Neo-conservatism

[Serotonin]

I've been reading "The Doubter's Companion" - I forget exactly what it's called - by John Ralston Saul. It's a bloody good read.

What interested me the most was his definition of neo-conservatism. Apparently it's the exact opposite of conservatism. It relies on resistance to change only when it suits the leading power, but really it is a form of radicalism akin to Marxism, just this time on the far right.
I see a couple of central tenets, being these:
- Complete deregulation of all industry. Free markets.
- Aggressive foreign policy, with the justification of protecting the state.

but the rest of the doctrine is rather hazy. Howard and Bush have adopted neo-conservatism quite whole-heartedly into their administrations.
What seems strange is that even though Mussolini was crushed in WW2, his legacy lives on in the form of today's Western governments and economies.
We have yet to see the fallout of it. I doubt it will be pleasant. But, as with all history, we have to learn the hard way. Just don't be in the joint when the walls start caving in.....

[coffeezombie]

The political philosophy sounds a lot like both government and business sharing power in the social and economic spheres respectively. It's all about doleing out as much power as one can to those with large monetary assets. Businesses support conservative interests, conservatives give them free rein as a reward, an endless cycle. Making the problem worse is that the media is now more and more controlled by large corporate interests as well. People will actually have to work to seek reliable information in the form of independent small-press newspapers or websites, but of course people will not be properly educated to be true knowledge-seekers by what will increasingly be corporate-influenced schools. Americans need to start realizing that economic growth at all costs is not the best solution for individual liberties and that constraints need to be place on the power that businesses have over government, just as a separation between church and state also exists.

[C.J.Woolf]

What interested me the most was his definition of neo-conservatism. Apparently it's the exact opposite of conservatism. It relies on resistance to change only when it suits the leading power, but really it is a form of radicalism akin to Marxism, just this time on the far right.
I see a couple of central tenets, being these:
- Complete deregulation of all industry. Free markets.
- Aggressive foreign policy, with the justification of protecting the state.

From what I've seen of neoconservatism in the US, I don't like it.

It seems to me that these ex-Marxists jumped off the sinking ship onto the ship that sank it, but they haven't given up on the elitist or "we know better than you" philosophy of government. I've read a lot of mentions of Leo Strauss as a neocon influence. He advocated telling the masses "noble lies" because they can't handle the truth. In a word, these guys are antidemocratic.

Why did the neocons give up on Marxism, anyway? Did they get disillusioned because the proletariat didn't rise in revolution as Marx hoped, so they just said fuck the proletariat? "Free" markets do not result in a free proletariat.

The 20th Century saw dogmatic socialism in action: Communism, Naziism, (Italian) Fascism. All were discredited, and capitalism is seen as the winning idea. I think capitalism succeeds as a pragmatic (i.e., mixed) system but it will fail as a dogmatic system. Will the 21st Century see dogmatic capitalism discredited?

[int]

I see a couple of central tenets, being these:

- Complete deregulation of all industry. Free markets.
I've been reading "Applied Economics" by Thomas Sowell which lays out several arguments (although not in-depth enough, imo) to the "free market." With books like this it's easy to see how the neo-con movement is gaining popularity. I can see how an average American could be convinced.

Luckily* I went to a "liberal" college and majored in econ, so I'm "intelligently brainwashed" in the opposite direction.



- Aggressive foreign policy, with the justification of protecting the state.
Which is why the administration has NO exit strategy for Iraq. The neo-Cons wanted to get in there well before 9/11 and do NOT plan on leaving - in the name of the better good.


*joke.

[mgb]

Actually, if you want to learn about neo-conservatism read "Closing of the American Mind" by Allan Bloom. He was a student of Strauss and advocated many of the policies in place today.

The funny thing is about the true neo-cons (not the blind followers) is that they are rarely Christian. Often Jewish, and like Bloom, sometimes gay.

[PsiKik]

When I started reading about Strauss many of my
suspicions where confirmed.
Strauss was an atheist but regarded religion as a way to
control people or 'consolidate the base' - I see a parallel in the current adminstrations over the top religiousity.

He did not believe in the concept of inalienable rights of people - civil liberties and constitutional rights are currently being deliberately and systematically eroded.

All the arguments given for the Iraq war are a perfect example of the 'noble lie' - it's OK to lie as long as the central concept is true or desirable. The central concept here being having a large and permanent military presence in the middle east. The lies, WMD, Saddams link to Al Qaeda.

Warning signs: Strauss believed in benevolent dictatorship because in his view the people are to stupid to govern themeselves.
Problem is the moneyed elite who end up governing in this scenario do not have the interests of the people at heart, only their own.


edit:
found a good article on Strauss and the neoconservatives
http://evatt.org.au/publications/papers/112.html

[booyalab]

Warning signs: Strauss believed in benevolent dictatorship because in his view the people are to stupid to govern themeselves. that's essentially what American liberals believe


Problem is the moneyed elite who end up governing in this scenario do not have the interests of the people at heart, only their own.

That same thing happens in a democracy, but at least the selfish motivations can only be recquited if the people are given what they want.

[crule81]

In fact, that same thing happens in all forms of government, even Marxism and Socialism.

[Lee]

When I started reading about Strauss many of my
suspicions where confirmed.
Strauss was an atheist but regarded religion as a way to
control people or 'consolidate the base' - I see a parallel in the current adminstrations over the top religiousity.

All organised political forces, whether idealogical or religious seek to undermine the nuclear family. Blood is thicker than water as the old saying goes and it is very true, religion is a reactionary measure of those who have acquired power to dilute the blood, to undermine the family and replace it with an organised holistic belief system. The use of language such as "the holy father" and focus on characters such as Mary (the mother) are typical of a force that attempts to break apart the family into controllable powerless individuals.

To consider this as a conspiracy by individuals is a commonly believed fallacy, this process is very organic and gradual over many generations, and it is not inherently wrong and there are many conflicting positive and negative factors within it.


He did not believe in the concept of inalienable rights of people - civil liberties and constitutional rights are currently being deliberately and systematically eroded.

Human rights are malleable things and thier nature will continually be altered for as long as humans exist... it is not possible to have a free, fair and equal society, the factors are contradictory... the great thing about democracy (when it works) is that the ideals continually fluctuate, hopefully never losing control.


Warning signs: Strauss believed in benevolent dictatorship because in his view the people are to stupid to govern themeselves.
Problem is the moneyed elite who end up governing in this scenario do not have the interests of the people at heart, only their own.

Since when do people actually govern themselves, people always have others governing them, sometimes they get a voice in the matter but people never truly govern themselves... many of them are not to stupid to govern, it is that they do not wish to govern.

The governing elite, although selfishly persuing thier own ends will ultimately fall unless they accept that they must take the peoples interests to heart, even if they are misguided in application... by strenghening those beneath them but staying on top they in turn strengthen thier own power base.

[PsiKik]

The governing elite, although selfishly persuing thier own ends will ultimately fall unless they accept that they must take the peoples interests to heart, even if they are misguided in application... by strenghening those beneath them but
staying on top they in turn strengthen thier own power base.

Problem is the dictators don't believe this - taking the peoples interest to heart. They believe they can stay in power indefinately and will do whatever - persecution, torture, murder - in order to maintain the status quo.
When the whole rotten system eventually collapses a whole lot of people have been killed or tortured.

[PsiKik]

Human rights are malleable things and thier nature will continually be altered for as long as humans exist...

It has been a tradition in civilized societies to increasingly recognize the human rights of people, not strip them.



it is not possible to have a free, fair and equal society, the factors are contradictory...
the great thing about democracy (when it works) is that the ideals continually fluctuate, hopefully never losing control.

So we should give up? Aspiring to an egaliterian society is democracies greatest notion.
What's the alternative?
My point is that there appears to be antidemocratic forces at work in the neocon
movement, the very ideals of democracy are repulsive to them.

[booyalab]

Since when do people actually govern themselves, people always have others governing them, sometimes they get a voice in the matter but people never truly govern themselves... many of them are not to stupid to govern, it is that they do not wish to govern.


Theoretically, some governments govern less.

[booyalab]

My point is that there appears to be antidemocratic forces at work in the neocon
movement, the very ideals of democracy are repulsive to them.

neocons are only 'antidemocratic' (if you mean against adopting a 'live and let live/die' attitude, and it seems you do) on an international level, since they are aggressive purveyors of democracy. Unless by 'antidemocratic' you mean intolerant of the views of the opposing party, in which case we're all antidemocratic.

[PsiKik]

neocons are only 'antidemocratic' (if you mean against adopting a 'live and let live/die' attitude, and it seems you do) on an international level, since they are aggressive purveyors of democracy. Unless by 'antidemocratic' you mean intolerant of the views of the opposing party, in which case we're all antidemocratic.

Where do you get the "'live and let/live die' attitude" description of democracy??

Aggressive purveyors of democracy? Strange way to describe the whole illegal and unjust Iraq war.

I do not mean antidemocratic as in 'intolerent of the views of the opposing party', I mean it as a movement deliberately working towards a system where there will be no fundamental rights eg no right to vote.

[Lee]

It has been a tradition in civilized societies to increasingly recognize the human rights of people, not strip them.


I don't really presume to know what is ethically right or wrong and neither do I care (the concepts are so variable). I was simply stating how things are and will probably always be.


So we should give up? Aspiring to an egaliterian society is democracies greatest notion.
What's the alternative?
My point is that there appears to be antidemocratic forces at work in the neocon
movement, the very ideals of democracy are repulsive to them.

No people should not give up, they are a necassary part of the process, however they can never win in the fullest sense. The problem is that a egalitarian society, a perfect democracy is relative to the individual.

I propose no alternative, as Sir Winston Churchill said it best "Democracy is the worst form of goverment, accept all other that have been tried from time to time" (or something to that effect).

Neo-cons sound worrying but a necassary and acceptable part of democracy is the presence of those who would seek to undermine it. I suspect this will eventually pass... if it does not, well, a bunch of bad shit will happen... but I wonder how many people may look back and laugh in as little as twenty years time, what was the world like 20-30 years ago today?.

[booyalab]

I should point out that: 1. the term 'neoconservative' is almost always used in a deragatory sense exclusively by those who disagree with said neoconservative.
2. There is hardly ever a coherent, agreed-upon definition in everyday use (aka right now). 3. Those who are labeled as 'neoconservatives' a. often reject the term because of the subjective, negative connotations of the word. and b. often disagree with each other on the big allegedly 'neocon' issues.

[booyalab]

Where do you get the "'live and let/live die' attitude" description of democracy??

Aggressive purveyors of democracy? Strange way to describe the whole illegal and unjust Iraq war.

I do not mean antidemocratic as in 'intolerent of the views of the opposing party', I mean it as a movement deliberately working towards a system where there will be no fundamental rights eg no right to vote.

I wanted to extract that meaning out of you through process of elimination. Now you may attempt to prove it..because you sure as hell haven't done it yet.

[mgb]

that's essentially what American liberals believe

That same thing happens in a democracy, but at least the selfish motivations can only be recquited if the people are given what they want.

Oh booyalab. You have to do some readings on the Straussians. Allan Bloom wanted the US to return to the '50s. Fukiyama, was the first to declare capitalism victorious when the Iron Curtain fell. I'm pretty sure Renquist is a Straussian too. These guys aren't liberals, well, they might be in private, but they aren't in public.

Strauss, came up with his ideas after escaping from Germany. He saw the effect that Nihilism had on an entire society and was bound and determined not to see that happen again. America, with is strong religious base was fertile ground for his ideas, they just took 50 years to enact.

What you see now in the States is a small group of non-believers motivating a massive group of believers. It's why they are so organized and effective. They have a goal and they have the organization to make their goals happen.

[booyalab]

Oh booyalab. You have to do some readings on the Straussians. Allan Bloom wanted the US to return to the '50s. Fukiyama, was the first to declare capitalism victorious when the Iron Curtain fell. I'm pretty sure Renquist is a Straussian too. These guys aren't liberals, well, they might be in private, but they aren't in public.

Strauss, came up with his ideas after escaping from Germany. He saw the effect that Nihilism had on an entire society and was bound and determined not to see that happen again. America, with is strong religious base was fertile ground for his ideas, they just took 50 years to enact.

What you see now in the States is a small group of non-believers motivating a massive group of believers. It's why they are so organized and effective. They have a goal and they have the organization to make their goals happen.

I have no clue what your point is or how it pertains to what I said.

[mgb]

I should point out that: 1. the term 'neoconservative' is almost always used in a deragatory sense exclusively by those who disagree with said neoconservative.
2. There is hardly ever a coherent, agreed-upon definition in everyday use (aka right now). 3. Those who are labeled as 'neoconservatives' a. often reject the term because of the subjective, negative connotations of the word. and b. often disagree with each other on the big allegedly 'neocon' issues.

neo-conservative isn't a swear word. It's an actual political theory. They follow conservative principles but are very progressive, hence the new conservatives.

The christian right aren't neo-conservatives. They fit into the neo-con agenda as a tool for them but they aren't who the true neo-cons are.

[mgb]

I have no clue what your point is or how it pertains to what I said.

You said that is what American liberals believe. It isn't. They have raison d'etre. They are just there to try and be in power and make things work. They have a few clutch issues, but they are issues of the day. The neo-cons are trying to build something.

[booyalab]

You said that is what American liberals believe. It isn't. They have raison d'etre. They are just there to try and be in power and make things work. They have a few clutch issues, but they are issues of the day. The neo-cons are trying to build something.

conservatives=pragmatists....liberals=idealists....conservatives, more often than liberals, try to make things work. Liberals get the intellectual candidates and use that attribute to political advantage. They also like to increase government, this comes across as 'you're too stupid to govern yourselves, let us do it'. I know the technical definition of neoconservatives is that they're less concerned with minimizing government than mainstream conservatives, but it's still smaller under Bush than Kerry would have it.

As for your last statement, that's a spurious and ambiguous assumption of motivation.

[C.J.Woolf]

Warning signs: Strauss believed in benevolent dictatorship because in his view the people are to stupid to govern themeselves.
Problem is the moneyed elite who end up governing in this scenario do not have the interests of the people at heart, only their own.
The elite can be stupid too. If every member of the elite had to earn his/her position it wouldn't be so bad, but the elite secure positions for their children whether or not they are qualified. (See Bush, George W.) Human nature at work again.


What you see now in the States is a small group of non-believers motivating a massive group of believers. It's why they are so organized and effective. They have a goal and they have the organization to make their goals happen.
I wonder if the non-believers will maintain control over the mass of believers. Didn't the German elites think they could control the Nazis? (May Godwin strike me dead.)

[booyalab]

Of course, that blind mass of believers on the right is in direct contrast to the completely self-possessed and totally free-thinking individuals on the left. Oh, how I wish I wasn't blind.

[Lee]

The elite can be stupid too. If every member of the elite had to earn his/her position it wouldn't be so bad, but the elite secure positions for their children whether or not they are qualified. (See Bush, George W.) Human nature at work again.

Sadly, a tottaly fair system can remove much of the reason why people reach for power in the first place... namely to help thier children get a head start in life.

[booyalab]

neo-conservative isn't a swear word. It's an actual political theory. They follow conservative principles but are very progressive, hence the new conservatives.

The christian right aren't neo-conservatives. They fit into the neo-con agenda as a tool for them but they aren't who the true neo-cons are.

Did I say it doesn't have a textbook definition? no. But the existance of a textbook definition for a word doesn't stop people from meaning something else when they use it.
Your definition isn't entirely right, but even if it was, it is not a necessary consequence of being a"progressive conservative" to seek and destroy all of democracy as we know it.

edit: also, I'm mostly concerned with how a political faction is exemplified in office...if it's not exemplified in office, it's irrelevant.

[C.J.Woolf]

Sadly, a tottaly fair system can remove much of the reason why people reach for power in the first place... namely to help thier children get a head start in life.
Is that a bad thing? Looking at Bush again, admission to Yale as a legacy and business contacts through the old-boy network is a head start. Is it too much to ask that he be allowed to succeed or fail on his own at business or at winning political power?

If people weren't motivated to reach for power by their kids, then they would be motivated by one of two things: pure self-interest, or something greater than themselves. Which are already two reasons why people reach for power.


edit: also, I'm mostly concerned with how a political faction is exemplified in office...if it's not exemplified in office, it's irrelevant.
Damn good point. In a sense, political theory and ideology are nothing more than campaign promises. And we know how often politicians keep their promises.

[mgb]

Did I say it doesn't have a textbook definition? no. But the existance of a textbook definition for a word doesn't stop people from meaning something else when they use it.
Your definition isn't entirely right, but even if it was, it is not a necessary consequence of being a"progressive conservative" to seek and destroy all of democracy as we know it.

Ok, there are two types of people using the phrase neo-conservative, those who know what it means and those who don't. Same thing with liberal. When Psikik was talking about Neo-cons, he was talking about the true neo-cons, not just the buzzword. But thanks for giving this the ol' Ann Coulter workover.

Seriously, I bought that piece of shit Ann Coulter book, time for you to pony up and read Irving Kristols Neoconservatism or Bloom's Closing of the American mind. Your arguments show that you don't have a firm grasp of this issue at hand.

My definition shows a lot more understanding of the issue than your "conservatives=pragmatic" one. You keep bringing "conservatives" into a debate on "neo-conservatives" who are as I have said a very different group with very different and extremely paternalistic intentions. The neo-cons are fighting against nihilism, pure and simple. When you look to the core of the neo-conservative movement, at the center is the Straussians, students of Leo Strauss.

And you are incredibly wrong when you say that "neo-conservatives" want to limit the size of government. They want complete control over the lives of everyone. They want large government. They want to control what you think and read so you don't "get any ideas". They have an aggressive foreign policy. They want to act first. It's why you have things like the patriot act and the largest deficits in US history. The fiscal-conservatives, who are clearly not in power right now, want smaller government. They have nothing to do with this discussion.



edit: also, I'm mostly concerned with how a political faction is exemplified in office...if it's not exemplified in office, it's irrelevant.

Are you kidding me? The neo-conservatives are the force behind the social conservative right. Why do you think Rumsfeld is secretary of defense? Why is Bolton (a man that openly despises the UN) the new UN ambassador? Why is Wolfowitz going to be running the World Bank? That is how the faction is exemplified in office.

[Dman]

that's essentially what American liberals believe
(referring to the statement that they are too stupid to govern themselves)

I disagree, I would say American liberals believe that too much power is in the hands of the corrupt and the people who are victims of that corruption are too powerless to fend them off


I should point out that: 1. the term 'neoconservative' is almost always used in a deragatory sense exclusively by those who disagree with said neoconservative.
2. There is hardly ever a coherent, agreed-upon definition in everyday use (aka right now). 3. Those who are labeled as 'neoconservatives' a. often reject the term because of the subjective, negative connotations of the word. and b. often disagree with each other on the big allegedly 'neocon' issues.

In other words, you are a neoconservative. jk

[booyalab]

My definition shows a lot more understanding of the issue than your "conservatives=pragmatic" one. You keep bringing "conservatives" into a debate on "neo-conservatives" who are as I have said a very different group with very different and extremely paternalistic intentions. The neo-cons are fighting against nihilism, pure and simple. When you look to the core of the neo-conservative movement, at the center is the Straussians, students of Leo Strauss. In that part of my argument, I was comparing the 2 main strains of the political dynamic in attempts to illustrate the difference between them. The opposite of "liberal" is not "neoconservative".



And you are incredibly wrong when you say that "neo-conservatives" want to limit the size of government. They want complete control over the lives of everyone. They want large government. They want to control what you think and read so you don't "get any ideas". I agree that they are less interested in limiting the size of government than mainstream conservatives, however, logically if neocons are more progressive than mainstream conservatives and more conservative than liberals, then neocons,on the whole, still want the size of government to be less than liberals want it.



They have an aggressive foreign policy. They want to act first. It's why you have things like the patriot act and the largest deficits in US history. The fiscal-conservatives, who are clearly not in power right now, want smaller government. They have nothing to do with this discussion. I agree with this enough that I have no retort for it.




Are you kidding me? The neo-conservatives are the force behind the social conservative right. Why do you think Rumsfeld is secretary of defense? Why is Bolton (a man that openly despises the UN) the new UN ambassador? Why is Wolfowitz going to be running the World Bank? That is how the faction is exemplified in office. When I used the term "religious right", I was making a tongue in cheek reference to how people on your side of the political fence tend to lump everyone, on this side, together. Hence the quotes.

[booyalab]

(referring to the statement that they are too stupid to govern themselves)

I disagree, I would say American liberals believe that too much power is in the hands of the corrupt and the people who are victims of that corruption are too powerless to fend them off


Ok, I admit it, I was trying to bait you guys. I still believe that liberals dismiss the little people as stupid more often than conservatives do.

[coffeezombie]

Ok, I admit it, I was trying to bait you guys. I still believe that liberals dismiss the little people as stupid more often than conservatives do.

They both see them as stupid. Neo-conservatives just seek to brainwash them on social issues such as abortion or gun control so that they don't realize that "neocons" are not working in their best interest. Liberals, especially of the East Coast variety, often just think they are idiots but still work for their interests regardless because they envision idealistic socialism.

[mgb]

In that part of my argument, I was comparing the 2 main strains of the political dynamic in attempts to illustrate the difference between them. The opposite of "liberal" is not "neoconservative".

I would argue that they aren't the two main ideologies anymore. They are opposites, but there are very few true conservatives left, Claverhouse is probably one if that tells you how rare they are. Social conservatism is much more common these days than conservatism itself. Except that as an ideology, social conservatism isn't really conservative at all. They are trying to create social values rather than maintain them.



I agree that they are less interested in limiting the size of government than mainstream conservatives, however, logically if neocons are more progressive than mainstream conservatives and more conservative than liberals, then neocons,on the whole, still want the size of government to be less than liberals want it.

I don't think so. I think they want that illusion but it's not proving itself to be true. I would say something like the Patriot Act is a great example of the Neo-Con agenda. It definitely increases the scope (and potentially size) of the government while decreasing the liberties of citizens. While the liberals have done things like this in the past, taxation, employment programs etc. I wouldn't say they have done anything like this and to this scope.

I understand your logical conclusion, but it's not panning out to be true. To really understand the Neo-Con agenda you just have to look at Leave it to Beaver and shows like that. That is what they think America should be like. To do that, they will go to great lengths, even if it means increasing the size of government to do so.



When I used the term "religious right", I was making a tongue in cheek reference to how people on your side of the political fence tend to lump everyone, on this side, together. Hence the quotes.

I don't think everyone can be lumped together. There are too many forces at play here to do that. I think the end result of who they vote for is the same though. Same with the liberals.

[Serotonin]

I would say something like the Patriot Act is a great example of the Neo-Con agenda. It definitely increases the scope (and potentially size) of the government while decreasing the liberties of citizens.

Good point. "Small government" in terms of industry and the economy I don't so much have a problem with, but things like the Patriot Act, American taxpayers money funding the war and rebuilding of Iraq, (and don't forget the police force as well as the faith-based welfare initiative), these things are not small government. The Bush Administration is just as much in your back pocket as any liberal regime would be.

[Dman]

Ok, I admit it, I was trying to bait you guys. I still believe that liberals dismiss the little people as stupid more often than conservatives do.

(takes the bait...mmm, fish chum)

I guess I don’t see, or am unaware of, the evidence behind those opinions. I see it more as looking out for the “little” people than in thinking they are stupid. I’m curious is there something specific you have in mind when thinking that, or just a generalization based on intuition?

[Claverhouse]

I would argue that they aren't the two main ideologies anymore. They are opposites, but there are very few true conservatives left, Claverhouse is probably one if that tells you how rare they are.
I wasn't going to enter this thread since I had posted on the other competing thread, and anyway have already made my views too clear earlier [ Marxism is wrong-headed; and jews are fine if they stick to controling other people's countries through finance, but not through their clannish manipulation of politics in those countries... It's not as if they reciprocate and will have a non-jewish Chinese government in Israel ], but,

I am not a conservative: I am a reactionary, and despise left and right impartially. The Heilige Romanisch Reich does not want capitalists, militarists or socialists in charge ( nor the Papacy... ), although it might use elements of any of these systems to maintain itself, and keep the Kaiser in sole charge ( Or the King in any other country ). I certainly believe in welfare systems and some regimentation of social life, abhorrant to conservatives; and in individual freedoms abhorrant to socialists ( including nazis ).

On track, the BBC did have an excellent three-parter last year, called 'The Power of Nightmares' ( 'Baby, It's Cold Outside'; 'The Phantom Victory'; 'The Shadows in the Cave' ) that might appeal to the more cynical and jaded.


In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares. The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams were not true, neither are these nightmares. In a new series, the Power of Nightmares explores how the idea that we are threatened by a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion. It is a myth that has spread unquestioned through politics, the security services and the international media.

At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neo-conservatives and the radical Islamists. Both were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. These two groups have changed the world but not in the way either intended. Together they created today's nightmare vision of an organised terror network.

A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. Those with the darkest fears became the most powerful.
Basically, it's just a game, but this is not to say that the players know that it's a game.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Claverhouse]

Found a transcript site, if anyone cares; but I'd rather watch the series...

Silt3 (http://silt3.com/index.php?id=573)

BTW, least there be too much argument over who wants to oppress the common folk overmuch, it might be worth remembering that it was the Democrats who first wanted the Homeland Security Marvel, and the Bushies, led by some principled chap called Tom Ridge who battled against this insane assault on liberty...


Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ Why should anyone imagine that either the 'little people' or 'big people' have intelligence or virtue, or their opposites ? Much like the old class-wars where the working-class, or the middle-class, or the aristocrats were considered repositories of wisdom and being 'The People', depending on the sympathies of the speaker. Except it's now the right-wing who adore the little people and identify with them. ]

[Dman]

Found a transcript site, if anyone cares; but I'd rather watch the series...

Silt3 (http://silt3.com/index.php?id=573)

BTW, least there be too much argument over who wants to oppress the common folk overmuch, it might be worth remembering that it was the Democrats who first wanted the Homeland Security Marvel, and the Bushies, led by some principled chap called Tom Ridge who battled against this insane assault on liberty...


Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ Why should anyone imagine that either the 'little people' or 'big people' have intelligence or virtue, or their opposites ? Much like the old class-wars where the working-class, or the middle-class, or the aristocrats were considered repositories of wisdom and being 'The People', depending on the sympathies of the speaker. Except it's now the right-wing who adore the little people and identify with them. ]

That looks very interesting - thanks for the link. I likely won't have time to dive into it too deep, but I at least read some of the first part and the very last part, looks fascinating.

Particularly the notion that "our" society believes in nothing, therefore fears any that do believe in something. On the surface that sounds likely, although I’m compelled to find a way to disagree…

[mgb]

I am not a conservative: I am a reactionary, and despise left and right impartially. The Heilige Romanisch Reich does not want capitalists, militarists or socialists in charge ( nor the Papacy... ), although it might use elements of any of these systems to maintain itself, and keep the Kaiser in sole charge ( Or the King in any other country ). I certainly believe in welfare systems and some regimentation of social life, abhorrant to conservatives; and in individual freedoms abhorrant to socialists ( including nazis ).



Sorry, I should have called you a classical conservative, which I still think you are, especially considering you live somewhat in a monarchy, although you probably consider the Magna Carta to have been a step forward too fast.

[C.J.Woolf]

At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neo-conservatives and the radical Islamists. Both were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. These two groups have changed the world but not in the way either intended. Together they created today's nightmare vision of an organised terror network.
They need each other. I wish they could have their goddamn war without dragging the rest of us into it.

[mgb]

They need each other. I wish they could have their goddamn war without dragging the rest of us into it.

Funny enough, the true members of each group, for all their orchestrations, haven't done a whole lot of fighting in the war against each other.

[Architectonic]

I am not a conservative: I am a reactionary, and despise left and right impartially.

Reactionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reactionary)

Sounds somewhat conservative to me. :whistle:

[Serotonin]

They need each other. I wish they could have their goddamn war without dragging the rest of us into it.

Word.
One of the most riling comments I read from conservative columnist and blogger Tim Blair was: "It's our war too".
"Our" meaning the people of Australia as part of the Coalition of the Willing. Put words in my mouth, will you Blair? I'd do the same to him, but a starred and striped phallus seemed to be in the way.

[C.J.Woolf]

Put words in my mouth, will you Blair? I'd do the same to him, but a starred and striped phallus seemed to be in the way.
Uncle Sam wants YOU to BOHICA*.



* Bend Over, Here It Comes Again.

[ptGatsby]

Complete deregulation of all industry. Free markets.


I didn't see any post on this.

Is this a central tenet of neo- conservatives?

From my understanding, neo- conservatives are based farther back than Leo Strauss (though his philosophy was based even further back, making that kind of redundant).

Fundamentally, that philosophy is against democracy, personal freedom and free markets. His stance was certainly ambivalent towards imperialism, but was very much for controlled industry (to the point where he was often called a fascist). He rejected the concepts of honesty of leaders (and accountability, as an offshoot) and self-government in general.

Again, fundamentally, Strauss put forth that we needed to be ruled ala Plato with 'Noble Lies' from 'Philosopher Kings'.

Neo-conservatives do not believe in religion - indeed, Strauss believed that the first pillar (illusion) was religion. They themselves are not expected to believe in these lies. The second great pillar is patriotism.

See any correlation to current events?

Lastly, there is a very big and large concept of creation through destruction, though as far as I have read, that was never referenced directly. None the less, the above pillars are there to instill automatic obedience of the populace and fight progressive/modern thoughts.

They do not want to return to "Leave it to Beaver". Their actions are pseudo-intellectual, and they are the very anti-American ideal that America was founded on. This is why many camps declare them the enemy of the US and shake their head over things like clash of civilization rhetoric. This is the source of the documents we keep reading about (ala "new pearl harbor")... they work on these central two principles of religion and patriotism.

[kuranes]

The political philosophy sounds a lot like both government and business sharing power in the social and economic spheres respectively. It's all about doleing out as much power as one can to those with large monetary assets. Businesses support conservative interests, conservatives give them free rein as a reward, an endless cycle. Making the problem worse is that the media is now more and more controlled by large corporate interests as well. People will actually have to work to seek reliable information in the form of independent small-press newspapers or websites, but of course people will not be properly educated to be true knowledge-seekers by what will increasingly be corporate-influenced schools. Americans need to start realizing that economic growth at all costs is not the best solution for individual liberties and that constraints need to be place on the power that businesses have over government, just as a separation between church and state also exists.

Hear Hear CZ ( applause )

[C.J.Woolf]

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Right from the horse's mouth.

[mgb]

I didn't see any post on this.

Is this a central tenet of neo- conservatives?

From my understanding, neo- conservatives are based farther back than Leo Strauss (though his philosophy was based even further back, making that kind of redundant).

Fundamentally, that philosophy is against democracy, personal freedom and free markets. His stance was certainly ambivalent towards imperialism, but was very much for controlled industry (to the point where he was often called a fascist). He rejected the concepts of honesty of leaders (and accountability, as an offshoot) and self-government in general.

Again, fundamentally, Strauss put forth that we needed to be ruled ala Plato with 'Noble Lies' from 'Philosopher Kings'.

Neo-conservatives do not believe in religion - indeed, Strauss believed that the first pillar (illusion) was religion. They themselves are not expected to believe in these lies. The second great pillar is patriotism.

See any correlation to current events?

Lastly, there is a very big and large concept of creation through destruction, though as far as I have read, that was never referenced directly. None the less, the above pillars are there to instill automatic obedience of the populace and fight progressive/modern thoughts.

They do not want to return to "Leave it to Beaver". Their actions are pseudo-intellectual, and they are the very anti-American ideal that America was founded on. This is why many camps declare them the enemy of the US and shake their head over things like clash of civilization rhetoric. This is the source of the documents we keep reading about (ala "new pearl harbor")... they work on these central two principles of religion and patriotism.


Probably more coherent than what I said, and a pretty succinct description of the Neo-Cons.

Interesting to note, Strauss, jewish, was understandably shocked and dismayed by the holocaust and blamed Nietzsche for the holocaust, basically because he peeked behind the curtain and found nothing there, then told everyone about it. Since god was dead, people were free to do whatever they wanted without any moral repercussions, in this life or after. Seeing the damage the Nazis caused he basically made it his life's mission to see that never happen again, by whatever means neccessary.


edited, whoops.

[ptGatsby]

Seeing the damage the Nazis caused he basically made it his life's mission to see that never happen again, by whatever means neccessary.


The irony in this cannot be understated. What he represents is fascism further bound by religion... blaming atheism for the effects rather than the very nature of the government that Hitler brought into power. As if religion hasn't been used exactly the same... actually, as if Atheism isn't a religion of its own right.

Everything focused around his expierences rather than an objective look at the causes. Moderninity was evil - it existed in Germany. Democracy is evil, it voted hitler into power.

The irony rests in that the natural outcome of his beliefs is a state more in control of its populace than what Hitler or Stalin (or other religious persecutors) believed in. His view of agnostic and atheism believers is akin to those leaders views of Jewish and Catholic believers. To finish the irony, he wants people to be led by philosopher kings, utterly ignoring that those leaders were exactly that. He cannot see the result of his own beliefs played out.

He is, as far as I am concerned, what Marx was to Stalin/Lenin/Mao, or what Alfred Rosenberg was to the Nazi theory, and if his religion... sorry, philosophy... takes hold in the US, then maybe Leo Strauss to the US. Fortunately, the US system is quite resistant to this kind of empty rhetoric, but even so, piece by piece, his influence is gaining throughout an ever expanding religious government.


But that's IMO, of course. I actually get quite furious whenever I read his followers stuff. I put it more towards their utter disregard (institutionalized) for truth - fundamentally, the philosophy believes leaders should lie and manipulate their people - more so than their racism, religious intolerance and interventionism.

None of it puts me in a very good mood, however, in case it doesn't come across :p

[mgb]

I think it's funny to watch people be manipulated.

I had a prof once who did some research on the Straussians in the states. She rented out this Pastor's house for a summer. Anyways, he had a copy of Closing of the American Mind by Bloom on his shelf. She asked him about it and he was really proud to say that it really encapsulated his beliefs about American society. I think she left it at that instead of going into something about how it was written by a gay Jewish man, who never had been married and whom she had on tape as saying, "I don't know how people can stay married. After 10 years with the same people you'd just end up hating them because you have nothing to talk about."

It's pretty funny watching a nation get duped. Kind of.

[kuranes]

I think it's funny to watch people be manipulated.

I had a prof once who did some research on the Straussians in the states. She rented out this Pastor's house for a summer. Anyways, he had a copy of Closing of the American Mind by Bloom on his shelf. She asked him about it and he was really proud to say that it really encapsulated his beliefs about American society. I think she left it at that instead of going into something about how it was written by a gay Jewish man, who never had been married and whom she had on tape as saying, "I don't know how people can stay married. After 10 years with the same people you'd just end up hating them because you have nothing to talk about."

It's pretty funny watching a nation get duped. Kind of.

Unfortunately many were never UNduped to begin with.

[cjs55]

The basig thing about Strauss that I have recognized is he is quite correct when it comes to the democratic system and how manipulation of the masses is possible. A friend of mine who was very into Strauss has lectured me many times on him, not that I really understood wtf he was saying but, oh well.

I'm reminded of the iron rule of oligarchy, where those in democracy who are proficient specifically in manipulating the masses inevitably come to power (whether through the blatant process of voting, or the more transparent process of ideological power). This is why we have career politicians.

[Claverhouse]

I'm reminded of the iron rule of oligarchy, where those in democracy who are proficient specifically in manipulating the masses inevitably come to power (whether through the blatant process of voting, or the more transparent process of ideological power). This is why we have career politicians.
I very much doubt that: the iron law of democracy should be that in a democracy the richest people rule: always happens. Apart from the natural democratic fawning to wealth, they are the ones who can afford the processes to get elected.

They can hire the best-skilled and the manipulative as shills.


Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

[cjs55]

Sure, but I'd put them in the latter category of people who manipulate/dicatate ideology as to make money. The people who manipulate the masses make the most money off them as well. McDonald's and Walmart aren't well recepted in every place in the world. They had to pass it off as necessary, better, effecient, part of the wonderful freedom of the United States to buy bland and possibly harmful products. The process to becoming rich and to becoming powerful politically may be, at least sometimes, one in the same.

[ptGatsby]

I very much doubt that: the iron law of democracy should be that in a democracy the richest people rule: always happens. Apart from the natural democratic fawning to wealth, they are the ones who can afford the processes to get elected.


Eh what?

Communism - same thing.
Fascism - same thing.
Feudalism! - same thing.

In practise, every government I have ever studied has exactly this effect.

[ptGatsby]

Sure, but I'd put them in the latter category of people who manipulate/dicatate ideology as to make money. The people who manipulate the masses make the most money off them as well. McDonald's and Walmart aren't well recepted in every place in the world. They had to pass it off as necessary, better, effecient, part of the wonderful freedom of the United States to buy bland and possibly harmful products. The process to becoming rich and to becoming powerful politically may be, at least sometimes, one in the same.


Mass public manipulation theories started before Platos time. They aren't new, they aren't related to democracies, corporations or other typical vices of modern intellectuals. Walmart is an example of a targeted mass-media campaign to modify viewpoint, on both sides!



The basig thing about Strauss that I have recognized is he is quite correct when it comes to the democratic system and how manipulation of the masses is possible. A friend of mine who was very into Strauss has lectured me many times on him, not that I really understood wtf he was saying but, oh well.


Strauss mentions democracies, but he gathered a lot of his theories from Plato - and his were not based solely on democracy. Even without the republic government debate...

More to the point, Mao and Stalin didn't get voted into power. The majority of South African dictators didn't. Some places in the world still have a feudalism system and are nearly immune to manipulation - other places have cause some of the worst (pre-modern history) public manipulations (ala religious crusades, similar to fundamentalist Islamic populaces).

Democracy isn't the problem, fundamentally. Every populace can be manipulated regardless of government.

[Claverhouse]

Eh what?

Communism - same thing.
Fascism - same thing.
Feudalism! - same thing.

In practise, every government I have ever studied has exactly this effect. In practice maybe, although the socialistic philosophies such as communism or fascism do make efforts to only place the ideologically sound in leadership not based upon their prior wealth. However the democratic system is emotionally based upon equal opportunities for all: due to the nature of the democratic set-up this has to mean equal opportunities for all who can afford them.

Most American presidents have come from the upper classes, or if not have attached themselves to them as clients in the older Roman republican tradition. Furthering the aims of the privileged in return for the power granted: this even applies to Nixon, who was probably came from the poorest section of any president.


Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

( And if that's a jibe, WTF would I be interested in feudalism ? I'm an absolute monarchist: feudalism was decentralised rule by aristocrats. Such as your wealth-structure in America. )

[mgb]

Sure, but I'd put them in the latter category of people who manipulate/dicatate ideology as to make money. The people who manipulate the masses make the most money off them as well. McDonald's and Walmart aren't well recepted in every place in the world. They had to pass it off as necessary, better, effecient, part of the wonderful freedom of the United States to buy bland and possibly harmful products. The process to becoming rich and to becoming powerful politically may be, at least sometimes, one in the same.

I think you've miss-quoted me, or at least quoted me out of context.

[ptGatsby]

In practice maybe, although the socialistic philosophies such as communism or fascism do make efforts to only place the ideologically sound in leadership not based upon their prior wealth.


I don't see this as relevant.

The effect is the same.




However the democratic system is emotionally based upon equal opportunities for all: due to the nature of the democratic set-up this has to mean equal opportunities for all who can afford them.


Would you care to associate Switzerland as democratic or socialist then? The nature of democracy is best not exampled by the US, either.

Democracy in theory is like communism in theory - both should be not be based on buying your way.. that people are equal, blah blah.

What emerges is exactly the same, regardless of source. If anything, democracy is better in that regard (it needs to degrade, just like communism, to some aristocratic rule).



Most American presidents have come from the upper classes, or if not have attached themselves to them as clients in the older Roman republican tradition. Furthering the aims of the privileged in return for the power granted: this even applies to Nixon, who was probably came from the poorest section of any president.


Indeed.

And yet, the richest president is dwarfed by the leaders of communist countries, even in the most poverty stricken conditions.

Though, I suppose, not all leaders were like that. Some were quite strict with their own materialism. They could of had it at the drop of a pin, however.




And if that's a jibe, WTF would I be interested in feudalism ? I'm an absolute monarchist: feudalism was decentralised rule by aristocrats. Such as your wealth-structure in America.


I'm Canadian, but... actually, we have something in common. I wouldn't call myself anything in particular, but I'm definately a long ways from pro-democracy... and very close to your stance.

Mostly just pointing out that as far as I can tell, the end results in all governments is that the rules end up rich off the masses. The methods differ, the results don't. However, places that have social-democracy seem to keep them in check for longer and better, at least until they break down into something else.

[cjs55]

I think you've miss-quoted me, or at least quoted me out of context.


*sigh* copy pasted the wrong thing and didn't even notice. I need an S looking over my shoulder sometimes. I meant to respond to claverhouse.