← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Recluse
Thread ID: 8049 | Posts: 3 | Started: 2003-07-11
2003-07-11 10:29 | User Profile
Neo-conservatism has been around for decades and, strangely, has connections to past generations as far back as Machiavelli. Modern-day neo-conservatism was introduced to us in the 1960s. It entails both a detailed strategy as well as a philosophy of government. The ideas of Teddy Roosevelt, and certainly Woodrow Wilson, were quite similar to many of the views of present-day neocons. Neocon spokesman Max Boot brags that what he advocates is ââ¬Åhard Wilsonianism.ââ¬Â In many ways, thereââ¬â¢s nothing ââ¬Åneoââ¬Â about their views, and certainly nothing conservative. Yet they have been able to co-op the conservative movement by advertising themselves as a new or modern form of conservatism.
More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former Trotskyists. Liberal Christopher Hitchins, has recently officially joined the neocons, and it has been reported that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc consultant. Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Straussââ¬â¢ books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelliââ¬â¢s philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsy; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree.
The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare.
More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe: 1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual. 2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so. 3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends. 4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the meansââ¬âthat hard-ball politics is a moral necessity. 5. They express no opposition to the welfare state. 6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it. 7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive. 8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit. 9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it. 10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised. 11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem. 12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate. 13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country. 14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many. 15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.) 16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary. 17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.
[url=http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/neo-conned.htm]http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/neo-conned.htm[/url]
I'm guessing that this is from a Special Orders speech in the House, which has to be causing a lot of headaches over at [url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/944147/posts]FReeRepublic.[/url] I mean, they can't really ban content from the pubbie-controlled US House of Representatives, can they?**
2003-07-12 02:26 | User Profile
Dig how the first few Freepers dump all over the guy who posted this, only to have him join them in denouncing...ahh...you know...America-hating, anti-Semitic, terrorist-suppzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Huh? Oh, sorry, must have dozed off there...
God, they really believe we popped out of our mommas waving little swastika pennants. It's incomprehensible to them that even the most virulent anti-Semite started out flogging himself for his suspicions until the weight of evidence and the pattern of that preponderance eventually made the decision for him. As Hugh Lincoln eloqently stated it:
I once didn't "get it" on Jews. I'm lucky in that I've had some life experiences that caused me to seek as deep an understanding of the White dispossession as possible. Even at this, I struggled with the Jewish issue, hoping to God there was some way to convince myself they weren't really a problem. ****
But what am I saying? Your average Freeper, if shown a timecoded videotape - dated 8-11-91! - featuring Perle, Sharon and Abrams pointing to schematic drawings on an easel of a jet bisecting the South Tower of the Trade Center, followed by chortling high-fives and the Kol Nidre, would never budge from their fingers-in-ears position, nor cease chanting "La-la-la-LA-LA-LAA-I-CAN'T-HEAAAAR-YOU!!!"
Why mince words? I want to merely deport Jews......Freepers, I want to see shot, stabbed, hung, drowned & bludgeoned. Whether Jew or Gentile, your FoxNews bumper sticker should be your death warrant.
2003-07-12 12:46 | User Profile
Ron Paul for president in '04.
-Z-