Neo-Conservativism and the Jewish Strategy

Neo-Conservativism and the Jewish Strategy

by William John

The rise of neo-conservativism is characterized by the shift that has occurred in right-wing politics from traditional conservative concerns, such as national identity, patriotism, cultural morality, the Constitution, states-rights, and government non-interference, toward merely economic and military concerns. Neo-conservatives take a neutral position on nearly all of the issues which once characterized the right wing. Neo-conservatism represents the subversion of the Old Right, and the take over of conservatism by former leftists who have retained most of their liberal positions, and who could never feel a genuine patriotism or conservatism. Thus, neo-conservatives are essentially liberals, with slight differences in opinion about economic and military policy. The New Right has surrendered to the Left on almost all issues. Remaining is only an empty, hollowed-out ideology which puts Israel above all else.

Let us examine how "neo-conservatism" came about.

The neo-conservative movement was founded in the 1960s by a group of Jewish, New York-based intellectuals, mostly academics and journalists, many of whom were concerned about the "anti-Israel" drift they detected among the ranks of the New Left and Black leaders who were gaining increasing power in the Democratic Party. Among its modern leaders are William Safire, Abe Rosenthal, Charles Krauthammer, David Horowitz, Jonah Goldberg, William Kristol, and Daniel Pipes. Essentially, neo-cons are a band of Jews who call themselves conservatives, yet remain neutral on most traditionally conservative issues, and focus their political activity and influence mainly on military policy in the Mideast; praising Israel, scolding her enemies, and encouraging American military action against them. And since these Jews lead the modern right wing, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle among them, the American right wing and the country by and large feel the same. The war on terrorism is Wolfowitz's war, it's Perle's war, and thus it is Israel's war.

The Jewish leadership of the New Left movement of the '60s may have wanted to impose its destructive beliefs on American society, but it did not want this leftist sentiment to carry over to Israel, where it would have a negative effect on Jewish interests. Thus, many leftist Jews broke from the leftist mold to form neo-conservatism, an inconsistent ideology which offers no resistance to the Left on issues outside of economic and military policy. Neo-conservatism gives the Left preeminence in all areas of America life, in the educational establishment, in the mass media, in the popular culture, and offers no real opposition to the left on most issues. The main concern of these Jewish neo-conservatives is Israel. Neo-conservativsm has made Israel and the right-wing inextricably bound together, in an artificial manner, for the two have no relation. Their relation is superficial and dependent solely on the Jewish domination of the right-wing, i.e., neo-conservatism.

Most of the major figures in the early neo-conservative movement were former Trotskyites who studied in the '30s and '40s at the then "poor man's Harvard," the City College of New York, a center for socialist activism. A Trotskyite is a Marxist whose political philosophy is based on the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky, a Russian-born NYC Jew, who's real name was Lev Davidovich Bronstein. Among these Trotskyites were Irving Kristol, who in the 1950s launched an anti-Soviet CIA front, the International Congress for Cultural Freedom; Norman Podhoretz, the editor of the American Jewish Committee's monthly magazine Commentary, which he turned into a major neo-conservative outlet; Podhoretz's wife, Midge Decter, the chairperson of the now-defunct Committee on the Free World; sociologists Nathan Glazer and Daniel Bell; and Democratic Party pamphleteer Ben Wattenberg. Other neo-conservative leaders started their political activism as New-Left leaders, such as David Horowitz, who earned a Bachelor's degree from Columbia University in 1959 and a Master's degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1961. During the '60s, Horowitz edited Ramparts magazine, an influential left-wing journal. All of the aforementioned persons are Jews.

It is worth noting that the American Jewish community as a whole has ignored the neo-conservative agenda, continuing to vote for liberal Democratic candidates for local and national offices. The Jewish neo-conservative takeover of the right wing was about corrupting traditional conservatism and bringing it to the left on most major issues, while having it serve Jewish interests with regard to Israel. Jewish involvement in the leadership of neo-conservatism and the modern right wing is not representative of a transformation in the psychology of the Jewish community. No such transformation occurred. Jews have stayed on the far left of politics. The Jewish domination of neo-conservatism represents a Jewish take over of conservatism, not a rise of conversativism in the Jewish community. Of the USA's 300,000,000 people, only 2%, about 6,000,000, are Jews. Of those 6 million Jews only about 10% find themselves on the right wing. Even though there are only approx. 600,000 Jews who consider themselves conservative, not even one million, the vast majority of the neo-conservative leadership is Jewish. This is no coincidence. Such a coincidence would be impossible. It is the result of a concerted effort by Jews to take over the right wing and subvert it, and thus make it subservient to Jewish interests and simultaneously eliminate the potential threat it may have posed to the Jewish agenda. Jewish neo-conservativism is the Trojan horse in conservatism's gates, and it has succeeded in its goals. Conservatism has been destroyed, and what remains is an empty and inconsistent ideology, lead by a clique of arrogant, sniveling, Marxist Jews, with Israel at the top of its agenda.

Let us examine the changes which have taken place in the right wing as a result of Jewish neo-conservatism:

- On moral and cultural issues, neo-conservatism goes along with the Left's agenda. Unlike the Old Right, the New Right is not a defender of traditional American or Western culture, which is based on classical European standards in art, music, literature, etc., but instead collaborates with the Left in promoting multi-culturalism. Nor does neo-conservatism oppose the desecration of Western culture by "modern" leftist standards in art, music, literature, theater, etc. Cultural Marxism faces no opposition from the New Right as it did the Old Right.

- Neo-conservatism abandons the anti-immigration, nativist sentiments of paleo-conservatism, and adheres to the left's multiculturalism, while adding its own blend of individualist and capitalist justification for open borders, and national and cultural dissolution.

- A striking difference between traditional conservatism and Jewish neo-conservatism is on the issue of national sovereignty. Neo-conservatives are unabashedly internationalist, and adhere to the left's ideology of unrestricted international trade, or "free-trade." Neo-conservatives offer no resistance to NATO, the UN (except when the issue of Israel is concerned), the WTO, NAFTA, and other international organizations and agreements.

- Similarly, neo-conservatives abandon all resistance to federal intrusion into areas which traditionally were considered state matters by conservatives, such as education (e.g., Dept. of Education).

- Neo-conservatives drop all opposition to already existing gun restrictions, and take a solely defensive position on the matter, focusing only on the possibility of future threats to the Second Amendment. This gives us insight into the fact that neo-conservatives oppose gun control only in words but not in deed.

There are other, less significant changes that have taken place in the right as a result of Jewish influence, which I will not go into here. One need only compare the New Right to the Old Right to see the effects of Jewish influence.

The New Right in many ways mirrors the New Left of the 60s. Whereas the New Left in the '60s, of Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman, and other Jews, represented a change in left-wing politics from economic, to cultural issues, the New Right of the '80s and '90s, of William Kristol, Jonah Golberg, and other Jews, represents a shift from cultural issues to economic ones. The Left has taken over the American culture over the past half-century, and the Jewish neo-conservative movement has collaborated in destroying all right-wing resistance to the Left's cultural agenda. The salient feature of the Marxist and Leftist movements throughout the past century, and the neo-conservative revolution of the past two decades, is Jewish leadership. Both movements represent the Jewish takeover of politics in America. The militant Marxism of the first half of the 1900s, the left-wing cultural revolution of the '60s, and the systematic subversion of the opposition: conservatism, are just slightly varying aspects of one large Jewish infiltration strategy which has completely taken over this country, and ruined it from the viewpoint of true Americans.

The most important conclusion that can be drawn from all of this is that Jews are neither conservative nor liberal. They are not Americans at all. They do not base their political ideology on what they feel is right for this country. Their sole concern is what's good for the Jews. It is the beginning and the end of their political philosophy. That is why they can so easily shift from Marxism to neo-conservatism. It takes no shift in a deeply held philosophy. It's simply an adaptation to a changing political climate. The Jew need only ask himself which position best serves his people, and adjust his political ideology on that basis. Jews are completely unprincipled and thus adaptable to any political climate. They are Jews first and last. They are never anything but Jews, and never concerned about anything but what furthers Jewish interests.

Any race that allows itself to be ruled by an alien minority is not destined to survive very long. On the contrary, it is destined for extinction. Do we want to be that race? I don't think it is our time yet. I see a long and glorious future for our people if we'd only have the will and courage to claim it. That time is coming. A Final Solution to the Jewish Problem is long overdue. "We have the moral right...to kill this people who would kill us." -- Himmler, October 4, 1943, Posen. Indeed we do, and must, soon, if we are to survive.

WILLIAM JOHN