Posted on 09/30/2005 10:00:18 PM PDT by churchillbuff
It is getting very convoluted. Let me simplify it - neo-cons are fake conservatives who are dangerous radicals. The fact that some of them are Jewish does not give them immunity from criticism.
"neocon" IS NOT A CODEWORD! It is a name for a real political movement coined by the neo-"conservatives" themselves. Do not use such ridiculous red herring tactics.
You're just tring to smear Buchanan as an antisemite. HE didn't coin the word "neocon" and he doesn't use it any differently than the people who did coin it - John Podhoretz and Irving Kristol -- use it. It means ex-Democrats and ex-Troskyites who became Republicans. Many if not most happen to be Jewish, but not all. The point about the neocons is that they aren't conservative. At best, they're "big government conservatives," as Fred Barnes puts it. That's why they're ok with Bush's massive spending - and the higher taxes that will ultimately result (or at least the preemption of any further tax cuts). The neocons are folks who joined the GOP but didn't leave behind their old liberalism. Your smear of Buchanan for using a term that the neocons themselves invented, reminds me of Jesse Jackson smearing anyone who disagrees with him (including Bush) as a "racist."
You're just tring to smear Buchanan as an antisemite. HE didn't coin the word "neocon" and he doesn't use it any differently than the people who did coin it - John Podhoretz and Irving Kristol -- use it. It means ex-Democrats and ex-Troskyites who became Republicans. Many if not most happen to be Jewish, but not all. The point about the neocons is that they aren't conservative. At best, they're "big government conservatives," as Fred Barnes puts it. That's why they're ok with Bush's massive spending - and the higher taxes that will ultimately result (or at least the preemption of any further tax cuts). The neocons are folks who joined the GOP but didn't leave behind their old liberalism. Your smear of Buchanan for using a term that the neocons themselves invented, reminds me of Jesse Jackson smearing anyone who disagrees with him (including Bush) as a "racist."
I've never read of this man (Christopher Hitchens) or who he is but he sure isn't a conservative. He's a communist through and through and dangerous to our country.
Then you must be a troll because Hitchens has attended
Free Republic events.
He is one of the best spokesmen for the cause of freedom
in Iraq and has recently debated British MP and Marxist
Galloway in NYC shown on c-span. You can go to the site
and see a video of the debate.
Hitchens has also written a book on Clinton and his lies.
We may bot agree with all his views but he has spoken
up for America when others including some paleo cons
have ripped our President.
Pat Embraces Socialist Anti-Semite Fringe Candidate Fulani
It's hard to imagine that Pat has much in common with a black socialist woman who described her former party, the National Alliance Party or NAP, as "black-led, women-led, multiracial," and " pro-gay". But in fact Buchanan has allied himself with Lenora Fulani, 2 time fringe party candidate for president, who is now running for the Reform Party's New York Governor slot. Pat even made a special trip to New York city to ask for the support of Fulani, and her even odder strategist, Fred Newman.
In 1998 and 1992, Fulani's campaign and the NAP was often dismissed as a silly parody of liberalism designed primarily to qualify for and scoop up federal campaign funding. In fact, she got nearly $3 million in public money despite getting less than one percent of the vote. She actually received more federal matching funds than either Jerry Brown or Paul Tsongas, despite receiving just 200,000 votes in 1992. But there were scarier overtones as well, and the NAP was often described as cult-like.
Fulani describes her former NAP co-leader, Fred Newman -- whose support Buchanan also sought -- as her "theoretician and tactician." Newman first started a radical psychotherapy collective in New York in the late 1960s, then formed the International Workers Party in 1974 after splitting off from an alliance with Lyndon Larouche, the convicted felon who is clearly a political cult leader. The IWP adapted Leninist cadres and Soviet psychiatric treatments to further a "workers' revolution" in part by handing out, in their own words, "the most obscene brochures and pamphlets in the whole city -- filthy -- incredibly offensive."
In the late 1970s, Newman reformed his group as the National Alliance Party wiht an aim of winning elections, and discovered Fulani. He later boasted "I organized her. She is one of my life's proudest accomplishments." As the NAP broadly appealed to extreme liberals, ex-members say that the IWP continued to exist, using Soviet-style secret cells and hoarding guns. An FBI report from March 1988 says that "members of the New Alliance Party should be considered armed and dangerous as they are known to possess weapons."
After Fulani's two national campaigns, the NAP disbanded amid an FEC investigation of embezzling federal funds. (The notoriously toothless FEC basically accepted any receipts produced by the group, and dismissed most of the charges.) Since then, the two have worked diligently to build power inside the Reform Party.
Fulani and her party have long supported Louis Farrakhan, the very controversial racist and anti-Semitic demagogue who has run the National of Islam for many years, and supported anti-Israeli terrorists. Newman publicly described Jews as "dirty", "self-righteous dehumanizers" and the "stormtroopers of decadent capitalism against people of color the world over."
And therein lies the connection. Though they disagree on just about every single other issue, Fulani and Buchanan share two things; anti-Semitism and a willingness to use any ideology or argument to further their own political goals.
But Buchanan may have met his match in clever demagogues. The Fulani-Newman group -- now operating through a shrouded, unincorporated group called CUIP (the Committee for a Unified Independent Party) -- is a major force in the Reform Party today. According to the New Republic magazine, the Fulani-Newman faction now control as many Reform Party delegates as Ross Perot or Jesse Ventura, in part through clever use of a little known method of proxy voting in New York state.
And after the successful meeting between Buchanan, his sister Bay and wife Shelley, Fulani and Fred Newman, Newman bragged that "This was really a culmination of what we had been doing all along." Which appears to be quietly infiltrating and controlling larger and larger political groups. Lenora Fulani is now Pat Buchanan's campaign co-chairman.
From one of the best conservative sites
The Old Right/New Left/Neo-Nazi Alliance
By Steven Zak
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 12, 2005
How much difference is there, really, between the far-Left, the far-Right, and overt white supremacists? How do the public stances of Michael Moore, Pat Buchanan, and David Duke compare? Proponents of both extreme views now think and sound so much alike, they sound like soulmates. Somehow these fringe characters have moved so far around the edges that they have arrived at the same territory, spouting identical positions in copycat rhetoric on such issues as Iraq, the broader War on Terror, and the Jewish state of Israel.
Their own words are the best evidence. Take their view of America's war against terrorists and Islamic fascism. The two camps, if they can even be distinguished as such, are rabidly antiwar in precisely the same, delusional fashion:
“There were no WMD's. There was no connection to 9/11. This war was a malevolent hoax.” - Llewellyn H. (“Lew”) Rockwell Jr. (“libertarian” head of LewRockwell.com)
“There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we've been told.” - Michael Moore (leftist)
“Iraq had not attacked us, did not threaten us, did not want war with us, could not defeat us.” - Pat Buchanan (paleoconservative)
“There is no credible evidence that Iraq poses any real threat to the United States. Dozens of other nations have weapons of mass destruction.” - David Duke
But the extremists’ “pacifist” anti-Americanism just scratches the surface. Dig deeper and you’ll find that, for these fringe members, the current war only provides more proof of the cunning and manipulative nature of the Jewish race:
“It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton.” - Michael Moore
“Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam? Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.” - Pat Buchanan
“So, for whose benefit does America wage this war? The answer is Israel, Israel, Israel!” - David Duke
tp://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=18038
Funny you should mention Galloway. After the debate between the two British Commies, Hitchens told the Guardian that, during Vietnam, he had not been anti-war, but "pro the Vietnamese Revolution," and that he'd take the same position today. Good to learn that the Vietnamese Communist Party was dedicated to freedom. After all, why would Hitchens be endorsing it if it were not?
You must feel very uncomfortable on FreeRepublic as
most like and or respect Hitchens and he has been
to FR activities.
Thanks for the link. I found Mr. Podhoretz's essay quite interesting and provacative....and long. Whew! While some of the material was familiar, his historical analysis is somewhat surprising and revealing. There is much I would quibble with, but most interesting is his condemnation of realists, as personified by Brent Scowcroft and President Bush Sr. I believe conservatives to be realists, so for Mr. Podhoretz to dismiss them as easily and contemptuously as he does I can only conclude that he may be marching to a different drummer.
"There is much I would quibble with, but most interesting is his condemnation of realists, as personified by Brent Scowcroft and President Bush Sr. I believe conservatives to be realists, so for Mr. Podhoretz to dismiss them as easily and contemptuously as he does I can only conclude that he may be marching to a different drummer."
Well, sure.
The condemnation of Scowcroft is really a critique of our decades-long experience of 'dealing' with mideast despots, like Saddam and the Saudis, rather than seeing them for the threat they posed to us via terrorism-sponsorship and Wahhabist-funding.
I don't think it is a 'conservative' thing to coddle dictators for the sake of geopolitics, it may be called 'realism' but we've been burned by that too many times to think its always the right way to go.
You're dead wrong. His running mate was black conservative Christian Ezola Foster. You might be remembering that he (cynically, I'll admit) accepted help from the insane Lenora Fulani, who controls one of NY State's third parties. Thanks to the Orwellian condition of most state's ballot access laws, candidates sometimes cozy up to such fruitcakes. For instance, NY Gov. George Pataki--who ALSO works with Fulani. I can see how you might mistake a black Christian conservative for a Marxist--if you can't tell one black woman from another. Some of us make distinctions.
Hitchens and Bush were RIGHT on Iraq? In what sense are you employing "right"? Do you mean that their assertions and predictions were correct?
That Iraq was in fact building weapons of mass destruction?
That Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda?
That our invasion would be a "cakewalk" and would lead to the democratic transformation of the Middle East?
That our attack would reduce terrorism against Americans?
That the Iraq occupation would "pay for itself" with Iraqi oil revenues?
On how many possible issues could he be wrong? Is there any empirical test one could have set this policy that might prove it wrong? Or are you operating on blind, Orwellian faith in Big W?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.