The Neocons/Neoliberals are finally showing their true stripes

danarhea · 06-21-07, 05:18 AM

For years, the Neocons/Neoliberals have, like Sherman tanks, been forcing and foisting a belief on America that they are Conservative, while at the same time, pushing hard a line of crap that all who disagree with them are left wing Liberals.

Lately, something has changed, and what you are seeing in this forum is representative of that change. Whether it is TOT extolling Kennedy as a so-called Neocon/Neoliberal, or bhkad using far radical leftist web sites as links in his attacks on Ron Paul, who IS a Conservative in the Goldwater / Reagan tradition, you are now witnessing the emergence of the true Liberal Hawk stripes of the Neocons/Neoliberals, and finally their admissions that they, of course, are NOT Conservative, and never really have been. Like the parasites who hijacked the Republican party and use it as their parasitic host, the Neocons/Neoliberals hijacked the word "Conservative" for their own political ends. But what caused that change? I would say that several factors are at work here.

1) First of all, the defeat of the Bushnevik faction of the Republican party at the polls is a good starter. Real Conservatives are renouncing the Neocons/Neoliberals by their votes in elections, and the Republican party which was hijacked by these clowns. The Neocons/Neoliberals now see the handwriting on the wall, and see that their days are numbered. Since they have ruined the word "Conservative", they are now revealing themselves as who they really are by "coming out" and showing the world the true Liberal elitist hawks they really are.

2) Also, real Conservatives, such as Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and others, are leading the fight against the Neocons/Neoliberals, and an American public that can no longer be fooled is finally seeing the con job that was pulled on them.

3) What more can you say except that the Neocon/Neoliberal lie which was foisted upon America could never have been really Conservative in the first place, given the fact that its founder, along with others, were once devout Communists. They may have renounced Communism, but that never made them Conservatives. Like Stalin, they still wanted world domination, along with a centrist government to control our lives. That aspect of Communism they never lost, but made an attempt to bring that aspect of communism into our government.

4) The Neocons/Neoliberals also never gave up the concept of Noble lies, which was also a philosophy important to Marx, Engels, Trotsky, and Stalin. "Noble lies" goes all the way back to Plato, and was resurrected centuries ago by Machiavelli. It is a simple concept - The people cannot think for themselves, so governments must lie to them in order to bring them on board. Such lies are noble, and the ends will justfiy the means by which they are accomplished. This was a major philosophy of Karl Marx, and was also made popular by Leo Strauss, the Chicago professor whose writings were studied by the Neocons/Neoliberals and incorporated into their own ethical standard of conduct. "Noble lies" is the reason we ended up in Iraq. These so called noble lies have come back to bite the Neocons/Neoliberals right in the a$$. Still, they keep coming up with more noble lies to justify further interventions, but now the American people are no longer listening. I believe that neither Plato, Machiavelli, Marx, Strauss, Kristol, nor any of their comrades in the Neocon/Neoliberal movement, envisioned an enlightened people who could handle the truth. That is the good thing about America. With personal freedom, comes personal responsibility, and it looks like many Americans are taking the responsibility part of it seriously. Hence, the Neocons/Neoliberals are venting great wrath, knowing that they have so little time left.

You can see, hear, and read their words now, on TV, radio, in the papers, in blogs, and yes, even in this forum. Like the stripes of a skunk, you can now see the true stripes of the Neocon/Neoliberal elites, and they do not smell any better.

Iriemon · 06-22-07, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

For years, the Neocons/Neoliberals ...

What is this "neoliberal" crap? I haven't heard that term until recently, but it seems like you are trying to throw the neocons in with the liberals.

I'd consider myself a "neoliberal", as I only considered myself a liberal after "conservatives" abandoned all relationship to fiscal responsibility and were hijacked by the religious right on social issues. But,

NO THANK YOU WE DON'T WANT NEOCONS, SUPPLY SIDERS, OR GEORGE BUSH ASSOCIATED WITH US NO MATTER HOW BADLY THEY HAVE SCREWED THINGS UP.

bhkad · 06-22-07, 04:00 PM

http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-m...tml#post577213 (CNN Censors "who won debate" after overwhelming Ron Paul Support)

This is like "Back To The Future" for them and they see themselves as plucky Marty Mc Fly and Ron Paul is Doc' Brown. And it's their duty to fix what their dumb parents and incarcerated Uncles and hard *** teachers and the Biffs of the world have messed up.

In the film, Doc Brown was slightly eccentric and the 'real' adults didn't have much to do with him, nor he with them. But because of Marty's open, loving and inquisitive nature he was willing and able to see beyond any of Doc's eccentricities and recognize his BRILLIANCE!

And adults can't see it because adults are too busy doing the things that are all screwed up and they are part of the problem. But by befriending the disheveled inventor all the would be Marty's of the world who support Doc Paul, their lives will be made more exciting, mankind will benefit and the good Doctor will get the recognition he deserves.

But that analogy doesn't hold water with Ron Paul.

Doc Brown KNEW the Libyan Terrorists were trying to get WMD's and it had nothing to do with our foreign policy so he did what was necessary to protect himself, Marty and the USA. He sold the terrorists a box of metal parts and wore a bullet proof vest.

If only Doc Paul was that smart.

Remember you heard it here first, folks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

lmfao right on right on right on, but it was "pin-ball parts."

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

That it was! Thanks for the assist!

danarhea · 06-22-07, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

What is this "neoliberal" crap? I haven't heard that term until recently, but it seems like you are trying to throw the neocons in with the liberals.

I'd consider myself a "neoliberal", as I only considered myself a liberal after "conservatives" abandoned all relationship to fiscal responsibility and were hijacked by the religious right on social issues. But,

NO THANK YOU WE DON'T WANT NEOCONS, SUPPLY SIDERS, OR GEORGE BUSH ASSOCIATED WITH US NO MATTER HOW BADLY THEY HAVE SCREWED THINGS UP.

Just as Neoconservative is not really Conservative, Neoliberal is also not really Liberal, although the roots of the Neocon/Neoliberal movement had its beginnings with the Liberals. They are still Liberal-like, wanting a big nanny government, big spending, high taxes, government control at the Federal level instead of at the State and local levels, and all the rest, but unlike true Liberals, they took away the so-called social safety net which is a hallmark of true Liberals.

The term "Neoliberal" itself is derived from what Neocons/Neoliberals called themselves BEFORE the Conservative movement swept the country. Yes, those clowns hijacked you guys too, before they hijacked us, but they were not successful hijacking Liberalism, because of the Conservative movement, so Conservatism is what ended up being hijacked.

BTW, In South America, you will still hear the term "Neoliberal" frequently, in the context of corporate control of resources vital to the quality of life, which include public utilities, such as water.

Iriemon · 06-22-07, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

Just as Neoconservative is not really Conservative, Neoliberal is also not really Liberal, although the roots of the Neocon/Neoliberal movement had its beginnings with the Liberals. They are still Liberal-like, wanting a big nanny government, big spending, high taxes, government control at the Federal level instead of at the State and local levels, and all the rest, but unlike true Liberals, they took away the so-called social safety net which is a hallmark of true Liberals.

The term "Neoliberal" itself is derived from what Neocons/Neoliberals called themselves BEFORE the Conservative movement swept the country. Yes, those clowns hijacked you guys too, before they hijacked us, but they were not successful hijacking Liberalism, because of the Conservative movement, so Conservatism is what ended up being hijacked.

BTW, In South America, you will still hear the term "Neoliberal" frequently, in the context of corporate control of resources vital to the quality of life, which include public utilities, such as water.

Whatever. I just object to putting "liberal" next to "neocon" as if they were somehow related. What I see is conservatives calling Bush and other Republicans "liberals" to try to disassociate themselves from failed economic and foreign policies.

danarhea · 06-22-07, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Whatever. I just object to putting "liberal" next to "neocon" as if they were somehow related. What I see is conservatives calling Bush and other Republicans "liberals" to try to disassociate themselves from failed economic and foreign policies.

Then we are in the same boat. I just as ardently object the Neo before Con, but that is what they call themselves. Before they did that, they were putting Neo next to Liberal. Its not your fault. Its not my fault. Its their fault. Simply put, Neoliberal and Neocon are the same thing, hence my use of the term Neocon/Neoliberal. And the term is appropriate. They DO come from Liberal elitist backgrounds, whether Liberals like it or not.

bhkad · 06-22-07, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

Then we are in the same boat. I just as ardently object the Neo before Con, but that is what they call themselves. Before they did that, they were putting Neo next to Liberal. Its not your fault. Its not my fault. Its their fault. Simply put, Neoliberal and Neocon are the same thing, hence my use of the term Neocon/Neoliberal. And the term is appropriate. They DO come from Liberal elitist backgrounds, whether Liberals like it or not.

Here's the beginning of the term.

[YOUTUBE]IAUDcmaJNWQ[/YOUTUBE]

Quote:

IRVING KRISTOL: If you had asked any liberal in 1960, we are going to pass these laws, these laws, these laws, and these laws, mentioning all the laws that in fact were passed in the 1960s and ‘70s, would you say crime will go up, drug addiction will go up, illegitimacy will go up, or will they get down? Obviously, everyone would have said, they will get down. And everyone would have been wrong. Now, that’s not something that the liberals have been able to face up to. They’ve had their reforms, and they have led to consequences that they did not expect and they don’t know what to do about.

VO: In the early ‘70s, Irving Kristol became the focus of a group of disaffected intellectuals in Washington. They were determined to understand why the optimistic liberal policies had failed. And they found the answer in the theories of Leo Strauss. Strauss explained that it was the very basis of the liberal idea—the belief in individual freedom—that was causing the chaos, because it undermined the shared moral framework that held society together. Individuals pursued their own selfish interests, and this inevitably led to conflict. As the movement grew, many young students who had studied Strauss’ ideas came to Washington to join this group. Some, like Paul Wolfowitz, had been taught Strauss’ ideas at the University of Chicago, as had Francis F u k uyama. And others, like Irving Kristol’s son William, had studied Strauss’ theories at Harvard. This group became known as the neoconservatives.

WILLIAM KRISTOL: Well, many of them couldn’t get academic jobs, and the political science and philosophy faculties were not terribly friendly to those of a conservative or moderately conservative disposition. And the truth is that a lot of people who ended up in Washington started out as academics. I did; Paul Wolfowitz did; and decided they probably didn’t have very good prospects in the academy. What we all had in common, I think, was a certain doubt about what once seemed a kind of great certainty and confidence in liberal progress. The philosophic grounds for liberal democracy had been weakened. So I think Straussians who came to Washington, they didn’t think of themselves as Churchill or Lincoln, let me assure you, but they did that, you know, there’s something noble about public life, and about politics, and they tried to make a contribution in many different areas.

VO: The neoconservatives were idealists. Their aim was to try and stop the social disintegration they believed liberal freedoms had unleashed. They wanted to find a way of uniting the people, by giving them a shared purpose. One of their great influences in doing this would be the theories of Leo Strauss. They would set out to recreate the myth of America as a unique nation whose destiny was to battle against evil in the world. And in this project, the source of evil would be America’s Cold War enemy: the Soviet Union. And by doing this, they believed that they would not only give new meaning and purpose to people’s lives, but they would spread the good of democracy around the world.

Transcript - The Power of Nightmares - Part 1

The film continues in other installments available on Youtube or Google video.

bhkad · 06-22-07, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Whatever. I just object to putting "liberal" next to "neocon" as if they were somehow related. What I see is conservatives calling Bush and other Republicans "liberals" to try to disassociate themselves from failed economic and foreign policies.

Uh, no, buhweat.

Sergeant Stinger1 · 06-23-07, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

For years, the Neocons/Neoliberals have, like Sherman tanks, been forcing and foisting a belief on America that they are Conservative, while at the same time, pushing hard a line of crap that all who disagree with them are left wing Liberals.

Lately, something has changed, and what you are seeing in this forum is representative of that change. Whether it is TOT extolling Kennedy as a so-called Neocon/Neoliberal, or bhkad using far radical leftist web sites as links in his attacks on Ron Paul, who IS a Conservative in the Goldwater / Reagan tradition, you are now witnessing the emergence of the true Liberal Hawk stripes of the Neocons/Neoliberals, and finally their admissions that they, of course, are NOT Conservative, and never really have been. Like the parasites who hijacked the Republican party and use it as their parasitic host, the Neocons/Neoliberals hijacked the word "Conservative" for their own political ends. But what caused that change? I would say that several factors are at work here.

1) First of all, the defeat of the Bushnevik faction of the Republican party at the polls is a good starter. Real Conservatives are renouncing the Neocons/Neoliberals by their votes in elections, and the Republican party which was hijacked by these clowns. The Neocons/Neoliberals now see the handwriting on the wall, and see that their days are numbered. Since they have ruined the word "Conservative", they are now revealing themselves as who they really are by "coming out" and showing the world the true Liberal elitist hawks they really are.

2) Also, real Conservatives, such as Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and others, are leading the fight against the Neocons/Neoliberals, and an American public that can no longer be fooled is finally seeing the con job that was pulled on them.

3) What more can you say except that the Neocon/Neoliberal lie which was foisted upon America could never have been really Conservative in the first place, given the fact that its founder, along with others, were once devout Communists. They may have renounced Communism, but that never made them Conservatives. Like Stalin, they still wanted world domination, along with a centrist government to control our lives. That aspect of Communism they never lost, but made an attempt to bring that aspect of communism into our government.

4) The Neocons/Neoliberals also never gave up the concept of Noble lies, which was also a philosophy important to Marx, Engels, Trotsky, and Stalin. "Noble lies" goes all the way back to Plato, and was resurrected centuries ago by Machiavelli. It is a simple concept - The people cannot think for themselves, so governments must lie to them in order to bring them on board. Such lies are noble, and the ends will justfiy the means by which they are accomplished. This was a major philosophy of Karl Marx, and was also made popular by Leo Strauss, the Chicago professor whose writings were studied by the Neocons/Neoliberals and incorporated into their own ethical standard of conduct. "Noble lies" is the reason we ended up in Iraq. These so called noble lies have come back to bite the Neocons/Neoliberals right in the a$$. Still, they keep coming up with more noble lies to justify further interventions, but now the American people are no longer listening. I believe that neither Plato, Machiavelli, Marx, Strauss, Kristol, nor any of their comrades in the Neocon/Neoliberal movement, envisioned an enlightened people who could handle the truth. That is the good thing about America. With personal freedom, comes personal responsibility, and it looks like many Americans are taking the responsibility part of it seriously. Hence, the Neocons/Neoliberals are venting great wrath, knowing that they have so little time left.

You can see, hear, and read their words now, on TV, radio, in the papers, in blogs, and yes, even in this forum. Like the stripes of a skunk, you can now see the true stripes of the Neocon/Neoliberal elites, and they do not smell any better.

______
A lot of words but they just form YOUR OPINION!!! And thats it.

1069 · 06-23-07, 12:13 AM

Liberals are, by definition, progressive.
Ergo, "neo-liberalism" is a fairly stupid concept.
Progress is constant.
Liberalism has never been, nor was it ever meant to be, static.
It's a growing, evolving ideology.