Started By
Message

re: Just learned something new. Per Mark Levin, neocon = Jew.

Posted on 5/15/25 at 9:36 am to
Posted by Harry Boutte
Louisiana
Member since Oct 2024
2106 posts
Posted on 5/15/25 at 9:36 am to
quote:

Well “neocon” has become a term tossed around with as much definition(none)

I think this does a pretty good job of summing it up:

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

LINK
Posted by Loserman
Member since Sep 2007
22973 posts
Posted on 5/15/25 at 9:43 am to
This isn’t new

The Godfather of Neoconservatism was Bill Kristol’s dad, Irving Kristol

Posted by tarzana
TX Hwy 6-- the Brazos River Valley
Member since Sep 2015
29404 posts
Posted on 5/15/25 at 10:16 am to
quote:

Per Mark Levin, neocon = Jew

There's nothing new there. Rush Limbaugh said the exact same thing back over 20 years ago, in the early phase of the Iraq invasion.
Posted by ole man
Baton Rouge
Member since Nov 2007
14940 posts
Posted on 5/15/25 at 10:23 am to
I haven’t since 2020. frick all the msm
Posted by Penrod
Member since Jan 2011
47333 posts
Posted on 5/15/25 at 10:24 am to
quote:

As others have pointed out, this really isn’t true. Sure, some of the more prominent individuals one could label “neocon” may be Jewish, but I think it’s far from the majority.

It might not be a majority, but it very well might. And it is way out of proportion to their share of the population. What’s more, the most influential ones are certainly majority Jewish.
Posted by Powerman
Member since Jan 2004
165416 posts
Posted on 5/15/25 at 11:56 am to
quote:

It's really no different than blacks crying racism whenever someone criticizes them.

Except blacks don't exert the power and influence that Jewish people do in our government, legal system, and news media. They have a presence but not the same level of influence. But wouldn't you know you'd be an antisemitic POS for even pointing that out.
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 4Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram