Neoconservatives. A word inextricably linked to the current US cabinet. A word used often in today’s newspapers. A word used often when describing said cabinet’s hawkish, ‘democracy-for-export’ thinking when it comes to conducting foreign affairs. But just what does this word describe? Who is behind it? How much influence do they have…and, most importantly, to whom does their allegiance lie?

The Project for the New American Century1 (PNAC hereafter) is one of the most notable neoconservative organs. They set their stall out early.
“American leadership is good both for America and for the world,”
- their homepage states. This statement is one that so obviously encapsulates the actions of the current Bush administration that evidence seems somewhat unnecessary. Yet the second Gulf War is such evidence. As of now, the US occupation of Iraq continues, indefinitely, with little gain for either the people of Iraq or the people of the West to be seen. With the Middle East still in a state of chaos, with 1-2 Coalition soldiers being killed per week and many more injured, with ‘threats’ of Islamic terrorism still rife amongst Western states, the question needs asked – is American leadership ‘good for the world’?

Neoconservative support for the second Gulf War
It is highly dubious whether it is. For the Iraq war was no more a humanitarian intervention than it was an appropriation of oil fields. Both these explanations for such a ostentatious show of strength are lacking - what the thinking was behind the second Gulf War cannot be understood without also understanding the neoconservative atmosphere which has so permeated the Oval Office.

The threat of the second Gulf War can be seen as early as 1998, during the Clinton administration. Israel-friendly neoconservatives, a significant number of whom were Jewish, were amongst those beating the drum for another war in this area, as was reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer on 4 May 2003,
“In 1998, the Project for a New American Century sent an open letter to President Bill Clinton2, urging that he overthrow Hussein; 10 of the signatories now work for Bush. And when Bush spoke in February at the institute (Lynne Cheney, the vice president's wife, is a board member), he said that his team had borrowed 20 of its scholars.” 3
What is notable here is not only that this tightly knit group had a second Gulf War in mind five years ago, but also the ease with which they ingratiated themselves with the Bush cabinet that succeeded Clinton. For such a unrepresentative, unaccountable, unelected group to wield such influence over the foreign affairs of the world’s only superpower raises legitimate doubts over the direction in which American foreign affairs are headed. Toward what is in the interest of the public, both American and international? Or toward what is in the interest of this new intellectual and political aristocracy?

One country that has undoubtedly benefited from the war, is Israel. The US could not have come under threat from Iraq’s weaponry as it stood at the beginning of the war. Israel, however, could. Now US support for Israel is well documented – according to the American – Israeli Co-operative Enterprise, “since 1949, Israel has received more than $90 billion in assistance”4 from the US.
A handsome figure indeed. The support of the Christian Right for the State of Israel is also well publicised, yet an altogether more sinister Zionist presence in US foreign affairs is heralded by the rise of neoconservatism.  This is due to a combination of the highly influential positions held by many leading neoconservatives, and a commitment to Israel and to Zionism which is often as religious and/or ethnic in its nature as it is ideological. Ari Shavit, journalist for Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, writes,
“In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town [Washington DC]: the belief in the war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of the Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals…people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history…who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.”5

Neoconservative support for Israel
In a letter from the PNAC written to President Bush6, it refers to Israel as ‘a liberal democracy under repeated attack by murderers,’ as ‘a free and democratic nation.’ Yet this so-called ‘free and democratic nation’ was created in a most undemocratic way – through an aggressive policy of expansion which has amounted to nothing less than a quest for lebensraum - arguably since the birth of the State in 1948, certainly since the conquest of 1967, and including the invasion of Lebanon.

Says respected academic Noam Chomsky of the Israeli perspective behind the 1967 Conquest,
  “Alongside of the inevitable “security argument,” it was commonly held that it would be wrong, perhaps even racist, to deny the Jews the right to settle in these areas (the West Bank, furthermore, was the heartland of “the historic land of Israel”). There was, however, no reciprocity. Arabs in the occupied territories could not settle in Israel; for example, those who had been expelled from Jaffa in April 1948. Arabs could not buy land in Israel, Dayan explained, “because that would disturb the territorial continuity of the Jewish population” (it would be virtually impossible anyway because of the legal devices that effectively restrict land use to Jews…)”7
Hardly the actions of a ‘free and democratic nation.’ More evidence of oppression on the part of Israel, which the letter goes on to label ‘an island of liberal, democratic principles,’ is given by Chomsky in his description of Israeli actions in north-eastern Sinai, in 1972.
‘After initial expropriations in 1969, military forces commanded by General Ariel Sharon, in January 1972, “drove off some ten thousand farmers and Bedouin, bulldozed or dynamited their houses, pulled down their tents, destroyed their crops and filled in their wells,” to prepare the ground for the establishment of six kibbutzim, nine villages, and the city of Yamit.’8
What was the nature of the concessions given to the Arab inhabitants of Sinai in return for the destruction of their home? They could become members of an underpaid and exploited labour force. The Israelis have made a culture from the denial of human rights to the Palestinians and the Arabs of the surrounding areas, whilst charging anyone who dares to criticise the actions of the State of Israel with ‘anti-Semitism’.
 
I suggest that the Neoconservatives have adopted this same pattern into their thinking – one law for the Gentiles (in this case, the Palestinians) and another for the Jews. Certainly this comes across in the model doublethink of the aforementioned letter. Neoconservative groups like the PNAC are vitriolic in their support for ‘political and economic freedom abroad’9, yet only so long as Israel remains criticism-free. Is the occupation of Iraq (continuing as this is written) political freedom? Does it protect the freedom of the Middle Eastern peoples?

Perhaps…but only if you happen to be Jewish. Many of those who signed the letter itself do happen to be Jewish – among the thirty-four signatures there can be found the names of such prominent Neoconservatives as William Kristol, Ken Adelman, Gary Bauer, Eliot Cohen, Nicholas Eberstadt, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Donald Kagan, Robert Kagan, John Lehman, Tod Lindberg, Joshua Muravchik, Richard Perle, Norman Podhoretz, Stephen P. Rosen, Randy Scheunemann, Gary Schmitt, William Schneider Jr., and Marshall Wittmann. With such a highly disproportionate amount of Jews within this movement – all of whom obviously identify strongly with the State of Israel – should Americans and the world at large not be wary that these intellectuals may not be acting in the interest of what is ‘good both for America and for the world’?

The predominance of ethnically conscious Jews within Neoconservatism
A quick glance at the credentials of these men will provide an idea of the amount of influence wielded amongst them. They are political analysts, commentators, advisors, consultants, speechwriters, Governors, bankers, CEOs, and journalists. Having understood the policies, the personalities and the weight behind Neoconservatism, it is difficult not to see it as the latest manifestation of the phenomenon that Kevin Macdonald calls the “culture of critique.”10 Put briefly, this ‘culture of critique’ is an evolutionary strategy used by ethnically conscious Jews in order to neutralise anti-Semitism, including policies which effectively undermine Western Gentile society, our identity and our traditional structures – such as the family – in order to maintain their own Jewish self-identity in a cryptic or semi-cryptic manner.

Neoconservatism is the latest in a long line of such ‘evolutionary strategies,’ in the past we have seen these present in such anti-Western movements as Marxism and Freudianism. Says Kevin Macdonald of the current crisis in the US,
‘The current situation in the United States is the result of an awesome deployment of Jewish power and influence. One must contemplate the fact that American Jews have managed to maintain unquestioned support for Israel over the last thirty-five years despite Israel’s seizing land and engaging in a brutal occupation of the Palestinians in the occupied territories—an occupation that will most likely end with expulsion or complete subjugation, degradation, and apartheid. During this same period Jewish organisations in America have been a principal force—in my view the main force—for erecting a state dedicated to suppressing ethnic identification among Europeans, for encouraging massive multi-ethnic immigration into the U.S., and for erecting a legal system and cultural ideology that is obsessively sensitive to the complaints and interests of ethnic minorities…’11
This directly correlates with the ambitions, the self-identities and the rise to power of the neoconservatives. Despite the name, the neoconservative movement has its roots on the left of the political spectrum, not the right. Products of the Jewish-American Trotskyist Left of the 1930s and 1940s, it has morphed – via liberalism – into a militaristic and imperialist Right without precedent in the USA. A Right which, nevertheless, refuses to restrict immigration, and supports both a high level of government intervention in the lives of the public and the waging of wars for the benefit of other nations.

The Neoconservative lineage
The forefather of today’s neoconservatives was the German-born Jew, Leo Strauss. Brought up in an orthodox Jewish home, further Jewish identification came to Strauss as a child when refugees from the Russian pogroms passed through his town. An ardent supporter of Zionism from the age of 17, he later became a philosophy professor at the University of Chicago. The ideas of Strauss - that only an ignorant public spoon-fed jingoism and religion could effectively defend liberal democracy (and allow the chosen few to lead them unquestioned) – can be seen to have influenced the neoconservatives today many of whom were taught by the man or his students.

Strauss, an ethnic Jew and refugee from Nazi Germany, looked at the reigning liberalism of mid-century America and saw the Weimar Republic: morally weak, incapable of self-preservation. For Strauss, it was liberalism that was to blame for the collapse of the Republic. Therefore, his ideas largely stemmed from a desire to prevent another upsurge in White Gentile social cohesiveness and the anti-Semitism that would accompany it – ideas, which, as mentioned above, have permeated the modern neoconservative movement. Such is its true nature. These ideas are manifest in the ongoing critique of White Gentile society through seminal neoconservative tomes like The Closing of the American Mind, penned the homosexual Allan Bloom, “an atheist and a Jew.”12

Conclusion: what matters this to White Nationalists?
Above, there has been provided a brief but encompassing introduction to the threat of neoconservatism. With Britain now so firmly entrenched both in the American camp and in the American mindset, this threat cannot be ignored – it affects and damages us at the same time as it affects and damages our White Nationalist comrades, and White gentiles in general, across the ocean.

In the course of their work, neoconservatives have appropriated some of Europe’s greatest thinkers, including Machiavelli and Nietzsche. Yet we must not allow this to fool us, as a movement they are intent on undermining everything of which European traditional society consists – a strong family unit, a hierarchical society coupled with a social and moral obligation to the welfare of the lower orders and a government open and accountable to the people for whom it is responsible.

The long term trend is there to be seen – the gradual decline in representative democracy and White gentile self-identity has been partially facilitated by small, tightly-knit groups of highly intelligent, ethnically conscious Jews. Beginning with the Marxism of the Eastern European Jewish immigrants of the 1940’s, through the rise and fall of Freudianism, the advents of feminism, racial equality and the behind-the-scenes amending of racially-based immigration laws, until the neoconservatism of today – Jewish intellectual groups have concerned themselves with the systematic undermining of our society and culture.

Notes
1. http://www.newamericancentury.com
2. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
3. http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/sunday_review/5778521.htm
4. http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/foreign_aid.html,
5. Ari Shavit, Ha’aretz, April 2003
6. http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter-040302.htm
7. Chomsky, Fateful Triangle: the United States, Israel and the Palestinians. Pluto Press, updated ed., 1999.
8. ibid.
9. http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
10. Macdonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements. Bloomington, IN: 1stBooks Library. (Originally published in 1998 by Praeger, Westport, CT). Kevin Macdonald is Professor of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach, and the author of a trilogy on Judaism as an evolutionary strategy: A People That Shall Dwell Alone (1994), Separation and its Discontents (1998), and The Culture of Critique (1998), all published by Praeger 1994-1998. A revised edition of The Culture of Critique (2002), with an expanded introduction, is available in a quality soft cover edition from www.1stBooks.com  or www.amazon.com
11. Macdonald, Understanding Jewish Influence I: Background Traits for Jewish Activism, http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no2/km-understanding.html
12. ‘Remembering Allan Bloom’