Difference between revisions of "Talk:Neoconservatism"

Revision as of 20:15, November 8, 2018

Some neoconservatives also call themselves "paleo-liberals". Jaques 05:17, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Besides Michael Bloomberg, Ronald Reagan, Phil Gramm, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and many others, were also members of the Democratic Party before they became Republicans.Needleman 18:37, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Europe-based Neo-conservativism

I have a problem here which arose in one biographical article about a Canadian-Finnish neo-conservative. Based on the written material, this person promotes a neo-conservativism based on Classicial (European) Conservativism. When I compare with this existing article, I note that this European variant is more socially conservative and less "revolutionary". Njalsson of my article has written that he is "allergic the idea of revolutions in general, either right wing or left wing" and in many questions which religious conservatives of the US take immediate stances on, he says "it depends, let's look at the facts and at both sides of the case".

So it appears that there may be a major difference between European and American Neo-conservativism in both origin and the fact that they are based upon very different "conservativisms". Should we create two categories or branches of Neo-conservativism? --ExFin 22:11, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm genuinely confused

I'm not sure I understand the difference between a neocon and a conservative. Bush is supposed to be a neocon, but I don't think he was ever a liberal. Also, the current administration is in no way atheistic (see stem cells and faith-based initiatives) nor is it socially libertarian (abortion, same-sex marraige, and the Patriot Act). Does the definition of neocon need work, or am I wrong in thinking Bush is a neocon? HelpJazz 11:55, 7 February 2008 (EST)

You are right, this article is a mess. The Bush administration was ran by neoconservatives.--Walker 23:31, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Neocons on Social Conservativism

For the record, and I don't think this was on purpose, neoconservative social views stem largely from the work of Strauss and his students, and are a form of secular based social conservativism. I happen to be a neocon so I know.--jfraatz

Neocons and George W. Bush

Neocons dominated only George W. Bush's foreign policy, and only after 9/11. They did not support his winning of the primary in 2000 and no influence over his all-important nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court.--Andy Schlafly 01:07, 26 April 2010 (EDT)

Bush was a neocon. It's hard to say they didn't dominate his presidency if he himself was one. This article just seems to convey a poor understanding of neoconservatism.

No, you're not correct. I encourage you to read more here with an open mind. The Neocons preferred McCain over Bush in 2000, and the neocons struck out when Bush made his nominations to the Supreme Court.--Andy Schlafly 13:40, 26 April 2010 (EDT)

True that McCain was more of a Neocon than Bush but the Paleocons supported Pat Buchanan.Benny1986 20:59, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

True, but by Election Day most conservatives were supporting Bush. Unfortunately, Bush did not have a strong political philosophy so he could be good on some issues (like the Supreme Court and American sovereignty) but then not so good on others.--Andy Schlafly 21:08, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

I question the inclusion of Daniel Pipes on the list of neocons. Here he is in April 2003 arguing against nations-building and the view that Iraq is ready for democracy [1] and again in Oct 2003 against occupation [2]. In both cases he is pushing the administration to reduce nations-building ambitions and get out. I suspect that Pipes is labeled a neocon by leftists for the same reason many others were -- "guilt by association." JasonNYC 08:27, 14 May 2012 (EDT)

It says Alan Keyes was a student of Strauss, but he really doesn't fit the neocon mold, he is very strong especially on social issues. Benny1986 20:31, 2 June 2013 (EDT)

Something critically wrong with this article

Or atleast as I believe. Neo-conservatism is indeed conservatism, just not the mainstream movement. I'm not comparing Conservatives to Nazis, but Neo-Nazism is indeed a branch of Nazism; it's just an offshoot. Maybe the page could be edited accordingly? Whiterose (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

It may be considered a form of conservatism, but people's perceptions of it as conservatism does not make it conservatism. I think our article Conservative accurately describes what conservatism is (or at least what it should be). Neoconservatism does not agree with or does not feel strongly on many conservative principles. I think one could accurately call it "big government conservatism" or "perverted conservatism." A form of conservatism, but not truly conservative. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

Well stated indeed.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

Neocons have nothing in common with traditional social or economic conservatives, other than support for defense spending. They are exclusively concerned with national security. They represented a break with the traditional commie-dominated peaceniks of the Democratic party. With the rise of Clintonism and the Obama administrations complete subversion of the Deep State to serve globalist interests, many have returned home to the Democratic party. They don't have a new label yet, other than "Patriotic Democrats".

It's a waste of time to even try and fit this group in with either party's traditional social & economic positions, other than support for military industrial complex. They're not really even a voting block, and, no one considers them as such. They are for the most part a group of foreign policy experts. At one time they were considered non-partisan, but they've aroused so much opposition in both parties, they weigh on media allies more and more to fight back. They don't amount to more than a few thousand at best, and they idea of making a voting constituency of them is ludicrous. RobS^{The coup plotters are going down} 22:23, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

This article might need to be looked at for in accurate information. Reevestehsnek^{User talk:Reevestehsnek} 14:17, 8 November 2018 (EDT)

No, I don't see anything inaccurate on this article. It's actually a much better description than found on many other places. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2018 (EST)

I am sorry I should have been more clear; The last Section references Paul Joseph Watson and I don't have any sources to repudiate the claims of neocon meddling with-in the current white house. could you help me? best I could find was this dead link

https://medium.com/suspended

from this

https://www.prisonplanet.com/trump-pushes-back-against-neo-con-plan-to-invade-syria.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reevestehsnek (talk)

It's pretty clear that neocons are trying to influence Trump and nullify his agenda, including some inside the White House. I don't think we should try to refute something when the evidence backs it up. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2018 (EST)

Not refuting I'm just looking for someone satisfy the statement of what paul has said. Do you know of any places that we can search.(Googles no good lol)

This is the best I could do

https://medium.com/suspended

from this

https://www.prisonplanet.com/trump-pushes-back-against-neo-con-plan-to-invade-

Do you know of any older articles that touch up on neo-cons during the obama era?? Cause all the sources I see during the Trump era are scrubbed clean.Reevestehsnek^{User talk:Reevestehsnek} 15:15, 8 November 2018 (EST)

Is it a neo-con position to advocate going to war with Germany if it continues its increasingly aggressive European integration efforts?

In the talk section of another article, I pointed out that Germany has been conspiring to have the EU force its members to merge their armed forces into one gigantic European Army under German command -- which would essentially be the moment the EU bureaucrats finally destroy the sovereignty of European nations and create the federal Europe they have always wanted.

I then stated that such a move by Germany would result in a war between Germany and the United States, because the United States will not tolerate globalist entities such as the EU -- through fiat -- carving countries out of the American sphere of influence and then turning them into vassal states of an un-elected bureaucracy.

Apparently, at least one high-profile user on this site believes that responding to aggressive European integration efforts with military force is a neo-con position. Apparently, that user believes that it is possible to go too far in opposing globalism, and if you go too far, you are a neo-con.

Can someone please explain to me the logic behind that way of thinking, please? Because I'm lost. --Geopolitician (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2018 (EDT)

Put the crack pipe down. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 00:02, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

Okay, then. Tell me. If and when the EU forces all of its members to have their armies integrated into one fighting force that will be used to make sure those members lose their sovereignty for good and are never able to break free from the psychotic tyranny that is the Brussels-Berlin axis, how should America respond?

Should it do nothing as its sphere of influence in Europe is rapidly destroyed, and a globalist European superstate that is powerful enough to threaten America's sphere of influence in its own backyard enters the world stage? Should it attempt to peacefully co-exist with that globalist European superstate?

Should it celebrate the formation of that globalist European superstate because it means we would no longer have an obligation to protect Europe?

Should it resort to economic or diplomatic action in hope that this globalist European superstate could be successfully contained like the USSR?

What ought America do in the event of something that would be the worst nightmare of many anti-globalists, especially those in Europe? --Geopolitician (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

Military alliances are created by, and to protect economic alliances. That's what NATO is. The EU has attained its highest level of economic integration its ever had. NATO itself will never be the EU's armed force (despite the fact globalists through Hillary Clinton tried to represent NATO as the armed force fighting wing of the United Nations). The proposal is essentially to formalize a system already in place - NATO members already use standardized equipment and training. Politically it translates into making each European member a national guard or home guard force with contingents ready to be called for service outside that state's borders.

As I see it, the problem is more with NATO's command structure than with any threat to a member state's sovereignty. Simply because the UN Security Council "authorizes" NATO to perform an action should not kick them into action. A big argument in the 1980s and 90s was "democratic nations do not attack each other or cause aggressive wars," yet France, the UK, and the US - allegedly democratic nations - waged aggressive war against Libya under the cloak of NATO and the UN Security Council.

So yes, there is a concern about nation states retaining sovereignty. Your argument seems to be if European states fully integrate, they will trample each other. If they don't, they retain the ability to trample each other.

So where do the borders and bogeymen lie? Look at the degree of economic co-dependency that has occurred, and in what direction it is headed. Military cooperation, co-ordination, intergration or whatever term you wish, is simply another (excellent) example of Schumpeter's process of creative destruction, constantly reinventing itself to become more efficient. What's lacking is improvements in a system of checks-and-balances at the top. History has now proven corrupt politicians in democratic regimes, hungry for poll ratings and ambitious for success, can co-opt the UN Security Council and NATO defense alliance to wage aggressive war. I see this as the focus of the main problem. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 18:03, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

Forget the UN and NATO. Those irrelevant institutions have nothing to do with my argument. My argument is based entirely around the realist worldview that dominated geopolitical discourse prior to World War I. Yes, there will always be military alliances based on special interests. I do not care about special interests. I only care about intentions and national security repercussions. I am 100% convinced that Merkel and the EU bureaucrats are pursuing this EU army project with malicious intentions.

Those intentions are to (1) use military intimidation to discourage EU member states from leaving -- much like the USSR did with the Warsaw Pact member states during the Cold War; (2) use military intimidation to force EU member states to give up the little remaining sovereignty they have to create a United States of Europe; and (3) create a European superpower to challenge both American and Russian influence in Europe, and possibly wage a large scale war on the United States and/or Russia should push come to shove.

The first intention alone would be sufficient for much of the world to declare Germany/Federal Europe a rogue state. The USSR was condemned by the free world during its invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan. Why should Germany/Federal Europe be treated any differently?

The second intention would've resulted in Germany/Federal Europe's neighbors and/or the other great powers declaring war on it in the old days. Germany of all countries should know this, given that it forcibly annexed either in part or in whole five different countries prior to Britain and France declaring war in 1939. I'm pretty sure the desire to pseudo-annex 24 different countries (the number of countries other than Germany itself participating in the PESCO agreement) though the use of fiat invoked by unelected bureaucrats is more than enough to conclude that Germany's foreign policy is spiraling completely out of control.

And the third intention? John Mearsheimer has pointed out here that the fundamental national interest of the United States is to prevent the emergence of a hegemon in either Europe or Asia that is capable of projecting power in the Western Hemisphere and surrounding the United States with hostile forces in its own backyard. This is the interest that was used to justify our war against Germany in World War I, our wars against Germany and Japan in World War II, and our Cold War against the Soviet Union. It is also similar to the interest that Russia is currently using to justify its Second Cold War with us. Furthermore, it is the interest that Mearsheimer believes we should be invoking to contain China (but not Russia, whom he sees as too weak to be such a hegemon). Why should we not invoke this interest against a Federal Europe? Not only would a Federal Europe be much stronger than Russia were it not for the latter's nukes, and not only would it be ideologically opposed to the American ideal, but it would also be hostile to us from the get-go, as mutual resentments would linger over the United States suddenly losing many of its allies due to the illegitimate decrees of unelected, left-wing bureaucrats that want the whole world to submit to their dark ideals.

Is that the world you want to live in? I hope not. The EU bureaucrats have already made it clear that they despise Trump and all he stands for, and his election means that we have forfeited our role as the leader of the West. They have already made it clear that they despise Putin and consider him a mortal enemy. And they have said that an EU army is more necessary than ever before to protect them from "threats." We all know what they consider to be threats. And the fact that they are willing to go this far to "counter" these "threats" says all we need to know about what they are and how potentially dangerous they are for both Europe and the rest of the world. I mean, forget Islamic migration. It is the bureaucrats who are the biggest danger coming out of Europe right now. --Geopolitician (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

If it's going to happen, it's going to happen. It's already happened at a technical and economic level, now its just a matter of gaining approval from elected parliaments for minor tweaks in sharing the cost burdens.

Sure, now its a political and emotional issue. But citizens of a democratic state don't have the luxury of opting out of paying taxes to shoulder their defense burdens.

Again, it really is a prime example of creative destruction (adding the caveat that military establishments are entirely non-profit institutions, dependent entirely on their capitalist paymasters). Two simple examples: Native Americans in the US military or Chechens in the Russian military. They evolved from enemies of the Russian and US militaries into their most esteemed warriors through creative destruction. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 19:58, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

As to Meirsheimer, see this interesting video by a Russian analyst: Nikolai Starikov explains Europe's refugee crisis, who says essentially the samething as Meirsheimer: the US unleashed the European migrant crisis on Europe to weaken and prevent, or slow down, the rise of a European hegemon. (To this extent, US policy would work to Russia's advantage on two levels: (a) maintain Russia's strength as a hegemon by not participating in migration, and (b) strengthen European mistrust of America and drive Europe toward an alliance with Russia. It's easy to overanalyze anything in intellectual discussion). RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 20:19, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

I can't see Starikov's argument being correct.

Although it would make sense for the "America Uber Alles" wing of the Deep State to force the migrant crisis onto Europe to prevent the rise of a European hegemon, it would not make sense for the Deep State as a whole to do so, because the Deep State contains elements that want to see a Federal Europe become reality, as continental unions are a step closer to global government. If the Deep State is supposed to be globalist, then logically speaking it appears the the pro-Federal Europe faction won the internal debate on what to do with Europe, and oriented the migrant crisis in a way to make sure a Federal Europe becomes a reality. Logically speaking, the globalist Deep State sparked the migrant crisis, and the Ukraine crisis to create conditions of unrest necessary to create an excuse for EU leaders to call for the creation of an EU army, which is in turn necessary to make a Federal Europe become a reality. The fact that the globalist EU leaders are placing more emphasis on the need for an EU army in wake of Trump's election and the rise of Putin's Russia, and not the migrant crisis, would only reinforce this narrative. The globalists clearly want a Federal EU to happen.

But let's pretend that Starikov's analysis is 100% correct, and that attempts to create an EU army are in the name of resisting the Deep State. If an EU army is supposed to be an appropriate response to outside efforts by the Deep State to break up the EU, then does that make people like Farage, Le Pen, and others who have publicly come out against this project the bad guys? Does that make them agents of the Deep State? Does that make the EU globalists the good guys? --Geopolitician (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

Starikov makes an interesting point: why are European borders open to Syrians and Africans, but closed to refugees from Ukraine? RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 02:43, 23 April 2018 (EDT)

Considering that the Deep State is left-wing globalist, perhaps a combination of typical left-wing racism and the realization that Middle Eastern and African refugees so vastly outnumber Ukrainian refugees that Middle Eastern and African refugees can cause the desired chaos without the Ukrainian refugees. Pragmatic racism, I would call it. And that's assuming that the EU recently changed its policies to keep Ukrainian refugees from coming in, because I know for a fact Ukrainian refugees have been let in, particularly in Poland. What source do you have that shows a shift in such a policy? --Geopolitician (talk) 9:53, 23 April 2018 (EDT)

Look closer. Poland is allowed to retain its sovereignty and sick the dogs on refugees, as Starikov points out, cause it has a border with Ukraine. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 10:43, 23 April 2018 (EDT)

Why would the globalists openly allow Poland (and presumably the other Visegrad states) to keep its sovereignty while not allowing Western Europe to do the same? If that's the case, there are game-changing implications.

Let's say that the end goal is a federal Europe, which is what the globalists want. Throughout time, there have been conflicting definitions as to what exactly is Europe. Is it only Western Europe, which is the part of Europe that once ruled the world and spread Western ideas and culture around it? Or is it all of Europe, the continent.

If the globalists consider the former answer to be correct, then no wonder they're allowing Eastern Europe to keep its sovereignty. They don't consider Eastern Europe to be Europe, so Eastern Europe is not supposed to be part of the equation.

If the globalists consider the latter answer to be correct, then what is taking place in Eastern Europe is a matter of natural resistance to globalist policies that is effective due to cultural differences with Western Europe.

But let's assume for a moment that the migrant crisis is indeed part of a grand conspiracy to prevent the emergence of a Western European hegemon. Does that make the Visegrad states false opposition? Does that make people like Orban and Duda globalist proxies who are in on the alleged conspiracy to destroy Western Europe? What about Trump and Farage? Are they false opposition as well? --Geopolitician (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2018 (EDT)