CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6801
A thread was created, by a neo-con, asking what forum members defined a 'neo-conservative' as. It appears as though he deleted the thread after several responses, one of which was mine. I'm restarting the thread and reiterating my view:

To me a neo-conservative believes in one or more of the following principles:

- Consolidating, growing and perpetuating the current monopoly that they have on money, political power and military supremacy. Making sure that no other can compete with them on any level, by both legitimate and underhand means. Using their position of power to suppress others attempting to get ahead so that their position of dominance remains unthreatened.

- Imposing their values and systems on others across the globe (much like traditional fascists), whether they like it or not, through globalisation and the institutes that facilitate globalisation as well as down the barrel of a gun. Suppressing all forms of government different from their own as, if successful, said forms of government could present themselves as an alternative to the neo-con 'one true way'. Neo-cons go as far as to undermine democracy and use underhand and often clandestine financial, trade-related and military actions to force regime change where the democratic choice of a particular people doesn't fit their 'lapdog' needs.
 
- Exploitation of the material and human resources of countries through global financial institutions and other organisations that they themselves created, support and control (such as the IMF, World Bank, WTO, etc.). They then abandon said human resources, etc. when they are no longer 'economically viable' and do not seek to help countries in achieving sustainably healthy economies (as this poses a threat to their global dominance). Essentially capitalism at its cruellest. The bottom line is the dollar.

- Using the military, not as a deterrent or as a self-defence force, but as a tool for expanding, by force or threat of force, their power and influence across international boundaries. This tool can be used to free up material and mineral resources and to provide bases in strategic locations globally.

- Acting unilaterally on the global stage, agitating towards rewriting/destroying global commitments to various principles of conduct so that they can attempt to achieve their goals without let or hindrance.

- Happily employing double standards in pursuit of their various causes. Using 1984-style 'Double Speak' to paper over these double standards. Examples of double standards: touting democracy as the way forward whilst actively trying to destabilise the democratically elected governments of Venezuela and Palestine and overlooking the fact that Saudi Arabia is a barbaric dictatorship.

They often also believe in (although these alone are not defining characteristics):

1) Utilising Goebbels-style subversion of public opinion through the media with subtle and subliminal propaganda that influences the largely mindless TV-watching voting masses of large nations. Think 1984 [George Orwell] 'Double Speak': introducing generalised concepts & phrases, such as the term 'islamo-fascist', to demonise individuals and groups of people they wish to be deemed the current 'enemy' of the people, in the case of the example given: muslims. Creating associations in peoples minds that make their views more 'black and white' rather than grey and discerning. Human minds are surprisingly controllable en mass; propaganda and mass media is a dangerous weapon.

2) Privatisation of most/all public services, flat rate taxes, and the abolition/near abolition of all kinds of social welfare benefits such as medical care, etc. The aim of all this is to consolidate and expand the monopoly on power the 'neo-cons' currently possess by keeping the rich rich and the poor poor. The poor will be kept poor as their 'helping hands' are removed and the rich will get richer as they expand their monopolies across the newly freed up private services and the end of 'tax the rich' policies. They basically seek to perpetuate an inegalitarian society, with a growing gulf between the haves and have-nots, by removing all regulation of money-making activities and government intervention in their lives, to the detriment of society in general.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-09-18 16:40:01)

Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6788|Texas - Bigger than France
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6765|Πάϊ
FFS was it albertwesker again? Damn that boy keeps deleting threads every time I write something! ok albert I'll rewrite it here when I'm not bored... mods see to this... it sucks being deleted for no reason
ƒ³
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6801

oug wrote:

FFS was it albertwesker again? Damn that boy keeps deleting threads every time I write something! ok albert I'll rewrite it here when I'm not bored... mods see to this... it sucks being deleted for no reason
I think it was DesertFox actually.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6775|Global Command
I disagree as to your definition.
However, I have to admit being a neocon is pretty fucking unpopular in world opinion.

I stated that the term neocon is used by the left  to as a subtle way to bash the Jews and Jewish lobby in America.
Its like me branding "progressives"  neosocialist.

Its just mudslinging and therefor who gives a shit?
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6931|United States of America
I had inquired as to what it was, since apparently I had already been branded as one. Huzzah for politics. Come on now, do you only have two political affiliations in your mind? I'm not even involved with any particular political party or candidate. I was for Gore in '00, Bush in '04 and I'll vote how I see fit. The labelling system for politics is horrific. Even if it is in a joking manner or attempted good humor, I would still be angry at a mislabelling.

However, if that is your definition and is widely accepted as true, I would even further like to know how much of my personality is known that I can be judged that quickly.

Last edited by DesertFox423 (2006-09-18 13:35:48)

Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6955|Wilmington, DE, US

ATG wrote:

I disagree as to your definition.
I stated that the term neocon is used by the left  to as a subtle way to bash the Jews and Jewish lobby in America.
If you believe that anti-semitism and anti-zionism are the same thing, then yes. I believe they aren't. Jewish lobbies don't bother me. Pro-Israeli lobbies do. Saw a billboard near my place the other day. 4 Israeli kids with big letters that said ISRAEL NEEDS YOUR HELP. Help with what? They get plenty from us as is.

I do agree neo-con is a loaded term, but there are times when I feel it's absolutely appropriate, especially in the way Cameron put it.
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6788|Texas - Bigger than France
Pffttt - I still like the wiki definition better - no bias...

Let's hate everyone except the Palestians, who (along with Israel) have failed to diplomatically resolve their dispute.

Hooray for nihilism.
M1-Lightning
Jeepers Creepers
+136|6977|Peoria, Illinois
Cameron that definition of yours maybe describes 13 public officials in our entire country and they are all in jail or awaiting trial. lol your definition of neocon is nothing close to the real definition.
rawls2
Mr. Bigglesworth
+89|6806
At least we have a choice here in America. I d rather vote a neo-con in then an islamic republic or a military dictatorship. Oh wait but you can't vote with the latter forms of governments.

Last edited by rawls2 (2006-09-18 15:59:28)

oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6765|Πάϊ
Like I said in that other thread that was deleted...

Cameron, although I generally agree, I must say your definition is a bit broad and more likely covers all conservatives. My view is that the prefix "neo" has come to describe a late, more extreme generation of conservatism.

Some of its most famous representatives are Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Lyman Lemnitzer, Richard Perle, John Negroponte etc (GWB can't be part of any ideology, he's just an idiot).

The above new generation of conservatives first appeared on the political scene during the '60s, backing stuff like the notorious Northwoods Document, and generally adopting a harder line than the traditionals - especially in foreign policy.

Pug, although wikipedia may be correct in principle, I doubt that anyone today connects the term with its former leftist origins... Trotskyism for crying out loud? I doubt that the idea of permanent revolution has anything to do with how "neo-conservatism" is used now days, or that any neo-conservative knows anything about Leon Trotsky and his theories
ƒ³
Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6955|Wilmington, DE, US

M1-Lightning wrote:

Cameron that definition of yours maybe describes 13 public officials in our entire country and they are all in jail or awaiting trial. lol your definition of neocon is nothing close to the real definition.
Shit, Rumsfeld and Cheney got busted?

What he wrote essentially describes the PNAC
AAFCptKabbom
Member
+127|6904|WPB, FL. USA
I knew it, I knew it, I knew it!!!
The darn left wing liberals started it, found it wasn't popular, and now blame and label the conservatives with the negative stigma surrounding it    Hey, wait a f'ing minute!!!  Didn't John Kerry say "I voted for it before I voted against it" - sounds like he was still using that same old strategy during his run for president

Hey, Cameronpooh - You have a lot of pent up and bitter hostility towards conservatives.  I bet you even got one or two in a pit in your basement - a little something to play with in between your rants I guess

Kaboom.
cl4u53w1t2
Salon-Bolschewist
+269|6719|Kakanien
neo-conservatism is where order is disproportionate to freedom! francis fukuyama, paul wolfowitz [who is said to be a "straussian", although leo strauss, who was a great (political) philosopher, would rebuke him for his opinion/actions] etc. are its intercessors.
ps: although i would consider myself a liberal (who hates those stereotypical tree-huggers), i admire leo strauss!
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6737|Northern California
What "isn't" neo-conservatism?  Aha!  Now that's the question....
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6788|Texas - Bigger than France

oug wrote:

Pug, although wikipedia may be correct in principle, I doubt that anyone today connects the term with its former leftist origins... Trotskyism for crying out loud? I doubt that the idea of permanent revolution has anything to do with how "neo-conservatism" is used now days, or that any neo-conservative knows anything about Leon Trotsky and his theories
I don't think anyone here actually is a true-blue neo-con.  A true neo-con would actually monitor this website and call in an airstrike according to the definition provided by Poe. 

And it's just a label for convenience.  The funny thing is that tone actually doesn't come thru on the forums.  Poe sounds pretty angry.  I'd hate to believe that is true...

Ps. I learned about Trotsky in Canada - I could of taken Canadian, Russian or "American" history in high school.  I wasn't staying in Canada and "American" history was already covered...so Russia it was.  Weird - what a f'ed up curriculum it was.  I ended up taking "American" history anyway when we moved...and got sent to the principal's office for arguing with the teacher.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6775|Global Command
Cams not angry so much as he his determined to win your mind over to his side.
Because he does it pretty well he's gotten a truck load of karma from me, his suppossed adversary.
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6936|Tampa Bay Florida
lol, ironic how the righties have been using the word "liberal" as a personal insult for months, and the first time the libs stick up for themselves, they blame us for labeling them... lololol.  This is taste of your own medicine.
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6788|Texas - Bigger than France
What I'm surprised about is no one has actually sat down to write the Hippie commie-loving manifesto.  Errr...strike that...we get that every day.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6775|Global Command

Spearhead wrote:

lol, ironic how the righties have been using the word "liberal" as a personal insult for months, and the first time the libs stick up for themselves, they blame us for labeling them... lololol.  This is taste of your own medicine.
Personal insult?
If your insulted by that title your just straight up uncomfortable with the ideology and feel guilty for buying into that nonsense.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7018|PNW

The term 'neo-conservatism' is largely meaningless to me. It used to be something much different and a bit more left-leaning than what it is used for today, and is also overused. By some peoples' standards, anyone who isn't a liberal is a 'neo-conservative.'

Another term that holds equal meaningless for me is 'democratic republic,' considering the nations that adopt the label.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-09-20 03:57:07)

AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6890|Seattle, WA

CameronPoe wrote:

A thread was created, by a neo-con, asking what forum members defined a 'neo-conservative' as. It appears as though he deleted the thread after several responses, one of which was mine. I'm restarting the thread and reiterating my view:

To me a neo-conservative believes in one or more of the following principles:

- Consolidating, growing and perpetuating the current monopoly that they have on money, political power and military supremacy. Making sure that no other can compete with them on any level, by both legitimate and underhand means. Using their position of power to suppress others attempting to get ahead so that their position of dominance remains unthreatened.

- Imposing their values and systems on others across the globe (much like traditional fascists), whether they like it or not, through globalisation and the institutes that facilitate globalisation as well as down the barrel of a gun. Suppressing all forms of government different from their own as, if successful, said forms of government could present themselves as an alternative to the neo-con 'one true way'. Neo-cons go as far as to undermine democracy and use underhand and often clandestine financial, trade-related and military actions to force regime change where the democratic choice of a particular people doesn't fit their 'lapdog' needs.
 
- Exploitation of the material and human resources of countries through global financial institutions and other organisations that they themselves created, support and control (such as the IMF, World Bank, WTO, etc.). They then abandon said human resources, etc. when they are no longer 'economically viable' and do not seek to help countries in achieving sustainably healthy economies (as this poses a threat to their global dominance). Essentially capitalism at its cruellest. The bottom line is the dollar.

- Using the military, not as a deterrent or as a self-defence force, but as a tool for expanding, by force or threat of force, their power and influence across international boundaries. This tool can be used to free up material and mineral resources and to provide bases in strategic locations globally.

- Acting unilaterally on the global stage, agitating towards rewriting/destroying global commitments to various principles of conduct so that they can attempt to achieve their goals without let or hindrance.

- Happily employing double standards in pursuit of their various causes. Using 1984-style 'Double Speak' to paper over these double standards. Examples of double standards: touting democracy as the way forward whilst actively trying to destabilise the democratically elected governments of Venezuela and Palestine and overlooking the fact that Saudi Arabia is a barbaric dictatorship.

They often also believe in (although these alone are not defining characteristics):

1) Utilising Goebbels-style subversion of public opinion through the media with subtle and subliminal propaganda that influences the largely mindless TV-watching voting masses of large nations. Think 1984 [George Orwell] 'Double Speak': introducing generalised concepts & phrases, such as the term 'islamo-fascist', to demonise individuals and groups of people they wish to be deemed the current 'enemy' of the people, in the case of the example given: muslims. Creating associations in peoples minds that make their views more 'black and white' rather than grey and discerning. Human minds are surprisingly controllable en mass; propaganda and mass media is a dangerous weapon.

2) Privatisation of most/all public services, flat rate taxes, and the abolition/near abolition of all kinds of social welfare benefits such as medical care, etc. The aim of all this is to consolidate and expand the monopoly on power the 'neo-cons' currently possess by keeping the rich rich and the poor poor. The poor will be kept poor as their 'helping hands' are removed and the rich will get richer as they expand their monopolies across the newly freed up private services and the end of 'tax the rich' policies. They basically seek to perpetuate an inegalitarian society, with a growing gulf between the haves and have-nots, by removing all regulation of money-making activities and government intervention in their lives, to the detriment of society in general.
Sounds like a whole bunch of LIBERAL goverments I know of as well.....interesting.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6921|Canberra, AUS

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

A thread was created, by a neo-con, asking what forum members defined a 'neo-conservative' as. It appears as though he deleted the thread after several responses, one of which was mine. I'm restarting the thread and reiterating my view:

To me a neo-conservative believes in one or more of the following principles:

- Consolidating, growing and perpetuating the current monopoly that they have on money, political power and military supremacy. Making sure that no other can compete with them on any level, by both legitimate and underhand means. Using their position of power to suppress others attempting to get ahead so that their position of dominance remains unthreatened.

- Imposing their values and systems on others across the globe (much like traditional fascists), whether they like it or not, through globalisation and the institutes that facilitate globalisation as well as down the barrel of a gun. Suppressing all forms of government different from their own as, if successful, said forms of government could present themselves as an alternative to the neo-con 'one true way'. Neo-cons go as far as to undermine democracy and use underhand and often clandestine financial, trade-related and military actions to force regime change where the democratic choice of a particular people doesn't fit their 'lapdog' needs.
 
- Exploitation of the material and human resources of countries through global financial institutions and other organisations that they themselves created, support and control (such as the IMF, World Bank, WTO, etc.). They then abandon said human resources, etc. when they are no longer 'economically viable' and do not seek to help countries in achieving sustainably healthy economies (as this poses a threat to their global dominance). Essentially capitalism at its cruellest. The bottom line is the dollar.

- Using the military, not as a deterrent or as a self-defence force, but as a tool for expanding, by force or threat of force, their power and influence across international boundaries. This tool can be used to free up material and mineral resources and to provide bases in strategic locations globally.

- Acting unilaterally on the global stage, agitating towards rewriting/destroying global commitments to various principles of conduct so that they can attempt to achieve their goals without let or hindrance.

- Happily employing double standards in pursuit of their various causes. Using 1984-style 'Double Speak' to paper over these double standards. Examples of double standards: touting democracy as the way forward whilst actively trying to destabilise the democratically elected governments of Venezuela and Palestine and overlooking the fact that Saudi Arabia is a barbaric dictatorship.

They often also believe in (although these alone are not defining characteristics):

1) Utilising Goebbels-style subversion of public opinion through the media with subtle and subliminal propaganda that influences the largely mindless TV-watching voting masses of large nations. Think 1984 [George Orwell] 'Double Speak': introducing generalised concepts & phrases, such as the term 'islamo-fascist', to demonise individuals and groups of people they wish to be deemed the current 'enemy' of the people, in the case of the example given: muslims. Creating associations in peoples minds that make their views more 'black and white' rather than grey and discerning. Human minds are surprisingly controllable en mass; propaganda and mass media is a dangerous weapon.

2) Privatisation of most/all public services, flat rate taxes, and the abolition/near abolition of all kinds of social welfare benefits such as medical care, etc. The aim of all this is to consolidate and expand the monopoly on power the 'neo-cons' currently possess by keeping the rich rich and the poor poor. The poor will be kept poor as their 'helping hands' are removed and the rich will get richer as they expand their monopolies across the newly freed up private services and the end of 'tax the rich' policies. They basically seek to perpetuate an inegalitarian society, with a growing gulf between the haves and have-nots, by removing all regulation of money-making activities and government intervention in their lives, to the detriment of society in general.
Sounds like a whole bunch of LIBERAL goverments I know of as well.....interesting.
Like...?

China isn't liberal any more, you know. Or do you feel like taking absolutely every opportunity to attack everyone you don't agree with?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7018|PNW

Spark wrote:

...Or do you feel like taking absolutely every opportunity to attack everyone you don't agree with?
What does that remind me of?
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6788|Texas - Bigger than France

Spark wrote:

Like...?

China isn't liberal any more, you know. Or do you feel like taking absolutely every opportunity to attack everyone you don't agree with?
Did you even read Cam's post?  It seems convenient to tell people they are attacking others when the original statement is unbelievably tainted.

And also, China NEVER was liberal.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard