As columnist Mr. Jonah Goldstein falsely describes how the granddaddy of the Jewish Neocons, Irving Kristol, falsely labels as neocon, "intellectuals" disillusioned by the folly of the Great Society:


Funny, those "intellectual" Jews were the originators, instigators and defenders of the "Great Society".  Oh well, long time ago, so the statute of limitations is up on Mr. Goldstein perjuring himself, right?

But today, commentator Mr. Jonah Goldberg wants to talk about neocons and he lays it out fairly well...

Neocon Jew Eliot Abrams knows the real meaning of Neocon.


Neocon Jew Mr. Jonah Goldberg is here to both defend and as well as object to Ted Cruz using the real term for neocon.

But Mr. Jonah Goldberg does define it fairly:

    Definition of Neocon :

It's just all the other stuff Mr. Jonah Goldberg throws in that discredits him so.

Such as...


Mr Jonah Goldberg has already ascertained the neocons during the Cold War were Jewish "intellectual" liberals, of the communist leaning persuasion, so of course, they did not want to confront their Jewish Commissar cousins running the Soviet Union. 

As for Jewish politician Barry Goldwater, is this not admitting who is the demagogue grandfather of warmongering jewish neocons?

In the next section, Mr. Jonah Goldberg is still calling his fellow Jews "intellectuals" and classically admits that they had a plan before anyone knew there was a need for a plan (humm), and these warmongering Jewish neocons continued warmongering long after everyone else discovered they had been hoodwinked.

And yet Mr. Jonah Goldberg has the audacity to say, "It's not their fault!"  "It's never the fault of poor Jewish warmongering neocons because they are too "intellectual" to know they are WRONG!"


Self-serving BS is what follows.

Jewish neocons are pro-Israel.

Mr. Jonah Goldberg tells us nothing we didn't know here.

But the self-serving part is where the neo-cons propagandasize to Christian conservative all sorts of stupid and illogical religious and political reasons why they need to support Israel, and only Israel, and then Mr. Jonah Goldberg gets to turn around and use that to say, "See, Christian conservatives are pro-Israel too".


Yeh they are pro-Israel...because they don't know the real truth about Judaism and their own Christianity, because America is an atheist anti-theocracy where any free speech is drown in chants of anti-Semitism.

Lastly, Mr. Jonah Goldberg comes to his grand conclusion. Although his fellow Jewish warmongering neocons got us into this mess, STOP BLAMING THEM!

The term ‘neocon’ has run its course In interviews and on the stump, Sen. Ted Cruz likes to attack President Obama, Hillary Clinton and “some of the more aggressive Washington neocons” for their support of regime change in the Middle East. Every time we topple a dictator, Cruz argues, we end up helping terrorists or extremists. He has a point. But what interests me is his use of the word “neocon.” What does he really mean? Some see dark intentions. “He knows that the term in the usual far-left and far-right parlance means warmonger, if not warmongering Jewish advisers, so it is not something he should’ve done,” former George W. Bush advisor Elliott Abrams told National Review. Another former Bush adviser calls the term “a dog whistle.” I think that’s all a bit overblown. Cruz is just trying to criticize his opponent Marco Rubio, who supported regime change in Libya. There’s little daylight between the two presidential contenders on foreign policy, and this gives Cruz an opening for attack. But Abrams is right — and Cruz surely knows — that for many people “neocon” has become code for suspiciously Hebraic super-hawk. It’s an absurd distortion. At first, neocons weren’t particularly associated with foreign policy. They were intellectuals disillusioned by the folly of the Great Society. As Irving Kristol famously put it, a “neoconservative is a liberal who was mugged by reality and wants to press charges.” The Public Interest, the first neoconservative publication, co-edited by Kristol, was a wonkish domestic policy journal. Kristol later argued that neoconservatism was not an ideology but a “persuasion.” William F. Buckley, the avatar of supposedly authentic traditional conservatism, agreed. The neocons, he explained, brought the new language of sociology to an intellectual tradition that had been grounded more in Aristotelian thinking. The neocon belief in democracy promotion grew out of disgust with Richard Nixon’s détente and Jimmy Carter’s fecklessness, but it hardly amounted to knee-jerk interventionism. When Jeane Kirkpatrick articulated a theory of neoconservative foreign policy in Commentary magazine in 1979, she cautioned that it was unwise to demand rapid liberalization in autocratic countries, and that gradual change was a more realistic goal than immediate transformation. During the Cold War, neocons weren’t any more hawkish than anyone else on the right. They were advocating containment of the Soviet Union while National Review conservatives were demanding “rollback” and Barry Goldwater was talking about nuking the Kremlin. Even through the late 1990s, neocons were far from outliers in their belief that the United States should use its military power to support democracies abroad. Many members of both parties held that view. Remember, it was Bill Clinton who in 1998 signed the Iraq Liberation Act calling for regime change. After 9/11, some neoconservative intellectuals had off-the-shelf foreign policy ready for George W. Bush — which, yes, was hawkish in nature, but other Republicans and even Democrats supported their prescriptions, at least at first. As the Iraq War went south, the neocons were the only ones left defending it, and so got all of the blame. The association between neoconservatism and Jews stems partly from the fact that the first neocons were mostly Jewish, partly from the reality that they are all to this day — gentiles included — pro-Israel. That’s not particularly remarkable, though, since neocons want to help America’s democratic allies everywhere and since most Christian conservatives are pro-Israel, too. Today the neocon sociological persuasion is simply part of the conservative mainstream. The idea that self-identified neocons are uniformly more “pro-war” than other conservatives is ludicrous. Granted, neoconservatives contribute to the confusion. They like to claim that the alternative to their approach amounts to “isolationism” — another horribly misused word. Rubio recently leveled that charge at Cruz. Cruz, for his part, says he wants to “carpet-bomb ISIS” until the “sand glows.” There are many criticisms one can level at the position, but isolationist isn’t one of them. Neoconservatism is a product of the Cold War. It’s understandable that neoconservative intellectuals who helped win the Cold War might want to hold onto the label, but it’s time to give it a comfortable retirement in the history books. Meanwhile, the right is having a long overdue, and valuable, argument about how to conduct foreign policy. Keep it going, just leave neoconservatism out of it. (Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor of National Review. You can write to him in care of this newspaper or by e-mail at goldbergcolumn@gmail.com, or via Twitter @JonahNRO.)