ousia

Member
For a another philosophical analysis of the neo-cons and their former leftist views see:

http://www.amazon.com/Neoconservatism-Obituary-C-Bradley-Thompson/dp/1594518319

From a review:

"Prior to reading this book, I had loosely considered neoconservatism to be rehash of 20th century Democratic Party foreign policy. Similarly, I had considered Big Government Conservatism to be merely a repackaging of Rockefeller Republicanism. Neoconservatism - An Obituary for an Idea has profoundly altered those views, and did so in a very systematic, comprehensive, and plausible manner. My former lazy notion that the term neoconservatism was simply "hype" has now been laid to rest.

Lest one categorize this book as strictly a political account, the author states his primary focus to be "the philosophical essence of neoconservatism" (p. 6). Although there is also ample illustrative treatment of its contemporary political manifestations, emphasis on the underlying philosophical bases for neoconservatism serves to establish and characterize its ideological credentials. In consequence, the pivotal element in the neoconservative creed, as expropriated largely from Leo Strauss, is seen to be a somewhat tortured synthesis of Platonic idealism and Machiavellian realism. This reduces to "Platonic ends achieved by Machiavellian means" (p. 227).

Given the dubious if not unpalatable core tenets of neoconservatism, it is not surprising that its proponents/practitioners are evasive or disingenuous regarding its nature/goals. "They resist any attempt to...identify or define...their views" (p.15), which is mainly why this book is so important. In part, neocons obscure its ideological nature, strategies, and doctrine via a two-level formulation that distinguishes a purportedly wise and beneficent ruling elite (theory level) from an inherently base citizenry (practice level). Here, the ruling elite is composed of philosophers, their specially trained statesman, and to some extent by their surrogates. In turn, the allegedly hapless citizens are subsumed into the pitiable organic whole of society, which must be managed by the ruling elite primarily for the good of the state.

The neocon ideological doctrine/strategies per se are shown to be strictly the esoteric province of the philosophers and their anointed statesman. The intended homogenous society is then privy to just exoteric propaganda, directives, obligations, and constraints that are bestowed on it, primarily for the good of the governing state. Secondarily, society is held to benefit by its relegation to a managed collective life granted unto it by the all-knowing/all-controlling state. Welcome to the "new managerial State" (p. 226)."
 
Last edited:

ousia

Member
Richard. I haven't watched the Alexander video yet. Have had several other requests to do similar reviews at the same time. Will try to check it out soon.

PS haven't forgotten about my original thread but put it off for good reason.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Justin Raimondo sees Trump as an instrumental factor in bringing about the demise of the Neo-cons in the Republican party. But is this really their funeral, when Hillary and Bernie are both in their camp?

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/03/01/super-tuesday-funeral-neoconservatism-an-obituary/
This is certainly one reason to like Trump, however, it's just so hard to reconcile his downsides into thinking that he is really sincere on the most important aspects such as destroying the neo's.

I don't understand where Sander's fits into the neo-spectrum, but absolutely the Clintons have always been part of that. Some people think that he is only there to make Hillary seem more palatable, and she definitely needs all the help she can get, because outside of her base, support for her seems awfully weak amongst such as younger women. The same phenomenon exists there as for the Bush's, excepting that Hillary has this lingering appeal to many as The Woman that is supposed (entitled) to be the first to break the glass ceiling.

But so odd that the Justice and State Departments are lingering over the email issue, drip, drip, drip. Of course, maybe the plan is to drag the investigation out past the election, but this implies that there is indeed something to worry about.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
For a another philosophical analysis of the neo-cons and their former leftist views see:

http://www.amazon.com/Neoconservatism-Obituary-C-Bradley-Thompson/dp/1594518319
Thanks. In the near future I will post a mirror piece critiquing the so-called neo-liberal movement, on a separate thread. The common thread of which, it seems to me, is to advance a hidden global agenda under the respective banners of the prior known ideologies of conservatism and liberalism - loosely defined here. While the neocon seemed to focus on exploiting conservative chest thumping emphasis on national security, and thus cause American vitality to be sapped in many ways militarily, the neoliberal focus is on unfettered Free Trade.

The latter makes a hash of American sovereign rights to protect the aggregate interests of its citizenry under the rubric that to do otherwise is an unacceptable infringement on the individual, the Individual Uber Alles. This has the advantage to the monied elites who can then displace wages, environmental, and other concerns offshore via treaties that falsely proclaim to provide protections against same.

In either case, we have been screwed, and I believe all for the same end in mind.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Richard. I haven't watched the Alexander video yet. Have had several other requests to do similar reviews at the same time. Will try to check it out soon.

PS haven't forgotten about my original thread but put it off for good reason.
You mean your prophecy? If you wait too long it will no longer be a prophecy. But glad that you are still considering it.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Nathan Robinson writing for Current Affairs says that Bernie Sanders could beat Trump, but Hillary will be crushed.

http://static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-sanders-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency

Quote:

Every Democrat should take some time to fairly, dispassionately examine Clinton’s track record as a campaigner. Study how the ‘08 campaign was handled, and how this one has gone. Assess her strengths and weaknesses with as little bias or prejudice as possible. Then picture the race against Trump, and think about how it will unfold.

It’s easy to see that Trump has every single advantage. Because the Republican primary will be over, he can come at her from both right and left as he pleases. As the candidate who thundered against the Iraq War at the Republican debate, he can taunt Clinton over her support for it. He will paint her as a member of the corrupt political establishment, and will even offer proof: “Well, I know you can buy politicians, because I bought Senator Clinton. I gave her money, she came to my wedding.” He can make it appear that Hillary Clinton can be bought, that he can’t, and that he is in charge. It’s also hard to defend against, because it appears to be partly true. Any denial looks like a lie, thus making Hillary’s situation look even worse. And then, when she stumbles, he will mock her as incompetent.

Charges of misogyny against Trump won’t work. He is going to fill the press with the rape and harassment allegations against Bill Clinton and Hillary’s role in discrediting the victims (something that made even Lena Dunham deeply queasy.) He can always remind people that Hillary Clinton referred to Monica Lewinsky as a “narcissistic loony toon.” Furthermore, since Trump is not an anti-Planned Parenthood zealot (being the only one willing to stick up for women’s health in a room full of Republicans), it will be hard for Clinton to paint him as the usual anti-feminist right-winger.

Trump will capitalize on his reputation as a truth-teller, and be vicious about both Clinton’s sudden changes of position (e.g. the switch on gay marriage, plus the affected economic populism of her run against Sanders) and her perceived dishonesty. One can already imagine the monologue:

“She lies so much. Everything she says is a lie. I’ve never seen someone who lies so much in my life. Let me tell you three lies she’s told. She made up a story about how she was ducking sniper fire! There was no sniper fire. She made it up! How do you forget a thing like that? She said she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, the guy who climbed Mount Everest. He hadn’t even climbed it when she was born! Total lie! She lied about the emails, of course, as we all know, and is probably going to be indicted. You know she said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! It was a lie! Thousands of American soldiers are dead because of her. Not only does she lie, her lies kill people. That’s four lies, I said I’d give you three. You can’t even count them. You want to go on PolitiFact, see howmany lies she has? It takes you an hour to read them all! In fact, they ask her, she doesn’t even say she hasn’t lied. They asked her straight up, she says she usually tries to tell the truth! Ooooh, she tries! Come on! This is a person, every single word out of her mouth is a lie. Nobody trusts her. Check the polls, nobody trusts her. Yuge liar.”

Where does she even begin to respond to this? Some of it’s true, some of it isn’t, but the more she tries to defensively parse it (“There’s been no suggestion I’m going to be indicted! And I didn’t say I usually tried to tell the truth, I said I always tried and usually succeeded”) the deeper she sinks into the hole.

Trump will bob, weave, jab, and hook. He won’t let up. And because Clinton actually has lied, and actually did vote for the Iraq War, and actually is hyper-cosy with Wall Street, and actually does change her positions based on expediency, all she can do is issue further implausible denials, which will further embolden Trump. Nor does she have a single offensive weapon at her disposal, since every legitimate criticism of Trump’s background (inconsistent political positions, shady financial dealings, pattern of deception) is equally applicable to Clinton, and he knows how to make such things slide off him, whereas she does not.​
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I made it clear previously that I intend to do no such thing. (Prophecy)
I don't remember what you said about that. But in that regard, how about a scientific 'prediction', at least? :rolleyes:

Some people here probably think that I am a false prophet now, because they can claim that my prophecy failed to manifest, but I say that the jury is still out. But in either case, I take no offense, as we all hopefully gnow what prophecies really are.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Nathan Robinson writing for Current Affairs says that Bernie Sanders could beat Trump, but Hillary will be crushed.

http://static.currentaffairs.org/20...s-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency
Yes, I think Trump would clean Hillary's clock. Using the techniques of finding the most effective hook on each issue, Hillary's issues are just way too much. Your link has an interesting one discussing Sander's pragmatic record as mayor of Burlington, VT.

There seems to be a considerable feeling that Romney is salivating at an opportunity to step in at the last moment to take over the Republican nomination, but I would have to guess that Trump will indeed run as a third party candidate if that happens. What a zoo.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
George Stephanopoulos interviews Glenn Beck, who claims that there might be a civil war at the Republican convention floor over Trump, hell maybe even a civil war for the whole country, and George doesn't follow up. http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/glenn-beck-gop-chance-listen-people-37442792

Additionally, Beck, in comparing Trump to Hitler, appears to frame himself against nationalism, or is it that only anger and nationalism are a bad combo? Beck doesn't really blame Trump for being Trump, but rather the Republican Party. The real reason is that the Republicans, like the Dems, at the national level have been in the pockets of the internationalists ... forever. So apparently the only way we can get a nationalist alternative is to have this stooge? Who will show the world, once again, what deviating from the path of furthering global harmony will deliver.

Bill Maher on Trump and Hitler: https://amp.twimg.com/v/8057dfe5-cf82-4fc9-b354-acc10435cc83
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
WSWS reports that a Trump rally at University of Illinois - Chicago was cancelled Friday night after "violence and scuffles" broke out between Trump supporters and some of 11,000 protestors who had organized against the event.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/03/12/trum-m12.html

Elsewhere, WSWS explains:

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/03/12/pers-m12.html

Trump has repeatedly incited violence against protesters, beginning last fall but with increasing frequency once the primaries and caucuses began:

• On February 1, he told a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of ‘em, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell—I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.”

• On February 22, at a rally in Las Vegas, Trump denounced a protester, saying, “I’d like to punch him in the face, I tell ya.” He added, “You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out on a stretcher.”

• On March 9, in Fayetteville, he said of interruptions by protesters, “See, in the good old days this didn’t used to happen, because they used to treat them very rough. We’ve become very weak.” Shortly thereafter, the assault on Rakeem Jones occurred.

In the course of Thursday night’s Republican presidential debate in Florida, CNN moderator Jake Tapper quoted these statements and asked Trump whether he had done anything to “create a tone” that encouraged violence.

Trump blandly denied the obvious. Blaming the victims, he said the protesters had provoked his supporters. “People come with tremendous passion and love for the country, and when they see protest, in some cases… They have anger,” he declared.​
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
One of Trump's favorite lines is that his base is tired of "incompetent leaders" running the country into a ditch. I assert that this either shows his ignorance or more likely this is some part of his planned propaganda message, as clearly these leaders knew exactly what they were doing in terms of national security and the economy - and its negative impact upon Trump's base.

This is perhaps best exemplified by Dubya's administration having 'supposedly' been informed that we would be attacked by hijacked airliners, and here we are told that they merely ignored this. Instead, examination of all the data indicated that this was an inside job, in pursuit of the neocon agenda.

Bubba agreed to repeal Glass-Steagall and thus opened the floodgates of "financialization", that is, the speculative deployment of capital to do nothing more than directly produce more capital via inscrutable artificial financial vehicles rather than doing so through traditional employment of enabling more profitable productive enterprises.

But ironically, it probably is true, at least, that Trump's base believes that the problem is incompetent leaders, as this is the message that has percolated into the American psyche starting with Ronald Raygun, where he also piggy-backed on the rising libertarian bandwagon.

To use one of Joe's favorite words, this is rather (the internationalists') malfeasance (via the Platonic Noble Lie) rather than mere incompetence. And thus, Trump's mischaracterization serves to distract this large and angry group from the correct causes and solutions.
 
It's just that he doesn't strike me as being essentially more racist, or misogynist, or fascist, or generally more of a harbinger of the Apocalypse
Richard and Jerry, you guys are old like me. I think you may not be aware that young people are rejecting your/our long-held assumptions that egalitarianism is good, and fascism is bad.

Young people feel they are living in Wiemar Germany. They want a strong man to bring order. Here are some of their magic memes:

  • Racist is a code-word for anti-White
  • Jews have worked for a thousand years to genocide Whites via race-mixing and war
  • Democracy doesn't work
  • Hitler LITERALLY did nothing wrong.
  • 6 gazillion Jews died in the Holocaust
They fervently support Our Glorious Leader Trump and do not care if he is genuine or pure. They want to bring down 'the System' because it is rotten and evil.

 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Charlie,

Sadly, I think this is a pretty good analysis of Trump supporters; except that they seem to have a touching faith that he is indeed genuine and pure. And they don't see the irony in using democracy to destroy the last vestiges of democracy.
 
This is the beauty of the TrumpenFurher movement. The intellectuals of the Alt.Right know it doesn't matter if the Glorious Leader is pure and genuine. The strategy is to exploit the faith of the prole voters the same way Obama's intellectual supporters did.

They do appreciate the irony. Ironic humor is a HUGE part of this young people's Alt.Right movement. Smart young people know the entire American political process is so absurd the only thing which really matters is fighting with the same meme magic the controlled media use.

When I was a kid in the early 70's calling someone a 'Queer' was a vicious insult. Homosexuals completely neutralized that word by adopting it, owning it, and promoting it on t-shirts, posters, and memes.

Young white people are doing the same thing today with the words 'Nazi' 'racist' and 'fascist'. They laugh everytime an old guy thinks he is "winning" by calling them a word the wish to be called.

It's a brilliant strategy. Every time that mainstream media calls Trump a 'racist', 'nazi', or 'facist', Trump support grows. The Pope said Trump was not a Christian. Good! Jews say Trump is Hitler. Excellent! Comedy Central says Trump is a racist! Yes!

When I first saw these silly cartoons, I failed to appreciate their power.

mr.clean.auchwitz.png Scooby ISIS.png israel flies into skyscrapers.jpg Baby Boomers.png
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Well, naturally it's quite possible that I am out of touch with reality, but even with your link, I don't yet buy that the bulk of Trump's support is from the young. I'm not saying that they aren't there, as there is always a recruitment focus on the young for radical movements such as White Supremacy. But all my personal (albeit limited) and media input says that the vast base of Trump's support is around our age.

Trump complains about the media not panning their cameras to see the wider audience, but even when they do pan, all I see is middle age and older white people and a few older oreo cookies. These people are mostly uneducated and thus economically displaced by the offshoring movements promoted by the Bushes and Clintons. They look around and are unhappy with all the 'bread and circus' programs now needed to prevent revolution. The same as was necessary in Rome's time.

As such, whatever young whites are playing a role are likely connected somehow to the pre-existing White Supremicist movement and /or to someone in their parent's circle. It doesn't help much that college educations cost so much (for no good reason) and that so few good jobs are available but to those of a small slice of the pie. Chelsea Clinton gets a $300K Wall Street job right out of school, duh.

I know of people who brag about their parents marching across Europe to fight Hitler and such, but can't appreciate that they are virtual Brown Shirts shitting on their parent's graves. The globalists have these people gamed out, psychologically profiled, and they will outmaneuver them. They can afford to have their fingers (their agents) in everyone's pie (their political affairs), and it is my opinion that The Donald is willfully playing this Pied Piper role for them. He is the logical Machiavellian choice, because he has all the right tools to beguile with.
 
people who brag about their parents marching across Europe to fight Hitler and such, but can't appreciate that they are virtual Brown Shirts shitting on their parent's graves.
I don't understand what you mean. Why would people brag about fighting Hitler if the are Brown Shirts?

The growing consensus among young White people today is that the purpose of World War 2 was to kill as many White people as possible, and make the world safe for Bolshevik/Marxist global government, George Bush and Aldous Huxley's New World Order.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I don't understand what you mean. Why would people brag about fighting Hitler if the are Brown Shirts?

The growing consensus among young White people today is that the purpose of World War 2 was to kill as many White people as possible, and make the world safe for Bolshevik/Marxist global government, George Bush and Aldous Huxley's New World Order.
Read carefully what I said. Their parents fought against Hitler, but they have become the new Brown Shirts.

As to your latter point, I have no doubt that all the current Trump activity is swelling the numbers of young white supremacists, but I don't know where you're getting your info on as to relative numbers. All I see for the vast most part is ranting old white men and white women. People who were previously (and still are) happy to buy their cheap Chinese made trinkets at Wal-Mart. The same goes for demonstrations at the border even before chameleon Trump became involved.
 
Top