13 votes

Is there a "Former Neoconservatives For Ron Paul" group?

If not, why not?

If so, I'd like to direct a neoconservative friend to that group. With his favorite (Santorum) gone, he's become an "anyone but Obama" supporter. However, he is open to an intellectual argument to persuade him to support Paul.

His biggest stumbling block is Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy. I've put forth historical, biblical, and pragmatic arguments, but none are convincing. All that is left is to have former neoconservatives give their own testimonials, especially those who don't even agree with Paul's foreign policy.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

DP article

Posting a few days ago on DP, see it. Spirit of Darkness.


Is he an Israel supporter? Here is one video that may at least get him thinking:


It is by the son of an Israeli General who fought in the wars of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973. In other words he was high up in the councils of power. For anyone who believes the Israeli myths about their history this is an eye opener. All the more since it comes from an insider.

There is also the interview with Alan Sabrosky, the Jewish Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who came to the conclusion after much research that the Mossad were behind the 9//11 attacks. He believes that when the American people come to realise this then Israel will be over. This has been my personal belief for some time.


Another very compelling series covering the thinking behind the wars in the Middle East is the New American Century that pulls the curtain back from the machinations of the Project for the New American Century the Bush backed think tank that came up with the strategy for the present foreign policy.


One of the narratives that is used to convince Americans about the need for these wars is the war on terrorism in the shape of Islamic extremism. If this is his bete noire then show him the story of the Arab Spring, the Libyan War and the present crisis in Syria. This demonstrates that the CIA, US and NATO forces and the agencies linked to the US State Department are all behind these insurrections whether armed or unarmed and that the Islamists are the vanguard of their ground forces. In other words the secret government is controlling both sides of the wars all for the sake of the PNAC agenda for world domination. Here is a series of articles on this subject:


Last but not least is the movie Thrive and the wealth of information at the Thrive.com website:


This is one of the best introductions to the globalist schemes to conquer the world. They are using the military strength and wealth of the United States to do it but not for the American people. The American public are being deceived into supporting people who are anything but their friends.

If he has followed this far then show him this short description of the three City States at the top of the hierarchy: Washington, City of London and Vatican City:


If you have any other questions let me know through my contact link reached by clicking on my name.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

Your Friend is a Loser

> His biggest stumbling block is Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy.

Every military engagement since vietnam we have lost or are still fighting to lose without a declaration of war. Ron Paul is a winner, declaring the war, intervening to win it, and then coming home.

To paraphrase Terence McKenna:

We have to create a culture of liberty, don't watch TV, don't read magazines, don't even listen to NPR. Create your own liberty roadshow. The nexus of space and time where you are now is the most immediate sector of your universe, and if you're worrying about Iran or Syria or somebody else, then you are disempowered, you're giving it all away to icons, icons which are maintained by an electronic media so that you want them to behave like X or submit to your empire like Y. This is shit-brained, this kind of thinking. That is all cultural diversion, and what is real is you and your friends and your associations, your highs, your orgasms, your hopes, your plans, your fears. And we are told 'no', we're unimportant, we're peripheral. 'Get a degree, get a job, get a this, get a that.' And then you're a player, you don't want to even play in that game. You want to reclaim your mind and get it out of the hands of the cultural engineers who want to turn you into a half-baked moron consuming all this trash that's being manufactured out of the bones of a dying world.

"Walls are stronger than the men that defend them."

Ghengis Khan

When it comes to Foreign

When it comes to Foreign Policy, I use 2 arguments-opinions:

1. How does it make sense to be fighting wars in the Middle East when we leave our border mostly unprotected, especially against Terrorists (wink-wink).

2. We give out Foreign Aid to our Enemy's, effectively financing both sides. Sound familiar?

There is no Left or Right -- there is only freedom or tyranny. Everything else is an illusion, an obfuscation to keep you confused and silent as the world burns around you." - Philip Brennan

"Invest only in things that you can stand in front of and pr

He would agree with you

In reply to #1, he absolutely believes we should have our border protected AND fight pre-emptive wars in the Middle East. He doesn't find those things contradictory, but complementary in protecting America.

In reply to #2, knowing that foreign aid is fungible, he is against it, especially now during our economic troubles. But foreign aid and providing troops in hot spots are two different things. Rejecting the former does not mean rejecting the latter.

Anyone know of a supporter

who doesn't agree with non-interventionism, yet is enthusiastically voting for Dr. Paul?

I knew one Santorum supporter

I knew one Santorum supporter and she didn't like his war-mongering (that I pointed out). She was more a social conservative looking for a candidate.
Real christians are not for war.
She is now for Ron Paul.

Not to split hairs,

but real Christians are not for offensive war. :-)

That is the problem with his neoconservatism. It has defined defensive war as being pre-emptive. Trying to reclaim definitions has been most difficult, especially when there is no rebuttal forthcoming.

Hmmmmm....Former Neo.....

Hey...wait a minute, I resemble that remark! And guess where I hang out?

Foreign Policy? Give him this for me...tell him it's from a 5th Generation Veteren and son of a West Pointer (and his father commanded the Quartermaster Corps supplying the Pacific Theatre in WWII and prior to that, the design team that designed the Jeep).


Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

Most definitely

I'll forward it on. :-)

OP..have you had an intellectual conversation with your friend..

..or just sent him videos, articles, etc?

Sounds like the guy needs more facetime discussions.

I start by asking him what he doesn't like about RPs foreign policy. I would concentrate more on getting your friend to open up on HIS beliefs, fears, priority issues, for this election.

Just listen to him...you're not really going to be able to open his mind up without gaging his full perspective.

I didn't know it at the time but I was definitly a neoconn. It took many discussions with my now fiance to open my mind..I got currious and started looking at the debates on Youtube. I pretty much had the bug for Ron Paul at that point but I was still apprehensive about his foreign policy. Then, I came across this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmK8u6FZf4w "If You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy"

This video still brings me tears and thinking that my son will be on the draft registery in less than 3 years scares me to death. Illegal wars or not, to find out another friend has lost their husband and the father to their children, because we didn't resolve the war swiftly as we should have, is sombering. 10 years and we are STILL dying over there...and for what???

If anything else..we cannot afford war and to take care of other nations right now. If you had nothing but a loaf of bread, would you give it your neighbor and have your children starve? We WILL become a non-internventionist country at the rate we are spending except there will be an economic collapse along with it.

Thank you for your reply :-)

What you have said, I have already done. (see my previous comments)

People like that....... Easy,

People like that.......

Easy, show 'em some video like "What we saw" (about 911), it's just the buildings being filmed, no conspiracy, then show him WTC7.

You don't have to say anything, imply anything, nothing. Then ask him if he knew about it, if he watched it, and does it feel right to him. If you can get him to look into things, (make sure you help to stop the goofy/phony stuff) he'll figure it out on his own.

Goofy/Phoney is: Loose Change, No planes, etc.

Just tip 'em off that something is wrong, and if he's smart enough, he'll get it real quick.


Looking into things is not the problem

And believe me, if it really was that easy, I wouldn't be asking for help. :-)

I've presented arguments that undermine his own beliefs, yet he continues to believe what he believes. If someone is deceiving himself in such a manner, then whatever evidence may be presented that would contradict his beliefs would either be a) reinterpreted to fit his beliefs or b) unacknowledged and dismissed.

Yeah, someone replied to me

Yeah, someone replied to me once that the shock wave of WTC I&II knocked down WTC7. No proof, said it happened before noon..

Then he said there was a large natural gas tank in the bottom floor, and that's what blew up.

When asked about the pentagon, he said Clinton's military budget cuts had left the country weak.

I started laughing and just gave up.


"I've put forth historical,

"I've put forth historical, biblical, and pragmatic arguments, but none are convincing."

If the arguments are put forth properly (as in, the way RP typically does), then I doubt this is an intellectual issue for this person. It is most likely his emotions that are holding sway. As a former neo-con myself, RP's foreign policy (as expressed and defended by RP himself) is intellectually impeccable. I've never heard anyone attack it with anything other than misunderstandings and emotional appeals.

I agree

I believe it stems from his belief in American Exceptionalism and a sense of duty to our allies, namely Israel.

I should clarify something, though. He has said that he agrees with non-interventionism, but only sometimes. At other times, like in the case with Iran, we must intervene. By not intervening, he believes Paul is dangerous (yes, he was a Santorum supporter). I've made my case that this was a slippery slope. He never replied.

Hey! Maybe you should start the Former NeoConservatives for Ron Paul Group, eh? :-)

There are a great many former

There are a great many former neo-cons haunting this place... but alas, I would probably not be much help with your uncle. I was never an 'feelings based' neo-con. I was actually one of the retards that actually believed I was being told. Once the facts were exposed, I dropped the whole philosophy like it was an angry skunk. Never shed a single tear over it.. other than ones of regret for having been so fooled. Overall, I was happy as a clam when the truth dawned on me. I knew something was out of kilter, and it took hearing RP to help me figure out what it was.

LOL Not my uncle

just a friend from childhood. He's not feelings-based. It's not the impression I get from him. But I do believe that where his heart lies (conservatism as defined by neocon talking heads) will not allow intellectual arguments to penetrate through. There are plenty of people out there like that.

Apologies for the

Apologies for the misunderstanding.

Has he seen this!

Does he support the Foreign Policy because he supports the troops?

Show him this


Oh, he definitely has

I posted it on Facebook for him to see. No reply.

I posted the Adherence to the Oath ad. No reply.

Since he supported Santorum, I posted the video of Santorum blasting limited government and how he didn't know of any society that thrived under a libertarian government. No reply.

My friend agrees that the Fed needs to go, so I posted a video where Santorum says we need inflation. I also posted a video where Beck (my friend is a fan of Beck) shoots down Santorum for supporting the Fed. No reply.

Despite the huge negatives of Santorum and the huge positives of Paul's foreign policy, he was never dissuaded from supporting Santorum. And now that he is stuck between the flip-flopping moderate and the non-interventionist, he leans towards the moderate. He'll only support Paul if he were to get the Republican nomination. "Anyone but Obama" is now his mantra.

The non-interventionist foreign policy also ends foreign aid

As Ron Paul has said, why should we take money from poor people in our country and send it to rich people in other countries? Given our massive debt and deficits, why shouldn't we keep that money at home? Why is no other candidate supporting ending foreign aid?

BTW, policing the world is just another form of foreign aid - a subsidy to countries that otherwise would be required to protect themselves.

I've brought that up before

I even framed it in a way that couldn't escape from the very socialism he rails against. After all, foreign aid is nothing more than redistribution of wealth, but not to our people, but to other nations.

Crickets is all I got.

Hmm, well you already got him thinking...

When you said that, a light bulb started to go on.

So he's already thinking through a lot more.
Maybe next, you can show him how the preemptive Cheney policy of war is the same as Clinton's policy of war which is also Obama's policy of war...which is the same as FDR (Franklin Roosevelts) of the same name.

Then the light bulb might really go on.
He needs to talk right to ex neocons for sure.

He's admitted...

...that I do get him thinking. :-)

And yes, he does need to talk to ex-neocons, more so with the ones who still disagree with non-interventionist foreign policy. They would have the greatest common ground with my friend. If there was a Ron Paul group of former neocons, I can at least direct him to the group so he could see their growing number.

Well the reality is this....

It's just this simple.
Why do we need to protect Israel, when Israel or Egypt are not our direct concern and they aren't going to be nuked tomorrow?

Why do we need to voyage off to protect Israel, when Israel has over 300 nukes to defend itself & wishes we'd leave them alone?

Then the light might finally switch all the way on.

P.S: Israel is the idol of the Democratic Party.
Why is the GOP carrying it around?

Yes, that is the reality...

...but SimpleSam, it's not so simple. Everything you have said, I've said, and in essay form and plenty of rebuttals. Most of our debates with him have been the past few months, but we started them a few years ago.

The argumentation is simple, but the reception of it is not so. He may be thinking, but as another commenter pointed out, it may not be his head that is the problem. It may be more a matter of the heart. At this point, testimonies coming from those who held to the same beliefs as my friend would have the greater weight.

Hmm, well it's really this simple.

Tell him that the Scofield Bible doesn't really have all the facts, there is a bunch of things omitted & deliberately tossed out for some reason.

Ron Paul & the Bible

Lets put it this way. You need an authorization of war to declare it, and that's the only difference Ron Paul espouses. Otherwise he's very pro national defense, always has been.

Also, Dr. Paul is aware there are real threats. He is one hundred percent against the globalists and extremists in the Middle East, wherever they are *really* found. He wouldn't give any blank checks to Saudi Arabia, Israel or anyone- because he flat will not support Federal Subsidies to these nations who need to manage themselves. Especially not the NEA or Obama's radical super PACs.

As I said before...

I've given the biblical, historical and pragmatic arguments. At best, his replies have been contradictory to foundational principles. And when I clarify misunderstandings over Paul's position, I'm usually met with silence.

I believe that he sees I come from a libertarian perspective rather than a conservative one, and that's true. My interest in politics stemmed from a friend telling me to read LewRockwell.com. Since I have not come from his perspective, I cannot possibly understand his position, therefore my arguments, sound as I try to make them, aren't meaningful in his conservative worldview.

So, if he met like-minded (or rather, former like-minded) individuals, they would be more convincing in their argumentation rather than mine.