Something for Spineless Neocons
"I understood the infamous spiritual terror which this movement exerts, particularly on the bourgeoisie, which is neither morally nor mentally equal to such attacks; at a given sign it unleashes a veritable barrage of lies and slanders against whatever adversary seems most dangerous, until the nerves of the attacked persons break down and, just to have peace again, they sacrifice the hated individual(s). However, the fools obtain no peace. The game begins again and is repeated over and over until fear of the mad dog results in suggestive paralysis.........Conversely, they praise every weakling on the opposing side, sometimes cautiously, sometimes loudly, depending on the real or supposed quality of his intelligence".
- Adolph Hitler, from Mein Kampf, on the 'spiritual terror' tactics employed by his Nazi movement.
Then again, from the reaction I've seen to anyone who strays from the PC dogma amongst the 'conservative' side, neoconservatism may be such a movement itself.
PRCalDude
16 Comments
Reader Comments (16)
"Neocon" is one of those meaningless words. At best, it means "conservatives I disagree with."
I don't need to go into what it means at worst.
I disagree JD. I've just started The Neocon Reader, an anthology edited by Irwin Stelzer and the various articles lay out neoconserative ideas clearly.
Neoconservatism is not that much different that political progressivism. While progressives usually lean secular liberal, neocons usually lean secular right. But in the end there is often little difference between their secular socialist agendas other than they have different ideas about how to reach their common end goal.
You are being imprecise. 99% of people who are labeled with "neocon" have NEVER read the Neocon Reader or any neocon ideas whatsoever. Yes there are real neocons out there. But let us be precise and not use this label as a bludgeon. "Non-paleo" is not enough to be considered "neocon."
the people they try to smear with the 'neocon' slur, are the same Ronald Reagan types....its all a leftist invented slur. that now some fringe right groups are using to slur fellow conservatives with.
at best, all it means is you favor a more aggressive Foreign Policy and are not Isolationist. Reagan bombed Lybia(killed Gadafi's family, who got scared after Saddam fell and turned over his WMD program), Reagan brought Liberty to Central American countries like Grenada and El Salvador(which Duncan Hunter tried to point out, are now fighting along side us)..and of course he allied with various 'bad guys' to win the larger war of the time he was focused on, the Cold War.
There is a great review on the American Thinker about the new book, "World War IV", I also suggest seeing the Reagan foreign Policy DVD, "In the Face of Evil".....and ignore political winds.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/why_we_are_in_iraq_a_review_of.html
Neocon, paleocon, comicon...
I'm a dude. I like freedom. Not so much a fan of being told how to live by my government. Generally I think capitalism works.
Not a huge fan of huddling within our borders - I'd rather go on the offensive, though that's not always the best option. The jury is still out for me on the whole "nation building" thing. I'm still formulating my opinions.
Dunno, really. The labeling thing seems a waste of time. "You're just a nasty old X" where X is something I think I don't like seems to be a way of avoiding honest discussion.
Folks on the "VB IS TEH NAZI! ZOMG!" side of the argument are overzealous in their desire to keep the party ideologically pure (odd echoes of Kos :shudder:). Folks on the "VB IS PERFECT AND INNOCENT" side aren't (IMO) quite giving the issue the look they should.
To the "we have to fight the jihadists so we'll take who we can get" folks ... um ... how, precisely, are we fighting the jihadists? How does associating ourselves with a bunch of Swedish weirdos with a sketchy past help us "fight" the jihadists? Arena of ideas and all that sure ... but really ... meh.
----------------------------------------------
I just can't get over how badly everyone freaked out over this. I mean ... I barely noticed it the first time I saw it at LGF. Here's how it looks to me.
Atlas Shrugged: We did this anti-jihad conference, which was AWESOME. Everyone should be like, totally into it.
Littlegreenfootballs: Some of the people there look like they've got some odd associations.
AS: OMG! WTF?!?! Charles <3s CAIR!!!oneEleven!1 LGF HATES FREEDOM AND LOVES SUPER PC LIBTARDS FOREVAR!
LGF: OMG! WTF??! ALL I DID WAS ASK TEH QUESTIONS! YOU'RE ALL RACISTS AND NAZIS AND BLAH!
Robert Spencer: Not that there WERE any Holocaust Denying racist Nazis at the conference, but if there were, I'd utterly and completely repudiate them. OH LOOK A PTERODACTYL! <vanish>
Internet straw poll: RON PAUL!!!!
Allah: INDISCRIMINATE BAN HAMMER OF DOOM FOR RACISTS AND HATERS AND LIARS AND NAZIS!!1!
<mushroom cloud>
Godwin: Who went first now? I'm confused.
ALL: RACIST PC LOVING ZIONIST NAZI HATEMONGER RAR RAR RAR!
Sympathizers to various sides: I thought we KNEW those people, man. They've like, totally betrayed the cause. (Insert faction of choice) has really gone downhill.
Rest of the World: Huh?
LOL! good one!
Good synopsis Joseph.
It would be funny if it weren't so true.
Final solution to this problem available here.
Does it not strike anyone as odd that this whole issue went thermonuclear so quickly?
Not to me, Joseph.
It finally struck home to the centrists that quite possibly their greatest allies against Islamic racism are other racists. And rather than think through it rationally they lashed out at whomever was the closest scapegoat. (eg. Their favorite scapegoats being Jews and Christians.) Thereby publicly reflecting their own latent racist views.
So if Christians would just keep their mouths shut, the secular center wouldn't have to deal with their own hypocricies. In their minds at least.
In our minds, they're all just nuts.
Boy are you right. It's not even that our allies are racists, its that whites are so terrorized by the thought of even being called the same that they'll turn on their allies to avoid the label. It's time people realize there's some uncomfortable truths they need to accept.
Somehow, racism seems to have become the worst possible moral crime, and that's odd, considering that it's a pretty common human failing.
I see racism, at its core, to be a problem of mental shorcuts and an invalid assumption of causation from correlation. It's problematic, and often hard to deal with, but it does not follow that all racists are monsters. Monsters who are also racists can abuse those shortcuts and lazy thinking processes to disastrous effect, but still.
PS. What are the uncomfortable truths?
Thank you.
Yes, it has become the grossest of sins, but only whites are ever guilty of it.
I'm pretty sure the Frankish king Charles Martel was a racist. He's pretty OK in my book.
I'll get to that in part III. You brought up so much last night that I've gotta compose my thoughts. This issue has to be explained carefully and sensitively.
Something to think about.
American Liberals are the first to stand against anti-semitism. Yet in Middle East politics, these same liberals are the first to throw Israel under the buss.
Perhaps they're just globalists at heart?
It is not about globalism so much as guilt. They are the real racists. Covering up their guilt by painting everyone else unfairly guilty of their crimes.