[Lerkfish]

the purpose of this thread is to post links regarding the neocon infiltration/agenda and to discuss same (to discuss also means you may disagree, but please, let's keep flaming to a minimum) Mainly, I'm looking for links that actually use the word "neocon" or that include notable members of that group. The focus of this thread is as stated "keeping track"....

to start, here is a recent example:

this one, thanks t_f! details how Karen Kwiatkowski, a senior Air Force officer watches as the neocons consolidate their Pentagon coup.

some interesting tidbits:

About that same time, my education on the history and generation of the neoconservative movement had completed its first stage. I now understood that neoconservatism was both unhistorical and based on the organizing construct of “permanent revolution.” I had studied the role played by hawkish former Sen. Scoop Jackson (D-Wash.) and the neoconservative drift of formerly traditional magazines like National Review and think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. I had observed that many of the neoconservatives in the Pentagon not only had limited military experience, if any at all, but they also advocated theories of war that struck me as rejections of classical liberalism, natural law, and constitutional strictures. More than that, the pressure of the intelligence community to conform, the rejection of it when it failed to produce intelligence suitable for supporting the “Iraq is an imminent threat to the United States” agenda, and the amazing things I was hearing in both Bush and Cheney speeches told me that not only do neoconservatives hold a theory based on ideas not embraced by the American mainstream, but they also have a collective contempt for fact.

[eklipse]

neo-McCarthyism?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by eklipse:
neo-McCarthyism?

LOL!

seriously, though, as this 1997 link shows the planning for "global leadership" (read: hegemony) has been going on for some time now:

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

[Shaddim]

So, you're irritable and bitter regarding: losing both congressional houses, the Presidency, the governorship of major states, and having a minority of SC justices. Then, instead of blaming the lame and ineffective Democratic party, you blame some non-existant group with a name that sounds like it comes from a bad pulp novel. This country's population is changing (has been changing) direction to a more conservative view and doctrine, and I'm sure it just gripes your ass. However, that's the way it is. Like it, lump it, whatever.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
So, you're irritable and bitter regarding: losing both congressional houses, the Presidency, the governorship of major states, and having a minority of SC justices. Then, instead of blaming the lame and ineffective Democratic party, you blame some non-existant group with a name that sounds like it comes from a bad pulp novel. This country's population is changing (has been changing) direction to a more conservative view and doctrine, and I'm sure it just gripes your ass. However, that's the way it is. Like it, lump it, whatever.

LOL! thanks for not flaming.

so....its your contention this group does not exist?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
So, you're irritable and bitter regarding: losing both congressional houses, the Presidency, the governorship of major states, and having a minority of SC justices. Then, instead of blaming the lame and ineffective Democratic party, you blame some non-existant group with a name that sounds like it comes from a bad pulp novel. This country's population is changing (has been changing) direction to a more conservative view and doctrine, and I'm sure it just gripes your ass. However, that's the way it is. Like it, lump it, whatever.

Sounds like you could benefit from a refresher course

Or perhaps a primer

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
LOL! thanks for not flaming.

so....its your contention this group does not exist?

I think there are individuals on both sides of the fence who work towards their own agendas. But, it's a bit Orwellian to think some shadow group is covertly trying to run the show.

So no, there's no neocon/"skulls"/NewWorldOrder commission out there. Frankly, the idea of labeling others with these silly titles so they can thereby be segregated is an ancient tactic. You give some group a title, segregate them as different, which causes fear. That fear then turns to hate, hate then makes the population easier to control. Is this the Democrat/Liberal agenda nowadays?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Sounds like you could benefit from a refresher course

Or perhaps a primer

No, no, I'll let you enjoy the propaganda. If I want to read similar, I'll just go to a 20th century original and pickup Mein Kampf.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I think there are individuals on both sides of the fence who work towards their own agendas. But, it's a bit Orwellian to think some shadow group is covertly trying to run the show.

So no, there's no neocon/"skulls"/NewWorldOrder commission out there. Frankly, the idea of labeling others with these silly titles so they can thereby be segregated is an ancient tactic. You give some group a title, segregate them as different, which causes fear. That fear then turns to hate, hate then makes the population easier to control. Is this the Democrat/Liberal agenda nowadays?

did you read t_f's link above?
do a google search. I did not make up the term "neocon".
but thanks for playing....Don Pardo, show him the home game he gets for coming down to the studio!

[petehammer]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Is this the Democrat/Liberal agenda nowadays?

Is asking rhetorical questions to which you believe you already hold the answer the Republican/Conservative agenda nowadays?

Yes, virginia, there are Neocons. Though -I forget who labeled them as such- they should be called Paleo-cons.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No, no, I'll let you enjoy the propaganda. If I want to read similar, I'll just go to a 20th century original and pickup Mein Kampf.

D'oh!

Sorry Lurk, it looks like Goodwin's Law has reared it's ugly head. On the plus side, MacNstein lost.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I think there are individuals on both sides of the fence who work towards their own agendas. But, it's a bit Orwellian to think some shadow group is covertly trying to run the show.

So no, there's no neocon/"skulls"/NewWorldOrder commission out there. Frankly, the idea of labeling others with these silly titles so they can thereby be segregated is an ancient tactic. You give some group a title, segregate them as different, which causes fear. That fear then turns to hate, hate then makes the population easier to control. Is this the Democrat/Liberal agenda nowadays?

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

"neoconservative" is not a perjorative. Its a self-applied label to describe a rather broad and incresingly popular brand of political philosophy. It is very real and very actual ideological movement.

Its major adherents and proponents are not a "shadow group". They are very proud, very vocal and very articulate bunch of very smart people who have never shied away from publically stating their beliefs, ideals and agendas for what America should be doing.

This is not about conspiracies or plots. This isn't about secrecy. Like most ideological groups that find themselves in power, they have a tendency to rally support for their cause by whatever means necessary--even if that means fudging the facts. I am unaware of any ideological political group that doesn't do this.

They are not "conservatives" which is why they have a different name for themselves. Many groups of a more traditional conservative political tradition hate their ideas even more than liberals do. They consider it a form of radicalism that threatens to establish massive central state mechanisms, undermine Liberty, and export a kind of "bennevolent tyranny" around the world.

As for "new world order", I would quote Bush I:

Until now, the world we’ve known has been a world divided – a world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict and cold war.

Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a "world order" in which "the principles of justice and fair play ... protect the weak against the strong ..." A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfil the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.

The Gulf war put this new world to its first test, and, my fellow Americans, we passed that test.

Bush I was not a neoconservative, but rather a traditional conservative. At least at the time he was president. In fact, so was Dubya if we are to believe his campaign rhetoric during the 2000 election. Many suspect that he was been since "converted" to the more radical ideology espoused by neoconservatives for decades. But who knows, he might have been one all along. AFter all, he came very late to politics and it might gell more closely with his brand of Evangelical Christianity than his father's more modest Internationalism.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by petehammer:
D'oh!

Sorry Lurk, it looks like Goodwin's Law has reared it's ugly head. On the plus side, MacNstein lost.

Very predictable of you. My statement still stands, and in light of the paranoid climate here in the P/W lounge, is dead-on accurate.


You guys are simply trying to link up a bunch of BS which is unrelated and attrbute it to another organization... thereby making up for your own shortcomings and loss of popularity.

"But we're RIGHT, why aren't people listening to US?"

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by petehammer:
D'oh!

Sorry Lurk, it looks like Goodwin's Law has reared it's ugly head. On the plus side, MacNstein lost.

Actually, it's "Godwin's Law", and Godwin never said anything about losing.

However:

Godwin's Law
Godwin's Law ___ prov. ___ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful

I did find the mention of Mein Kampf in this thread rather, um, ... weird.

-s*

[petehammer]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Very predictable of you.

Sorry, dude. You bring up Nazis out of the blue, you invoke the law, you lose.

Them's the brakes.

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Actually, it's "Godwin's Law", and Godwin never said anything about losing.

The link I have says Goodwin (of Prof. Ralph Goodwin), and if you read your own quote:

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Sorry, dude. You bring up Nazis out of the blue, you invoke the law, you lose.

Them's the brakes.

And Spheric, click the link.

I read it on the internet; it must be true.

No, pete, it is definitely "Godwin", not "Goodwin".

Credible link (quoted above): http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms...win_s_Law.html

-s*

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Very predictable of you. My statement still stands, and in light of the paranoid climate here in the P/W lounge, is dead-on accurate.


You guys are simply trying to link up a bunch of BS which is unrelated and attrbute it to another organization... thereby making up for your own shortcomings and loss of popularity.

"But we're RIGHT, why aren't people listening to US?"

You might actually be more wrong on this issue than any poster on MacNN has ever been on any issue. Its truly mind-boggling.

Here is a clear and concise explanation by the man who is often called the "godfather" of neoconservativism, Irving Kristol.

He believes it is a political persuasion that will save the Republican party from itself.

There ya go, straight from the horses mouth.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Sorry, dude. You bring up Nazis out of the blue, you invoke the law, you lose.

Them's the brakes.



The link I have says Goodwin (of Prof. Ralph Goodwin), and if you read your own quote:

Oh damn... what, a, shame.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
You might actually be more wrong on this issue than any poster on MacNN has ever been on any issue. Its truly mind-boggling.

Here is a clear and concise explanation by the man who is often called the "godfather" of neoconservativism, Irving Kristol.

He believes it is a political persuasion that will save the Republican party from itself.

There ya go, straight from the horses mouth.

So, you're going to then blame anything and everything on this group, ignoring your own group's issues? You're just not paying attention to what I've been saying.

[Shaddim]

To clarify:

You (and many others) have come up with a catchy new nick for neo-conservatives... "neocons". Has a nice, sinister ring to it. Now you, and others, shovel all your group's frustrations out on said group, stirring up the propaganda. Oh well, I guess it keeps you busy.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
So, you're going to then blame anything and everything on this group, ignoring your own group's issues? You're just not paying attention to what I've been saying.

I've said no such thing. In the "Lies Factory" thread I have posted an links to what traditional conservatives are calling a massive ideological shift in the inteligence and policy agencies around Washington. Traditional conservatives with their notions of even-handedness towards Israeli/Palestinian relations, internationalism and scepticism of "nation building" were quite literally ousted by neoconservatives that supported very different ideas of massive interventionism and unilateral militarism.

This fundamental shift (by way of appointment and management) was particularly alarming to many in the intelligence communities who now found themselves presented with bosses which demanded that policy dictate "evidence" rather than vice-versa.

Consider the very direct accusations of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

These are the people that started leaking to the press about the massive amount of misinformation that was being laddled down Americans throats concerning Iraq.

It should be noted that like all ideological persuasions, neoconservativism isn't monolithic. Kristol himself considers the political impact of the movement to be secondary, not primary. Many neocons are democrats. They don't all agree on things, like most groups of politically minded thinkers.

So rather than "blaming", many of us are trying to draw very clear attention to the fact that our nation's policies have taken a rather dramatic and unprecendented shift in fundamental ideology which can be directly linked to the prominance of neocons in the adminstration. We belive this is a dangerous new path which is rather unprecedented and ill-advised.

Of course, as you've amply demonstrated in this thread, the first obstacle is to get people to stop denying that such an ideological shift has taken place and that its roots lie in this particular branch of philosophy.

At least now you're admitting they exist. I suppose I can be thankful for small victories.

Personally, I don't belive many of the people who voted for Dubya in 2000 would have done so if they had realized what kind of dramatic shift was going to take place. Neocons thing that the "resurgence" of conservative or Republican politics is due to the fact the neoconservative ideas are more in line with public attitudes than traditional conservative ideas. I don't believe that is the case.

[Shaddim]

*sigh* I said...

So no, there's no neocon/"skulls"/NewWorldOrder commission out there. Frankly, the idea of labeling others with these silly titles so they can thereby be segregated is an ancient tactic. You give some group a title, segregate them as different, which causes fear. That fear then turns to hate, hate then makes the population easier to control. Is this the Democrat/Liberal agenda nowadays?

You're throwing down the term "neocon" (shortening the name Neo-Conservative) because it sounds sinister and has a ring of intrigue to it. The next step is to place a "neocon" at the heart of anything bad that's happened in the last 10+ years, really villify them. It's typical misdirection.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
*sigh* I said...

You're throwing down the term "neocon" (shortening the name Neo-Conservative) because it sounds sinister and has a ring of intrigue to it. The next step is to place a "neocon" at the heart of anything bad that's happened in the last 10+ years, really villify them. It's typical misdirection.

You sound like some kind of whiny liberal, btching about PC speech like that and all.

BG

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
*sigh* I said...

You're throwing down the term "neocon" (shortening the name Neo-Conservative) because it sounds sinister and has a ring of intrigue to it. The next step is to place a "neocon" at the heart of anything bad that's happened in the last 10+ years, really villify them. It's typical misdirection.

Wait a sec...

I post information about the specific political agendas of self-proclaimed neocons (they gave themsevles the nickname, not their critics), you accuse me of villifying an imaginary group to destract from the failures of democrats..

..but I'm guilty of "misdirection"???

You're on crack.

You're welcome to defend the neocon agenda if you want to. You're welcome to criticize it. But suggesting that its all the product of our imaginations or that we're just mad because no one is listening is the only misdirection going on here.

By some estimates, half of the necons are registered Democrats. In fact, I've heard that Richard Perle is a registered Democrat. I believe that Paul Wolfowitz switched parties a few years back. Irving Kristol himself was a self-described "liberal intellectual" when he starting writing what would become neoconservativism.

My personal opinion is that Lieberman's ideas fit quite nicely with neoconservatives.

[zigzag]

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Wait a sec...

I post information about the specific political agendas of self-proclaimed neocons (they gave themsevles the nickname, not their critics), you accuse me of villifying an imaginary group to destract from the failures of democrats..

..but I'm guilty of "misdirection"???

You're on crack.

You're welcome to defend the neocon agenda if you want to. You're welcome to criticize it. But suggesting that its all the product of our imaginations or that we're just mad because no one is listening is the only misdirection going on here.

By some estimates, half of the necons are registered Democrats. In fact, I've heard that Richard Perle is a registered Democrat. I believe that Paul Wolfowitz switched parties a few years back. Irving Kristol himself was a self-described "liberal intellectual" when he starting writing what would become neoconservativism.

My personal opinion is that Lieberman's ideas fit quite nicely with neoconservatives.

They coined the term Neo-Conservatives (I already knew there are some people who label themselves that way). I didn't fuking say the group was imaginary, stop being a dimwhit, I SAID there wasn't any shadow conspiracy group or U.S. commission of subversives out there. My assertion is; there are no "neocons", the idea of "neocons" is something dreamed up by some delusional idiots who want someone to pin their gripes on.

You sound like some kind of whiny liberal, btching about PC speech like that and all.

You'd know.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
They coined the term Neo-Conservatives (I already knew there are some people who label themselves that way). I didn't fuking say the group was imaginary, stop being a dimwhit, I SAID there wasn't any shadow conspiracy group or U.S. commission of subversives out there. My assertion is; there are no "neocons", the idea of "neocons" is something dreamed up by some delusional idiots who want someone to pin their gripes on.

So neoconservatives are real but "neocons" aren't.

I'm not sure why a simple contraction suddenly renders them different people. Even if you find the contraction pejorative (which I find puzzling also), using it doesn't change the topic of the influence of the neoconservative worldview on our government's policies.

Neoconservatives are real and they are exercising very direct influence on the politics and policies of our country.

[BRussell]

Come on people, I understand perfectly what Macnstein is saying. He's saying there ARE neo-conservatives but there are NO neocons! How much simpler can it get than that?

[edit]t_f beat me to it.

[eklipse]

27 posts just to establish that neo-cons....sorry, neo-conservatives are real? - this looks like it's going to go on for a while.

[saab95]

Originally posted by eklipse:
27 posts just to establish that neo-cons....sorry, neo-conservatives are real? - this looks like it's going to go on for a while.

"Neoconservative" sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Hey, what's another collectivist enclave?

[slow moe]

Neocons are people held together by core beliefs in small government, strong national defense, and capitalism.

They believe in these core values because they also believe we're just meat for Aliens, and that we must be strong and prosperous for when the Aliens come to harvest us.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
You'd know.

Nice comeback. I think that one's right up there with "I know you are, but what am I."

Having said that, please find a quote from me complaining about a person's wording not being PC enough.

I won't hold my breath waiting, whiner.

BlackGriffen

P.S. Sorry, I'll stop posting in this thread, seeing as how my flames serve to derail the thread as much as Macnstein's ignorance does.

[thunderous_funker]

neocons, at least the present influential crop, do not believe in small government. Quite the opposite.

In fact, they have repeatedly and vehemently argued that the US should be totally committed to "benevolent global hegemony".

You can't do that with a puny fed.

In fact, this issue is one of the greatest sources of conflict between traditional conservatives and neocons (I'm abbreviating because i'm getting carpal tunnel from typing the whole word--deal with it.)

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Nice comeback. I think that one's right up there with "I know you are, but what am I."

Having said that, please find a quote from me complaining about a person's wording not being PC enough.

I won't hold my breath waiting, whiner.

BlackGriffen

P.S. Sorry, I'll stop posting in this thread, seeing as how my flames serve to derail the thread as much as Macnstein's ignorance does.

There. now don't you feel better?


Ass monkey.

Anyhow, on topic.

How does that make this administration any different from; Kennedy's, Johnson's, Eisenhower's, Nixon's, etc.. They all went to other countries to stop the spread of facism (and communism) and started wars (or prolonged them) to enforce their agendas. Are they all "neocons"?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
There. now don't you feel better?


Ass monkey.

Anyhow, on topic.

How does that make this administration any different from; Kennedy's, Johnson's, Eisenhower's, Nixon's, etc.. They all went to other countries to stop the spread of facism (and communism) and started wars (or prolonged them) to enforce their agendas. Are they all "neocons"?

although certainly not as eloquent, nor as intelligent, Simey would be proud of the way you trashed and derailed this thread in a misdirection over semantics of one word.

I will now report this post to the moderators, put you ignore and suggest others do the same. Since all you seem to be able to contribute is flames and derailments and nothing else of substance.
I only tell you this so you aren't confused when I no longer reply to your inane posts.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
neocons, at least the present influential crop, do not believe in small government. Quite the opposite.

I think you're confusing the current crop of Republicians pandering to the Left with the neocon weltanschauung, I mean ideology.

[Joshua]

I think MacNStein's point was more that the way the term neocon is used around here has more to do with demonization and segregation than any meaningful discussion of political ideology. It seems like some of you have come to a pretty rigid understanding of how the world works (prong theories, using "global hegemony" in every third sentence, the need to "keep track" of so-called neocons), and now you're trying your damnedest to mash everything you disagree with into the mold you've made. It reminds me of the way some conservatives shriek "socialist" at anything European or remotely left of center.

[gadster]

This article may be of interest to those upon whom it is slowly dawning that something is seriously amiss.

http://www.rainbowbody.org/politics/PNACgoal.htm

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Frankly, the idea of labeling others with these silly titles so they can thereby be segregated is an ancient tactic. You give some group a title, segregate them as different, which causes fear. That fear then turns to hate, hate then makes the population easier to control.

Yeah. Bloody Muslims.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Yeah. Bloody Muslims.

*claps*

As always, I am humbled by the master of concise and biting humor.

BG

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Joshua:
I think MacNStein's point was more that the way the term neocon is used around here has more to do with demonization and segregation than any meaningful discussion of political ideology. It seems like some of you have come to a pretty rigid understanding of how the world works (prong theories, using "global hegemony" in every third sentence, the need to "keep track" of so-called neocons), and now you're trying your damnedest to mash everything you disagree with into the mold you've made. It reminds me of the way some conservatives shriek "socialist" at anything European or remotely left of center.

Why do you feel threatened by this thread or this discussion? If you feel what is being discussed is untrue, simply don't participate in the thread, or participate and point out why it appears untrue to you.
The term "hegemony" is a perfectly legitimate term, and it is appropriate. Both the group referred to (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al) and republicans in general readily admit to and are proud of a strategy of "reshaping the middle east", which by definition is hegemony.
If someone goes over the speed limit, am I demonizing them by saying they are speeding?
Perhaps you can offer an argument why "regime changing" Iraq is NOT hegemony?


I use the term "neocon" but I did not invent that term, nor have I invented what this group has stated publicly in policy statements readily available. they refer to themselves as neocons, and have published various manifestos about Pax Americana and the need for america to proactively bring the rest of the world into line with America at the head. This is global hegemony.

You act as if that is a perjorative or insulting term, and if you think it is, you should also think the STRATEGY ITSELF is negative or insulting.

What I feel is important is that people realize the people and the agenda behind the policy. Finally, at this point, even some conservatives are realizing that the neocons have begun to take over while the republicans have been asleep at the wheel.

You consider my viewpoint rigid, but the reality is I'm promoting flexibility and decrying the rigidity of a strategy that was developed decades ago, and force fed over a situation regardless of the actual information: by that I mean, that this strategy has had Iraq as its central target for the beginning of the middle east hegemony well over a decade ago. The inflexibility of this strategy meant that they were going in to Iraq to regime change it, whether credible intelligence indicated that as prudent or not. IF the intelligence did not, then the intelligence would be cherry-picked until it did.

Some may choose to bury their heads in the sand, but they do so at their own peril. As conservatives, you should be up in arms at how your party and ideology has been coopted by the ideology of another group. You should feel USED, but instead you feel insulted to hear the suggestion.

But this is normal tactics for this forum: attack the arguer instead of the argument.

Do you have anything of substance to offer which refutes the links, or the information? Or do you merely object to it because you're offended by me personally?

Because your arguements are ad hominem and targeting me personally instead of my points, I can come to no other conclusion.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Why do you feel threatened by this thread or this discussion?

I don't feel threatened by this thread at all; to be honest, I think the rhetoric you're using is radical/alarmist enough that trying to refute it isn't necessary because most reasonable people won't buy into it.

As for most of the rest of your response, you seem to be missing my point. I don't deny that there may be some amount of validity to your concerns about neo-conservative ideology; I certainly don't agree with the PNAC on many issues. What I find contemptible is this absolutist stance that America is in the hands of the "neocons," because it doesn't invite debate -- only agreement. Hence comments like this:

Some may choose to bury their heads in the sand, but they do so at their own peril. As conservatives, you should be up in arms at how your party and ideology has been coopted by the ideology of another group. You should feel USED, but instead you feel insulted to hear the suggestion.

This is exactly why I said the term neocon (here) is used to demonize and segregate: it doesn't just reference PNAC ideology, it also includes the blanket assumption that the ideology is already dominating US policy. And anyone who disagrees has their head buried in the sand.

But this is normal tactics for this forum: attack the arguer instead of the argument.

Do you have anything of substance to offer which refutes the links, or the information? Or do you merely object to it because you're offended by me personally?

Because your arguements are ad hominem and targeting me personally instead of my points, I can come to no other conclusion.

No, the standard tactic in this forum is to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of posting an ad hominem.

I deliberately didn't quote anyone in my last post because I didn't mean it to be directed at anyone individually; there are many people that share your viewpoint. I referenced your prong theory and this thread because you tend to be the most vocal.

[lil'babykitten]

Neocons to be aware of:

Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle
William Kristol
Meyrav Wurmser
Michael Ledeen

There was a very insightful documentary on this a few months ago. You can read more about who they are, what they are doing and what instiutions they are associated with-such as PNAC, AEI and The Battle of the Think Tanks, here

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
There was a very insightful documentary on this a few months ago. You can read more about who they are, what they are doing and what instiutions they are associated with-such as PNAC, AEI and The Battle of the Think Tanks, here

Isn't that the one that asked the Jews interviewed where their loyalties are?

I could think of a few words for that, but none of them would be "insightful."

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Isn't that the one that asked the Jews interviewed where their loyalties are?

I could think of a few words for that, but none of them would be "insightful."

thanks for posting...er...nothing.

[version]

Of course there's a hidden agenda, why do you think Bush and all his old cronies go up to North Cali. to sit there and watch them worshipping a friggin wooden owl, and these people run our world, dear, oh dear.

[version]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Isn't that the one that asked the Jews interviewed where their loyalties are?

I could think of a few words for that, but none of them would be "insightful."

I'm a Jew, and I know where my loyalties lie, I just read about a new book which details how the British Gov. in WW2 not only refused the peace plan by Hitler, but managed the situation so that the war would be prolonged so that they could weaken Russsia. They didn't care about the casualties, or the concentraion camps. These documents all came out after the archives became available recently. So don't tell me that the US, or britain even remotely cares about justice, or helping those down trodden, it's all an agenda to serve their national interests at the detriment of those being persecuted, all pawns.

Oh, and yeah, your post was devoid of content.

[gadster]

Originally posted by version:
Of course there's a hidden agenda, why do you think Bush and all his old cronies go up to North Cali. to sit there and watch them worshipping a friggin wooden owl, and these people run our world, dear, oh dear.

Owl or no owl, there is a problem.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by gadster:
Owl or no owl, there is a problem.

well, its apparent US foreign policy is at least being heavily influenced, if not actually controlled by this group. To complacently ignore or deny that seems odd.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Joshua:
I think MacNStein's point was more that the way the term neocon is used around here has more to do with demonization and segregation than any meaningful discussion of political ideology. It seems like some of you have come to a pretty rigid understanding of how the world works (prong theories, using "global hegemony" in every third sentence, the need to "keep track" of so-called neocons), and now you're trying your damnedest to mash everything you disagree with into the mold you've made. It reminds me of the way some conservatives shriek "socialist" at anything European or remotely left of center.

Bingo! Give that man a prize. I'm just tired of all the catchy phrases, cloak-and-dagger, black helicopters BS. Inventing another boogeyman for people to be afraid of. What a load of crap.

If he wishes to put me on his ignore list, that's his prerogative. As far as reporting me, pfftt... I see far worse from dozens of people every day on this forum. I seriously doubt I've done anything that's truly "wrong". But, whatever.