Sweet Neo Con
Posted by Moonage on 11 Aug 2005 | Tagged as: Shock and Awe
Once upon a time in the 60’s, Mick Jagger was the mouth of the baddest bunch of boys in rock. Songs like "Sympathy for the Devil" and "Gimme Shelter" pushed people to think about things a little differently.
However, The Stones newest album has stirred up a bit of a ruckus due to the lyrics of "Sweet Neo Con". Some snippets:
- You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite. You call yourself a patriot, well I think you’re full of s—,
- How come you’re so wrong? My sweet neo-con, where’s the money gone, in the Pentagon
- It’s liberty for all, democracy’s our style, unless you are against us, then it’s prison without trial.
Pretty damning stuff here! As Jagger states, "It is direct". Three very direct jabs at the core elements that define Bush, his Christianity, his belief in a strong military, and his "Fer us or agin us" philosophy. So, what does Jagger think about all that now?
Huh? Attacking everything that defines Bush is not "aimed, personally, at President Bush"? That is SO weak, Mick. Attacking neo-cons is "not really aimed at anyone,"? Give me a break.
If it’s not aimed at anyone, or directly at President Bush, then it’s just inciteful lyrics just for the sake of being inciteful and nothing else. That’s pretty much how Mick has defined it. We don’t need any more of that. This is just Michael Moore-lite. What it really strikes me as at this point is a desperate grab for attention by yet another aging rocker. That is just sad.
34 Comments »
on 11 Aug 2005 at 5:56 pm 1.capekicks said …
As Kris said all those years ago, “Blame it on the Stones”
It’s great to see that at sixty+ years old the Stones can still piss off Establishment types, even if these right wingers are half their age.
Fear them NEO CONS. They’re still Rockin’ and they’re coming for your daughter-oops, I mean your mother.
on 11 Aug 2005 at 7:45 pm 2.Bryan Kerwick
said …
Having a problem with what the lyrics are from the Rolling Stones is not only overly sensitive but downright ridiculous.
Aren’t these the poster children for why drugs, especially heroin, must be kept illegal.
We should actually wear the lyrics as a badge of honor. We stand for everything they don’t.
I only wish we had someone like Michael Moore in our camp who could actually get his documentaries aired. Do features on the Left Wing hero’s based solely on fact and not be outrageously biased like Mr. Moore is. An in depth look at the life, times and lifestyle of the Rolling Stones for instance would give even young impressionable people a reason to listen to Toby Keith instead.
Knowledge is a dangerous thing to liberals. That is why the try so hard to re-write history according to their politically correct agenda. Some have even suggested the Congressional Record should not be available unredacted to the public. Guess which side thought was an excellent idea?
We need to get to our base at an extremely early age which is another reason the liberals are fighting so hard to stop school vouchers. God forbid children learn the truth according to fact instead of the politically correct watered down version.
These sre issues that go deeper than one would think and we as conservatives, both Republican and Democrat, should put our foot down and demand equal rights to educate our children as we see fit rather than how the Teachers Union thinks we should educate them. This is a battle that will be hard fought but our children are at stake here and we should not take any prisoners in this fight.
on 11 Aug 2005 at 10:00 pm 3.Moonage
said …
Well capekicks, the problem I have, as I mentioned, is not that Mick and the boys are pissing off establishment, it’s that 40 years ago, Mick wouldn’t have dodged the return fire and fled. He was full of political statements back then, loved pissing off establishment, and didn’t back down. He never dodged responsibility for Sympathy for the Devil. Hell, he never ducked and ran after the deaths at Altamont. I don’t care what he sang, I just think it’s sad that he won’t stand up for his own words any more. If he’s not going to own up to them, why write them in the first place other than to sell records? If that’s all he’s concerned with at this point, he should just retire. I want to remember Mick for Sympathy for the Devil, not for a song he won’t own up to.
on 12 Aug 2005 at 11:19 am 4.ronnie said …
I found this funny coming from a wingnut-
Ronnie, I’ve deleted the rest of your comment because it’s offensive for no other purpose than being offensive. We’re discussing Mick Jagger not owning up to what he said. That’s all. There was no need to offend women, African Americans, Christians, and Republicans.
Now, if you can put two words together without being offensive, tell me whether you think Mick Jagger should have stood behind what he said or not.
Can ya do it?
Moon
on 15 Aug 2005 at 2:19 am 5.cindy T. said …
Below are the complete lyrics to the song, “Sweet Neo Con,” by the Rolling Stones:
“You ride around your white castle,
On your little white horse
You lie to your people,
and blame it on your war of course
You call yourself a Christian,
I call you a hypocrite
You call yourself a patriot,
well I think you’re full of shit
Oh, sweet Neo Con,
What path have you led them on?
Oh, sweet Neo Con,
Is it time for the atom bomb?
You parade around in costume,
Expecting to be believed
But as the body bags stack up,
We believe we’ve been deceived
The horror you’ve unleased,
Will backfire with more grief
When will you ever learn,
Sweet Neo Con, as the world burns?
Oh, sweet Neo Con,
What path have you led them on?
Oh, sweet Neo Con,
Is it time for the atom bomb?
Oh, sweet Neo Con,
What path have you led them on?
Oh, sweet Neo Con,
Is it time to drop the bomb?”
on 15 Aug 2005 at 9:49 am 6.Moonage
said …
Thanks Cindy. I had a hard time finding them.
So, anyone still think this isn’t about anyone particular?
on 15 Aug 2005 at 10:30 am 7.Bryan Kerwick
said …
Based on current situations in Iran, I tend to agree with Mr. Jagger about one particular part of the lyrics. It may in fact be time for the bomb!
on 15 Aug 2005 at 10:34 am 8.Moonage
said …
Would be kinda neat to blame it on Mick too!
on 19 Aug 2005 at 2:01 am 9.Randy said …
Well, the song can hardly be about anyone else than Bush, can it? But why be so hard on Mick–he said in a recent interview that he thinks Keith is a bit worried about the flack that might come back at him, as a resident of the US. Isn’t it possible that Mick is just trying to prevent that? It’s easy to say that’s a bit lame, but we can all see what (and who) the song is about. That speaks for itself.
on 19 Aug 2005 at 8:50 am 10.Moonage
said …
Hadn’t heard that comment Mick made about Keith. Shouldn’t really be an issue tho because Mick’s the one doing the commenting on the song. All he’d have to say is he wrote it alone. Besides, that’s what people expect from the Rolling Stones. They’re the original bad boys of rock. They’ve done all kinds of political songs. This one’s pretty lame compard to some of their standards. I just wish Mick had stood up for his song. It disappoints me to see the original bay boys worrying about being politically correct.
on 22 Aug 2005 at 7:25 pm 11.superspud said …
alot of ppl r cuttin up the song “sweet neo con” to try and get america so side with them and try to show how wrong the song is. but the truth is no one can say who the song is about if they truly read the lyrics. i mean there can b speculation on who its about but nutthin more.and in alot of ppls agruements they r say that it says “where has all the money gone, to the pentegon” or somthing like that but if they really take a second and really listen to the song it says nuthing about money or the pentagon.so i think everyone needs to get a life and stop bashing the rolling stones for there opinion on the song.and last night i heard on a radio station ppl r starting to call the rolling stones “strolling bones” thats is totally rude. how would u like it if someone called ur grandparents or mother or father “strolling bones” u wouldnt like it now would u?
on 22 Aug 2005 at 8:06 pm 12.superspud said …
can anyone send me a link of sweet neo con to me plz? the full version of the song cause i cant seem to find 1. either e mail it to me or post it. thank you very much.
on 24 Aug 2005 at 10:47 pm 13.spacetofill said …
I know people say the Stones are OLD and are LOSING IT but I think they are SMARTER THAN YOU THINK. Has anyone thought that Mick is NOT saying its about Bush because the tour has just started and he doesn’t want any hassles while touring in the US? I mean, a two year old can figure it out and its generating a lot of buzz for the tour whether Mick admits it or not. I’m sure there are some neocons who like the Stones just as much as I do (Gov Arnold was at the concert in Boston) and could start a movement for a boycott of the tour IF Mick came out and stated… “Friggin right mate, its about your neocon President Bush”. I doubt they will do the song on stage while in the States but I think it will probably be a hit overseas.
on 24 Aug 2005 at 11:44 pm 14.Moonage
said …
If it were the Dixie Chicks, I could understand their issue. They appeal to somewhat of a different crowd. But, the band that has performed “Sympathy for the Devil” for 30 years without repercussions is hardly someone that has made any effort whatsoever to appeal to the average run of the mill neo-con. But, I guarantee you, there will be neo-cons there in droves. Whether he wants to own up to it in the US or not, the song is on the CD and I’m sure getting some airplay somewhere. Whether or not he wants to own up to it not, the message to conservatives is quite clear. It doesn’t matter whether he wants to own up to it or not regarding ticket sales. They are going to sell out every venue they play on this tour. Whether it’s at 50/50 mix of conservatives and liberals or a 100% mix of liberals, there’s more than enough liberals alone in any city they play to fill a 50,000 seat arena. And, there’s too many like me that are willing to ignore one song really don’t like to get the opportunity to hear and see Keith hammering the opening chords to Jumping Jack Flash. And yeah, it would be worth the ticket price to see Sympathy for the Devil. There’s no logical reason in my mind at this point in their careers the original bad boys of rock should be cow-towing to a block of the US demographic they’ve never made any effort to appeal to.
on 24 Aug 2005 at 11:45 pm 15.ger said …
mick jagger is right on every single word he writes on this song, as he says, bush lies to the people and blames it on his own war, the one he had begun and can’t stop now.
I think bush is kinda doing what hitler did, blame the nations problems on a particular race… and that’s not the way it works.
rolling stones is one of the best bands ever.
on 25 Aug 2005 at 8:36 am 16.Moonage
said …
But ger, Mick says this song is not about Bush. Either you or Mick have gotten it all wrong. Who should we trust? If we trust Mick, then you’re totally wrong. If we trust you, then Mick is lying either in his song or about his song.
on 25 Aug 2005 at 10:31 am 17.Bryan Kerwick
said …
Why do we give any credence to the music industry with regard to politics? Thats about the same as Hollywood. If it were not for those 2 groups, Conservatives everywhere would be in a less than desireable position with their political lot in life these days.
The Music Industry and Hollywood have hijacked the Democratic Party which has made life wonderful for the Republicans. Had it not been for these looney leftwing wackos, we on the right would actually have to deal with sane people on issues debates.Plus, they make this so much fun to talk about.
Hillary on the other hand, will bring us back to reality where we have to deal with a true warrior politically. Lets just enjoy the nuts while we can.
on 25 Aug 2005 at 1:35 pm 18.spacetofill said …
There’s no logical reason in my mind at this point in their careers the original bad boys of rock should be cow-towing to a block of the US demographic they’ve never made any effort to appeal to.
Moon
Your reasoning doesn’t explain why Keith would be concerned about the song just because he lives here… why would he care unless he thinks there could be a backlash toward him personally or to the group.
Wow! I just had a thought that maybe Keith is a neocon in Stones clothing… oh no!… please say it ain’t so Keith!
on 25 Aug 2005 at 2:30 pm 19.Moonage
said …
Wow! I just had a thought that maybe Keith is a neocon in Stones clothing… oh no!… please say it ain’t so Keith!
That makes as much sense as any other explanation I’ve heard. Actually more.
on 15 Sep 2005 at 11:27 pm 20.me said …
It’s about Condi Rice.
on 16 Sep 2005 at 9:07 am 21.Moonage
said …
ROFL! If you’re serious, I’d love to see something backing that up. I Really would!
on 23 Sep 2005 at 6:12 pm 22.Edward said …
Lets get real….Good lyrics are ones that provoke alot of thought and /or controversy…as these have clearly done. Also the fact that he is capitolizing on something with the song for money…that just makes him an honest working man. Which is more than one can say for the “middle class looter” that the song is about.
on 24 Sep 2005 at 7:30 pm 23.Moonage
said …
According to the person that wrote the song for money, which makes him honest in your opinion, the song is about no one in particular, which makes you wrong, since he’s honest and did write the song himself.
on 25 Sep 2005 at 7:03 pm 24.Rob McVeigh said …
Sweet Neo Con will hurt the Democrats & the Rolling Stones. As soon as a person here’s that kind of language in a song, they will understand its’ source, that is …unless they’re, …”stoned’..(?)” The majority of Americans stand behind our president. …Let the high school drop out minds of the Rolling Stones & their fans be recognized for what it universalily is; Biblical & historical ignorants raising up themselves as their own Creator.
on 02 Oct 2005 at 7:16 pm 25.John said …
So what’s new about Mick & Keith poking sticks at politicians or royalty? Hell, they’ve been doing it for 43 years! They’ve slagged Queen Elizabeth (Her Satanic Majesties Request), Richard Nixon (Dick & Pat down in old D.C. well they’re gonna hold some shit for me… from Rip this Joint). Jesse Jackson wanted the boys to apologize for the lyrics in Some Girls (black girls just wanna get fucked all night, I just don’t have that much jam!). Mick told Jesse to bugger off, of course!
Let them have their fun! They have outlasted 9 U.S. presidents and they’ll outlast George W. too! The Stones are far too powerful to be brought down by a mere president!
I just saw them in Toronto on Sept. 26th and they didn’t do Sweet Little Neo Con (too close to U.S. soil I guess) but they sure brought the house down! They aren’t called the world’s greatest rock n’ roll band for nothing.
You have to give the boys their due… they sure can stir the pot when they feel like it!
on 14 Nov 2005 at 3:38 am 26.Rod said …
Cos you know he’s right suckas!
on 14 Nov 2005 at 3:43 am 27.anon said …
Based on current situations in Iran, I tend to agree with Mr. Jagger about one particular part of the lyrics. It may in fact be time for the bomb!
-Brian Kerwick
Dude, your an idiot.
on 14 Nov 2005 at 3:50 am 28.Rod said …
Finally, somebody standing up to the evil empire.
I think that you missed the sarcasm in Mick’s statement when he claimed that it wouldn’t be called “SWEET Neo Con” if it was about Bush, Shock and Awe.
on 14 Nov 2005 at 9:13 am 29.Moonage
said …
Bad sarcasm at best, he states more than one sentence there, you’re missing a lot of it. Although you’re tossing off that one sentence, it doesn’t explain the “not aimed at anyone comment”.
It’s lame, real lame.
Keep trying tho.
on 16 Mar 2006 at 4:53 pm 30.ned said …
If you look at the vocabulary, it is rather more vulgar than what would have been accepted a few years ago. But then, the Bush Junta is the most vulgar terrorist group in the history of the U.S., and that is saying something.
To understand the U.S. today, you have to understand that Bush is the neo-Hitler and Bush Republicans are all neo-nazis.
Neo-cons are in reality paleo-nazis.
If you think I am exagerating, look up the writings and speeches of Mark Twain when he was vice-president of the Anti-Imperialist League in 1900 and after.
Whatever anyone says about American imperialism today is soft compared to what Mark used to say.
on 16 Mar 2006 at 10:34 pm 31.Moonage
said …
Well Ned, I don’t even know where to begin with that one. I’ve really tried real hard here to avoid all the paranoid schizophrenic over-the-top rhetoric that seems to be the rage here. I mean, “junta”? Come on now, do you even know what that word means? “the most vulgar terrorist group in the history of the U.S.,”, that’s a pretty large statement given our problems with the KKK and McCarthyism in the past. Of course, since neither of those were terribly Republican issues, they don’t count, right? Exactly what, in your mind, quantifies the Bush era as any more imperialistic or terrorist than say, oh, the Clinton Era? Hmmm? As far Samuel Clemens goes, he had a point to work with. The US WAS expanding circa 1900. How many states or territories has the US added since 2001? Best I can recall, correct me if I’m wrong, that although we’ve sent more troops into 2 countries ( Afghanistan and Iraq ), we’ve removed troops from a LOT of other countries ( notably South Korea, Germany, and Japan ). The math just doesn’t support your imperialistic claims. And, as far as the Nazi comparisons go, that is SOOOOOO cliche and tiresome that it only proves you don’t know your history at all and therefore making comparisons to the perceived baddest bunch in history just sounds good. ( Why don’t you just compare Bush to Pol Pot? ) I’ve played this game too many times. People make a huge over the top claim and can’t back it up. So, please, do tell me if you feel lucky this time. No one else has gotten that lucky with me. ( And a subtle hint here, you won’t either. )
on 26 Mar 2006 at 1:05 pm 32.dinsdale said …
Lyrics above NOT Correct:
You call yourself a Christian
I think that you’re a hypocrite
You say you are a patriot
I think that you’re a crock of shit
And listen, I love gasoline
I drink it every day
But it’s getting very pricey
And who is going to pay
How come you’re so wrong
My sweet neo con…. Yeah
It’s liberty for all
‘Cause democracy’s our style
Unless you are against us
Then it’s prison without trial
But one thing that is certain
Life is good at Haliburton
If you’re really so astute
You should invest at Brown & Root…. Yeah
How come you’re so wrong
My sweet neo con
If you turn out right
I’ll eat my hat tonight
It’s getting very scary
Yes, I’m frightened out of my wits
There’s bombers in my bedroom
Yeah and it’s giving me the shits
We must have loads more bases
To protect us from our foes
Who needs these foolish friendships
We’re going it alone
How come you’re so wrong
My sweet neo con
Where’s the money gone
In the Pentagon
on 19 Apr 2006 at 10:55 am 33.Moonage Political Webdream
said …
Protesting Neil Young
This is how Neil Young’s Ohio is interpreted today. I’m sure they’re sincere. Fact is, they’re wrong. The Vietnam conflict was not protested uproarious and rampant when the US began involvement. It built up over a DECADE and culminated with
on 26 Apr 2007 at 3:00 pm 34.Moonage Political Webdream » Protesting Neil Young said …
[...] him around anyhow. Neil Young, to this day, is Canadian. Our politics is none of his damn business. He’s just doing what Mick ( A Brit ) and the boys tried to do last year. Cash in on the latest hot topic from the largest market. If either of them were truly concerned, [...]