Who are the Neo-Cons and what do they believe?

T

thrustbucket

CAGiversary!
Feedback
7 (100%)
I have often wondered exactly WHAT and WHO neocons are. You get different answers from everyone, especially since the word gets thrown around here often when certain people don't agree with certain other people.

A friend today sent me a talk by non other than Ron Paul, interestingly enough. Where he lays out names, organizations, and ideologies of neo-cons. I found it quite interesting.

I don't think anyone should throw the word "Neo-Con" around again, without watching/listening to it. It's not that long.

Can't figure out how to embed, but check it here.
 
The flagrantly anti-semitic imagery in the video notwithstanding (clearly some Ron Paul supporters), Ron Paul was about 97% correct.

Modern neoconservatism shares the same political party with conservatives, while the latter fail to recognize (until recently) that the party has been stolen from them.

The media helps facilitate the neocon agenda (which is why someone like Helen Thomas looks like a shitstorming rabblerouser - she's the only one with the guts to ask questions of politicians), think tanks like Cato, Heritage, and AEI. Paul's emphasis of the power of PNAC hits the nail on the head as well. Look into more of that organization if you want to dig deeper.

Where I think he is wrong is that he lazily tries to tie it into liberalism. It's lazy because it falsely labels "this" kind of statism as "that" kind of statism. Neoconservatism is more of an oligarchy - the elite, the select few, the self-reinforcing few - working to serve themselves, their interests, their cronies - without any interest, feigned or otherwise, in the majority of the population. Acquisition and consumption drives neoconservatism. The only things that neoconservatism demands of its people are capitulation and obedience - with a dash of fear.

If nothing else, you can look at the people in power now, recognize their constant involvement with government at the federal level for the past 30 years (!), along with the expanse of government's reach, take of your money, and overspending, and it doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that, as many of you say, there hasn't been a "conservative" in Washington in over half a fuckin' century.
 
I've been anti-neocon for quite a while now...

... it's really sad that the Republicans are now run by a bunch of psychotic interventionalist zionists who have usurped the term "conservative" when in fact their ideas originally stem from a radical revolutionary and socialist agenda.

As usual, Ron Paul is right on the money... the neocons must be stopped... it's unfortunate that in our 2 party system, our only other choice consists of a bunch of morons who can't even properly run a primary election.
 
[quote name='BigT']I've been anti-neocon for quite a while now...

... it's really sad that the Republicans are now run by a bunch of psychotic interventionalist zionists who have usurped the term "conservative" when in fact their ideas originally stem from a radical revolutionary and socialist agenda.[/QUOTE]

I love how you pretend to act so surprised and all with it only being a fucking generation+ they have been control instead of "actual" conservatives who you know only exist in your feeble mind.
 
[quote name='BigT']I've been anti-neocon for quite a while now...

... it's really sad that the Republicans are now run by a bunch of psychotic interventionalist zionists who have usurped the term "conservative" when in fact their ideas originally stem from a radical revolutionary and socialist agenda.

As usual, Ron Paul is right on the money... the neocons must be stopped... it's unfortunate that in our 2 party system, our only other choice consists of a bunch of morons who can't even properly run a primary election.[/QUOTE]

You say "socialist agenda" like they give a fuck about the people. Neocons are more akin to Cobra or the Decepticons than they are any sort of "glorious people's party" or somesuch nonsense.

I don't see anything but lazy and shallow reductionism that leads people to think statism type A is just like statism type Z.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You say "socialist agenda" like they give a fuck about the people. [/QUOTE]

Actually I think they do. I think they believe they are doing what is best for people. They believe they are the righteous warriors defending liberty and freedom. I really do believe they think that. They don't wake up every morning wondering how evil they can be (as pittpizza would have you believe).... They see the same problems we do, they just see severely twisted solutions.

However, I believe that they certainly are nothing close to what they believe they are.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You say "socialist agenda" like they give a fuck about the people. Neocons are more akin to Cobra or the Decepticons than they are any sort of "glorious people's party" or somesuch nonsense.

I don't see anything but lazy and shallow reductionism that leads people to think statism type A is just like statism type Z.[/quote]

Spot on myke, they'd like to rule on high with a sort of "we powerful rich know whats best for the masses" mentality. It's a shame and a bane to democracy. They have their agenda and seem to view the people as a nuisance to which they must feign accountability.

Moreover, I'd change your earlier statement "with a dash of fear" into "a healthy dose of fear." This fear (which middle America eats up) is also why people feel they need so many weapons to protect themselves with, when in actuality they've probably never been threatened with death or serious bodily harm in their entire lives.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']

Moreover, I'd change your earlier statement "with a dash of fear" into "a healthy dose of fear." This fear (which middle America eats up) is also why people feel they need so many weapons to protect themselves with, when in actuality they've probably never been threatened with death or serious bodily harm in their entire lives.[/QUOTE]

Owning weapons has absolutely nothing to do with fear for anyone I know with weapons. To think so further illustrates your misunderstanding on the issue.

That's as obtuse as saying people vote for a Democrats to grow government bigger and create more protection, because of fear.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You say "socialist agenda" like they give a fuck about the people. Neocons are more akin to Cobra or the Decepticons than they are any sort of "glorious people's party" or somesuch nonsense.
[/quote]

Perhaps my terminology was a bit confusing. However, it is hard to avoid that problem while using political terms that change in meaning over the course of time:
*Liberalism today has a much different meaning than classical liberalism thanks to the fact that American socialists usurped the label "liberal" since socialism was viewed as a negative term.
*Socialism is used today to refer more to the creation of a welfare state through wealth distribution and taxation. However, in previous times, it referred more purely to central planning and nationalization of the means of production.

When I used the term socialist to refer to neocons, in my mind, I had the latter of the two definitions in mind. Plus, I was referring more toward the origins of the neocons and in fact Irving Kristol (Bill's dad) was a member of the Young People’s Socialist League... yet still today, I see the neocons policies are grounded in revoutionary ideals: except now instead of spreading socialism/communism around the world, they seek to spread democracy through an imperialistic and interventionalist policy. Furthermore, they attack individualism and classic liberalism by 1.) increasing the centralized power of the state, 2.) failing to oppose the further creation of a welfare state, and 3.) showing disregard for personal liberty (Patriot act, etc.).

I don't see anything but lazy and shallow reductionism that leads people to think statism type A is just like statism type Z
Click to expand...
Reductionism is a way that we cope with the complexity of the world without going crazy. It is the basis for most of modern physical, biological, and medical science. While no two systems of government are 100% equal, as F.A. Hayek outlined in The Road to Serfdom, we can examine them for parallels and then use what we learn to avoid making the same mistakes that other countries have previously made (e.g., Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia).
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Owning weapons has absolutely nothing to do with fear for anyone I know with weapons. To think so further illustrates your misunderstanding on the issue.

That's as obtuse as saying people vote for a Democrats to grow government bigger and create more protection, because of fear.[/QUOTE]


It IS because of fear. They fear freedom and the responsibility that comes with it. As proof of this ask any "liberal" if they believe the government should be the safety net for all americans - they'll wholeheartedly say "Yes!" Ask them if the people can be responsible enough to have their own weapons - they'll regurgitate something along the lines of "only the police need weapons."


This, though is was good for a laugh:

[quote name='mykevermin']Where I think he is wrong is that he lazily tries to tie it into liberalism. It's lazy because it falsely labels "this" kind of statism as "that" kind of statism. Neoconservatism is more of an oligarchy - the elite, the select few, the self-reinforcing few - working to serve themselves, their interests, their cronies - without any interest, feigned or otherwise, in the majority of the population. Acquisition and consumption drives neoconservatism. The only things that neoconservatism demands of its people are capitulation and obedience - with a dash of fear.[/QUOTE]


As if the "liberals" or democrats have any interest in protecting freedom. Their brand of statism is somehow better because they have good intentions, I suppose? Whatever the means, the end result is one and the same. The State taking precedence and usurping the liberty and sanctity of the individual. We already know by their words and actions that Democrats and "Liberals" believe in neither cornerstone of our republic. Conformity to their economic, environmental, and social agendas is not subject to debate - it's required, and heresy is dealt with by ex-communication.

The difference between them and the Neo-cons is that Democrats are at least honest about their agenda. They tell us up front they want to grow government, destroy the rich, steal from them and distribute the fruits of others to the people who are more deserving. Neo-cons give lip service to smaller government, individual rights, and join the dems in the destruction of the middle class, the dependence of the poor on the State, overspending, bigger bureaucracy, and mis-education of the american people.

And if myke thinks that the power brokers of the Democrat party isn't a mirror image of the Republican machine, he needs a few years of schooling - outside of school. You can't be so blind NOT to see the Democrat party as the same oligarchic structure as the Republicans. Neither care about the people, myke. And they certainly don't care about you, or feel your pain. All they want is your vote - then you can fuck off and die for all they care. If you really believe they're going to "....fight for YOU !" then they've already won the battle, no matter who gets elected this year.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']It IS because of fear. They fear freedom and the responsibility that comes with it. As proof of this ask any "liberal" if they believe the government should be the safety net for all americans - they'll wholeheartedly say "Yes!" Ask them if the people can be responsible enough to have their own weapons - they'll regurgitate something along the lines of "only the police need weapons."
[/quote]

I don't think the govt should act as a safety net and I fully support the right of the people to own weapons as stated in the second amendment to the US Constitution.

Does that make me a conservative? :lol:
 
Thrust since you're response got quoted and I couldn't avoid it, Ill respond: You repeatedly cited the need to protect yourself as a reason you need guns but claim that you (nor anyone you know) owns a gun out of fear. So which is it? Are you lieing now (you are afraid and do want it for protection) or were you lieing then (you're not afraid and don't want it for protection)? FYI, these are rhetorical questions since I'm not gonna see your answer, unless it gets quoted, lol.

[quote name='bmulligan']It IS because of fear. They fear freedom and the responsibility that comes with it. As proof of this ask any "liberal" if they believe the government should be the safety net for all americans - they'll wholeheartedly say "Yes!" Ask them if the people can be responsible enough to have their own weapons - they'll regurgitate something along the lines of "only the police need weapons."[/quote]

Actually, they fear each other. If everyone didn't have guns, we really wouldn't need to worry about other people shooting us would we? It's so simple. Take away/limit guns and you take away/limit gun deaths.

Fear of freedom!? This is exactly what a typical liberal wants: more freedom. Freedom from having to finance unjust premeptive wars, freedom from oppressive government, freedom from having other people's religions forced on us, freedom from having to worry about gun-toting idiots with confederate flags in their chevy's shooting someone b/c of road rage, freedom to drink clean water and breathe clean air, freedom to have equal opportunities available to every hardworking citizen, etc.

Nor would I say that even the police need guns. Gunless cops work fine in England and Canada, and SWAT is always available for the rare situations (they'd be even more rare w/ gun reform) where it is necessary. Your characterizations are totally wrong. Not even close.

Liberals, bmull, beleive that civil liberties ought to be the safety net from the government. You've got it all backwards my friend.

You did get one thing right: I do think the government ought to ensure national security. This is a tenet of liberalism (and conservatism to boot! We agree! Woot!) you did get correct.


[quote name='bmulligan']
As if the "conservatives" or republicans have any interest in protecting freedom. Their brand of statism is somehow better because they have good intentions, I suppose? Whatever the means, the end result is one and the same. The State taking precedence and usurping the liberty and sanctity of the individual. We already know by their words and actions that Republicans and "Conservatives" believe in neither cornerstone of our republic. Conformity to their economic, environmental, and social agendas is not subject to debate - it's required, and heresy is dealt with by ex-communication. .[/quote]

I fixed this part of your post for you, to demonstrate to everyone how baseless your assertions are, how much they lack substance, and how easily they can be flipped b/c it's nothing more than partisan bantar.


[quote name='bmulligan']
The difference between them and the Neo-cons is that Democrats are at least honest about their agenda. They tell us up front they want to grow government, destroy the rich, steal from them and distribute the fruits of others to the people who are more deserving. Neo-cons give lip service to smaller government, individual rights, and join the dems in the destruction of the middle class, the dependence of the poor on the State, overspending, bigger bureaucracy, and mis-education of the american people. [/quote]

How can you equate helping the poor with destroying the rich, unless of course you're the Sherriff of Nottingham? Are you? Are you that sherriff? I don't want to grow government, yet consider myself liberal. What I want is re-allocation of money from places where it is not needed (bombs in Iraq, mid-eastern coffers, billionaires) into places where it is needed: environmental reform, healthcare and education. We could actually acheive this by making government much smaller.

[quote name='bmulligan']
And if myke thinks that the power brokers of the Democrat party isn't a mirror image of the Republican machine, he needs a few years of schooling - outside of school. You can't be so blind NOT to see the Democrat party as the same oligarchic structure as the Republicans. Neither care about the people, myke. And they certainly don't care about you, or feel your pain. All they want is your vote - then you can fuck off and die for all they care. If you really believe they're going to "....fight for YOU !" then they've already won the battle, no matter who gets elected this year.[/quote]

Some conservative pessimism maybe? Eh..to be fair, the past 8 years have not been kind to either party's view of government. I agree that this devisive "two Americas" bullshit has got to end. Looks like you could use some "hope" and some "change" sir!

I've got good news for you, it's coming.
 
[quote name='camoor']I don't think the govt should act as a safety net and I fully support the right of the people to own weapons as stated in the second amendment to the US Constitution.

Does that make me a conservative? :lol:[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily. I actually don't consider myself a conservative, I don't like to label myself. I believe those things as well.

I just end up defending conservatism all the time because, yes, I do have some conservative leanings, and many people I know are conservative and many people on this forum totally misunderstand their views and misrepresent positions (pittpizza is a good example).

[quote name='pittpizza']Thrust since you're response got quoted and I couldn't avoid it, Ill respond: You repeatedly cited the need to protect yourself as a reason you need guns but claim that you (nor anyone you know) owns a gun out of fear. So which is it? Are you lieing now (you are afraid and do want it for protection) or were you lieing then (you're not afraid and don't want it for protection)? FYI, these are rhetorical questions since I'm not gonna see your answer, unless it gets quoted, lol. [/quote]

Having guns for protection doesn't make you afraid.

Some reasons to have guns other than fear:

  • It's a very simple equation: Guns exist + Bad people have them + police response time rarely saves lives = logical to have them to.

  • As I've already said, they are fun to shoot. I have spent lots of time with family and friends out in the desert blasting shit, it was fun. That's the primary reason that I have guns.

  • Investment. Every time a Democrat becomes president, gun values soar. How many other things can you think of that you can buy that is guaranteed to only go up in value?

Does wanting health insurance mean you are afraid of disease? Does wanting high safety standards on your next car mean you are afraid of car accidents?

There is a difference between being motivated by fear and just being smart. I know to someone with strong liberal leanings it may be a hard concept to wrap your head around, but fear and preparedness don't have to be the same thing.


freedom from having to worry about gun-toting idiots with confederate flags in their chevy's shooting someone b/c of road rage,
Click to expand...

It's fascinating that you'd use this as an example of something to fear about guns and not gang-based violence. I wonder which happens more often? Afraid of sounding racist? You go out of your way to bring up a favorite Liberal stereotype that is barely a threat to anyone comparatively. All this accomplishes is stereotyping yourself even further.

It's starting to become clear that your entire reality is built on stereotypes, which explains why you had to put me on ignore based on a silly assumption.

fixed this part of your post for you, to demonstrate to everyone how baseless your assertions are, how much they lack substance, and how easily they can be flipped b/c it's nothing more than partisan bantar.
Click to expand...

Good job, as a professional of those things, I can't think of anyone more qualified to do it.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']It IS because of fear. They fear freedom and the responsibility that comes with it. As proof of this ask any "liberal" if they believe the government should be the safety net for all americans - they'll wholeheartedly say "Yes!" Ask them if the people can be responsible enough to have their own weapons - they'll regurgitate something along the lines of "only the police need weapons."


This, though is was good for a laugh:




As if the "liberals" or democrats have any interest in protecting freedom. Their brand of statism is somehow better because they have good intentions, I suppose? Whatever the means, the end result is one and the same. The State taking precedence and usurping the liberty and sanctity of the individual. We already know by their words and actions that Democrats and "Liberals" believe in neither cornerstone of our republic. Conformity to their economic, environmental, and social agendas is not subject to debate - it's required, and heresy is dealt with by ex-communication.

The difference between them and the Neo-cons is that Democrats are at least honest about their agenda. They tell us up front they want to grow government, destroy the rich, steal from them and distribute the fruits of others to the people who are more deserving. Neo-cons give lip service to smaller government, individual rights, and join the dems in the destruction of the middle class, the dependence of the poor on the State, overspending, bigger bureaucracy, and mis-education of the american people.

And if myke thinks that the power brokers of the Democrat party isn't a mirror image of the Republican machine, he needs a few years of schooling - outside of school. You can't be so blind NOT to see the Democrat party as the same oligarchic structure as the Republicans. Neither care about the people, myke. And they certainly don't care about you, or feel your pain. All they want is your vote - then you can fuck off and die for all they care. If you really believe they're going to "....fight for YOU !" then they've already won the battle, no matter who gets elected this year.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, because the Democrats, proposing minimum wage increases, radical reforms to our health care system, and trying to undo the Bush administrations catastrophic fuckups (including restoring habeas corpus) is SO fuckING VERY MUCH like the Republicans.

You're so boring sometimes, dude. When you have no point to argue but, rather, just a lonely chip on your shoulder, you play the predictable and easily refutable "they're all the same, man!" paranoid card. Which is not only demonstrably untrue, but contrary to more or less every argumentative post you make that doesn't play this card.

Be consistent, and stop changing the debate when it suits you. Cuz you can be pretty boring sometimes.
 
I'd rather be boring than an ignorant sheep being led to slaughter.

At least you acknowledge your inner Marxist, unlike Pizzaman, who's a long lost twin brother of Alonzomourning23. The interchangeability of my previous post was obvious to you - to the point of boredom, but it completely flew over his head. Then he hands it back to me as if he's correcting me. It's almost amusing.

And another thing pizzamaker:

There IS NO HELPING THE POOR without the existence of the rich. You think that oppressive government can make all it's money out of ether to make poor people vote for them ? You just favor being the oppressor at the expense of the oppressed. You have no concept of what liberty means. You think it means freedom to pick fruit from a tree, blanking out the fact that that tree had to be planted, fed, watered, nurtured, picked and washed for consumption; that actual work and effort has to be performed in order for food to exist.

You read the statement in my signature, nod your head, and say to yourself, "...uh huh, tru dat !"
 
Honestly reps and cons alike stand for absolutely nothing except for being against the scary commie-hippie-gays that for the most part exist only in their minds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top