, Iran, the Sudan, and other Moslem states. They were among the chief instigators of the Kosovo War.

"Neocons" never explain reasons for terrorists' hatred towards America, because that would bring questions about the "costs" of having a world empire. So they "explain" terrorists as just "crazies" who enjoy killing people, just because they oppose freedom and American values. Typical is Washington's neo-con CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, which released a long analysis of terrorism in December. Foreign terrorists are simply described as those who "resent re-eminent U.S. power and/or have disdain for the West."

In the Middle East they support the most intransigent elements in Israel and the Likud Party for occupation and new settlements (a large percentage of the settlers are Americans) on Arab lands. (the "idiotic settlements," Thomas Friedman NY TIMES, 11/24, calls them). Polls show that most Israelis want peace and compromise, but they are undermined by the American Neoconservatives who denouce any compromise peace which would allow the cutting back of American military forces in the Middle East. Among conservatives they are not alone in this position. Key leaders of the "Religious Right" also promote the settlements, some openly arguing that they will help to bring about "Armageddon" and the return of Christ. (See Some Fundamentalists Ache for Armageddon). On the extreme fringe of the religious right are the Dispensationalists (quite long-scroll down to "War in the Heavens").

Neoconservatives are the dominant force over establishment Republicans in Congress (although here again Kosovo weakened them a bit) and in most of the major conservative think tanks. Their main base among think tanks is the AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE (a policy paper in January, 2001, urges American attacks on Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Gaza). Others are the HERITAGE FOUNDATION (see more below--modified after Kosovo), ETHICS AND PUBLIC POLICY CENTER, and BROOKINGS INSTITUTION. Of the large think tanks only the CATO INSTITUTE and LUDWIG VON MISES INSTITUTE actively oppose their positions. The Kosovo disaster caused HERITAGE to pull back from its former strongly interventionist positions, e.g. favoring NATO expansion, but it is now in full battle cry for war with Iraq. "Neo-con" power comes from their knowledge and political credentials in matters of foreign affairs (European, not 3rd World or Asian) and because of their influence over the giant Foundations (Bradley, Olin, Scaife) which provide major funding for pro-interventionist think tanks. Also some gain major financial support from many weapons manufacturers. The NEW YORK TIMES reported recently how such industries were a major factor promoting NATO expansion to East Europe and then paying for the recent NATO anniversary celebrations in Washington. There are billions to be made in outfitting weapons for new NATO members, and they'll want Washington to lend or pay for it, e.g. (update-Jan/03, F-16's for Poland, billions put up by U.S. taxpayers).

The old military industrial complex is now called the MICC, military/industrial/congressional complex. This was particularly evident during the bombing of Serbia when freshmen and sophmore Republican congressmen were mainly in oppostion, while all the old Senate Republican Commmittee Chairmen supported it.

"Neocons" are the brains of the "War Party." They are well-organized, very well-financed, and very focused. Their members know what they want---American Empire, Cold War level military spending, lots of new weapons, and a globalist policing mission that would project American military power deep into Asia and all points in between.

The war on Iraq:
Conceived in Israel

By STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/conc_toc.htm

recimo, Trumpov govor je čisti populizam, ono što svaki amerikanac koji je glasovao za njega želi čuti.. oni koji su protiv njega naravno bore se medijski protiv njega.. ništa drugačije nije ni kod nas, s "malom" razlikom da mi nismo u mogućnosti ni obraniti sami sebe ako dođe do rusko-srpske agresije a kamoli intervenirati protiv aktualnog neprijatelja - islamskog radikalizma.. no.. ima jedna rečenica koja s pravom brine i papu Franju protiv kojeg su vidim već nabrušena pera a ta Trumpova rečenica glasi:

Učvrstit ćemo stare saveze i stvoriti nove i ujediniti civilizirani svijet protiv radikalnog islamskog terorizma, kojeg ćemo izbrisati s lica Zemlje.


što to znači? amerika je stvorila i financirala islamski radikalizam.. znači li to da će sada zavrnuti špine i neće ih više financirati? ako je to, onda to pozdravljam jer će se tako islamski terorizam ugasiti sam od sebe bez financijske potpore.. a ako je sravniti islamske države sa zemljom onda sam duboko u duši protiv toga...