What neo-conservative is - and what it isn't

[hiti]

Example of Neo-conservative Aggressive Nationalism

http://www.raidersnewsupdate.com/lead-story101.htm

The “United Nations Reform Act of 2005” masquerades as a bill that will cut US dues to the United Nations by 50% if that organization does not complete a list of 39 reforms. On the surface any measure that threatens to cut funding to the United Nations seems very attractive, but do not be fooled: in this case reform “success” will be worse than failure. The problem is in the supposed reforms themselves – specifically in the policy changes this bill mandates.

What does this mean? The official adoption of this definition by the United Nations would have the effect of making resistance to any government or any international organization an international crime. It would make any attempt to overthrow a government an international causus belli for UN military action. Until this point a sovereign government retained the legal right to defend against or defeat any rebellion within its own territory. Now any such activity would constitute justification for United Nations action inside that country. This could be whenever any splinter group decides to resist any regime – regardless of the nature of that regime.

What if this were in place when the Contras were fighting against the Marxist regime in Nicaragua? Or when the Afghan mujahadeen was fighting against the Soviet-installed government in the 1980s? Or during the Warsaw Ghetto uprising? The new message is clear: resistance – even resistance to the UN itself – is futile. Why does every incumbent government, no matter how bad, deserve UN military assistance to quell domestic unrest?

[KG]

Well I'm a neoconservative probably because I was brought up one.
In Taiwan, the government has a huge influence on the market activities, and it has always tried to intervene when needed. So I'm not really a big supporter for complete privatization for public services. I believe that some of the crown corporations should remain public. I believe that energy firms and health care should remain in the public hands to a certain degree instead of having a fully free-market system as in the state. I'm also for gun control as I am not opposed to large government to some degree unlike many of my fellow conservatives on the board. That is the way it works in Taiwan and it works well. I was brought up an evangelical Christian, and like so many Taiwanese, I'm probably called a "far-right" social conservative in Canada, though only a moderate one in Taiwan. And as for foreign policy, I dont really shift towards one way or another, but I'm for democratizing other countries that conservatives support unlike the liberals who would not mind doing business with totalitarian government.

[LiberallyConservative]

Never really understood why liberals seem to hate and fear neo-cons so much - both share a faith in democratization; it's just that the neo-con isn't afraid to actually walk the walk and get his hands dirty with the task of democratization.

Maybe liberals are feeling a bit guilty that for all their pro-democracy rhetoric, they are more than satisfied in keeping the status quo and staying out of trouble...

[JBG]

Never really understood why liberals seem to hate and fear neo-cons so much - both share a faith in democratization; it's just that the neo-con isn't afraid to actually walk the walk and get his hands dirty with the task of democratization.

Maybe liberals are feeling a bit guilty that for all their pro-democracy rhetoric, they are more than satisfied in keeping the status quo and staying out of trouble...

They hate and fear neo-cons because neo-conservatism is attractive to many thinking liberals such as myself. Sort of like the way a pig screams when it's stuck.

[Protectionist]

This was a mispost, but since it's up:

Mr Walsh's notion that traditional conservatism embraces a foreign policy of colonial expansionism is wrong. Traditional conservatism embraces isolationism, tariffs, protectionism, etc.

[JBG]

Mispost...sorry

Don't worry. This topic deserved a "BUMP".

[Protectionist]

Mispost...sorry

Don't worry. This topic deserved a "BUMP".

Basically every post made by Mr Walsh and those by Concerned Canuck - other than his first two, should be deleted to bring this thread clarity.

Vdare.com extensively writes on the topic of neoconservatism.

[OfficialPro]

these days, "neo-con" is a pejorative term used by leftists who don't really understand what "neo-cons" actually are.

[LiberallyConservative]

these days, "neo-con" is a pejorative term used by leftists who don't really understand what "neo-cons" actually are.

It is also of note that neo-cons are often, on one hand, viewed as Zionist puppets, doing the bidding of Israel.
On the other hand, neo-cons are also tied in with white supremacists and anti-semitic movements.

Contradictions like this (and there are many others) should be more than enough to show the left/modern liberal movement as the mental illness that it is.

[Monorprise]

They are conservatives primarily on foreign policy

Mr Walsh,

Half of the thesis regarding neo-cons is that they aren't traditionally conservative vis a vis foreign policy. If you're interested in learning more, please read Dr. Macdonald's paper.

NOT true, these are confused people.

The bastion of conservatism was Victorian England, a monarchy that was a world power and VERY CONSERVATIVE.

The difference between that country, Great Britain and the US today for example is that the US is more or less socially liberal and fiscally liberal but exerts power abroad as Victorian England did.

But there is one big difference, Victorian England's thrust of power was primarily for its own good and not greatly influenced by foreign nations. This is not the case in the US today.

Those that say the US should not exercise its military might outside the US are not conservatives but they would more typically be called libertarian or even anarchists.

I think you guys have all lost it. I don’t recall, it ever being Conservative not to assert our rights. I also don’t recall it ever being conservative to change the basic way politics is conducted, and abandon the basic principles established. Since the founding of our nation!!!
I don’t recall the British monarch, who attempted constantly to impose monopolies and government controlled corporations upon its people and that of people around the world as being Conservative but rather Athoratarisim and corrupted.
I don’t recall begging against LBJ's "great society as a bad idea" being called liberal either!

This was a mispost, but since it's up:

Mr Walsh's notion that traditional conservatism embraces a foreign policy of colonial expansionism is wrong. Traditional conservatism embraces isolationism, tariffs, protectionism, etc.

if you guys want to rename the definition of conservative, it would help you significantly to:
1. Study American history.
2. Study American political system
and 3. Actual try an understand the concept of conservative in the terms of politics(management of the inherent process of world change!!)
if you want to call these people liberals, fine go ahead, but liberal to what? what policy are they changing?

Perhaps it would be helpful to refer you to George Washington and the basic philosophy believe that has comes to define the nature of what it is traditional to be called an American! In his first oath of office and the first inaugural address, the first American Presdent George Washington the first GW said:

"The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people."

Early Americans, Believed in liberty, and justice, and freedom for all. They believe that a man should have the right to chooses whom he elect to lead him nationally, and that no such power should ever be invested in someone who was NOT chosen. They were aware of the inherent fallacies of governments. And saw that the need to limit and keep checks on it was critical! They believed that 1 day Americans could help hasten the spread of liberty around the world, in consistent with our most basic principles! This is the foundation of American believe and principles! And if you are a conservative who does not believe in this, you are no American conservative in this regard!!!
You are then simply by definition one who would change this basic believe and printable therefore defining you in this regard as a liberal, whether or not it be American or not it is still so!
Theses ideas may have been liberal at the time they were spoken, but now the are very much conservative!! Freedom!!! Justice!!!! And Liberty!!!!!
http://www.archives.gov/national-archiv ... m_14.html#

“The flames kindled on the Fourth of July, 1776, have spread
over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism;
on the contrary, they will consume these engines and all who work them.”
- Thomas Jefferson 1821

To a large degree we have succeeded in this, over the years!

“In the first century following the Declaration of Independence, movements in France, Belgium, Poland, Norway, Switzerland, as well as in Venezuela, Mexico, and Argentina drew both inspiration and practical lessons from the American Revolution and its landmark documents. During the nineteenth century, the adoption of written constitutions often accompanied changes in governments in Europe and Latin America.
In 1917, there were approximately a dozen democracies in the world. Today, there are more than one hundred, and most of them have written constitutions. While the charters of many of these nations vary greatly from the U.S. Constitution, its endurance and stability has surely lent encouragement and credibility to the cause of freedom-loving people everywhere who have labored to throw off tyrannical regimes and devise for themselves a system of self-determination and government based on the consent of the governed.”

That is part of American Conservatives!!!
This “Palo Conservative” you’re talking about, I can’t imagine this kind of thinker ever existing and calling himself an American Conservative!

It has served us thou the Cold War:



We are American's and we have a duty to protect and stand up for Freedom!!! As that is indeed the only way it can be preserved!!! At home, and when we can aboard!! http://www.reaganlibrary.com/reagan/speeches/wall.asp



The right to Pray, freedom of Religion, and freedom of speech shall NOT be infringed upon by the United States of America!!

May the GW Bush be with you!!!

[OfficialPro]

these days, "neo-con" is a pejorative term used by leftists who don't really understand what "neo-cons" actually are.

It is also of note that neo-cons are often, on one hand, viewed as Zionist puppets, doing the bidding of Israel.
On the other hand, neo-cons are also tied in with white supremacists and anti-semitic movements.

Contradictions like this (and there are many others) should be more than enough to show the left/modern liberal movement as the mental illness that it is.

Yeah that's odd. However it has been noted by people like Rush Limbaugh that when libs say "neo-con" they really mean "Jew," because a lot of the neo-libs are antisemitic now for some strange reason.

Lots of libtards accuse the modern Zionist movement of being just another nazi movement.

[Protectionist]

Monorprise

Don't get all tied up in that stuff...

Paleoconservatism is a fancy way of saying "traditionalist" and "protectionist" and being "ultra right-wing" about it.

ie you're a religionist, or a racialist, or a culturalist, or all three or either of two.

I'd probably classify you as a respectable, proud, paleoconservative.

Neoconservative is a fancy way of saying traitor.

[JBG]

Yeah that's odd. However it has been noted by people like Rush Limbaugh that when libs say "neo-con" they really mean "Jew," because a lot of the neo-libs are antisemitic now for some strange reason.

Lots of libtards accuse the modern Zionist movement of being just another nazi movement.

The "libtards"¹ have a thing about loving "victims", i.e. the poor countries of the world, and the poor people in a country. Israel was loved by the liberals back in the 1950's and early 1960's. Its graduation from a pioneering state with poor kibbutzniks (effectively farmers on collective farms) to a middle-class, First World state cost it victim status and liberal sympathy.

Now, they lionize the Palestinians as the latest, greatest victims. It does not seem to matter to them that any money given for humanitarian purposes either goes into a despot's bank account or is used for purposes of funding death and destruction. They ignore the major cause of the poverty of these people, which is that conducting business in areas they control is largely impossible and extremely unsafe. Without the rule of law no party will sanely do business or invest money.

Anti-semitism, in the wake of the Holocaust, is still not "politically correct". It's a long way on the road to getting there though.

¹I am a liberal but not quite dumb enough to be a retard. My IQ is 89 and I believe retard status starts at 85, though I'm not sure.

[Protectionist]

Yeah that's odd. However it has been noted by people like Rush Limbaugh that when libs say "neo-con" they really mean "Jew," because a lot of the neo-libs are antisemitic now for some strange reason.

Lots of libtards accuse the modern Zionist movement of being just another nazi movement.

The "libtards"¹ have a thing about loving "victims", i.e. the poor countries of the world, and the poor people in a country. Israel was loved by the liberals back in the 1950's and early 1960's. Its graduation from a pioneering state with poor kibbutzniks (effectively farmers on collective farms) to a middle-class, First World state cost it victim status and liberal sympathy.

Now, they lionize the Palestinians as the latest, greatest victims. It does not seem to matter to them that any money given for humanitarian purposes either goes into a despot's bank account or is used for purposes of funding death and destruction. They ignore the major cause of the poverty of these people, which is that conducting business in areas they control is largely impossible and extremely unsafe. Without the rule of law no party will sanely do business or invest money.

Anti-semitism, in the wake of the Holocaust, is still not "politically correct". It's a long way on the road to getting there though.

¹I am a liberal but not quite dumb enough to be a retard. My IQ is 89 and I believe retard status starts at 85, though I'm not sure.

Have you read the Culture of Critique by Dr. Kevin Macdonald and what do you think about it?

Culture of Critique by Dr. Kevin Macdonald
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-Preface.html


Books and Essays by Dr. Kevin Macdonald
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books.html


If only people weren't so PC indoctrinated (ie last 50 years) and instead remembered what human (members of the animal family) evolutionary indoctrination (ie last several hundred million years) has been and always will be (me first + herd).

[bulldog905]

Protectionist Ask

Have you read the Culture of Critique by Dr. Kevin Macdonald and what do you think about it?

I have read it on line, and I think it is an anti-semitic work.

MacDonald does raise accurate observations about the organized lobby groups, and the history behind massive immigration, but then he gets rather paranoid and gets into racist generalizations, evolutionary psychology and a conspiratorial mindset.

Any truths he may state, are overshadowed by this.