The Birth of the Neocons

Judith Mirville writes:…Actually the neocons that used to write in Commentary started out as American populists of a more enlightened kind opposing the mainstream view of the Jewish university world they stemmed from.

Another hotbed of American neoconservatism was disappointment with the new Negro delinquent culture stemming from the Civil Rights period, the very same disappointment the White majority felt, when many Jewish activists that had fought for Southern Black emancipation while dreaming the spirit of classy jazz would rule American culture at last and prevail over trite Western ballads faced what was to become the gangster rap culture instead. Neoconservatism is a very broad movement to which many dissident and contradictory figures such as Lyndon Larouche (also a former Trotskyite) also belong.

La Rouche is a neocon? I do not know what to make of that.

But the rest is all correct.

In the first part, Judith discusses neoconservatism as a movement against the Leftwing Jewish culture that had sprung up via the universities and Jewish intellectuals. This was what I would call a rightwing Jewish movement of reaction against the Jewish New Left represented by the universities and intellectuals.

But there was more to it than that. The neocons were at core conservative Jews who are appalled by the excesses of the counterculture, which itself was heavily Jewish and often had Jewish leaders. They were like the Jewish parents reacting in disgust against their rebellious Jewish hippie sons and daughters. They were disturbed not just by the Counterculture’s politics but also by what the neocons saw as a basic lack of civilized behavior and work ethic replaced with hedonism, sexual license, all manner of drug-taking and slovenliness. The neocons were outraged by this movement and did not want to be associated with it as Jews, hence their rebellion.

Something else happened: the Six Day War in 1967. This was the turning point in US Jewish culture when US Jews finally all fell in line in support of Israel. Not coincidentally, this is also when the US itself started to massively support Israel, due in part no doubt to powerful Jewish lobbying.

However, the American people also fell into line, as they saw plucky Israel, outpost of Western values, being threatened with another Holocaust by unshaven, uncouth, uncivilized and un-Judeo-Christian Muslim Arab-Nazis. The overwhelmingly Jewish media went wild with propaganda during this war. I remember it. I was 10 years old, and I remember the headlines in Life Magazine. The press played it up like the Second Holocaust of the Jews was soon to be visited on millions of Jews in the Levant.

The second point Judith makes is very important, and there is a seminal essay by Norman Podhoretz, father of John Podhoretz, along these lines, although I do not recall the name of it. Norman was one of the first neocons at Commentary, and John has long been a leading neocon figure. The essay appeared in the early 1960’s in the Jewish press, possibly in Commentary. The topic of the essay is exactly what Judith refers to: the pain and sense of loss felt by Jewish liberals like Norman who had worked so hard for the Liberation of the Blacks only to see their handiwork degenerate into mass crime and chaos.

The article also references Black criminals preying on Jews, often elderly Jews, who remained in the large cities. These older Jews were often the parents of the younger pre-neocons. The piece has a poignant tone. Norman seems to be saying that he is still a good liberal, he still loves Blacks, and he doesn’t want to be racist…but…it’s hard. It’s hard not to be racist considering the wreckage Black criminals and rioters were visiting on the cities and especially the parents of Norman’s generation. Towards the end of the essay, Norman equivocates and wonders whether it was all worth it.

At this time, Norman was still a good Jewish Civil Rights liberal, or at least he comes across that way. He seems to be struggling internally not to be racist…but…it’s hard.

This is one of the seminal essays of the late 20th Century, and if you are interested, you ought to go see if you can dig it up and read it. It is also very well-written; Norman was an eloquent writer. And it’s a bit sad too.

So in reaction to what these Jews saw as Black ingratitude towards Jews for helping them in Civil Rights, the neocon movement sprung up as sort of a counter to the blissful liberal antiracism of the time. The reaction was not so much racist as what I might call Jewish Race Redpill or maybe Jewish Race Realism.

It was these three things: reaction against the Counterculture, reaction against the wreckage of the Civil Rights movement, and a new passionate embrace of the Israeli state, that birthed the pre-neocons in the 1960’s, even though the first actual neocon intellectuals and publications did not appear until the early 1970’s.


Filed under Anti-Racism, Arabs, Blacks, Civil Rights, Conservatism, Culture, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Jews, Left, Liberalism, Middle East, Neoconservatism, Political Science, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sociology, War

7 responses to “The Birth of the Neocons

  1. Lyndon Larouche is by the most rigorous definition of the term a very pure neoconservative, even though a most dissident one to the neocon mainstream : saying he is a lone wolf neocon is not a misnomer as far as I can think. The definition of a neoconservative is somebody coming from the radical left (preferably from Trotskism), and all of a sudden, generally out of disappointment from both the Marxist regimes abroad and the counter-culture at home, turning right, so as to embrace again both America as the best or least bad powerful country to back so as to defend one’s best interests and values, and rediscovering as positive achievements to be conserved and emulated again many aspects of past Western civilization (e.g. Italian Renaissance, Absolutist France, Wilhelmian Germany) classical left-wingers would rather like to consider as forever outdated and counter-progressive to get inspiration from once they have done their historical job.

    Most of the times the interests and values neoconservatism purports to maintain beyond the change of political sides are first and foremost, or ideally Jewish and Zionist in a secular way, but it need not be as such, quite a few anti-Jewish or Jewish-wary intellectuals managed to make the same political turn for the same reason and be part of the same detestable crowd in American universities and elsewhere, and Lyndon Larouche always had his own partisans within Israel proper (especially among certain military men sharing his idea of an Iron dome against USSR and other “evil empires”) as he always had his own idea of what a good Jewish world should be, despite the constant rain of insults from both the mainstream neoconservatives and the late mainstream radical left describing him as a Nazi.

    One thing is sure about him though, he has an authoritarian personality more typical of a cult leader than of a politician, that is quite sufficient to qualify anybody as a fascist, no matter he be pro-Jewish or anti-Jewish or half and half Martini. It is ripe time we cease to categorize people politically first and foremost in the way they relate to the Jewish communities, while disregarding other criteria as secondary, as Hannah Arendt pushed everyone to do in her landmark book The Origins of Totalitarianism, as if the only thing positive about the early twentieth century Western progressive experience had been its Jewish cultural predominance, as if a murderous dictatorship grows totalitarian only the very day it turns against the Jewish milieu having favoured it at its onset, a proposition I just find preposterous.

    Therefore no matter the particular attitude manifested by Larouche towards the Jewish American Princesses and vice-versa, I for one classify Larouche among the neocons, though as a lone wolf among an enemy pack of the very same species. Karl Marx used to dub Antisemitism as the Socialism of churls. The prevalent motto now is as to Socialism of any kind being the Antisemitism of intellectuals.

    Am I an antisemite myself? This begs the other question whether an antisemite is someone who doesn’t like Jews or whom Jews don’t like, in which latter case most Jewish geniuses must have been even greater antisemites. Opposing a Judaeo-centric view of the Universe is by no means antisemitic unless opposing a geo-centric view of the Universe is anti-Christian.

    I am not against the eventuality of taking the Jewish entity as a kind of sociological metric standard to measure others as for measurable phenomena (like an Holocaust, provided they are ready to consider the possibility that the one they suffered from is by no means the only one of its kind in History but rather yet another occurrence of an universal recurrence to try at last to stem as was done more or less with slavery during the American Civil War), like the standard iridium metre ruler deposited in Sèvres near Paris, provided such a standard of measurement is taken for what it is by both Jews and non-Jews, a very arbitrary one at best (and not necessarily the best : the definition of the metre a being one ten millionth of the terrestrial distance between pole and equator broke down lamentably and had to be replaced by a non-straightforward figure of wavelength as it was discovered our planet is not exactly spherical, whereas the English foot is stupendously accurately derived from the division of equator by the number of seconds in a year times fifty twelfths ; as soon as one would ascribe mystical properties to standard metre deposited in Sèvres, as some masons do indeed, you are in the presence of a very troublesome form of mysticism to say the least) that just happened to be convened upon to end with confusion at a certain time, and having no intrinsic intellectual or moral value as such. Let us say I am Jewish-friendly as a friend in whose company one no longer needs a foe.

    • Another William Playfair Web

      LaRouche was very aggressive in Obama being weak on Putin, perhaps so Putin doesn’t prop up Middle Eastern dictator types- like Assad.
      However, that doesn’t make him a neocon so to speak.

  2. Another William Playfair Web

    Well, however it started, it’s here to say. I remember a Breitbart commenter I engaged with a few weeks ago, raving about Black people, and saying Trump will deport them to Africa “day one” (he wasn’t too bright, God bless his soul). He also brought up how George Soros, the Jew, was funding Black Lives Matter “just like he did the Nazis”, I informed him Soros was a Jew, and he said it “wasn’t about religious differences”. He didn’t even know Jewish also had ethnicities! Neo-Conservatism is partly just trivializing Jewish foreign policy influence.
    We often stereotype Trumpkins as hard core WNs. Some are still just Grade-A Neo-Cons with a slight dislike for MexicanTs and Blacks.

  3. Gay State Girl

    One of the most informative posts in a long time. Thanks Lindsay and Judith.

  4. LaRouche isn’t a Neocon in any shape or form, he got constatly attacked by jews and their goy lackeys.

    Larouche understood that Anglo Imperialism came from the jews but he never said explicitly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s