@lector0003 Yes neo conservatism is a watered down version of fascism in truest sense. Fascism is a corpratist, moralist ideology, and millitary agressive philosophy. The state uses force to bring about nationalism, moralism, and militaristic empire.
Murray entails the dilemma of modern conservatism. Act to change the status-quo, or act to defend the status-quo. Whether or not people here like neoconservatism, the problem with paleoconservatism and traditional conservatism is the adherence to the status-quo, which, in times of peace is fine, still doesn't gauge a plan for the future. This is why libertarianism gets a bad rap by conservatives, they're seeking change while traditional conservatives are not.
Given the choice between a liberal and a neoconservative, the LIBERAL is actually the lesser of two evils. Neoconservatism is FAR more dangerous than liberalism. I will never, ever, ever vote in any way that benefits a neoconservative candidate for any office.
Neocons are comically evil. They are like the bad guy in every Saturday morning cartoon who wants to take over the world. ''And now I will build a space laser capable of expanding Israel's borders which I will finance by cutting Social security MUAHAHAHA''
Neoconservatism-the pillar of American hypocrisy. They adopt a large government stance when it makes the rich and corporations money and advances the industrial military complex and they adopt a small government philosophy on things that can help non-rich people. Socialism for the rich, and survival of the fittest for everyone else.
I genuinely get the impression that Neo-conservatives are a mix of modernised conservatives with a realist outlook, and liberals of the left who found distain at the newest trend of applying relativism to every event in foreign affairs. It's unfair to call neo-cons warmongers, but it should be noted they are probably more likely to engage in military action with moral certainty, while the leftist "intelligencia" sit around and ponder how they can make, whatever the issue is, their fault.
Are you kidding? The Neocons seek to remake the world in the way that they want it through the use of US military force. This is not realism, it is fantasy by intellectuals who will never have to face war. There outlook is as real as the Iraqi WMDS.
@MrAntineocon You can't single out Neocons for having an ideology that wishes to remake policy in their favour, every political party wishes this to some degree, hence elections. Brit-neocons. are very different from U.S-neocons. , and do not invest US unilateralism. Intellectuals who have faced war are no better than intellectuals who haven't, look at the failure of Trotskyism for an example. Their outlook saved the Kurds and removed Saddam when many on the Left were lapping up isolationism.
@shrapn0 Yes ,but taxing and sending others to die while not doing it yourself is very hypocritical. Not wanting to invade a country that doesn't pose a threat to you isn't 'isolationism'. The Iraq war killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis so the humanitarian argument doesn't exactly hold up. If you want to invade a country simply because they have a brutal dictator then you would have to invade dozens of nations. That is an insane fantasy,not a rational foreign policy.
@MrAntineocon If that was the case no country could ever go to war unless it was the Gov bearing arms. There wouldnt be an army. To say Iraq wasnt a threat is uninformed. Baghdad was for years the residence of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted criminal in the world & had bombed airports in Italy. Baghdad was also the home for the group that murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Your last argument suggests that because we can't do everything we should do nothing. This to me sounds like the irrational fantasy.
@shrapn0 Frankly speaking there were plenty of benefits to keeping Saddam in power. He had a secular regime, provided a good buffer against Iran and generally kept the place stable. He was also a foe of Al-Qaida most of the time so we shared a common enemy. Looking from a realistic geopolitical standpoint the Iraq war was just stupid. Again the suffering of the Iraqi people was unfortunate, but my country has no obligation to them.
@MrAntineocon For a great in depth insight into the horrors of life under Saddams Stalinist style of regime, I'd recommend reading anything by the Iraqi marxist intellectual, Kanan Makiya. A lot of the commonly bleated arguments (as the ones you just gave) may dissipate after reading. Other than that, I fear human solidarity may have been replaced with realpolitik entirely in your political outlook, and unfortunately I don't have the space or the time to go through the complexities with you.
@shrapn0 Fine one last thing: If Saddam was so evil why did the Neocons have no problem supporting him in the Iran Iraq war? Why didn't we invade Iraq in 1986 when the genocide against the Kurds was being committed? Why did the neocons not speak when weapons were being sold to him? Why did neocons like John McCain condemn the Egyptian revolution which threw out a Mubarak?
@MrAntineocon As the video shows, neocons are not a party or a movement, so I believe your distain is directed at Republicans. Unfortunately, the Cold War was still going at the time of these atrocities, and govs saw these conflicts as proxy to their advantage, as did the communists. You won't find me saying its a flawless ideology. No such thing exists. The term "neocon" is so misused today. Even Obama's been called a neocon for a "semi-war" against Libya. Nothing more than a far-left slur now.
@MrAntineocon It's interesting to see that you mentioned the Arab spring as there is certainly no chance it ever would have occurred, had a genocidal dictator privately owned an oil rich, military nation in a key position in the middle east. Hope I made my point clear with the Obama/McCain contrast. Support (or lack of) for any military action that doesn't suit the far left is "neoconservative". Only Isolationism would make them happy. Ironic seeing as the far left are supposed internationalists
@MrAntineocon It's been an interesting discussion, but we may just need to agree to disagree. With the username "MrAntineocon" I doubt there is anything I could possibly say to you that would alter your dislike for this particularly unique view of international relations. I'm no neocon but I can safely say it is a fascinating ideology, especially as that since 2001 they have been doing the lefts work for them. This is my last comment so if you want the last word, feel free..
@MrAntineocon if you want to be a pacifist, that is fine with me, but don't dress it up like a dissenting voice against "imperialism" aimed at those who believe war can be morally justified. Reflecting on your last comment, I now doubt you actually care, or have cared to look at what it is like living under "simply" a brutal dictatorship like in Ba'athist Iraq, when family members were forced to applaud the execution of family members. Your comment was not only careless, it was shameful.
@shrapn0 I believe in giving hell if my country is attacked so no I am not a pacifist. My heart goes out to those who live in brutal dictatorship, but the US military does not exist to defend or liberate them. If Iraq was hiding criminals of importance we should have sent in special forces to capture or kill them like we did in Pakistan, no necessity for a full invasion. Also remember that the west supported Saddam at the time of his genocide.
Realism? But act in the way we like it to be? Okay sounds like the views for NeoCons are against liberty in every manner, Libertarians> than Neocons, Liberals and all of the above for libery is more valuable than anything what an incompetent prick!
Neoconservatism is more idealism than realism and is actually a liberal view of the world without being called that. And while they may say they reject multiculturalism they are in fact in favor of a liberal immigration policy and government policy that enforces civil and human rights and their their of government is indeed liberal also but they are not in favor of tax increases to pay for those programs.
Contradictions everywhere. 'One suppaawwts demorrrrcracy and one raaather dislikes socialism and the unrealistic thought that fellow human beings should look after one another. Historically our political ideology is based on the philosophies of those diametrically opposed to democracy and we believe it is our duty, as human beings to look after one another, by invading evil non democracies we've set up.'
Neoconservatives are nothing more than people from the left, hiding behind a term that contains the word 'conservative.' In all actuality, there is not one thing conservative, or moral for that matter, about neoconservatives. Any group of people who are desperate for 'new Pearl Harbor' type events so that they can revamp the Middle East are scum - nothing more than evil, scum.
This is what neocon means to me: Militaristic socialism with a dash of nationalism. A very dangerous ideology.
Rank and file 'neocons' are being taken for a ride by their leaders who are nothing more than war profiteers and imperialists. They wrap themselves in the flag and tell you that the ends justify the means, but there is no greater goal for them. It is looting and destruction for profit and for power.
@mozaks80 Fall of Soviet imperialism, fall of facsist Baath regime in Iraq, the uprisings in North Africa & Middle East against tinpot dictators are all very good examples
I like battle of ideas, it was lost 100 years ago tho. You can stop everything but progress. With progress, pluralism and free speech we have doomed (Or freed) ourselves to liberalism.
Neo-conservatism belongs on the left and not the right of the political spectrum because of their deep seeded beliefs in social engineering and nation building through world revolution .
I long since realized that islamic penetration into western societies was a threat to us all. I've moved on now to what to do about it. Firstly, I vote for a derided party of nationalists in the UK called the BNP. Not because I admire its leaders or endorse all or even many of it's policies but because it is the strongest protest I can legitimately send to the establishment who stubbornly ignores the wishes of British people which is an end to islamic immigration into Europe never mind Britain.
The trouble with this British neocon's defense of Neoconservatism is that he speaks from a British understanding of conservatism. Although the British arrived at a parliamentary system of government, their constitution retains and preserves a "constitutional monarchy" albeit ceremonial in government power.
Hence, one can only surmise that the old style noble loyalty that he begrudges is of that line that understands European traditionalists. How could he ever appreciate the "Constitutional" form of government (which was a radical break from the British system at the time) that noble statesmen like Dr. Ron Paul defends and echos today?
Douglas Murray is nothing more than a jumped up homosexual sounding private schoolboy, who is out to make a mess of Britain ( while lining his own pocket ) he is talking a load of jargon that only his kind of people understand.
But he should never under estimate the power of the common people .. he is the man who is out to destroy everything that is British. He is the man who is scared of the BNP and he has just handed a dossier over to the police trying to brand innocent people as racists.
Neo-conservatism is the greatest political philosophy of this generation. It is truly the most secure and socio-politically valid form of government ever devised. God bless the neo-cons and God bless the Republican Party.
Don't be ridiculous. Communism killed 100 million + people. Neoconservativism has not done anything even approaching that. And this "fascist" label is getting really old. All it means anymore is that someone lost an argument and they are sore about it.
@ladistar Wait wtf? Neo Conservatism is a shitbox ideology mixing the bad parts of liberalism with the bad parts of conservatism, I think you meant Libertarianism.
@TaqiyyaExposer Im guessing your one of those retards that call themselves "realists" and are always bitching about political correctness and probably consider yourself an intellectual. Amirite or Amirite?
I am guessing that you're one of those people who expects to be taken seriously in a debate when your command of English and retarded opinions have already exposed your low IQ long ago. Am i right, or am i right?
@TaqiyyaExposer U MAD? Its called l33t speak newfag, you're posting on youtube not in a newspaper but I guess your computer illiterate ass wouldn't understand that, stick to tv grandpa and stop gettin so mad.
@TaqiyyaExposer Its OK, I know u r mad Mr Angry Pants, just take a chill pill, swallow it down with a Big Mac and become as useless as every other fat prick that lives in Australia, then you wont need to hate on Muslims to feel a sense of belonging.
@brad238899 and you must be an even bigger idiot if you think that is what I was saying without even acknowledging the context in which i said it. I was merely replying to a comment from a neo-con who was trying to say that neo-conservatism was the best ideology. I then replied by saying that it is not and is actually a bad ideology and corrected him by saying that Libertarianism is a better alternative.
Maybe next time you will take more consideration with your posts.
neoconservatism is NOT conservatism. its WRONG that they called it neoconservatism, not even close to conservatism, is IS socialism. NEOCONSERVATISM IS SOCIALISM. Dont listen to this dude.
I think neo-conservatism is the opposite of democracy. Listen to how he would like to fashion the world in his own image, rule of the few over the many. Most people despise neoconservative thinking, but he still clings to it like a dog to a tree. (Self-flagellation)
neo-conservatism is what it is, a mix of socialism and fascism added with a big dose of Zionism, that is neocons for you, the same group of murderers who brought down the twin toweres and orchestrated the london bombings.
That's not what I heard brought down the twin towers. They were brought down the by the evil Illuminati secret government in collusion who were in collusion with space aliens and the devil. In fact if you look at the videotape a few seconds before the second tower went down, you can barely make out a Romulan Bird of Prey briefly decloaking to the west of the tower. The Romulans caused 9/11 with a a pair of photon torpedoes by order of the Illuminati!
you should stop dabbling in the occult, that was completely unscientific and crazy talk, btw Romulan is really a fictional race from Star Trek, stop watching TV and start making a difference to your life.
"but it's much worst, it also attempt to divide the world into good vs evil, corrupting the public view on what is actually right and wrong."
Except you are forgetting the other manner in which the public is corrupted in the manner of right and wrong -ie relativism the belief that there is no objective right and wrong. That is far worse than any faulty manicheanism, and in fact manichean notions may be necessary to stave off relativism to give people clear distinctions of good and evil.
Whatever critiques can be made of neoconservativism, it can not be compared with socialism. If you think otherwise just go to any campus university and watch all of the commie kids at an SDS table go on and on about how much they can't stand neocons.
Neo conservatism was born out of Leo Straus socialistic idea, but it's much worst, it also attempt to divide the world into good vs evil, corrupting the public view on what is actually right and wrong. To put it short neocons are warmongering, manipulators, and mostly Jews :)
If you had read any of Leo Strauss's books at all you would understand that there is nothing socialistic about him. In fact he was very antithetical to socialism. The Straussian half of neoconservativism BTW never originated on the left in the first place. Leo Strauss was originally a right-wing thinker who in turn was schooled by right-wing thinkers. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here. I'm going to suggest you read Natural Right and History to better understand Strauss.
"To put it short neocons are warmongering, manipulators, and mostly Jews :)"
I don't see how some of them being Jewish has any relevance to their ideas whatsoever. As for warmongering, to paraphrase Nietzsche: war is an excellent way to kick a decadent culture out of it's sloth and complacency.
That so many within the NeoCon movement are Jewish is not a mere coincidence. "NeoCon" is not an ideology but a ruse to justify using U.S. blood and treasure to pursue Israeli goals in the Middle East. Bin Laden's animus against U.S. is owing to U.S. support of Israel. How do we know this? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT Bin Laden SAID!!! (See his manifesto against the West, pre 9/11) But you can't say this in polite company or you are immediately slimed as an anti semite.
@JohananRaatz i guess that's true... but it is sort of neoliberal... it's not conservative, it includes big spending, especially military.... suppose thats why i said socialism-in retrospect that is no accurate
it is very revealing that he doesn't explain what self-flagellation (a masochistic or sadistic act in which the participants receive erotic stimulation from whipping or being whipped.) has to do with "liberalism," or as he chooses to marginalise it, "socialism."
one more neo-con that refuses to elaborate on his rhetoric.
Neoconservatism -- Trotskyist internationalism under guise of 'democracy,' add an adaptive mega dose of Wall Street + two megadeath doses of imperialist planetary war to accomplish its ends. Socialism for the rich
@orbis2009 How is neo-conservatism like Trotskyism? Trotskyism is a type of communism that advocates 'permanent revolution' of the working class. Neo-conservatism is a lesser version of fascism that advocates corporatism and imperialist wars under the guise of 'liberation'. Am I mistaken somewhere?
@jack5051525354 Check out the ideological pedigree of many of its leading proponents. Internationalism in new wine skins, only this time redistributing the wealth ala socialism upwards to where they find themselves perched today.
@PinkoPapist89 Haha that to. One in every ten neocons biting the dust doesn't sound so bad. Still when talking about 'socialism for the rich' it's important to remember that actual communists like Trotsky don't believe in 'socialism for the rich'.
Washington has been handing trillions of middle class tax dollars to the Military Industrial Complex, and to the wealthy since Bush was elected. The runt upstairs sees "social engineering" as justified, as long as it serves his view of the world. A view that I find to be narcissistic and ultimately has it's roots in greed. There's nothing positive that has happened over the past 9 years, this man speaks for himself, and three hundred million Americans long for a change. Good Luck!
"They'll just use the resources from the U.N. for the Pax Americana route. So no matter which side wins, we all lose."
In the second route though America remains on top, and then we won't have to put up with the ICC, the UN homeschooling and spanking bans, the mandatory international welfare, and the compelling of abortions overseas. Not perfect but vastly better than route one.
You forgot something though. Manhandling, especially the manhandling you would need to do this, requires power, LOTS OF POWER. Which again is what you wanted to avoid when you started out.
If you kill them you become them. There is no escape from this. I once thought like you do, but then I realized to "behead a liberal" so to speak I would need to become a neocon.
So if you go down this route I'm telling you you will one day need to be "beheaded" yourself by your successor.
A society can survive a corrupt ruler but it can not survive a corrupt people. A corrupt people is a worse threat to the survival of a society than a corrupt ruler.
If you have a corrupt ruler in place who -though for corrupt means or even perhaps for corrupt motives- who uncorrupts his people you can save the society in spite of itself and in spite of the ruler.
Ok your jumping to a conclusion here. It's a common conclusion to jump to but it isn't accurate. Neocons believe in utilitarianism -that there is a hierarchy of principles and that the lower ones can be broken to service the higher ones. This is NOT however the same thing as moral relativism -the idea that existentialism is ultimately true and that we can pick and choose which hierarchy of principles we will have. Utilitarianism still has absolutes whereas existentialism has none.
Ok, how do you propose we do that? Abortion has been around too long. People are used to it now. They won't allow it. Look at South Dakota for example. A red state should theoretically keep the ban right? Well it didn't happen that way.
Well I do agree there, but it will probably have to be social engineering at the grassroots level. Not a government solution but still a neocon-style approach. (I have something like this in facebook with about 1200 members if you are interested)
Yes many of the reforms happened after Pinochet left. But they were only made possible because of what he did in the mean time. If he hadn't dumped all the commies in the ocean and used his autocrat powers to make abortion illegal all those good things afterwards would have never been possible.
Don't think that this is meant to be an end in itself. It's not. In the end I like the society you want only we can't get from point A to point C without first going through point B.
That's what we've been doing for the last 5-6 decades before the recently. It hasn't worked.
Look the Constitution is like the game rules. If the liberals break them all the time and keep winning because of it it will do us absolutely no good to continue to play nice with a blatant cheater.
You understand the left but you don't. The left NEEDS to be manhandled. It's the only way.
The "Pax" route can't end up where you are thinking for structural reasons. It's not that they mightn't want it it's that they can't have it because of the way our society is set up.
Another little principle comes to mind here.Manipulators can manipulate but only so far as the people let them. They have to work within a system as well, they can't just do anything. Our American heritage has influenced the culture sufficiently that it places certain parameters on what they can and can not do.
Not everything is as it appears. I've got a CFR member and a PNAC signatory on my friends list on facebook. I read his stuff regularly and he does not have the same goals as many of the others. Frequently people at this level are trying to "buddy-up" just so that they can manipulate each other.
What you are observing is valid but it is incomplete. At this level of politics everyone is involved with everything. So if there is something big going on of course the NWO is in on it. But that's only half the story. Frequently their are countless factions of manipulators all trying to play each other. They work together but they're not on the same team.
In fact the only reason they probably don't all go out right and shoot each other is because then they couldn't manipulate each other.
Because I've seen how things work. Human nature is screwed up to the point where I literally don't think it can. I'm sorry after studying politics and how human nature works I'm a complete cynic.
The problems are like mountains. The only way to fix them is to nuke the mountains. Of all of the governments and political movements I've examined the ONLY version that has worked looks like neoconservativism in some ways. Believe me I don't like this fact but I can't change it. We have no choice.
To paraphrase Mr. Murray: It's not that your ideas aren't good in themselves.
The trouble is that due to the political landscape and the structural dynamics involved we can't get to that system from where we are at the moment. I wouldn't ideally like to use this approach only the logistics of the problem give me no other choice.
"In fact, less government is the answer to socialism!"
Good idea but how do you "bell the cat?" All the piggies on social programs will give you a huge backlash if you remove the teats they suck on.
"As for abortion, that's why we have the 10th Amendment. States rights."
Good idea as well. Only the left cheated on this one. We can't anymore because of what they did to us with Roe. And now the problem is worse because people are accustomed to using it as a back up birth control measure.
Well what would you have us do? Look I looked into this. i noticed how insanely difficult it was to get anything practical done with these issues using conventional means. So I tried to find examples where these had been effectively achieved in the past to see if I could learn from them at all. This is what I found. I'm sorry it's not pleasant but I don't see any other suggestions being offered.
Well you do need both. I mean I do want to see abortion outlawed at some point at the top. Although I also understand that to make it practical you need to have grassroots effort against it. BTW social engineering needn't be government run it can be grassroots as well -I run a group on facebook for just such a purpose.
Look yes in politics everything is connected to something and yes power does aggregate so a large movement will automatically connect to a large force on top. If the Rockefellers are using the Pax Americana approach and the Rothschild's are using the UN then I don't mind the former as much.
If the Rockefeller half is using a force like America then we won't have to worry nearly as much with it pushing an anti-Christian anti-Western agenda if for no other reason than structural reasons.
Yes I know because the big government left has been in charge for decades and decades. The point though is to use a counter-hegemon to push it out of power.
Look if you don't believe me look at where the world's most pro-life laws are. It's Chile, but it wasn't always that way. Before the 1980's abortion was legal and the country was going communist. After Pinochet took over he put the kabash on all of that, and now Chile has a free market and the world's most pro-life laws on abortion.
Ok, let's say for sake of argument that there IS some of that motivation with some of the Straussians. Knowing how politics and human nature works that's not unlikely. However, seeing whereas the predicament with Cultural Marxism is so deep wouldn't it make some sense to leverage some of that human nature against it? I mean corrupt rulers are corrupt but they are still really excellent at ruling a corrupt people.
Ok if everything is theoretically scripted. How can you possibly tell the difference between what is scripted and what is not?
Also how can so many people (including think-tankers and such) all have the same agenda? There is simply no way you can get that kind of ideological unanimity with politics at that level. There are a thousand Machiavellians all tugging at each others throats. So yes there are conspiracies because humans conspire, but they are pulling in every which direction imaginable.
"Third, why are you talking about "imposing" an agenda on people, especially when taking their freedoms away. That is so incredibly wrong; plain and simple!!"
Well then they are going to wish they hadn't tried to do the same to us earlier. Why do you think the left hated Bush so viscerally? It was because they were finally getting a taste of their own medicine, and it was rather amusing to watch.
"They control both the UN and Pax Americana points of view,"
Ok if you want to talk NWO I'd like to point out that after Bush decided to break the UN's rules and invade Iraq the result was that the Bilderburgers were temporarily split in half. So no they don't have a complete lock on the neocons. Which is why this was an interesting opportunity to foul their plans up.
"it's the same goal in the end; power and control of others."
You're forgetting the key part though. Control to which end?
Let me rephrase that. Imposing laws based on virtue such that they are just laws. People today can't stand just laws though hence the need for manipulation.
Not at all, the point was to engineer a solution that works to achieve the set objectives -eliminate socialism and abortion. Based on previous examples I've succeeded in finding something that does that -and yes we can try to soften it.
"virtue is to keep people free and allow them to enjoy their natural rights"
The trouble though is that they are so free that they are also enjoying synthetic rights as well as natural ones. Including the "right" to kill their kids and the "right" to vote themselves other people's money. They have been behaving badly and that has to be stopped.
"OK, I hate to say this, but your argument is starting to sound more and more sick and twisted as we go along."
Well if it works. :)
Look if you REALLY want to get rid of socialism and abortion I'm telling you a way that works. I know it completely freaked me out as well when I first figured it out. However after studying it enough and realizing the kind of political dynamics involved, it seems to be the only way that has been proven to work once a society reaches a certain stage of decay.
Straussianism is a sort of modernized version of political Platonism. Plato had a similar problem to today. The sophists were extreme relativists and had corrupted Athenian democracy in a way similar to how the Cultural Marxists have today. Strauss took cues from Plato on how to solve the problem and modernized them.
Quick tip. Read to the bottom of the article before you comment on it. Because the first half is rather unnerving and freaky unless you get to the end. The stuff at the end is very much delightful!
If you've studied the difference between neocons and liberals instead of lumping them together you'd notice their views on foreign policy are quite different. Yes they are both internationalist (NWO if you want to call it that), but the neocon version is not at all like the liberal version. The liberals want to impose the UN on us. The neocons want to undermine the authority of the UN to assert Pax Americana -thereby engineering a way for us to retain national sovereignty.
All right now for the scare. Look up an article by Shadia Drury entitled: Saving America: Leo Strauss and the neoconservatives.The point is to manipulate immoral people so that you can trick them into imposing virtue on them. I've done some study of different regimes in the 20th century and I've found this actually works -it even enables the banning of abortion and the reversing of socialism. If Franco made it work so can we.
"The Founding Fathers knew what they were talking about."
Yes they did, but you forgot about the part where they mentioned that the Constitution would only work for a moral people. They said it frequently in many settings. We'll we are no longer a moral people. So sometimes you need an evil big government to reign in an even more evil people. Let's say you want to impose a conservative social agenda on an immoral people. You will have to limit some of their freedoms to do it today.
OK now I'm either going to scare you or surprise you or both.
I'm not after either security or liberty in and of themselves (we'll both are still important as well) I'm after virtue. I'm not sure if you've heard of a guy named Leo Strauss who was an early intellectual forerunner of neoconservativism but he argued pretty strongly that that was the correct focus.
"It all adds up to taken freedoms away."
The purpose of political philosophy is to focus on the "best" or "most virtuous" regime.
"I'm afraid your out look is too overly simple here."
I could argue the converse of that though. See you are generalizing all forms of big government as the same and painting them all with the same brush even if they are wildly different.
At school I know people who are communist for example who are just as vociferously opposed to my neoconservativism as I am to their communism.
Come on, don't be like that. I know neos and paleos get on each others nerves alot, but in the end we agree on much more than we disagree -and much more so than we'd like to admit.
Oops accidentally clipped a sentence. I was saying that I don't trust them (the neocon big gov) more than any large system in itself. I big systems like that can be dangerous it's just that by default their system is the best right now, just because of how political dynamics work.
Because I believe in their ideals more. And I trust a neocon form of big government MORE than a liberal form of big government. But I don't trust them more than
"no matter what your answer to this question is, I will eviscerate it. :)"
I doubt you will. I've thought this out to a much greater degree than you might think. I've had a number of long conversations with paleos on neoconservativism and I often unexpectedly surprise them by showing them that neos are not what they think.
I understand full well that power corrupts and that this is a dangerous game. It's just that unfortunately we are compelled to play it.
It's like we have two opponents and there's a loaded gun on the table. There's no point in saying that the loaded gun shouldn't be there. It's there if we like it or not. We can't help that. So if we don't dive for the gun, our opponent will, and then we're screwed. I do think Murray does realize the gun is dangerous I just think that's why he's diving for it.
So now that the left has corrupted a large portion of the populace we find ourselves in a rather screwed up predicament. Many people are no longer moral enough to be trusted to check the government. Yeah the government is corrupt, but that is in part because the people have made it that way.
Take abortion for example. If we were to ban it now the people would riot, and pressure the government to re-legalize it. So as dangerous as this is to achieve this goal we need a gov that can quell riots.
I understand one should never put faith in government. That's why I want to be in control of it though! LOL
Joking aside. When the Founders wrote the Constitution they based it on Lockean political philosophy (the people check the government) and they stated frequently in their writing that it would only work for a moral people -trouble is we aren't like that anymore. The previous predominant philosophy was Hobbesianism though and it was designed to reign in a corrupt people. Cont.
So either we pick route 1 where the state grows in size but is liberal and we are definitely screwed or we pick route 2 where the state is big but it's big power is used to quash liberalism.
The reasoning is somewhat Hobbesian: Perhaps the "Astro-Corporate-ImperialZord" (to use a humorous analogy) will get out of control and cause us trouble anyway. However if we DON'T use it we will be left with "Liberaltron" to destroy the country for certain.
All right, what you say is true. The trouble though is that my support of big government conservativism (under some circumstances) is based on a calculated risk.
See regardless of what we do, the left will continue growing the size of government no matter what. So now if we continue with small government in the face of this what will happen is that they will be able to clobber us in the end. (They have a big monstrosity but we don't) In order to stop a monster you need another monster. cont.
Well there are heirarchies of ideals. Some ideals are greater than others. For example small government is an ideal, but so are capitalism and fetal rights, and I view the later two principles to be of greater importance than the first one.
Just to put things in perspective. I would like to point out that some of the only western countries to have outlawed abortion again in the 20th century after it having been legal happen to be of a right-wing big government kind.
No it's two KINDS of principles. One is subservient to the other. See I don't see opposition to big government social engineering and such to be principles in and of themselves. Yes, they are often supported for the wrong reasons, but they they are means to support ideals not ideals in and of themselves.
What the liberals do wrong is use them to support a morally perverse set of ideals. However, they COULD be used for the right set of ideals as well. Remember in the end they are just tools.
Let me give you a good example of how neoconservativism might sacrifice structural conservativism for the sake of substantive conservativism:
I don't PREFER big government and social engineering, however I don't like abortion either. I understand that society as it is would be recalcitrant to outlaw it though. To achieve my goal I might advocate selective big government as well as social engineering projects to sort of "gang" up on a recalcitrant society to make it do what I want on abortion.
Now as for the agendas of the modern left communism and neoconservativism trust me they are NOT similar. I write these neoconservative articles in my school newspaper and usually have trouble with the college commies from SDS flipping out at me constantly. I understand our ideas are controversial even to other conservatives but we're not commies.
"a big government, massive spending, social engineering, big brother-we-know-what's-best style of philosophy"
All right, yes these things do look liberal, and liberals do use them. However what is often is that the conservative positions on these are "structurally conserative positions." They deal with the "how" not the "what." Yes I would PREFER that these things not be necessary however if they interfere with "substantive conservativism" (the "what") then they gotta go.
Ok, you are right about some of this. Many neocons especially the earlier ones were former liberals (a neocon is a liberal mugged by reality). However it isn't really accurate to say they are this way today.
This guy is Hitler in a coat and tie. Make the world as we would like it to be - use social engineering, blah, blah. Liberals don't see the world as it is - what a stupid shit ass this idiot is.
Not at all. The program of the left has been very destructive of Western Civilization. Leftists as opposed to liberals even advocated this openly (google "Cultural Marxism" and "Frankfurt School"). Liberals bought into the program of the hard leftists without questioning it sufficiently and as a result DON'T see the world as it is. Murray is absolutely right here.
I couldnt even watch more half of this sick mans dribble. Kristol, did you hear that, were moralists with good eyesight IRAQ MORAL VICTORY FOR AMERICA, CHENEY IS A MORALIST LETS DROP A NUCLEAR WEAPON ON IRAN, ITS THE MORAL THING TO DO. Can some moral person out there tell me the difference between Domination through military force while killing or subjugating all Muslims and MEIN KAMPF? Good luck!
neo cons essentially say " it is better to make our own decisions as a gouvernment, then give the public all the information and have them make a wrong decision. because as you can see today western society is made up of a multicultural society with conflicting ideals and morals 7/7 bombers in london and usa citizens who leave to fight in afganistan"
Yes, it seems that in many ways the rise of multiculturalism (which was primarily promoted by the Frankfurt school and the New Left) has caused the rise of the neoconservatives out of sheer necessity. Somebody has to hold civilization together.
Read Strauss, don't just parrot what the anti-straussian fearmongers keep saying.
I've read some of his books and nowhere does explicitly say anything like that. Paranoid leftists like Drury and Norton twisted what he said and tried to make him look like a scary alien or something.
If you don't believe me read him for yourself. In particular I would recommend Natural Right and History as a good place to start. It's an excellent book -a very powerful critique of the program of the left.
However eloquent Mr. Murray's commentary is, it cannot be mistaken for insightful thought on the matter of US/Western foreign policy. His view fails at the very first premise.
That it is the duty of what he refers to as "the" democratic world (implicitly the US & UK) to enforce our value system upon those nations we find do not share our economic interests.
Secondarily it presumes the role of a standing military as a tool of ideological enforcement rather than deterrent against aggression.
The Iraq war was illigal. It bled our econmy and many lives were lost as a result. We're still loosing brave men 7 women in uniforms, Poor Iraqi children civilians etc.... I pray to God to bring back the troops soon.
NeoConservatism is based on false premises. That the chaos in society is a result of liberalism when it's a result of an explosion in population and alienation as a result of the industrial revolution and capitalist economic plans encourages consumerism and finding joy, not from relationships, but from goods. Today with decreasing wages and increased pressure to buy, families are alienated from one another as parents both hold full time jobs.
liberalist are pseudo socialist who seek to control peoples lives through strict legislation on not only behavior but also on ideology, religion and the right to life. Neoconservatives care about preserving the peace and ideals of Democracy and Capitalism who has ensured the stability and prosperity we are enjoying today.
@lector0003 Yes neo conservatism is a watered down version of fascism in truest sense. Fascism is a corpratist, moralist ideology, and millitary agressive philosophy. The state uses force to bring about nationalism, moralism, and militaristic empire.
Gray0450 1 week ago
Neoconservatism is EVIL!
miazagora 1 month ago
NEOconservatism is a problem, not paleo-conservative beliefs. These neo cons are a detriment to Republican party and to civil liberties/Constitution.
They want expansive federal powers just as much as the progressives.
1337wafflezz 2 months ago
Murray entails the dilemma of modern conservatism. Act to change the status-quo, or act to defend the status-quo. Whether or not people here like neoconservatism, the problem with paleoconservatism and traditional conservatism is the adherence to the status-quo, which, in times of peace is fine, still doesn't gauge a plan for the future. This is why libertarianism gets a bad rap by conservatives, they're seeking change while traditional conservatives are not.
TheFederalistVoice 3 months ago
Given the choice between a liberal and a neoconservative, the LIBERAL is actually the lesser of two evils. Neoconservatism is FAR more dangerous than liberalism. I will never, ever, ever vote in any way that benefits a neoconservative candidate for any office.
DouglasReding 5 months ago
Neocons are comically evil. They are like the bad guy in every Saturday morning cartoon who wants to take over the world. ''And now I will build a space laser capable of expanding Israel's borders which I will finance by cutting Social security MUAHAHAHA''
MrAntineocon 6 months ago
Comment removed
MrAntineocon 6 months ago
Neoconservatism-the pillar of American hypocrisy. They adopt a large government stance when it makes the rich and corporations money and advances the industrial military complex and they adopt a small government philosophy on things that can help non-rich people. Socialism for the rich, and survival of the fittest for everyone else.
grasd2 6 months ago
I genuinely get the impression that Neo-conservatives are a mix of modernised conservatives with a realist outlook, and liberals of the left who found distain at the newest trend of applying relativism to every event in foreign affairs. It's unfair to call neo-cons warmongers, but it should be noted they are probably more likely to engage in military action with moral certainty, while the leftist "intelligencia" sit around and ponder how they can make, whatever the issue is, their fault.
shrapn0 7 months ago
@shrapn0 ' realist outlook'
Are you kidding? The Neocons seek to remake the world in the way that they want it through the use of US military force. This is not realism, it is fantasy by intellectuals who will never have to face war. There outlook is as real as the Iraqi WMDS.
MrAntineocon 6 months ago
@MrAntineocon You can't single out Neocons for having an ideology that wishes to remake policy in their favour, every political party wishes this to some degree, hence elections. Brit-neocons. are very different from U.S-neocons. , and do not invest US unilateralism. Intellectuals who have faced war are no better than intellectuals who haven't, look at the failure of Trotskyism for an example. Their outlook saved the Kurds and removed Saddam when many on the Left were lapping up isolationism.
shrapn0 6 months ago
@shrapn0 Yes ,but taxing and sending others to die while not doing it yourself is very hypocritical. Not wanting to invade a country that doesn't pose a threat to you isn't 'isolationism'. The Iraq war killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis so the humanitarian argument doesn't exactly hold up. If you want to invade a country simply because they have a brutal dictator then you would have to invade dozens of nations. That is an insane fantasy,not a rational foreign policy.
MrAntineocon 6 months ago
@MrAntineocon If that was the case no country could ever go to war unless it was the Gov bearing arms. There wouldnt be an army. To say Iraq wasnt a threat is uninformed. Baghdad was for years the residence of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted criminal in the world & had bombed airports in Italy. Baghdad was also the home for the group that murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Your last argument suggests that because we can't do everything we should do nothing. This to me sounds like the irrational fantasy.
shrapn0 5 months ago
@shrapn0 Frankly speaking there were plenty of benefits to keeping Saddam in power. He had a secular regime, provided a good buffer against Iran and generally kept the place stable. He was also a foe of Al-Qaida most of the time so we shared a common enemy. Looking from a realistic geopolitical standpoint the Iraq war was just stupid. Again the suffering of the Iraqi people was unfortunate, but my country has no obligation to them.
MrAntineocon 5 months ago
@MrAntineocon For a great in depth insight into the horrors of life under Saddams Stalinist style of regime, I'd recommend reading anything by the Iraqi marxist intellectual, Kanan Makiya. A lot of the commonly bleated arguments (as the ones you just gave) may dissipate after reading. Other than that, I fear human solidarity may have been replaced with realpolitik entirely in your political outlook, and unfortunately I don't have the space or the time to go through the complexities with you.
shrapn0 5 months ago
@shrapn0 Fine one last thing: If Saddam was so evil why did the Neocons have no problem supporting him in the Iran Iraq war? Why didn't we invade Iraq in 1986 when the genocide against the Kurds was being committed? Why did the neocons not speak when weapons were being sold to him? Why did neocons like John McCain condemn the Egyptian revolution which threw out a Mubarak?
MrAntineocon 5 months ago
@MrAntineocon As the video shows, neocons are not a party or a movement, so I believe your distain is directed at Republicans. Unfortunately, the Cold War was still going at the time of these atrocities, and govs saw these conflicts as proxy to their advantage, as did the communists. You won't find me saying its a flawless ideology. No such thing exists. The term "neocon" is so misused today. Even Obama's been called a neocon for a "semi-war" against Libya. Nothing more than a far-left slur now.
shrapn0 5 months ago
@MrAntineocon It's interesting to see that you mentioned the Arab spring as there is certainly no chance it ever would have occurred, had a genocidal dictator privately owned an oil rich, military nation in a key position in the middle east. Hope I made my point clear with the Obama/McCain contrast. Support (or lack of) for any military action that doesn't suit the far left is "neoconservative". Only Isolationism would make them happy. Ironic seeing as the far left are supposed internationalists
shrapn0 5 months ago
@MrAntineocon It's been an interesting discussion, but we may just need to agree to disagree. With the username "MrAntineocon" I doubt there is anything I could possibly say to you that would alter your dislike for this particularly unique view of international relations. I'm no neocon but I can safely say it is a fascinating ideology, especially as that since 2001 they have been doing the lefts work for them. This is my last comment so if you want the last word, feel free..
shrapn0 5 months ago
There is no anti war left anymore. Most of the opposition to neocons comes from libertarians and paleocons on the right such as myself.
MrAntineocon 5 months ago
@MrAntineocon if you want to be a pacifist, that is fine with me, but don't dress it up like a dissenting voice against "imperialism" aimed at those who believe war can be morally justified. Reflecting on your last comment, I now doubt you actually care, or have cared to look at what it is like living under "simply" a brutal dictatorship like in Ba'athist Iraq, when family members were forced to applaud the execution of family members. Your comment was not only careless, it was shameful.
shrapn0 5 months ago
@shrapn0 I believe in giving hell if my country is attacked so no I am not a pacifist. My heart goes out to those who live in brutal dictatorship, but the US military does not exist to defend or liberate them. If Iraq was hiding criminals of importance we should have sent in special forces to capture or kill them like we did in Pakistan, no necessity for a full invasion. Also remember that the west supported Saddam at the time of his genocide.
MrAntineocon 5 months ago
Realism? But act in the way we like it to be? Okay sounds like the views for NeoCons are against liberty in every manner, Libertarians> than Neocons, Liberals and all of the above for libery is more valuable than anything what an incompetent prick!
Contest4Freedom 8 months ago
There is nothing moralist about aggressive foreign policy. Take it from a pro-life Christian peacenik.
MrAbolitionist 10 months ago
Neoconservatism is more idealism than realism and is actually a liberal view of the world without being called that. And while they may say they reject multiculturalism they are in fact in favor of a liberal immigration policy and government policy that enforces civil and human rights and their their of government is indeed liberal also but they are not in favor of tax increases to pay for those programs.
leboharold 10 months ago
@JDark89 No, I speak perfectly 'properly', I'll have you know. I just don't talk like a twat because my head is not lodged up my anal cavity.
Samgurney88 10 months ago
Fascism...
Jeddie256 11 months ago
@Jeddie256 ~ Do you even know what fascism means? Or do you throw the word around, like "Nazis", because you think it makes you look clever?
lector0003 10 months ago 3
Paleocons: "America first! America first!"
Neocons: "Israel first! Israel first!"
AresCassell 11 months ago
Contradictions everywhere. 'One suppaawwts demorrrrcracy and one raaather dislikes socialism and the unrealistic thought that fellow human beings should look after one another. Historically our political ideology is based on the philosophies of those diametrically opposed to democracy and we believe it is our duty, as human beings to look after one another, by invading evil non democracies we've set up.'
Samgurney88 11 months ago
@Samgurney88 Considering its his native language that YOU maul everyday, it seems a little rich for you to mock him for speaking it correctly.
JDark89 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Samgurney88 Considering its his native language that YOU maul everyday, it seems a little rich for you to mock him for speaking it correctly.
JDark89 11 months ago
Neoconservatives are nothing more than people from the left, hiding behind a term that contains the word 'conservative.' In all actuality, there is not one thing conservative, or moral for that matter, about neoconservatives. Any group of people who are desperate for 'new Pearl Harbor' type events so that they can revamp the Middle East are scum - nothing more than evil, scum.
mit26chell 1 year ago
This is what neocon means to me: Militaristic socialism with a dash of nationalism. A very dangerous ideology.
Rank and file 'neocons' are being taken for a ride by their leaders who are nothing more than war profiteers and imperialists. They wrap themselves in the flag and tell you that the ends justify the means, but there is no greater goal for them. It is looting and destruction for profit and for power.
Equity213 1 year ago
Yeh he fails to give one singular example of where the neocons have been good for humanity. There's a slew of bad examples on stand-by.
mozaks80 1 year ago
@mozaks80 Fall of Soviet imperialism, fall of facsist Baath regime in Iraq, the uprisings in North Africa & Middle East against tinpot dictators are all very good examples
mowgly3000 1 year ago
I like battle of ideas, it was lost 100 years ago tho. You can stop everything but progress. With progress, pluralism and free speech we have doomed (Or freed) ourselves to liberalism.
brickan2 1 year ago
Neo-conservatism belongs on the left and not the right of the political spectrum because of their deep seeded beliefs in social engineering and nation building through world revolution .
leboharold 1 year ago
If you think neoconservatism is cool, you disgust me and fellow humans. Go join your lizard friends in Washington.
heavymetaldeath4life 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Go to my youtube channel and search my videos for neocon neoconservative neoconservatism...
you will be surprised what you find!
mikeshanklin 1 year ago
What a fancy accent. Ever notice how people like to rally behind labels and banners organizing the world into simplistic stereotypes?
redblue18700 1 year ago
hero
jinkedful 1 year ago
I long since realized that islamic penetration into western societies was a threat to us all. I've moved on now to what to do about it. Firstly, I vote for a derided party of nationalists in the UK called the BNP. Not because I admire its leaders or endorse all or even many of it's policies but because it is the strongest protest I can legitimately send to the establishment who stubbornly ignores the wishes of British people which is an end to islamic immigration into Europe never mind Britain.
cleverfeller 1 year ago
@cleverfeller bigot
UberOtaku001 1 year ago
@UberOtaku001
Islam is bogotry. Not opposing it.
cleverfeller 1 year ago
The trouble with this British neocon's defense of Neoconservatism is that he speaks from a British understanding of conservatism. Although the British arrived at a parliamentary system of government, their constitution retains and preserves a "constitutional monarchy" albeit ceremonial in government power.
jduyvun 1 year ago 2
@jduyvun
Hence, one can only surmise that the old style noble loyalty that he begrudges is of that line that understands European traditionalists. How could he ever appreciate the "Constitutional" form of government (which was a radical break from the British system at the time) that noble statesmen like Dr. Ron Paul defends and echos today?
jduyvun 1 year ago
Douglas Murray is nothing more than a jumped up homosexual sounding private schoolboy, who is out to make a mess of Britain ( while lining his own pocket ) he is talking a load of jargon that only his kind of people understand.
But he should never under estimate the power of the common people .. he is the man who is out to destroy everything that is British. He is the man who is scared of the BNP and he has just handed a dossier over to the police trying to brand innocent people as racists.
HellzDelight 1 year ago
Neo-conservatism is the greatest political philosophy of this generation. It is truly the most secure and socio-politically valid form of government ever devised. God bless the neo-cons and God bless the Republican Party.
ladistar 1 year ago
@ladistar
You must be a troll because neo-conservatism is worse than communism. You guys are the fascist scum of the world
pennjersey83 1 year ago
Democracy and Capitalism 4 all!
pedfsu05 1 year ago
Don't be ridiculous. Communism killed 100 million + people. Neoconservativism has not done anything even approaching that. And this "fascist" label is getting really old. All it means anymore is that someone lost an argument and they are sore about it.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@ladistar Wait wtf? Neo Conservatism is a shitbox ideology mixing the bad parts of liberalism with the bad parts of conservatism, I think you meant Libertarianism.
FukPosers 1 year ago 9
@FukPosers
I think you simply have a prejudice against neo-cons and hence have fabricated your own definition of the term.
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
@TaqiyyaExposer Im guessing your one of those retards that call themselves "realists" and are always bitching about political correctness and probably consider yourself an intellectual. Amirite or Amirite?
FukPosers 1 year ago
@FukPosers
I am guessing that you're one of those people who expects to be taken seriously in a debate when your command of English and retarded opinions have already exposed your low IQ long ago. Am i right, or am i right?
FUCKING POSER.
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
@TaqiyyaExposer U MAD? Its called l33t speak newfag, you're posting on youtube not in a newspaper but I guess your computer illiterate ass wouldn't understand that, stick to tv grandpa and stop gettin so mad.
FukPosers 1 year ago
@FukPosers
what a cheese dick.
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
@TaqiyyaExposer Its OK, I know u r mad Mr Angry Pants, just take a chill pill, swallow it down with a Big Mac and become as useless as every other fat prick that lives in Australia, then you wont need to hate on Muslims to feel a sense of belonging.
FukPosers 1 year ago
@FukPosers You must be an idiot if you think Libertarianism and Neo Conservatism are the same. As well as the 5 people who agree with your comment.
brad238899 1 year ago
@brad238899 and you must be an even bigger idiot if you think that is what I was saying without even acknowledging the context in which i said it. I was merely replying to a comment from a neo-con who was trying to say that neo-conservatism was the best ideology. I then replied by saying that it is not and is actually a bad ideology and corrected him by saying that Libertarianism is a better alternative.
Maybe next time you will take more consideration with your posts.
FukPosers 1 year ago
@FukPosers You're right. I took it out of context. Sorry. I should review the "whole" conversation first.
brad238899 1 year ago
@brad238899 Learn how to read properly.
Thycid 1 year ago
@FukPosers
Cool, make claims without corroboration.
"I'm smarter than Einstein everybody!"
Do I get 9 thumbs up now?
MrJs1G 4 months ago
neoconservatism is NOT conservatism. its WRONG that they called it neoconservatism, not even close to conservatism, is IS socialism. NEOCONSERVATISM IS SOCIALISM. Dont listen to this dude.
alistairproductions 2 years ago
I think neo-conservatism is the opposite of democracy. Listen to how he would like to fashion the world in his own image, rule of the few over the many. Most people despise neoconservative thinking, but he still clings to it like a dog to a tree. (Self-flagellation)
Picnuts 1 year ago
"Most people despise neoconservative thinking,"
Hence justifying Murray's view that the world needs to be changed.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
neo-conservatism is what it is, a mix of socialism and fascism added with a big dose of Zionism, that is neocons for you, the same group of murderers who brought down the twin toweres and orchestrated the london bombings.
Penisherable 1 year ago
That's not what I heard brought down the twin towers. They were brought down the by the evil Illuminati secret government in collusion who were in collusion with space aliens and the devil. In fact if you look at the videotape a few seconds before the second tower went down, you can barely make out a Romulan Bird of Prey briefly decloaking to the west of the tower. The Romulans caused 9/11 with a a pair of photon torpedoes by order of the Illuminati!
JohananRaatz 1 year ago 2
you should stop dabbling in the occult, that was completely unscientific and crazy talk, btw Romulan is really a fictional race from Star Trek, stop watching TV and start making a difference to your life.
Penisherable 1 year ago
Dabbling in the occult? And yes I know the Romulans are a completely fictional race. I was making an attempt at satire.
"stop watching TV and start making a difference to your life."
You have no idea. I actually do a fair amount of political organizing in my spare time. Very little time for TV.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
"but it's much worst, it also attempt to divide the world into good vs evil, corrupting the public view on what is actually right and wrong."
Except you are forgetting the other manner in which the public is corrupted in the manner of right and wrong -ie relativism the belief that there is no objective right and wrong. That is far worse than any faulty manicheanism, and in fact manichean notions may be necessary to stave off relativism to give people clear distinctions of good and evil.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
Whatever critiques can be made of neoconservativism, it can not be compared with socialism. If you think otherwise just go to any campus university and watch all of the commie kids at an SDS table go on and on about how much they can't stand neocons.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
Neo conservatism was born out of Leo Straus socialistic idea, but it's much worst, it also attempt to divide the world into good vs evil, corrupting the public view on what is actually right and wrong. To put it short neocons are warmongering, manipulators, and mostly Jews :)
Penisherable 1 year ago
If you had read any of Leo Strauss's books at all you would understand that there is nothing socialistic about him. In fact he was very antithetical to socialism. The Straussian half of neoconservativism BTW never originated on the left in the first place. Leo Strauss was originally a right-wing thinker who in turn was schooled by right-wing thinkers. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here. I'm going to suggest you read Natural Right and History to better understand Strauss.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
"To put it short neocons are warmongering, manipulators, and mostly Jews :)"
I don't see how some of them being Jewish has any relevance to their ideas whatsoever. As for warmongering, to paraphrase Nietzsche: war is an excellent way to kick a decadent culture out of it's sloth and complacency.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
That so many within the NeoCon movement are Jewish is not a mere coincidence. "NeoCon" is not an ideology but a ruse to justify using U.S. blood and treasure to pursue Israeli goals in the Middle East. Bin Laden's animus against U.S. is owing to U.S. support of Israel. How do we know this? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT Bin Laden SAID!!! (See his manifesto against the West, pre 9/11) But you can't say this in polite company or you are immediately slimed as an anti semite.
AristophanesNow 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz i guess that's true... but it is sort of neoliberal... it's not conservative, it includes big spending, especially military.... suppose thats why i said socialism-in retrospect that is no accurate
alistairproductions 1 year ago
LOL, Neocons coup entire countries for voting in socialists, so equating it with it's diametric opposite is kind of ridiculous.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
it is very revealing that he doesn't explain what self-flagellation (a masochistic or sadistic act in which the participants receive erotic stimulation from whipping or being whipped.) has to do with "liberalism," or as he chooses to marginalise it, "socialism."
one more neo-con that refuses to elaborate on his rhetoric.
djdisillusion 2 years ago
NeoCons ARE just a different flavor of Socialism.
yakyakyak69 2 years ago
Murray for president for 2012.
Molego 2 years ago 4
"A blend of realism and idealism."
I don't take my lessons in realism from Christians.
aceflashheart 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
NottinghamForest22 2 years ago
you mean, like the president?
Averyofthemain 2 years ago
Neocons are just an Imperialist version of social Darwinists, not to mention a bunch of religious nut-jobs
wanabeer 2 years ago 2
Religious Darwinist imperialists huh?
dmlauffer 2 years ago 3
Neoconservatism -- Trotskyist internationalism under guise of 'democracy,' add an adaptive mega dose of Wall Street + two megadeath doses of imperialist planetary war to accomplish its ends. Socialism for the rich
orbis2009 2 years ago 20
@orbis2009 - you left out the most important facet - Zionism.
ScottfromTexas 1 year ago
@orbis2009 How is neo-conservatism like Trotskyism? Trotskyism is a type of communism that advocates 'permanent revolution' of the working class. Neo-conservatism is a lesser version of fascism that advocates corporatism and imperialist wars under the guise of 'liberation'. Am I mistaken somewhere?
jack5051525354 11 months ago
@jack5051525354 Check out the ideological pedigree of many of its leading proponents. Internationalism in new wine skins, only this time redistributing the wealth ala socialism upwards to where they find themselves perched today.
orbis2009 11 months ago
@orbis2009 Yes I see your point. However, I think Trotsky himself would spit in the face of the neocons.
jack5051525354 11 months ago
@jack5051525354 Or have them shot.
PinkoPapist89 11 months ago
@PinkoPapist89 Haha that to. One in every ten neocons biting the dust doesn't sound so bad. Still when talking about 'socialism for the rich' it's important to remember that actual communists like Trotsky don't believe in 'socialism for the rich'.
jack5051525354 11 months ago
@jack5051525354 WE call it socialism because of the amount of taxpayers money is spent by a neo-con state.
MrGilles1990 10 months ago
@orbis2009 Brilliantly put!
campto987 10 months ago
Smart man
mcity88 2 years ago 3
Washington has been handing trillions of middle class tax dollars to the Military Industrial Complex, and to the wealthy since Bush was elected. The runt upstairs sees "social engineering" as justified, as long as it serves his view of the world. A view that I find to be narcissistic and ultimately has it's roots in greed. There's nothing positive that has happened over the past 9 years, this man speaks for himself, and three hundred million Americans long for a change. Good Luck!
Picnuts 2 years ago 2
Bloody arrogant git!
twinturbine 2 years ago
"They'll just use the resources from the U.N. for the Pax Americana route. So no matter which side wins, we all lose."
In the second route though America remains on top, and then we won't have to put up with the ICC, the UN homeschooling and spanking bans, the mandatory international welfare, and the compelling of abortions overseas. Not perfect but vastly better than route one.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
You forgot something though. Manhandling, especially the manhandling you would need to do this, requires power, LOTS OF POWER. Which again is what you wanted to avoid when you started out.
If you kill them you become them. There is no escape from this. I once thought like you do, but then I realized to "behead a liberal" so to speak I would need to become a neocon.
So if you go down this route I'm telling you you will one day need to be "beheaded" yourself by your successor.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Very true, but you have to remember:
A society can survive a corrupt ruler but it can not survive a corrupt people. A corrupt people is a worse threat to the survival of a society than a corrupt ruler.
If you have a corrupt ruler in place who -though for corrupt means or even perhaps for corrupt motives- who uncorrupts his people you can save the society in spite of itself and in spite of the ruler.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Believe me, in all likelihood the CFR is FILLED with moles -not just from one faction either. It's more like a circus in a way.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Comment removed
FoolMagazine 2 years ago
Ok your jumping to a conclusion here. It's a common conclusion to jump to but it isn't accurate. Neocons believe in utilitarianism -that there is a hierarchy of principles and that the lower ones can be broken to service the higher ones. This is NOT however the same thing as moral relativism -the idea that existentialism is ultimately true and that we can pick and choose which hierarchy of principles we will have. Utilitarianism still has absolutes whereas existentialism has none.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Ok, how do you propose we do that? Abortion has been around too long. People are used to it now. They won't allow it. Look at South Dakota for example. A red state should theoretically keep the ban right? Well it didn't happen that way.
Well I do agree there, but it will probably have to be social engineering at the grassroots level. Not a government solution but still a neocon-style approach. (I have something like this in facebook with about 1200 members if you are interested)
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
As for Chile:
Yes many of the reforms happened after Pinochet left. But they were only made possible because of what he did in the mean time. If he hadn't dumped all the commies in the ocean and used his autocrat powers to make abortion illegal all those good things afterwards would have never been possible.
Don't think that this is meant to be an end in itself. It's not. In the end I like the society you want only we can't get from point A to point C without first going through point B.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
That's what we've been doing for the last 5-6 decades before the recently. It hasn't worked.
Look the Constitution is like the game rules. If the liberals break them all the time and keep winning because of it it will do us absolutely no good to continue to play nice with a blatant cheater.
You understand the left but you don't. The left NEEDS to be manhandled. It's the only way.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
The "Pax" route can't end up where you are thinking for structural reasons. It's not that they mightn't want it it's that they can't have it because of the way our society is set up.
Another little principle comes to mind here.Manipulators can manipulate but only so far as the people let them. They have to work within a system as well, they can't just do anything. Our American heritage has influenced the culture sufficiently that it places certain parameters on what they can and can not do.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Not everything is as it appears. I've got a CFR member and a PNAC signatory on my friends list on facebook. I read his stuff regularly and he does not have the same goals as many of the others. Frequently people at this level are trying to "buddy-up" just so that they can manipulate each other.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
What you are observing is valid but it is incomplete. At this level of politics everyone is involved with everything. So if there is something big going on of course the NWO is in on it. But that's only half the story. Frequently their are countless factions of manipulators all trying to play each other. They work together but they're not on the same team.
In fact the only reason they probably don't all go out right and shoot each other is because then they couldn't manipulate each other.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Because I've seen how things work. Human nature is screwed up to the point where I literally don't think it can. I'm sorry after studying politics and how human nature works I'm a complete cynic.
The problems are like mountains. The only way to fix them is to nuke the mountains. Of all of the governments and political movements I've examined the ONLY version that has worked looks like neoconservativism in some ways. Believe me I don't like this fact but I can't change it. We have no choice.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
To paraphrase Mr. Murray: It's not that your ideas aren't good in themselves.
The trouble is that due to the political landscape and the structural dynamics involved we can't get to that system from where we are at the moment. I wouldn't ideally like to use this approach only the logistics of the problem give me no other choice.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
"In fact, less government is the answer to socialism!"
Good idea but how do you "bell the cat?" All the piggies on social programs will give you a huge backlash if you remove the teats they suck on.
"As for abortion, that's why we have the 10th Amendment. States rights."
Good idea as well. Only the left cheated on this one. We can't anymore because of what they did to us with Roe. And now the problem is worse because people are accustomed to using it as a back up birth control measure.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
That is incredibly arrogant and wrong.
Well what would you have us do? Look I looked into this. i noticed how insanely difficult it was to get anything practical done with these issues using conventional means. So I tried to find examples where these had been effectively achieved in the past to see if I could learn from them at all. This is what I found. I'm sorry it's not pleasant but I don't see any other suggestions being offered.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Well you do need both. I mean I do want to see abortion outlawed at some point at the top. Although I also understand that to make it practical you need to have grassroots effort against it. BTW social engineering needn't be government run it can be grassroots as well -I run a group on facebook for just such a purpose.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Look yes in politics everything is connected to something and yes power does aggregate so a large movement will automatically connect to a large force on top. If the Rockefellers are using the Pax Americana approach and the Rothschild's are using the UN then I don't mind the former as much.
If the Rockefeller half is using a force like America then we won't have to worry nearly as much with it pushing an anti-Christian anti-Western agenda if for no other reason than structural reasons.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Yes I know because the big government left has been in charge for decades and decades. The point though is to use a counter-hegemon to push it out of power.
Look if you don't believe me look at where the world's most pro-life laws are. It's Chile, but it wasn't always that way. Before the 1980's abortion was legal and the country was going communist. After Pinochet took over he put the kabash on all of that, and now Chile has a free market and the world's most pro-life laws on abortion.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Ok, let's say for sake of argument that there IS some of that motivation with some of the Straussians. Knowing how politics and human nature works that's not unlikely. However, seeing whereas the predicament with Cultural Marxism is so deep wouldn't it make some sense to leverage some of that human nature against it? I mean corrupt rulers are corrupt but they are still really excellent at ruling a corrupt people.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Ok if everything is theoretically scripted. How can you possibly tell the difference between what is scripted and what is not?
Also how can so many people (including think-tankers and such) all have the same agenda? There is simply no way you can get that kind of ideological unanimity with politics at that level. There are a thousand Machiavellians all tugging at each others throats. So yes there are conspiracies because humans conspire, but they are pulling in every which direction imaginable.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
"Third, why are you talking about "imposing" an agenda on people, especially when taking their freedoms away. That is so incredibly wrong; plain and simple!!"
Well then they are going to wish they hadn't tried to do the same to us earlier. Why do you think the left hated Bush so viscerally? It was because they were finally getting a taste of their own medicine, and it was rather amusing to watch.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
"They control both the UN and Pax Americana points of view,"
Ok if you want to talk NWO I'd like to point out that after Bush decided to break the UN's rules and invade Iraq the result was that the Bilderburgers were temporarily split in half. So no they don't have a complete lock on the neocons. Which is why this was an interesting opportunity to foul their plans up.
"it's the same goal in the end; power and control of others."
You're forgetting the key part though. Control to which end?
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Let me rephrase that. Imposing laws based on virtue such that they are just laws. People today can't stand just laws though hence the need for manipulation.
Not at all, the point was to engineer a solution that works to achieve the set objectives -eliminate socialism and abortion. Based on previous examples I've succeeded in finding something that does that -and yes we can try to soften it.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
"virtue is to keep people free and allow them to enjoy their natural rights"
The trouble though is that they are so free that they are also enjoying synthetic rights as well as natural ones. Including the "right" to kill their kids and the "right" to vote themselves other people's money. They have been behaving badly and that has to be stopped.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
"OK, I hate to say this, but your argument is starting to sound more and more sick and twisted as we go along."
Well if it works. :)
Look if you REALLY want to get rid of socialism and abortion I'm telling you a way that works. I know it completely freaked me out as well when I first figured it out. However after studying it enough and realizing the kind of political dynamics involved, it seems to be the only way that has been proven to work once a society reaches a certain stage of decay.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
"Where on Earth did philosophy originate?"
Straussianism is a sort of modernized version of political Platonism. Plato had a similar problem to today. The sophists were extreme relativists and had corrupted Athenian democracy in a way similar to how the Cultural Marxists have today. Strauss took cues from Plato on how to solve the problem and modernized them.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Quick tip. Read to the bottom of the article before you comment on it. Because the first half is rather unnerving and freaky unless you get to the end. The stuff at the end is very much delightful!
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
If you've studied the difference between neocons and liberals instead of lumping them together you'd notice their views on foreign policy are quite different. Yes they are both internationalist (NWO if you want to call it that), but the neocon version is not at all like the liberal version. The liberals want to impose the UN on us. The neocons want to undermine the authority of the UN to assert Pax Americana -thereby engineering a way for us to retain national sovereignty.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
All right now for the scare. Look up an article by Shadia Drury entitled: Saving America: Leo Strauss and the neoconservatives.The point is to manipulate immoral people so that you can trick them into imposing virtue on them. I've done some study of different regimes in the 20th century and I've found this actually works -it even enables the banning of abortion and the reversing of socialism. If Franco made it work so can we.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
"The Founding Fathers knew what they were talking about."
Yes they did, but you forgot about the part where they mentioned that the Constitution would only work for a moral people. They said it frequently in many settings. We'll we are no longer a moral people. So sometimes you need an evil big government to reign in an even more evil people. Let's say you want to impose a conservative social agenda on an immoral people. You will have to limit some of their freedoms to do it today.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
OK now I'm either going to scare you or surprise you or both.
I'm not after either security or liberty in and of themselves (we'll both are still important as well) I'm after virtue. I'm not sure if you've heard of a guy named Leo Strauss who was an early intellectual forerunner of neoconservativism but he argued pretty strongly that that was the correct focus.
"It all adds up to taken freedoms away."
The purpose of political philosophy is to focus on the "best" or "most virtuous" regime.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
"I'm afraid your out look is too overly simple here."
I could argue the converse of that though. See you are generalizing all forms of big government as the same and painting them all with the same brush even if they are wildly different.
At school I know people who are communist for example who are just as vociferously opposed to my neoconservativism as I am to their communism.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
All right I see. I get stuck speaking in "philosophese" oftentimes. Let me break it down into straight English:
The left cheats all the time. They don't see any ideals as being above themselves and so they feel they can break the rules whenever they see fit.
So the question is how do you beat a cheater?
JohananRaatz 2 years ago 2
"Not to be a dick, I will eviscerate it. :) "
Come on, don't be like that. I know neos and paleos get on each others nerves alot, but in the end we agree on much more than we disagree -and much more so than we'd like to admit.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Oops accidentally clipped a sentence. I was saying that I don't trust them (the neocon big gov) more than any large system in itself. I big systems like that can be dangerous it's just that by default their system is the best right now, just because of how political dynamics work.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Because I believe in their ideals more. And I trust a neocon form of big government MORE than a liberal form of big government. But I don't trust them more than
"no matter what your answer to this question is, I will eviscerate it. :)"
I doubt you will. I've thought this out to a much greater degree than you might think. I've had a number of long conversations with paleos on neoconservativism and I often unexpectedly surprise them by showing them that neos are not what they think.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago 2
I understand full well that power corrupts and that this is a dangerous game. It's just that unfortunately we are compelled to play it.
It's like we have two opponents and there's a loaded gun on the table. There's no point in saying that the loaded gun shouldn't be there. It's there if we like it or not. We can't help that. So if we don't dive for the gun, our opponent will, and then we're screwed. I do think Murray does realize the gun is dangerous I just think that's why he's diving for it.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
So now that the left has corrupted a large portion of the populace we find ourselves in a rather screwed up predicament. Many people are no longer moral enough to be trusted to check the government. Yeah the government is corrupt, but that is in part because the people have made it that way.
Take abortion for example. If we were to ban it now the people would riot, and pressure the government to re-legalize it. So as dangerous as this is to achieve this goal we need a gov that can quell riots.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
I understand one should never put faith in government. That's why I want to be in control of it though! LOL
Joking aside. When the Founders wrote the Constitution they based it on Lockean political philosophy (the people check the government) and they stated frequently in their writing that it would only work for a moral people -trouble is we aren't like that anymore. The previous predominant philosophy was Hobbesianism though and it was designed to reign in a corrupt people. Cont.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
So either we pick route 1 where the state grows in size but is liberal and we are definitely screwed or we pick route 2 where the state is big but it's big power is used to quash liberalism.
The reasoning is somewhat Hobbesian: Perhaps the "Astro-Corporate-ImperialZord" (to use a humorous analogy) will get out of control and cause us trouble anyway. However if we DON'T use it we will be left with "Liberaltron" to destroy the country for certain.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
All right, what you say is true. The trouble though is that my support of big government conservativism (under some circumstances) is based on a calculated risk.
See regardless of what we do, the left will continue growing the size of government no matter what. So now if we continue with small government in the face of this what will happen is that they will be able to clobber us in the end. (They have a big monstrosity but we don't) In order to stop a monster you need another monster. cont.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Also I'm going to surprise you. Who said that and argued in favor of an ideology in which the state was to "wither away."
If we define small government as the hallmark of conservativism we would have to say that this individual was an archetypal conservative.
But appearances can be deceiving. Look up "state" and "wither away" and see what you come up with. (Hint this will be a surprise.)
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Well there are heirarchies of ideals. Some ideals are greater than others. For example small government is an ideal, but so are capitalism and fetal rights, and I view the later two principles to be of greater importance than the first one.
Just to put things in perspective. I would like to point out that some of the only western countries to have outlawed abortion again in the 20th century after it having been legal happen to be of a right-wing big government kind.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
No it's two KINDS of principles. One is subservient to the other. See I don't see opposition to big government social engineering and such to be principles in and of themselves. Yes, they are often supported for the wrong reasons, but they they are means to support ideals not ideals in and of themselves.
What the liberals do wrong is use them to support a morally perverse set of ideals. However, they COULD be used for the right set of ideals as well. Remember in the end they are just tools.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Let me give you a good example of how neoconservativism might sacrifice structural conservativism for the sake of substantive conservativism:
I don't PREFER big government and social engineering, however I don't like abortion either. I understand that society as it is would be recalcitrant to outlaw it though. To achieve my goal I might advocate selective big government as well as social engineering projects to sort of "gang" up on a recalcitrant society to make it do what I want on abortion.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Now as for the agendas of the modern left communism and neoconservativism trust me they are NOT similar. I write these neoconservative articles in my school newspaper and usually have trouble with the college commies from SDS flipping out at me constantly. I understand our ideas are controversial even to other conservatives but we're not commies.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
"a big government, massive spending, social engineering, big brother-we-know-what's-best style of philosophy"
All right, yes these things do look liberal, and liberals do use them. However what is often is that the conservative positions on these are "structurally conserative positions." They deal with the "how" not the "what." Yes I would PREFER that these things not be necessary however if they interfere with "substantive conservativism" (the "what") then they gotta go.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Ok, you are right about some of this. Many neocons especially the earlier ones were former liberals (a neocon is a liberal mugged by reality). However it isn't really accurate to say they are this way today.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Why can't he just be honest and call it irrational nationalism?
kolomgorov 2 years ago
This guy is Hitler in a coat and tie. Make the world as we would like it to be - use social engineering, blah, blah. Liberals don't see the world as it is - what a stupid shit ass this idiot is.
truthformeandyou 2 years ago
Not at all. The program of the left has been very destructive of Western Civilization. Leftists as opposed to liberals even advocated this openly (google "Cultural Marxism" and "Frankfurt School"). Liberals bought into the program of the hard leftists without questioning it sufficiently and as a result DON'T see the world as it is. Murray is absolutely right here.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
You will all burn in hell or on Earth for 911.
Picnuts 2 years ago
I couldnt even watch more half of this sick mans dribble. Kristol, did you hear that, were moralists with good eyesight IRAQ MORAL VICTORY FOR AMERICA, CHENEY IS A MORALIST LETS DROP A NUCLEAR WEAPON ON IRAN, ITS THE MORAL THING TO DO. Can some moral person out there tell me the difference between Domination through military force while killing or subjugating all Muslims and MEIN KAMPF? Good luck!
Picnuts 2 years ago
Leo Strauss - the Neo Con inspiration said it was proper to lie to the people to get their way. So in essence you can't believe a word they say.
lestliness 2 years ago
neo cons essentially say " it is better to make our own decisions as a gouvernment, then give the public all the information and have them make a wrong decision. because as you can see today western society is made up of a multicultural society with conflicting ideals and morals 7/7 bombers in london and usa citizens who leave to fight in afganistan"
joewas 2 years ago
Yes, it seems that in many ways the rise of multiculturalism (which was primarily promoted by the Frankfurt school and the New Left) has caused the rise of the neoconservatives out of sheer necessity. Somebody has to hold civilization together.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Read Strauss, don't just parrot what the anti-straussian fearmongers keep saying.
I've read some of his books and nowhere does explicitly say anything like that. Paranoid leftists like Drury and Norton twisted what he said and tried to make him look like a scary alien or something.
If you don't believe me read him for yourself. In particular I would recommend Natural Right and History as a good place to start. It's an excellent book -a very powerful critique of the program of the left.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
Ummm.... YES
chachieb 2 years ago
that might actually be EXACTLY what you are saying
chachieb 2 years ago
In other words, I just want to wave my dick to the rest of the world & do whatever the hell I want & not suffer the consequences.
Bwahahaha! Sorry pal, life doesn't work like that. I swear neocons are like wannabe gods only they don't want to admit it. :)
jtorres520 2 years ago
However eloquent Mr. Murray's commentary is, it cannot be mistaken for insightful thought on the matter of US/Western foreign policy. His view fails at the very first premise.
That it is the duty of what he refers to as "the" democratic world (implicitly the US & UK) to enforce our value system upon those nations we find do not share our economic interests.
Secondarily it presumes the role of a standing military as a tool of ideological enforcement rather than deterrent against aggression.
proadmin1 2 years ago
The Iraq war was illigal. It bled our econmy and many lives were lost as a result. We're still loosing brave men 7 women in uniforms, Poor Iraqi children civilians etc.... I pray to God to bring back the troops soon.
changeishere2008 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Grannys neocon recipe:
1.Scare the shit out of US voters with terrorist attacks and threats
2.Invade Arab country with massive oil reserves
3.Sell US government lots of weapons and services
4.Put puppet government in Arab country
5.Extract oil and let cool for a while
6.Scare the shit out of US voters again with more terrorist threats
7.Invade Persian country with tons more oil reserves. Do not allow to overheat.
8.Invite Israeli friends and serve with finger cookies and champagne
MazzingerZ7 2 years ago
NeoConservatism is based on false premises. That the chaos in society is a result of liberalism when it's a result of an explosion in population and alienation as a result of the industrial revolution and capitalist economic plans encourages consumerism and finding joy, not from relationships, but from goods. Today with decreasing wages and increased pressure to buy, families are alienated from one another as parents both hold full time jobs.
bashia 2 years ago
Can you post the entire speech?
Fordenergy 2 years ago
fuck neo cons
fender8675309 2 years ago
Neo-Cons, Zionists and Islamists are the scum of the earth. We should fight them!
2a7e2l91x 2 years ago
Is it possible to find this whole lecture someplace, or only these damn little snippets?
BOSOX9004 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
neo-cons only care about money, themselves, and how they can exploit others.
liberals and conservatives must unite and end these fuckheads
manny4life 3 years ago
liberalist are pseudo socialist who seek to control peoples lives through strict legislation on not only behavior but also on ideology, religion and the right to life. Neoconservatives care about preserving the peace and ideals of Democracy and Capitalism who has ensured the stability and prosperity we are enjoying today.
killerbee2k 2 years ago 2