At the SpinWatch affiliated site Neocon Europe, David Miller and his research students argue the Jewish Conspiracy theory of recent history.
The hate-word that their website is organised around is Neocon, or Neo-Conservative.
But as the SpinWatchers say out loud ‘Neocon’ is a euphemism for Jew, the two words more or less interchangeable, and the course of the Neoconservative ideology explained wholly in terms of Jewish resentment against the gentile elite. So
‘the movement remains predominantly Jewish in its composition and concerns’ and again ‘it remains largely Jewish in its composition’. Also ‘neoconservatives, such as Elliot Abrams are unabashed proponents of Jewish separatism’.
But what are Jewish ‘concerns’ exactly? The idea that Jews have a distinct set of interests apart from the rest of the population is at the core of the Jewish conspiracy theory. And how did the political idea of neoconservatism in particular get identified as the vehicle of these ‘Jewish concerns’?
The first thing to say is that neoconservatism is by no means as as Jewish as the SpinWatchers say. Ronald Reagan, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Jack Kemp, Francis Fukuyama, William Bennett, Donald Rumsfeld were not Jews, but they were among the most important proponents of neoconservatism in the twentieth century.
Nor, indeed, is neoconservatism as important as the SpinWatchers say. Under the Democrat administrations of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, America has been just as aggressive militarily, drawing on liberal interventionst ideas.
Trying to find the ‘Jewish influence’ behind U.S. foreign policy, ‘NeoCon Europe’ resorts to that old caricature of hidden networks and infiltration:
‘Neocons have long compensated for their narrow ranks by creating networks of institutions and “citizens’ groups” with overlapping memberships’. And ‘Over the years they have also infiltrated several traditional conservative organizations, such as the American Enterprise Institute and National Review which they have come to dominate over time.’
This is a strange idea. A great many Americans are robust patriots, and believers in a confident foreign policy, as they are in the defence of American interests. Why do we need a conspiracy theory to explain the popularity of what is, in the end, the mainstream American outlook?
For the Jew-watching conspiracy theorists at Neo-Con Europe, though, what shaped U.S. foreign policy was not the interests of American imperialism, but a secret cabal of Jews.
‘Resentful of their exclusion from the WASP-dominated elite’ say Neocon Europe, ‘the neocons proceeded to create their own parallel national security establishment’. Further ‘this parallel establishment replaced the traditional foreign policy elite to itself become the new establishment.’
The Jewish conspiracy theorists of Neocon Europe find some support for their ideas in Washington, lately. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s 2007 best-seller The Israel Lobby blames Jewish supporters of Israel for the failures of US foreign policy in the Middle East. At NeoCon Europe, they put it more bluntly: ‘the Neoconservative movement was born as the nexus of the Israel lobby with the Military Industrial Complex at the instigation of Paul Nitze’.
But in the case of America and Israel the dog really does wag the tail, not the other way around. For decades, Israel has been America’s proxy in the Middle East. Now that U.S. middle eastern policy is in ruins, more U.S. leaders are willing to shift the blame onto supporters of Israel in America.
After all, it is not unheard of to blame the Jews when foreign adventures go wrong. In the 1890s the French newspaper L’Intransigent attacked Jewish financiers it said were behind the Panama Canal Company failure. Then later they attacked Captain Dreyfus, accused of selling secrets military secrets to Germany.
The man behind NeoCon Europe David Miller shifts the blame for western policy failure onto a small clique of ideologues, whose outlook he psychologises as Jewish resentment at the WASP establishment.
Why does Miller have a need of this fabulous conspiracy to explain what went wrong with western foreign policy? The answer is that he himself supported western military intervention in the 1990s, and now needs to find a reason why it went so badly wrong.
Back when Bill Clinton was invading Somalia and bombing Bosnia, David Miller denounced those who were ‘totally opposed to armed intervention’.
That was because, like so many on the left, Miller was carried away with the promise of humanitarian imperialism. They invested great hopes in western troops as a force for good. When the wheels came off that policy in the Iraq War of 2003, they looked around for someone to blame – and the blame fell squarely on the Jews that they imagined were running US foreign policy.