What exactly is a neocon?

[Red]

I read this article from 2003 which attempts to define Neo-conservatives and I wanted to verify if thats the same definition that most people agree with on this board.

I'm a 21 year old full time college student / full time worker and I'm constantly trying to figure out what "I believe in." I've taken a couple online political tests in order to help define my politicals stances, but I always seem to have an extremely centrist / middle of the road view. I'm fine with that. Both of my parents are independents so I guess I'm the same way

Anyway, I always hear the neo-con term thrown around, so I read the article referenced above.

From what I gather, neo-cons basically believe that America must constantly strive to be the strongest military power in order to prevent "Holocaust" type totalitarian societies from emerging, world-wide. Always preventing other countries (with diverse political thinking) from gaining strength... and from the article, the reason they feel this way is because there is a lot of Jewish influence, which obviously would believe that the Holocaust was hell on earth, and that's why they want to do every little thing they can from it happening again. The jewish background also explains the strong relations with Israel?

Anyway, just curious as to the definition of a "neocon". Thanks!

 

[SViscusi]

Here's a little guide.

 

[conjur]

Another link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)

A good article about it here:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lind1.html

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: SViscusi
Here's a little guide.

is the christian science monitor a neocon news service?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Easiest way to figure out if you are a neocon is to reply to something dmcowen posts. He will let you know right away if you are obviously one of these "Rich Elitist Neocon" bastages.

 

[daveshel]

Today, it refers to a political position that has 'revitalized' the GOP by replacing its traditional values of fiscal conservatism and isolationism with the extreme right-wing jingoism associated with the current administration.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: SViscusi
Here's a little guide.

is the christian science monitor a neocon news service?

No, they are a respected news org.

 

[Infohawk]

Google and Wikipedia are your friends.

I'd like to second that the christian science monitor is a respected organization. Besides the name Christian science they really don't espouse any particular views. I find them very independent.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: SViscusi
Here's a little guide.

is the christian science monitor a neocon news service?

No, they are a respected news org.

Yeah, lets let the NeoCons define NeoCon.

To me a NeoCon is someone who is for moving towards world domination by whatever means nessecary. The problem I have with that is that means we are in a constant state of war until the world domination is attained. Of course their are other NeoCon's all over the world to fight because they all want ot be the most powerful, so in order to acheive thier goal they need to dominate their own country to first.

Their go our rights in the name of progress. Who wants to live in a world like that? Not me. I want some peace in my life.

 

[classy]

What exactly is a neocon?

Dick Cheney

 

[CycloWizard]

To me, a neocon is a derogatory slur used by the liberals on this board whenever they can't think of an argument to counter that of a more conservative-minded individual within this forum. At least, that's the practical definition.

 

[1EZduzit]

Before somebody jumps down my throat i would like topoint out that my cousin amrried into a family of Christian Scientists. They are a very respected family from the Denver area. I know them well, and they are defintely NeoCons. Maybe all CS aren't, but the ones I know are.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Yeah, lets let the NeoCons define NeoCon.

To me a NeoCon is someone who is for moving towards world domination by whatever means nessecary. The problem I have with that is that means we are in a constant state of war until the world domination is attained. Of course their are other NeoCon's all over the world to fight because they all want ot be the most powerful, so in order to acheive thier goal they need to dominate their own country to first.

Their go our rights in the name of progress. Who wants to live in a world like that? Not me. I want some peace in my life.

*applauds*

Congrats, you've given a perfect example of a Straw Man argument! You've defined neocon to mean something totally irrelevant to it's true definition, then used that definition to bash anyone who may be a neocon and appeal to our emotions against the obvious 'wrongness' of war-mongering. Nicely played! Perhaps next time you could work in a "Won't somebody please think of the children?" appeal somewhere.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The original NeoCons are NOT conservative. They are or were liberals who became disenchanted with foreign policy. They abandoned the idea of domestic social engineering as incompatible with human nature, then decided to try it with other cultures. Apparently others are inferior enough for it to work. That's why the Iraqis threw flowers when we bombed them :roll:

This republican administration likes the ideal of the NeoCons. They adopted their philosophy.

NeoCons coolly assess situations and determine what is needed to achieve their goals. War is a tool, not a horror. Even if it were, it's worth it to them. America must dominate. Everyone else in the world will become acceptable to us.

That is a good working definition based on what we have seen so far.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Congrats, you've given a perfect example of a Straw Man argument! You've defined neocon to mean something totally irrelevant to it's true definition, then used that definition to bash anyone who may be a neocon and appeal to our emotions against the obvious 'wrongness' of war-mongering. Nicely played! Perhaps next time you could work in a "Won't somebody please think of the children?" appeal somewhere.

I'm proud that someone linked to a site I originally brought to P&N.

Now, cKGunslinger, what is your definition of "neo-conservative"?

 

[kage69]

Speaking of DICK, Funniest. Quote. Evar.

"He doesn't waffle,"


"That's exactly what we need in a president. We don't need indecision or confusion,"


The stench of bullsh!t wafting in from the GOP is overpowering! Dick Cheney: Taking Hypocrisy and Lying to All New Lows!!! Ugh, it's hilarious. :laugh:

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

I'm proud that someone linked to a site I originally brought to P&N.

Now, cKGunslinger, what is your definition of "neo-conservative"?

My definition? It's someone who was once considered "left," but now would be considered "right." They like some of the ideas of the Conservatives, just not the important things like smaller government. They are basically liberals who have been smacked in the face by reality, yet won't have the good graces to admit they are entirely wrong and embrace ALL of conservatism.

Just kidding. I actually wish they just embrace both economic and fiscal conservatism, while sticking to some of their liberal social beliefs, so my beloved Libertarian party would have some more members.

 

[Vic]

A neocon is essentially a liberal who believes in large military spending and presence, and US "empire-building" across the globe. They were originally staunch anti-communist democrats. Upset at Carter's administration and its social liberalism and passive foreign policy, they switched to the Republican party, taking with them Southern democrats who were still pissed off at LBJ's civil rights and "Great Society" acts, combined themselves with the old McCarthyist republicans, and put Reagan in power with GHW Bush as their frontman. Because of the staunch pro-military views, they have big supporters in military, intelligence, and defense interests, and have cultivated a great deal of big business interests with their tax cut/borrow and spend philosphy of big spending with big budget deficits.
Because they originally called themselves Conservative Democrats, they thought (and still think) when they hijacked the historically conservative Republican party that they could label themselves as The Conservatives and their philosphies as actual Conservatism. As they are not actual conservatives, the name of "neoconservatives" was applied to them in order to differentiate them from the real conservatives, and eventually the nickname of "neocon" stuck. It is not a slur, it is what they are.
During the GHW Bush administration, they swelled their ranks with the Southern Christian Fundamentalist crowd (aka "Christian Right") on the government-enforced morals platform, which further swelled in the Clinton Administration. Perot's run in '92 was an attempt by actual conservatives to split from their party that the neocons had hijacked, but its failure only strengthened the neocons.

Neoconservative political philosophy is basically the opposite of communism/Democratic Socialism, while remaining similarly authoritarian. It also embraces the idea of a one world government (aka global society), but with the concept that the US and Israel are the only top dogs who will enforce a strict military empire. Proper moral conduct is to be strictly enforced among citizens, presumably at the curtailing of freedom of/from religion. The "ends justify the means" is a key part of their philosophy, so all sorts of evils can be made to appear right as long as the original intention is benign -- in other words, interventionist military actions to even suppressing civil liberties in order to "defend freedom" (a major doublethink).

Long story short, they're the new fascism -- National Socialism still alive and kicking and fighting for control against Democratic Socialism (who are now referred to simply as "liberals" which the neocons have used as just as much a "slur" since long before "neocon" became a "slur").

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Vic
A neocon is essentially a liberal who believes in large military spending and presence, and US "empire-building" across the globe. They were originally staunch anti-communist democrats. Upset at Carter's administration and its social liberalism and passive foreign policy, they switched to the Republican party, taking with them Southern democrats who were still pissed off at LBJ's civil rights and "Great Society" acts, combined themselves with the old McCarthyist republicans, and put Reagan in power with GHW Bush as their frontman. Because of the staunch pro-military views, they have big supporters in military, intelligence, and defense interests, and have cultivated a great deal of big business interests with their tax cut/borrow and spend philosphy of big spending with big budget deficits.
Because they originally called themselves Conservative Democrats, they thought (and still think) when they hijacked the historically conservative Republican party that they could label themselves as The Conservatives and their philosphies as actual Conservatism. As they are not actual conservatives, the name of "neoconservatives" was applied to them in order to differentiate them from the real conservatives, and eventually the nickname of "neocon" stuck. It is not a slur, it is what they are.
During the GHW Bush administration, they swelled their ranks with the Southern Christian Fundamentalist crowd (aka "Christian Right") on the government-enforced morals platform, which further swelled in the Clinton Administration. Perot's run in '92 was an attempt by actual conservatives to split from their party that the neocons had hijacked, but its failure only strengthened the neocons.

Neoconservative political philosophy is basically the opposite of communism/Democratic Socialism, while remaining similarly authoritarian. It also embraces the idea of a one world government (aka global society), but with the concept that the US and Israel are the only top dogs who will enforce a strict military empire. Proper moral conduct is to be strictly enforced among citizens, presumably at the curtailing of freedom of/from religion. The "ends justify the means" is a key part of their philosophy, so all sorts of evils can be made to appear right as long as the original intention is benign -- in other words, interventionist military actions to even suppressing civil liberties in order to "defend freedom" (a major doublethink).

Long story short, they're the new fascism -- National Socialism still alive and kicking and fighting for control against Democratic Socialism (who are now referred to simply as "liberals" which the neocons have used as just as much a "slur" since long before "neocon" became a "slur").

That's what I said

Interesting though because we seem to have at least one genuine NeoCon in this forum. It's interesting to watch him justify any action, then claim the moral high ground in doing so.

 

[Todd33]

I fail to see how the Neocons are related to the word liberal. Are we talking about some old definition of liberal from 30 years ago?

Neocon is just a imperialistic war monger who could care less about being fiscally conservative. The bible thumpers are just used for votes, just scare them with gay marriage and they'll vote for anything you want.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: SViscusi
Here's a little guide.

is the christian science monitor a neocon news service?

Somewhat yes, but they have a good description:

Neoconservatives?

Want the US to be the world's unchallenged superpower
Share unwavering support for Israel
Support American unilateral action
Support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security
Promote the development of an American empire
Equate American power with the potential for world peace
Seek to democratize the Arab world
Push regime change in states deemed threats to the US or its allies
Historical neoconservative: President Teddy Roosevelt
Modern neoconservative: President Ronald Reagan

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Todd33
I fail to see how the Neocons are related to the word liberal. Are we talking about some old definition of liberal from 30 years ago?

Neocon is just a imperialistic war monger who could care less about being fiscally conservative. The bible thumpers are just used for votes, just scare them with gay marriage and they'll vote for anything you want.

Neonconservatives arose from the liberals in the 60s who were disenchanted with the hippie movement. They saw social liberalism as a sort of blight, I guess. That explains, to me, their more authoritarian stance yet they are not averse to big spending (which goes against conservatism).

 

[1EZduzit]

What the NeoCons were in the 60's has nothing to do with what they represent now IMO. 40 years has changed that.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Red
I read this article from 2003 which attempts to define Neo-conservatives and I wanted to verify if thats the same definition that most people agree with on this board.

I'm a 21 year old full time college student / full time worker and I'm constantly trying to figure out what "I believe in." I've taken a couple online political tests in order to help define my politicals stances, but I always seem to have an extremely centrist / middle of the road view. I'm fine with that. Both of my parents are independents so I guess I'm the same way

Anyway, I always hear the neo-con term thrown around, so I read the article referenced above.

From what I gather, neo-cons basically believe that America must constantly strive to be the strongest military power in order to prevent "Holocaust" type totalitarian societies from emerging, world-wide. Always preventing other countries (with diverse political thinking) from gaining strength... and from the article, the reason they feel this way is because there is a lot of Jewish influence, which obviously would believe that the Holocaust was hell on earth, and that's why they want to do every little thing they can from it happening again. The jewish background also explains the strong relations with Israel?

Anyway, just curious as to the definition of a "neocon". Thanks!

NeoCons cheat on their fiances

 

[1EZduzit]

The Protocols - a Neocon Manifesto

by Simon Jones

Dissident Voice
August 21, 2003



I have to confess. The outrageous in-your-face behavior of the neocons finally got to me ­as Armageddon approaches, after seeing more and more references to it (albeit usually wacky), I recently downloaded the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Guiltily, mind you, as if it were Mein Kampf or porno. I bet you haven?t dared (or bothered) to read it.



So what is this best-selling political tract of the 20th century, the reading of which carried the death penalty in Stalinist Russia, lauded by the likes of Henry Ford and Winston Churchill, and then loudly condemned for the past 60 years since it was briefly declared an anti-Semitic forgery (in a Swiss court in 1935 overturned by the Appeals Court in 1937)?



The bile aside, it is in fact a series of 24 mostly articulate, well-argued lectures outlining a plan for world capitalist domination, with sharp political and social analysis, lots of Machiavelli and a Marxian sophistication in its understanding of capitalism and historical processes. Briefly, it outlines a plan of world conquest by first establishing world government by consent. As with any brilliant political analysis, it has been denounced, dismissed, misinterpreted and banned. And made very good use of by those lusting for world power.



What immediately struck me was that with a little dusting off, abridging and updating, it could easily be the handbook of the neocons. With the wonders of modern computers, you can download a free copy from the Internet, cleanse it of anti-Semitism by replacing "fellow Jews" with "neocons" and make sense of what?s happening in the world today.


Further down in the article:


A crack in the wall?


While ?Old Europe? has made some noises about this lethal NWO, the governments are nonetheless beholden to it, and can do little but try to carve a slightly bigger piece of the pie. No, the only meaningful remaining resistance to the neocon-Zionist NWO is the as yet unbrainwashed goyim of the world - the peace movement and the Islamic world, strange bedfellows at best.



However, there are some disturbing ripples in the NWO waters. Bush/ Sharon have chosen the warpath, while the Soros branch, which includes Europe, wants a more peaceful transition. The reckless policies of the erstwhile "servile administrator" in Washington are quite possibly endangering the very economic foundation of the NWO. The Protocols foresees such chaos, though it presumes to be in control of it: "We shall soon begin to establish huge monopolies, reservoirs of colossal riches, upon which even large fortunes of the GOYIM will depend to such an extent that they will go to the bottom together with the credit of the States on the day after the political smash...." (VI)



Such a collapse of the present world financial system is not at all beyond the realm of possibility. And if it comes, it could take down the US government and the neocons with it. It is here that the PROTOCOLS begins to unravel. The Protocols assumes the corporate financial cabal controlling the world economy will be invited to take over bankrupt governments with their World Government, as indeed has been happening under the guise of IMF restructuring programs and more recently by direct invasion. But the bankrupt and invaded countries, such as Argentina, most of Africa, Afghanistan, Iraq for starters are proving to be problematic, more than the cabal can digest.



Maybe, just maybe, the neocons' gamble will trip them up before they reach the finish line and they will end up along side the despised GOYIM at the bottom. A switch to a gold dinar in the Muslim world and oil-euros for the rest would seriously endanger the NWO, as would a massive ecological disaster, natural or man-made.



The mild neocons (Soros etal) see this clearly and are scurrying to minimize collateral damage. Theirs is a strategy closer to the spirit of the Protocols - no overt wars, a careful amassing of power through education and the control of the press, no dangerous splits in the capitalist-Zionist alliance, achieving victory through financial and trade blackmail. Have a look at the Protocols yourself. It?s all there.



So, are these cowboy jackboot high jinks a momentary glitch in the triumphal march to the neocon-Zionist paradise? Will a Howard Dean, urged on by Soros, put the out-of-control steamroller back on its proper path? Or has the Protocols played itself out? Is our present apocalyptic scenario instead a crack that gives us hope of emerging from this nightmarish plot?


I guess I'm not the only "straw man".





http://www.dissidentvoice.org/..._Protocols-Neocons.htm