Writing in the English newspaper "The Independent", Bruce Anderson (March 6, 2009) reaches the conclusion that: "The neocons' desire to universalise US values was not imperialism. It was generosity". He argues in favour of this startling view that many of the Neocons came from families which had come to the USA to seek asylum, and that they believed that introducing these same "values" was a generous act to pass on to others the benefits which they and/or their families had received.

This is the first time that I have encountered this excuse for the evil being done all around the world by the Neocons, and I note that it does nothing to provide any comparable or parallel excuse for their constant allies the Zionists. If we are to suppose that this alliance has come about separately from the birth of Neo-conservatism, then it can also be supposed that these two forces came together by chance when each of them realised that their aims could be achieved more effectively by the close cooperation which we see today.

The Neocons seem to have come into existence through groups of (naive and formerly somewhat left-wing) followers of "Gurus" in a number of academic institutions in the USA; many of these followers were probably already believers in Zionism if they had suffered from anti-Jewish discrimination early in their lives. Zionism was founded as a crude and robust reply to such anti-Jewish attitudes, but it had the fatal flaw of being as racist as those whom it sought to combat. When I use the word "racist" in this sense, I mean any form of discrimination founded on a belief that one group of human beings is intrinsically superior (or inferior) to another. I find any such racist claims and theories equally obnoxious, which is why I condemn anti-Jewish discrimination as severely as I do any argument that an individual Jew is ipso facto superior to (or of greater value than) any other man or woman.

Mr Anderson's argument also fails to explain why the Neocons feel the need to use force to impose their hegemony on others. If it were merely a case of defending themselves from a hostile world, I can understand why they might resort to force; but there were no prior threats from the rest of the world. We can see a parallel between their offensive actions and the Zionist attacks against, and subsequent invasion and occupation of, the Holy Land, since any Jew who so wished has been able freely to go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem and other holy places for hundreds of years. Even under the present Zionist occupation of Palestine, there are said to be more Jews living in the City of New York than in the whole of the Holy Land. This, in my view, shows the hollowness of the claim that a purely "Jewish" state is necessary, particularly when large numbers of those who claim to be "Jews" to take advantage of the Zionist "Alliyah laws" to live in Palestine have no intention whatsoever of practising Judaism.

I realise that I have possibly strayed excessively from the excuses for Neo-conservatism; but, in my defence, I claim that is difficult to find any genuine separation in our time between these two powerful forces of oppression. I also very much doubt whether many of those who have suffered directly (or indirectly, as is the case for most of us) from their actions will ever accept Mr Anderson's argument. It would be interesting to hear from anyone who can believe that generosity is the prime motivation of any single Neocon.

© Copyright 2009 by AxisofLogic.com

This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the original source including a "live link" to the article. Thank you!