Indoctrination

sovtek

If anyone here is surprised why Bush might be re-elected (well besides the possibility of a fixed election) then they would need only check out our "paper of record" to see why.
Apparently it's now "anti-Semitic" to criticize not only Israel but members of the Bush regime who might or might not be Jewish (or belong to the PNAC).

In truth, the people labeled neocons (con is short for "conservative" and neo is short for "Jewish")

simu

That sucks - you have to give them info before you get to read the article. (Yeah, i could make it up but it's still a pain).

sovtek

crap..sorry about that. I must have registered ages ago and the cookie is still on my machine.

dahamsta

I find the NYT pretty balanced on the whole. You get Op/Ed pieces going both ways, often quite violently so as this tit demonstrates. The line you quoted says it all really -- a sloppy, ignorant troll, and nothing more.

adam

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

Originally posted by dahamsta
I find the NYT pretty balanced on the whole. You get Op/Ed pieces going both ways, often quite violently so as this tit demonstrates. The line you quoted says it all really -- a sloppy, ignorant troll, and nothing more.

adam

I find it more balanced than some other major newspapers of course. But this op-ed is completely baseless. Dave doesn't give any examples, quote any direct sources. Me thinks he's probably never read the PNAC's docs or he's pretending he hasn't. Either way, whether its liberally or conservatively leaning it should at least have some standard. Even in an op-ed column.
If you regularly follow www.fair.org your perception of their balance might change a bit.

Zombrex

The anti-Semitic cry has long been used by neo-cons.

It goes back to the conspiracy nuts that believe that there is a collection of Jewish bankers who are conspiring to control the world. That conspiracy theory is hundreds of years old (and racist and silly nonsense)

What the neo-cons have done is associate themselves with this conspiracy (because some neo-cons are Jewish, and a lot of neo-cons support Israel and a lot of people who criticize neo-cons also criticize Israel) so that they can calm that any attack on them is an attack on Jews. They want to believe that the only people who do criticizes conservative, right-wing groups believe that they are really a secret society of Jews plotting to take over the world (and of course as small percentage of nutters actually do). It makes it easier to defend their position by dismissing every criticism as being racially motivated and coming from anti-semetic groups.

Effectively they are playing the O.J Simpson race card … any attack on me is racially motivated so you must ignore everything bad said about me

The Corinthian

This interesting little article given some good background in the origins of the neoconservitive movement, which ironically was born of left wing, in some cases Trotskyite, roots.

Originally posted by Wicknight
It goes back to the conspiracy nuts that believe that there is a collection of Jewish bankers who are conspiring to control the world. That conspiracy theory is hundreds of years old (and racist and silly nonsense)

Is it racist and silly nonsense? To begin with it’s one thing to say that a group of individuals of a racial or ethnic background are involved in an organized conspiracy, it’s another thing to say that the anyone of that racial or ethnic background is involved in an organized conspiracy; after all, just because the Mafia is run by Italians, does not imply that all Italians are Mafiosi.

Of course, even suggesting that there may be even a hint of a grain of truth in the good old international Zionist conspiracy theory would almost certainly damn me with the usual suspects...

Zombrex

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Is it racist and silly nonsense?

It is racist (or if one doesn't think Jews are a race, anti-semitic) to believe that because a lot of neo-cons are Jewish or support Israel, that there must be something about being Jewish that makes one inheritantly predisposed to this kind of thinking.

The old conspiracies are clear anti-semitic propaganda, mainly because they keep referring to the group of banks trying to take over the world as "Jewish", which implies that their religion is effecting their behaviour, and that the religion is to blame.

It would be similar to saying the Catholics are violent because the IRA are predominantly Catholic. There is nothing inheritantly violent about being Catholic, even though a lot of violent people are catholic. Likewise about Islam, or any other religion.

Likewise it is similar to the US media's tendency to always refer to a criminal as "black" if he is African-American, but never say "a white man has been arrested" .. it re-enforces a stereo-type that the fact that the man was black had a bearing on the crime.

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Of course, even suggesting that there may be even a hint of a grain of truth in the good old international Zionist conspiracy theory would almost certainly damn me with the usual suspects...

Well suggesting there is a "grain of truth" is pretty much saying that it is true, so I wouldn't be surprised if people are offended by that. You either believe it or you don't

I don't really follow the point your diplomatic friend was trying to make. The right (and left) have always courted the "Jewish vote" in the States. It is not some secret or conspiricy that the right wing support Israel, in the same way it is no surprise that the US historically has supported Ireland.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wicknight
It is racist (or if one doesn't think Jews are a race, anti-semitic) to believe that because a lot of neo-cons are Jewish or support Israel, that there must be something about being Jewish that makes one inheritantly predisposed to this kind of thinking.

Not necessarily. You yourself said just because a subset of a group behaves in a certain manner does not mean that this behaviour defines the group as a whole.

Well suggesting there is a "grain of truth" is pretty much saying that it is true, so I wouldn't be surprised if people are offended by that. You either believe it or you don't

Again not necessarily - for example, many myths are based on grains of truth, but often completely exaggerated beyond their original reality. One could envisage your example prejudice that all Catholics are violent being based upon a violent fringe group of Catholics. It’s not black and white - if things were very little would be true in the World.

I don't really follow the point your diplomatic friend was trying to make. The right (and left) have always courted the "Jewish vote" in the States. It is not some secret or conspiricy that the right wing support Israel, in the same way it is no surprise that the US historically has supported Ireland.

Given that many of the leading neoconservatives have been intimately involved with the state of Israel, in some cases even being involved in Israeli politics (most notably with the Likud party in the case of Richard Perle) it is a valid question to ask whether they have divided loyalties.

If so, at best they would be unable to advise on US policy without bias, at worst they may favour any US policy that would benefit Israeli over US interests.

So while I can’t speak for my friend’s opinion, I would pose the question (although, to be fair, the final outcome is still undecided) of who’s interests were better served by US policy in the last two years?

Quite an uncomfortable question, I think you’ll agree. And no doubt politically incorrect.

Zombrex

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Not necessarily. You yourself said just because a subset of a group behaves in a certain manner does not mean that this behaviour defines the group as a whole.

That is my point .. because a subset of Jews behave a certain way doesn't mean that their actions reflect on the rest of the community, or that being "Jewish" means one must and can only, behave in a certain manner.

Originally posted by The Corinthian

Again not necessarily - for example, many myths are based on grains of truth, but often completely exaggerated beyond their original reality. One could envisage your example prejudice that all Catholics are violent being based upon a violent fringe group of Catholics. It’s not black and white - if things were very little would be true in the World.

But the assumption (catholics are violent), that is derived from the initial observations (that man is being violent .. he is catholic), is not true. If the “grain of truth” is the initial observation that some Neo-Cons are Jewish, then that is fine and correct, but it is not something that can support the final assumption that Jewish people are Neo-Cons or that all Neo-Cons are Jewish or that being Jewish leads to being a neo-con.

Originally posted by The Corinthian

Given that many of the leading neoconservatives have been intimately involved with the state of Israel, in some cases even being involved in Israeli politics (most notably with the Likud party in the case of Richard Perle) it is a valid question to ask whether they have divided loyalties.

It is. I believe that the US's unwavering support for Israel is very damaging for US foreign policy and international reputation. But the point is that this is not something to do with being Jewish. If a neo-con is critisied for supporting Israel that is fine. But if he is critisied for being Jewish, with the assumption being that he must support Israel, above the US, then that is wrong. Or if Judaism is critisied because of the actions of neo-cons, or even Israel, then that is wrong also.

When your diplomat friend says the vast majority of neo-cons are Jewish, he seems to be impling that because they are Jewish, then we would question their motives and their loyalties. It is the implied stereotype that I find objectional.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wicknight
When your diplomat friend says the vast majority of neo-cons are Jewish, he seems to be impling that because they are Jewish, then we would question their motives and their loyalties. It is the implied stereotype that I find objectional.

If the vast majority of neo-cons were of Irish origins and apparently promoted pro-Irish republican policies would the same observation be seen as objectionable? Somehow it doesn’t seem to be quite the same taboo, does it?

Victor

Damn. I thought they were all protestant fundamentalist freemasons.

That can be read with or without a smiley

Zombrex

Originally posted by The Corinthian
If the vast majority of neo-cons were of Irish origins and apparently promoted pro-Irish republican policies would the same observation be seen as objectionable?

It is not the observation that is objectionable, it is assumption behind it. And yes it would be just as objectionable, to me

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wicknight
It is not the observation that is objectionable, it is assumption behind it. And yes it would be just as objectionable, to me

The assumption is objectionable? I take it from you that such a line of logic is taboo then?

Be still my bleeding heart... :rolleyes:

If the vast majority of neo-cons were of Irish origins and apparently promoted pro-Irish republican policies then it would be suspect - It might not be conclusive, but it would certainly raise pertinent questions. Now, while this mightn’t fit into a politically correct interpretation of the universe, but would one of reason and common sense.

Zombrex

Originally posted by The Corinthian
The assumption is objectionable? I take it from you that such a line of logic is taboo then?

..then it would be suspect..

It might not be conclusive, but it would certainly raise pertinent questions.

Suspect of what exactly? Questions about what exactly?

That being Jewish makes you predispossed to being a neo-con? That the religion itself directs people into these roles?

The line of logic is objectional if you trace an individuals actions back to their religion and then blame the religion for the persons actions. It is especially "taboo" if anyone else in the religion is then treated differently because of the assumption or stereotype.

What part of that do you find too PC? And please show me where common sense entered into your friends point (actually what was your friends point?)

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wicknight
That being Jewish makes you predispossed to being a neo-con? That the religion itself directs people into these roles?

Who said that, or even implied it?

The line of logic is objectional if you trace an individuals actions back to their religion and then blame the religion for the persons actions.

If an individual is a representative of one State and peruses a policy on behalf of that State that benefits a foreign that would be related to that individual State, in preference to the Sate that is represented by the individual, either by faith, citizenship or race than it is appropriate to question the actions of that representative of one State.

Were I, being half Italian, to be elected to office in Ireland and then pursued policies that were not in the best interests of Ireland, but benefited Italy, then people would have every right to question my allegiance. The same can be said for conflicts of interest between Church and State, given that many politicians have been devout Catholics.

Of course, that is not to say that such a conflict of interest will invariably occur, but to rule such a factor out of order because it makes you uncomfortable to consider it really is irrational and symptomatic of an idiotic moral fashion rather than logic.

Zombrex

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Who said that, or even implied it?

Then what is the purpose of saying a lot of neo-cons are "Jewish". What is the purpose of mentioning the religion if not to imply that the religion is a factor in behaviour?

Originally posted by The Corinthian
If an individual is a representative of one State and peruses a policy on behalf of that State that benefits a foreign that would be related to that individual State, in preference to the Sate that is represented by the individual, either by faith, citizenship or race than it is appropriate to question the actions of that representative of one State.

Yes it is of that individual... but it is not appropriate to then question the actions of others who belong to the same religion because of the observation of this one individual. It is perfectly fine to question the loyalty of an individual based on their actions, but not fine to question them based on their religion and an assumption there after of how they will act because of their religion.

If your friend had said we should question the loyality of this particualar neo-con because he signed a bill that helped Israel at the cost of American jobs then I would listen to that. If he said we should question the loyalty of this group of neo-cons because they all supported the bill that is fine as well. But it is the wide generalisation and stereotyping of a group of people I find offensive. Your diplomat friend is basically saying we should question the loyalty of Jewish neo-cons because they are Jewish.

Originally posted by The Corinthian

Were I, being half Italian, to be elected to office in Ireland and then pursued policies that were not in the best interests of Ireland, but benefited Italy, then people would have every right to question my allegiance.

Yes, but again it would not be then right to question the allegiance of "Italians" or to assume that other Italians will have a similar conflict of interest.

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Of course, that is not to say that such a conflict of interest will invariably occur, but to rule such a factor out of order because it makes you uncomfortable to consider it really is irrational and symptomatic of an idiotic moral fashion rather than logic.

I would ask though why would you rule it "in." Until an individual has show by his actions that he has a conflict of interest, to question his loyalty because you assume he could have a conflict of interest because of his religion, is in my view objectional. There is no logic behind this argument, only assumptions based on stereotypes.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wicknight
Then what is the purpose of saying a lot of neo-cons are "Jewish". What is the purpose of mentioning the religion if not to imply that the religion is a factor in behaviour?

I explained that above.

Yes it is of that individual... but it is not appropriate to then question the actions of others who belong to the same religion because of the observation of this one individual.

There was no individual making observations in my statement. Read over it again.

It is perfectly fine to question the loyalty of an individual based on their actions, but not fine to question them based on their religion and an assumption there after of how they will act because of their religion.

Frankly no one has implied otherwise. The only observations that have been made have been in light of the actions of individuals.

Your diplomat friend is basically saying we should question the loyalty of Jewish neo-cons because they are Jewish.

No he’s not. Just because I didn’t recount the entire conversation in my post (neither shall I) or because you can’t extrapolate your own conclusions based upon what I am saying, that’s not my problem.

Yes, but again it would not be then right to question the allegiance of "Italians" or to assume that other Italians will have a similar conflict of interest.

I would hope not. But I’ve repeatedly stated that such questions should be asked based upon the actions of individuals.

I would ask though why would you rule it "in." Until an individual has show by his actions that he has a conflict of interest, to question his loyalty because you assume he could have a conflict of interest because of his religion, is in my view objectional. There is no logic behind this argument, only assumptions based on stereotypes.

Again you’re the only one in this discussion saying that - stop jumping to all the wrong conclusions. You really do seem more interested in an anti-Semitic witch-hunt.

Having said this a politician with a directorship in a company will often have the potential conflict of interests assumed, without having done anything. I’m certain you would question the loyalty of a bishop were he elected to office, before he’d have done anything.

So why not with other potential conflicts of interest, other than one being too ideologically squeamish to do so?

Zombrex

*sigh*

I am only responding to what you have said you diplomat friend said -

His Observations -

1) The "leading" Neo-Cons are Jewish
2) They "all" support Israel

His Assumption -

We should question the loyalty of this group. Why exactly, you have never expanded upon.

All this might lead one to ask who’s foreign policy are the Neocons serving?

Not of any particular individuals, not of a set of particular individuals, but of this group, the group Jewish Neo-Cons.

The implication of your friends statements, unless you can explain otherwise, is that being a Jewish neo-con calls into doubt ones loyalty to the US, no matter what the actual individuals actions are.

That line of thinking creates a set of people where there is a question as to their loyalty. To be place inside the set, one does not need to do anything, they only need to be Jewish. That is the problem I have

If that is not what your friend meant, then I can only go on what you say he said.

Zombrex

Originally posted by The Corinthian
But I’ve repeatedly stated that such questions should be asked based upon the actions of individuals.

the leading Neocons are almost all Jews

All this might lead one to ask who’s foreign policy are the Neocons serving

I see no individuals there and especially no actions.

All i see is a big fat assumption that applies to a large group based on that fact they are Jewish (being Jewish isn't an action).

What specific individuals did you friend refer to?

What actions did they commit to make one question their loyalty?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wicknight
His Assumption

Your assumption, not his. I recounted an anecdote, and an incomplete one at that, in another thread that served to underline a point of mine. Feel free to debate with me rather that trying to start a witch-hunt based upon incomplete hearsay.

We should question the loyalty of this group. Why exactly, you have never expanded upon.

I have. Repeatedly. You even quoted it, although you didn’t understand it (note my response to you in my last post).

The implication of your friends statements, unless you can explain otherwise, is that being a Jewish neo-con calls into doubt ones loyalty to the US, no matter what the actual individuals actions are.

Isn’t a policy of being pro-Israel an action? Isn’t lobbying for a foreign State while holding office potentially a conflict of interests?

I don’t think you could accept that. You appear too indoctrinated.

Zombrex

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Your assumption, not his. I recounted an anecdote, and an incomplete one at that, in another thread that served to underline a point of mine. Feel free to debate with me rather that trying to start a witch-hunt based upon incomplete hearsay.

Oh please!!

I am so sick of the back track with "anecdote" one gets on Boards.ie ... oh it was just a story, there was no point behind it, oldest trick in the book

Your anecdote make the point we should question the motives of neo-cons if they are Jewish quite clearly (if that wasn't the point, then if had no point). Now you are saying I am assuming that is what he meant. Please! Have you actually read your own post? Do you think it was just a coincidence that people immediately found the post offensive?

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I have. Repeatedly. You even quoted it, although you didn’t understand it (note my response to you in my last post).

No you haven't ... you eventually said that if an individual takes an action that benefits a group at the expense of the group the individual has supposed to represent, then the loyalty of that individual should be questioned. Which is exactly what I said originally!!!! Individuals TC individuals!!!

Long before that you were discussing groups of people (Jewish Neo-cons, Irish-Italians etc) not individuals, and you were defending the "grain of truth" behind the assumptions that these groups were acting in a common fashion, based on nothing more than the characteristic of the groups (ie They are Jewish->They will put Israel above the US).

You can actually see the backtracking TC from talking about groups to individuals.

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Isn’t a policy of being pro-Israel an action? Isn’t lobbying for a foreign State while holding office potentially a conflict of interests?

Again you have very obviously jumped from talking about groups to talking about individuals. A pro-Israel politician who holds a specific position of power is not the same as "Jewish Neo-cons." And even they why do you question his loyalty, when the individual hasn't done anything other than be pro-Israel.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wicknight
I am so sick of the back track with "anecdote" one gets on Boards.ie ... oh it was just a story, there was no point behind it, oldest trick in the book

Diddums. Stop ranting.

Your anecdote make the point we should question the motives of neo-cons if they are Jewish quite clearly (if that wasn't the point, then if had no point). Now you are saying I am assuming that is what he meant. Please! Have you actually read your own post?

Certainly there is a potential conflict of interests, as there would be with a director of a Telecom becoming minister for Enterprise. You would ignore a potential conflict of interests because it’s politically incorrect then?

Lets put it this way; Just because a neo-con is Jewish does not mean that they will favour Israel over the US when promoting policy. However, If they do, it probably is because they are Jewish.

Do you think it was just a coincidence that people immediately found the post offensive?

Someone who most would consider a right-wing crank found it offensive. As would a left-wing crank apparently... I’m not overly bothered by either.

No you haven't ... you eventually said that if an individual takes an action that benefits a group at the expense of the group the individual has supposed to represent, then the loyalty of that individual should be questioned. Which is exactly what I said originally!!!! Individuals TC individuals!!!

First you say I didn’t explain, now that I’m changing my tune :rolleyes:

From my first post in this thread I’ve remained pretty consistent, TBH. As for the previous thread, I suggest you read it in its entirety. If you need further explanation I’ll draw pictures for you.

Long before that you were discussing groups of people (Jewish Neo-cons, Irish-Italians etc) not individuals, and you were defending the "grain of truth" behind the assumptions that these groups were acting in a common fashion, based on nothing more than the characteristic of the groups (ie They are Jewish->They will put Israel above the US).

Yes, there is a potential for a conflict of interests. That’s just common sense.

A pro-Israel politician who holds a specific position of power is not the same as "Jewish Neo-cons." And even they why do you question his loyalty, when the individual hasn't done anything other than be pro-Israel.

Because, as I’ve said before, their policies have been detrimental to the US, but beneficial to Israel and it is unethical for a politician of one State to serve another.

Should a State’s foreign policy be guided by what is best for it or what is best for another State? Especially as one direction may not be in the interests of the principle State.

It is inappropriate for any politician to serve two masters - regardless of whether this is as a result of race, nationality, religion or financial interests.

Zombrex

Just because a neo-con is Jewish does not mean that they will favour Israel over the US when promoting policy.

I whole heartly agree ... how can you not see that what is suggested by your anecdote and your other posts is the exact oppisite of that position.

You are saying that just because they are Jewish doesn't mean that they will favour Israel, but because they are Jewish they will probably favour Israel. Your entire set of posts are a contradiction.

First you say I didn’t explain, now that I’m changing my tune

You didn't explain the reasoning behind your first few points and then changed what you were talking about and begain arguing a different position, that of individuals who have already been shown to be disloyal.. I couldn't be bothered trying to argue with someone who changes their own goal posts.

*sigh* ... I should put a post-it on my computer, "never bother replying to TC".

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wicknight
I whole heartly agree ... how can you not see that what is suggested by your anecdote and your other posts is the exact oppisite of that position.
Hello? Potential conflict of interests argument? Pay attention?

You are saying that just because they are Jewish doesn't mean that they will favour Israel, but because they are Jewish they will probably favour Israel. Your entire set of posts are a contradiction.

No, I said just because they are Jewish doesn't mean that they will favour Israel, but because they are Jewish they are more likely to favour Israel. Like saying that a devout Catholic won’t necessarily act in the Church’s (and by extension the Vatican’s) interest, but they’re more likely to do so. The potential conflict of interests argument - are you ignoring it on purpose?

You didn't explain the reasoning behind your first few points and then changed what you were talking about and begain arguing a different position, that of individuals who have already been shown to be disloyal.. I couldn't be bothered trying to argue with someone who changes their own goal posts.

I’ve not, I’ve just repeated myself ad nausium at this stage. You still seem not to understand or want to understand.

*sigh* ... I should put a post-it on my computer, "never bother replying to TC".

Then don’t. Save me the bother of drawing you diagrams to explain something in future.

Victor

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I’m certain you would question the loyalty of a bishop were he elected to office, before he’d have done anything.

Of course, clergy, soldiers and convicts can't be elected in this country. Unfortunately criminals can and have been.

Originally posted by Wicknight
His Observations -
1) The "leading" Neo-Cons are Jewish
2) They "all" support Israel
We should question the loyalty of this group.

I posted a thread about a month ago wondering if Iraq was invaded at the behest of Israel and it's policy of "defensive depth". At the time, I understood the highest ranking Jewish member of the neocons / Bush administration was the then resigned press officer Ari Fleisher. The first time I realised there may be a substantial number of Jewish members of those groups was this thread. However, I was still able to make a connection between Israel and the neocons and the "perpetual war" they both seem to embrace. And while one shouldn't condemn and entire country, race or religious or other group for one person’s actions, those actions do taint those immediately surrounding that one person, especially when a consistent pattern of behaviour emerges.

sovtek

"For what its [sic] worth, that neo being short for Jewish was meant as a joke. Nothing more. Most of the people who get labeled as Neocons are Jewish, so I was just sort of playing off that.

As for me accusing anybody who accuses neocons of being anti-Semitic, there are a few issues here. First, I wasn’t saying anything about people who criticize neocons’ ideas. The column wasn’t about that at all. It was about people who imagine there is a shadowy conspiracy behind Bush policy. Second, I explicitly say that only a subset of the people who talk about the shadow conspiracy find Jewishness a handy explanation for everything. I have no idea how large a subset that is, but judging from my e-mail it is out there.

So I was careful not to say that Bush or neocon critics are anti-Semitic. I was careful not to say that all conspiracy theorists are anti-Semitic.

I am still on the learning curve here, and I do realize that mixture of a crack with a serious accusation was incredibly stupid on my part. Please do pass along to readers that I’m aware of how foolish I was to write the column in the way I did."