|
This is from a Usenet post on neo-conservatives. The thread was started with a post bearing the subject, "Let's define Neo Conservative". What I quote was one of the answers. I thought it was a good post on the subject. The post is archived at http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=pan.2004.01.28.21.32.11.434700%40hoo.com-amikchiQuoting the Usenet post:
And so upon Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:22:55 -0500 didst Jim Warren speak thusly:
> Hello,
>
> The poster who identifies themselves as "Fester" like's to pester me
> about the definition of Neo Conservative.
>
> To me a neo conservative is:
>
> Someone who thinks their religion is the only valid religion.
>
> Their religion provides them with absolute answers. There is no
> ambiguity.
>
> They have dominion over those that have not accepted the their faith.
>
> Leaders who say they agree with the Neo Conservatives, can not error and
> any wrong doings associated with that leader is someone else's fault.
>
> Any other thoughts as to what a Neo Conservative is? remove word virus
> from return address
No, while the neo-conservative movement contains a number of people who
claim religion (or at least pander to the religious right), it's a
political movement.
Neo-conservatives--as they called themselves (so you can ignore the coy,
bullshit games of "neo-con, what's that?" going on lately)--were leftists
and liberals who left the Democratic party. Particularly in the 1980s
during the "Reagan revolution" which saw so much cross-over happen from
the Democrats to the Republicans. If you pay attention to neo-con
policies, you can still see some *very leftist orientations in them. They
haven't strayed as far from their roots as they may appear.
Irving Kristol was one of the major forces (I've seen him called the
"grandfather" of the movement) and wrote "Reflections of a
Neoconservative: Looking Back, Looking Ahead" in 1983 (now neo-cons are
trying to pretend Democrats invented the term and are just using it as a
smear tactic, hoping you don't notice THEY used the term to describe
THEMSELVES).
Leo Strauss who taught at the University of Chicago and under whom
Wolfowitz studied was one of the "philosophers" of the movement. Strauss
was extremely Machiavellian in his attitudes and held positions such as:
"Perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical...
because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them
what's good for them."
Strauss held--of all things--that liberal democracy in the Weimar Republic
led to the Holocaust. He believed there are people who are "fit leaders"
while the rest are to be led (rather Platonic thinking) and the leaders:
"are those who realise there is no morality and that there is only one
natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior".
Strauss, along with Irving Kristol, hold that separation of church and
state was a mistake and that secular society is the worst possible
situation. Because, you see, they believe religion holds societies
"together" while individualism, liberalism, and relativism encourage
dissent and "weaken" a society.
(I'm paraphrasing and borrowing some from Shadia Drury's "Leo Strauss and
the American Right" but there's a great deal you can find just by Googling
the major players like Strauss and Michael Ledeen).
Ledeen is among the most influential of the neo-cons. His ideas can be
heard any time you listen to Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul
Wolfowitz. Ledeen wrote: "Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why
Machiavelli's Iron Rules Are as Timely and Important Today as Five
Centuries Ago" which tells much of the sordid tale. The neo-cons can't get
enough of Machiavelli.
Ledeen holds that we *failed* in the Cold War. Now, I agree with him that
the USSR collapsed under its own weight. Ledeen considers this a failure
on our part. I suppose because we didn't move in immediately and set up
The American Way of Life all over the former Soviet Union *by *military
*force if necessary.
William O. Beeman commented:
" basically believes that violence in the service of the spread of
democracy is America's manifest destiny....Iraq, Iran and Syria are the
first and foremost nations where this should happen, according to Ledeen.
The process by which this should be achieved is a violent one, termed
'total war.'"
Ledeen himself:
"Total war not only destroys the enemy's military forces, but also brings
the enemy society to an extremely personal point of decision, so that they
are willing to accept a reversal of the cultural trends....The sparing of
civilian lives cannot be the total war's first priority....The purpose of
total war is to permanently force your will onto another people."
Richard Pearle (aka "The Prince of Darkness") is another major force in
the movement. He just had a book published entitled--of all things--"An
End to Evil."
Check out: http://www.aei.org/publications/bookID.650/book_detail.asp
The book was published by the American Enterprise Institute, a nest of
neo-cons right up there with Project for the New American Century
(http://www.newamericancentury.org/).
Pearle's book advocates undermining the UN, treating *FRANCE* as an
adversary (even enemy), pushing "regime change" in N. Korea, Saudia
Arabia, Syria, and Iran (for starters) by military force if necessary.
Pearle's ideas include basically splitting up the EU by playing "Old
Europe" against "New Europe" so that the EU cannot challenge our
supremacy, military action to totally remake (and dominate) the Middle
East and its oil supplies, and preventing China from rising to the status
of a major power (regional or otherwise).
These fit in with PNAC (Project for the New American Century) which
positions were and are pushed by Cheney and Rumsfeld. The first "project,"
by the way, was Iraq. O'Neill's revelations that the overthrow of Hussein
were discussed within ten days of the inauguration should come as no
surprise. The attack was planed *YEARS* before. It's all public on the
PNAC site and elsewhere. They told us what they would do soon as they had
the chance. And they did.
Oh, here's an interesting site. I *can't vouch for it but at least some of
what I read on it is worth checking out:
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html?story
Anyway...
I would identify the hallmarks of the neo-cons this way:
- Unilateralist and rather imperial foriegn policy. They have at times
actually used the term "empire" but retreated from using it publicly as it
didn't go over very well. They still hold that we should allow *no power
to rival us anywhere on Earth. We will be the "benevolent" hegemons. In
short, we will rule the world.
- A very Soviet style belief in "exporting democracy." They sound just
like the old USSR when they speak of "liberating" other countries. Even
the current justification of the invasion of Iraq sounds Soviet. Yes,
Hussein was a despot and a terrible man. But what's this about the US
going about "liberating" countries? Since when was imposing our system on
people *by *force such a great idea?
- Nominally neo-liberal (or neo-classical) in economics. Global "free
trade" is pushed. But if you watch it, you can see the elitist,
Machiavellian streak. "Free trade" means multinational organizations such
as WIPO, WTC, and such run by the English speaking world (and mostly us).
And run for the benefit of corporations. The rest of us will just have to
be happy they bother to let us have jobs. I mean, if they do.
- Machiavellian in spades. Something to keep in mind as the WMD thing
continues to fall apart.
See, in Machiavellian thought, you don't have any need to know what the
government is really up to. You are to be patriotic and wave your flag and
get to work. And you will be told whatever the elite believes you should
believe.
Were we lied to? Of course we were. Trace a line from Ledeen to Cheney and
Rummy's mouths. We are told what they believe we should "know." It's not
our *place to question. They are the natural leaders and rulers. You're
the serf. So shut up.
(Whether Bush has the intellectual capacity to see what's going on in the
White House, I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if the man is so
totally isolated, he's clueless what's really going on. The O'Neill
revelations make one wonder.)
Were the tax cuts *for the rich? Of course they were. Shut up.
Is Halliburton profiteering? Of course they are. Shut up.
Are civil rights being eroded under Ashcroft? Of course they are. Shut up.
Want to protest? SHUT UP.
Watch the campaigns by people like that bitch Coulter. It's all a message
for you damn peasants to SHUT! UP!
Of *course you're being lied to. They *TOLD* us they would lie to us. It's
all out in the open if you bother to go digging. But they know most of the
public won't. And they also know that most of the media is corporate and
is going to go along with much of it.
But go read what they *openly said about their admiration for
Machiavellian thought. It's out there.
- Religion is for you, the elite has no need of "morals."
It's very much a Strauss position but is all through the upper levels of
the movement. *YOU need religion to keep you in line. The elite knows
better. Strauss was an atheist. But also believed separation had to be
dismantled and a religiously cohesive society needed to be built.
So do they push religion? Sure. Do they believe it? No. The rulers have no
need of morals or gods or religions. It is simply a tool to keep the
masses in line.
Well, this is long enough as it is so I'll cut it off about here.
Parting shot:
The neo-cons now are trying to claim the term "neo-conservative" is just
some fantasy of the left. Problem is, *THEY* used the term *THEMSELVES* to
differetiate between themselves and the traditional, Goldwater
conservatives who they called "paleo-conservatives."
But it's a very typical neo-con maneuver to throw people "off the trail."
They know most of the public doesn't do much research into matters. A very
large number of people will just accept what's repeated and go on. But
it's all very Orwellian.
Meaning that if you watch the little "what's a neo-con?" game and the
latest babble on Iraq, you'll find that it amounts to "we have always been
at war with Iraq."
The neo-cons are trying to rewrite history and make it out that their
policies are just a continuation rather than a radical break.
But that's what you, the peasant, are supposed to believe.
So, SHUT UP.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels." |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(676 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
