What is a Neocon?

Former Member

I often see reference being made to neocons, especially by those who harbour deep hatred for the Amnerican government.
What is a neocon? Visionaries?

Former Member

It's a misspelling. It should read neocunts.

It refers to deeply evil, dehumanised, selfish, violent and dangerous people.

Former Member

Please lamp boy, leave out the gratuitous insults, and actually tell me what a neocon is.

Former Member

What insults would those be poor child?

Former Member

I'm still waiting for a sensible answer lamp boy.

Former Member

Seriously Aladdin, these boards score damn high in Google. You want a chance to explain what a neocon is this might be the highest profile you get.

Oh and Rich Kid, I'd recommend watching The Power of Nightmares from the BBC2 if you ever get a chance, a really interesting perspective on the rise of neo-conservatism and islamic fundamentalism

Former Member

Try this

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy14.html

or alternatively the top link under Google

http://www.merchandisemart.com/neocon/

Former Member

But I have already told you, you poor child: deeply evil, dehumanised, selfish, violent and dangerous people.

What else do you need to know?

Oh, just in case you didn't know ( :rolleyes: ) they also part of the Republican movement.

That just about covers it.

But I didn't really have to explain that did I?

Because there is as much chance of you not knowing what the term neocon referred to as you going to Heaven.

But hey, I appreciate you creating this thread anyhow. I haven't been Rumsfeld-bashing for ages...

Former Member

www.newamericancentury.org is a group of Neocons who have a lot of power and care little for international or national law.

Former Member

Thanks NQA for the interesting link. Its a pity lamp boy can't answer a simple straight forward question.

I found this link, which surprisingly comes from that grub-sheet the Guardian

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0331-27.htm

Former Member

bongbudda wrote:

www.newamericancentury.org is a group of Neocons who have a lot of power and care little for international or national law.

they are a nasty piece of work indeed

Former Member

Strauss.

Former Member

Neocons are essentially aherents to the ideological teachings of Leo Strauss which are little more than the age old and historically failed aspiration's of power and empire ala Machiavelli. It expresses itself in a presumption of unilateralist self righteousness for those in positions of government authority above all notions of or accountability to the obligations of international law for those with the strength or cunning to circumvent or simply ignore such obligations.

It goes further in stressing a lack of obligatory accountability to the citizenry as well, which it deems no better than chattel to be lied to, manipulated and even sacrificed in order to further the intents of power for its own sake.

This ideology is not exclusive to either of the two principal parties in the US and indeed finds adherents from both sides of the aisle. However they may seem opposed on a few social or cultural issues, they are inseparably linked in their allegiance to:

1. the interests of their corporate financiers above their token allegiance to any supposed civic consitutency; and

2. their subscription to the rule of "might makes right" rather than the universal and consistent principle of the "rule of law" (which has no real meaning in their poli-speak since they consider themselves above its precepts).

There are other aspects to the Neocon camp, such as a predominant, if not unanimous, adherence to Zionism (another anachronistic colonialist-era ideology which has no place in a modern world), but the key architect is Strauss (who in fact was one of Paul Wolfowitz's professors in university).

If you are inclined to do some reading, I will once more (having suggested it previously) point out the Brzezinski book "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives" as a source for gaining an insight into just how flagrantly presumptuous and grasping these ideologues truly are.

Former Member

Absolutely

Former Member

Isn't Clandestine elegant, wish I could write like that. Does he dress like Tom Wolfe?

Why doesn't the Zionist element deserve to be point 3. rather than an add on?

Former Member

morrismarina wrote:

Isn't Clandestine elegant, wish I could write like that

it's mere rhetoric...basically he's calling neocons deeply evil, dehumanised, selfish, violent and dangerous people. ain't that right aladin

Former Member

Rich Kid wrote:

Its a pity lamp boy can't answer a simple straight forward question.

Where do I start spoilt child? Where do I start?

Former Member

morrismarina wrote:

Isn't Clandestine elegant, wish I could write like that. Does he dress like Tom Wolfe?

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

Where do I start spoilt child? Where do I start?

At the beginning?

Former Member

I presented it as an addendum because I view it as being either an expression of Neocon ideology - insofar as it values all similar apartheid-oriented counterparts as useful allies, where they uphold US interests - or else an identifiable catalyst in the evolution of Neo-Conservatism as the political poles in the US shifted further to the right.

Former Member

Yea I think you're right, but there's a little bit more attachment to Israel than Uzbekistan, surely.
Did the general political poles shift L-R or did the support for Israel shift from L-R. If it's the latter, and Wolfowitz and co. might otherwise have been neolibs, that would explain the anti-semitism that often accompanies chat about neocons - but is some criticism of the Jewish element warranted?

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

It's a misspelling. It should read neocunts.

It refers to deeply evil, dehumanised, selfish, violent and dangerous people.

He asked for the definition of one, not your opinion.

Former Member

Hope this helps.

This political group supported a militant anticommunism; more social welfare spending than was acceptable to libertarians and mainstream conservatives; civil equality for blacks and other minorities; and sympathy with a non-traditionalist agenda, being more inclined than other conservatives toward an interventionist foreign policy and a unilateralism that is sometimes at odds with traditional conceptions of diplomacy and international law. They feuded with traditional right-wing Republicans, and the nativist, protectionist, isolationists once represented by ex-Republican "paleoconservative" Pat Buchanan.

But domestic policy does not define neoconservatism; it is a movement founded on, and perpetuated by an aggressive approach to foreign policy, free trade, opposition to communism during the Cold War, support for beleaguered liberal democracies such as Israel and Taiwan and opposition to Middle Eastern and other states that are perceived to support terrorism. Thus, their foremost target was the conservative but pragmatic approach to foreign policy often associated with Richard Nixon, i.e., peace through negotiations, diplomacy, and arms control, détente and containment (rather than rollback) of the Soviet Union, and the beginning of the process that would lead to bilateral ties between the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the U.S. Today, a rift still divides the neoconservatives from many members of the State Department, who favor established foreign policy conventions.

Intellectually, neoconservatives have been strongly influenced by a diverse range of thinkers from Max Shachtman 's strongly anti-Soviet version of Trotskyism (in the area of international policy) to the elitist, ostensibly neo-Platonic ideas of Leo Strauss.

Former Member

Rich Kid wrote:

At the beginning?

Very well. What are your views on oral sex? Is it unnatural? Is it wrong?

Former Member

Can you please stay on topic lamp boy and provide a straight answer to a simple question.

Former Member

Rich Kid wrote:

Can you please stay on topic lamp boy and provide a straight answer to a simple question.

You've got some cheek saying that. Its exactly the things that you always don't do. Fucking troll.

Former Member

You've got some cheek saying that. Its exactly the things that you always don't do. Fucking troll.

Seconded. he's a complete waste of your time.

http://vbulletin.thesite.org.uk/showpost.php?p=1348725&postcount=36

On why no one should respond to the idiot.

Former Member

klintock wrote:

Seconded. he's a complete waste of your time.

http://vbulletin.thesite.org.uk/showpost.php?p=1348725&postcount=36

On why no one should respond to the idiot.

And you're not much better by targetting him like that.

Teh_Gerbil

Neo Conservative.

George Bush and co.

They hype up unreal threats to gain and maintain power. Like the old Soviet Paranoia thing. The Soviets wern't stupid enough to Invade the USA.

But the USA was stupid enough to invade Korea and Vietnam.

Former Member

Teh_Gerbil wrote:

Neo Conservative.

George Bush and co.

They hype up unreal threats to gain and maintain power. Like the old Soviet Paranoia thing. The Soviets wern't stupid enough to Invade the USA.

But the USA was stupid enough to invade Korea and Vietnam.

Er didn't North Korea attack first and the US never invaded Vietnam, but went to the aid of the South Vietnamese, who were being attacked by a terrorist group supported by a neighbouring state.

Teh_Gerbil

Hmm, ok, my language skills aren't great... but they entered into a civil war of someone else. If this was their usual pose, then they would have aided Africa by now to keep the peace. But no.

And the North Koreans only attacked the south... not the USA. The only reason for the war was a war of ideologies, and that is never a good reason for war.