Ron Paul exposes the neocons.

Started by Zeal Ex Nihilo14 pages

Ron Paul exposes the neocons.

Trotskyites, the lot of them. It's why the Republican party is in such bad shape nowadays.

Lol at showing a picture of Karl Marx when Trotsky is mentioned.

I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea of a neocon trotskyist. They want to promote capitalism throughout the world in order to ignite the revolution?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Lol at showing a picture of Karl Marx when Trotsky is mentioned.

He was a Marxist, just not a Stalinist.

Remember Trotsky? He's back! In pog form, err, I mean, as right-wing insult for everyone that disagrees with them.

Brainy Smurf was a depiction of Trotsky, back when the Smurfs were a pro-communist cartoon made to indoctrinate American children into the joys of Communism.

Soviet
Men
Under
Red
Father.

I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea of a neocon trotskyist. They want to promote capitalism throughout the world in order to ignite the revolution?

Basically, a bunch of Trostkyites moved over to the right in the '80s because they were pissed at Stalin. They put on a veneer of conservative thought (free market capitalism, limited government, etc.) but support all forms of state intervention in the market (subsidies, bailouts, corporate welfare), a large government (military-industrial complex, Patriot Act, Drug War, War on Terror), and the welfare state (Medicare, Social Security).

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Basically, a bunch of Trostkyites moved over to the right in the '80s because they were pissed at Stalin. They put on a veneer of conservative thought (free market capitalism, limited government, etc.) but support all forms of state intervention in the market (subsidies, bailouts, corporate welfare), a large government (military-industrial complex, Patriot Act, Drug War, War on Terror), and the welfare state (Medicare, Social Security).

Have you ever noticed that no matter what the topic is your conclusions always boil down to "there's a secret Jewish conspiracy"?

I don't know, man, to be honest good old fashioned corruption seems to occam's razor the shit out of the Trotskyite conspiracy theory....

Have you ever noticed that no matter what the topic is your conclusions always boil down to "there's a secret Jewish conspiracy"?

I don't know, man, to be honest good old fashioned corruption seems to occam's razor the shit out of the Trotskyite conspiracy theory....

It's...it's not a conspiracy. It literally happened. You can literally read about it on this whole "Wikipedia" thing.

zeal... using wiki as a reference?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Basically, a bunch of Trostkyites moved over to the right in the '80s because they were pissed at Stalin. They put on a veneer of conservative thought (free market capitalism, limited government, etc.) but support all forms of state intervention in the market (subsidies, bailouts, corporate welfare), a large government (military-industrial complex, Patriot Act, Drug War, War on Terror), and the welfare state (Medicare, Social Security).

Medicare and Social Security predate the '80s, so, what kind of sense does that make? Stalin was not even alive in the eighties. You are all messed up.

Medicare and Social Security predate the '80s, so, what kind of sense does that make? Stalin was not even alive in the eighties. You are all messed up.

I realize you're a leftist, but try to keep up.

1. Republicans support Medicare/Social Security. Both programs met strong conservative oppositions (and rightly so). As Trotskyites are comfortable with a welfare state, they are comfortable with Medicare/Social Security.

2. Stalinism. Trotskyites disagreed with it and got pissed at the USSR.

zeal... using wiki as a reference?

You sound like a Republican. For shame.

Originally posted by inimalist
zeal... using wiki as a reference?

Why? What's wrong with Wikipedia?

It's not exactly accurate, but it is the most accurate online encyclopedia.

If you have any doubts with the information given by Wikipedia, you can always try to trace the references used, or edit the article itself.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
It's...it's not a conspiracy. It literally happened. You can literally read about it on this whole "Wikipedia" thing.

I can, and what it says there is that there's a conspiracy theory that it happened, not evidence. Just that three guys Michael Lind, Alan Wald and Bill King allege it at times.

Again, I feel like the logical inconsistencies in Neoconservative work and speech can be much better explained by them having absolutely no convictions and just being corrupt politicians (bought by corporations, still having to please enough people to get voted in).

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Why? What's wrong with Wikipedia?

It's not exactly accurate, but it is the most accurate online encyclopedia.

If you have any doubts with the information given by Wikipedia, you can always try to trace the references used, or edit the article itself.

face-in-palm

Originally posted by inimalist
face-in-palm

?

shockingly accurate....

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I realize you're a leftist, but try to keep up.

1. Republicans support Medicare/Social Security. Both programs met strong conservative oppositions (and rightly so). As Trotskyites are comfortable with a welfare state, they are comfortable with Medicare/Social Security.

2. Stalinism. Trotskyites disagreed with it and got pissed at the USSR.


And both of those were in force long before the 80s. What do the 80s have to do with any of that? Destalinization policies had already been enacted by the 1980s in the USSR. You can not even get your dates right and you are ironically telling me to "keep up".

And both of those were in force long before the 80s. What do the 80s have to do with any of that? Destalinization policies had already been enacted by the 1980s in the USSR. You can not even get your dates right and you are ironically telling me to "keep up".

Let's start with some excerpts.
Through the 1950s and early 1960s the future neoconservatives had supported the American Civil Rights Movement, integration, and Martin Luther King, Jr..[14] From the 1950s to the 1960s, there was broad support among liberals and social democrats to support military aid to the government of South Vietnam to prevent a communist victory.

These were all the marks of leftism. A large government imposing egalitarian policies onto the nation. Whereas conservatives rightfully saw a the federal government intruding into the matters that belonged in the hands of the individual states, the neoconservatives and liberals were perfectly content to quash dissent in favor of their "progressive" policies.
Kirkpatrick joined the Young People's Socialist League (1907) of the Socialist Party of America: Her grandfather had helped to found the Populist and Socialist Parties in Oklahoma.[17] As a political scientist, she supported the campaigns of former Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey. Along with Humphrey, she was close to Henry M. Jackson, who ran for the Democratic nomination for President in 1972 and 1976.[18] She was opposed to the candidacy of George McGovern. In 1976, she helped to found the Committee on Present Danger for the purpose of warning Americans against the Soviet Union's growing military power and the dangers of the SALT II treaty.[19] She also served on the Platform Committee for the Democratic Party in 1976.[20]

Kirkpatrick, a socialist, turned to the right as part of a campaign against communism. She served in the Reagan administration.

Neoconservatism draws on several intellectual traditions. The students of political science Professor Leo Strauss (1899-1973) comprised one major group--indeed Unger says that Strauss "is often said to be the intellectual godfather of neoconservatism"[35], while Sheppard notes that, "Much scholarship tends to understand Strauss as an inspirational founder of American neoconservatism."[36] Strauss was a refugee from Nazi Germany who taught at the New School for Social Research in New York (1939-49) and the University of Chicago (1949-1958).[37]

Strauss taught that liberalism in its modern form contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards extreme relativism, which in turn led to two types of nihilism[12] The first was a “brutal” nihilism, expressed in Nazi and Marxist regimes. In On Tyranny, he wrote that these ideologies, both descendants of Enlightenment thought, tried to destroy all traditions, history, ethics, and moral standards and replace them by force under which nature and mankind are subjugated and conquered.[13] The second type – the "gentle" nihilism expressed in Western liberal democracies – was a kind of value-free aimlessness and a hedonistic "permissive egalitarianism", which he saw as permeating the fabric of contemporary American society.

Strauss, a Jewish intellectual, critiqued the New Left as devoid of morality and substance (all true). His writings influenced neoconservatives like Kristol, and we can see these threads today as the neoconservatives wield unprecedented power. The concept of the "axis of evil" in which the Enemy is defined as irredeemably evil plays on this sort of moral reasoning. If the Enemy is evil, is it inherently good to destroy him or change him to goodness. Saddam Huissein, for instance, was an evil man; ergo, it was the moral obligation of a just nation to eliminate him from the world.
The term neoconservative, which originally was used by a socialist to criticize the politics of Social Democrats, USA,[9] has since 1980 been used as a criticism against proponents of American modern liberalism who had "moved to the right".[4][10]

We can see this in the Republican party today. They are critical of the welfare state, but they are unwilling to meaningfully change the major welfare programs of Medicare and Social Security. In that, they support the tenants of leftism that brought about such disastrous programs.
Norman Podhoretz's magazine Commentary of the American Jewish Committee, originally a journal of the liberal left, became a major voice for neoconservatives in the 1970s. Commentary published an article by Jeanne Kirkpatrick, an early and prototypical neoconservative, albeit not a New Yorker.

You mean that a magazine devoted to liberal causes became a voice for anti-communism? LOL CONSPIRACY.

Re: Ron Paul exposes the neocons.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Trotskyites, the lot of them. It's why the Republican party is in such bad shape nowadays.

excellent video.Theres ole slick willie clinton buddying around with his pal Bush and Obama chumming up with them like the buddies they all are.Love that piece of Bush lighting a flame to the constitution.Him,Obozo and slick willie,none of them believe in it.