Pat Buchanan, to me, is not credible, since he is a xenophobe and anti-semite. Buchanan was the Donald Trump of the 1990's when he was a GOP presidential candidate.
Woodrow Wilson Institute? 😅Giving what amounts to a crypto-apologetic for Neoconaristry? 🤣May as had an ad that said "this is the Clinton Center's seminar on how to make people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time disappear as you ascend the political ladder." Hell's Congress must have a gigantic Neoconservative faction (I'm sure they're not at a loss of representation).
What should be important to point out is the difference between the threat that was posed by the former Soviet Union during the Cold War, and Iraq after 9/11. The Soviet Union was a real threat. Iraq under Sadaam was not.
Saddam's sponsorship of terrorism wasn't a threat to the US? Tell that to the families of the Americans killed by Saddam-sponsored terrorism (PLF, Hamas, Ansar al-Islam, Abu Sayyaf, etc).
@@stevegiannotti2338 exactly. people are very naive when it comes to how the world actually works. I am an American Muslim convert and I grew up rabidly Liberal. I now consider myself a Reagan Republican and have studied George W Bush in depth.
To understand why Bush went into Iraq and destroyed it, murdering around 1 million Iraqis, all political ideological claims must be rejected, like the false WMD claim and the antisemitism claim which asserted that payouts for suicide bombers and sending in a division now and then to fight Israel are deeply reprehensible, the economic purposes must be addressed such as taking the oil.
They missed one of the families of Neoconservative, which is technically the Neoliberal. The Neoliberal (as defined over at the Yale speech) consists of a modern Leftist politician who has the formerly anti-liberal concepts of lightly regulated, global free-traded, free-marketed capitalism as central perspectives that shape political relationships with corporations, their actions and their interests. The only difference is that the Neoconservative was resigned to abandon the then-conservative isolationist standpoint, with nationalistic corporate policies at home and foreign policy that was almost outright principled by classically Aquinan just war theory, as opposed to manifest destiny and as opposed to the "hit one, hit all" treaties that defined the day and that produced almost all the deaths in World War I. This latter point is especially painful keeping in mind the UK's open policy of admitting the WWI dead died for nothing (worse; they died for the first iteration of globalism). The brief way to say how the Conservative believed, at least to me, is to temper the libertarian idea of "hands-off" government approaches in general both at home and abroad for foreign policy and with a more laissez-faire approach to the Free Market, with the more classically Calvinist and Catholic view that government should legislate morality so that those condemned by the nation's (or in the case of the US, the particular state of residence's) church or Church could also face up and pay for the societal dues owed for one's sins, to follow after Confession, excommunication, or similar spiritual assessment and extraction of debt owed by one's sin, which is specifically and only the purview of religion. Another break with libertarians (or proto-libertarians, as it were; the "Classical Liberal") would be over major corporations, which Republicans (IIRC) watched with a careful eye, eventually spearheading a trust-busting, teamster-organizing, hardhat and lunchpail approach to protecting workers. More liberal progressives instead leaned solely on Marxian language and/or approaches, especially with the idea of continuous revolution as the single impetus for change and seizure of power at work and, increasingly, in other social issues as well - though this is only an analogy to Marxism after leaving the realm of the worker, the idea of continuous revolution is still present both with older and current Leftists as well as, arguably, Marx. This becomes the Neoconservative, ironically. They are not only the biggest fans of ideologies like BLM, third and fourth wave feminism, LGBTQ+ rights, and other Leftist mainstays outside of organized labor and SOLELY organized labor, but they are the biggest fan of adapting top-down enforcement by government might at home - a sort of Neocon foreign policy by Patriot Act scheme. Neocons tend to force these ideals down the throats of their mostly conservative churches or Churches, and almost always end up in their own group because of how intolerable they are to the rest of the gang - one needs to think no further than the Knights of Columbus, for instance, for but one example, and the once-impenetrable bastion of the Southern Baptist Convention for antoher example (which they almost destroyed these last three years in the single fell swoop of top-downing Critical Race Theory by deceptive and forceful means). Neoconservatism breaks this by adapting a then-progressive stance in spreading liberation to those nations not yet in the "man-uplifting" bask of Enlightenment thinking as regards faith and morals on one hand and markets, rights, progression on the other. This is the basis of Israel-first as a near-universal policy, though its use as a Pentecostal recruitment tool should not be ignored here. Key here is a Manifest Destiny of self-bequeathed righthood and means-justifying-the-ends morality in assessing these doctrines. The presence of oil and other necessary natural resources is a determinist of which troubled nation to choose to "teach" next, and it is not long until corporations uplifted by the same politicians that spearheaded the wars that seized these alien resources are given government contracts to exclusively take ownership on part of the United States. You don't want someone to potentially misuse these elements; they are only just NEWLY minted Republics, after all, and who would trust a country who "must" be put under the tutelage of these same hawks' friends in private security forces lest the ghost of the recently defeated regime return to haunt that nation? Looking at every Presidential race between Nixon and Trump, every Republican candidate was of some degree neoconservative, except maybe partially the first four years of Reagan; the opponent is universally neoliberal. It is clear that these two parties, often targets of "two sides of the same coin" platitudes, serve as a single ruling class with only nominal points of disagreement sufficient enough to give an appearance of a polite "loyal opposition." Even the Moral Majority "revival" among the same Neoconservatives tended to be polite, somehow, while protesting Disney over gay content or complaining about Dungeons and Dragons and "backwards masking" in music. What a theatrical movement Neoconservativism is! All of the insufferable, boogeyman-creating Manichaean old men needing younger men to bark at (until a weak one ready for mutating to the ideology of a topically stronger, smarter, more assertive, older figure pops out of the crowd). All of their war games and "Think Tanks!" All of their ... billions in funding by major corporations whose day they never make hard in any way (there's a reason Teamsters became associated in the American mind solely with the criminals with whom it flirted). Their inevitably silly suit and tie at the lounge. Their Buckley, Jr. accent. All that hard work for someone who wants you to be accepting of homosexuality or else a target of relentless personal attacks and wrecked careers, to say the right things about war or else to sit in jail as long as possible due to some LOE raid or another that happned to coincide with this week's antiwar article. In other words, all this hard work for a brutal thug.
These people are extremely dangerous and shouldn't have gotten away with the crimes involved !
You speak as if they still aren't largely active in the Biden admin! Neolib-Neocon fusion!
Where the Right went Wrong by Pat Buchanan dissects this terrible ideology perfectly
Pat Buchanan is an infamous racist and antisemite. If you’re taking your cues from that guy, you need to examine your blighted soul.
Pat Buchanan, to me, is not credible, since he is a xenophobe and anti-semite. Buchanan was the Donald Trump of the 1990's when he was a GOP presidential candidate.
Terrible ideology?
@@stevegiannotti2338 Take away neoconservative idealism, and you get myopic, isolationist Trumpism; ugly.
@@stevegiannotti2338 Correct.
"we don't consider ourselves so much as conservatives as we do revolutionaries"
Richard Perle
2004 Documentary: The Power of Nightmares
Six minutes into the intro I forgot what the video was about.
Mr. Vaisse wrote a masterpiece. This book is my neocon bible.
I got all I needed to know in "Woodrow Wilson."
Yep
38.00 - 45.00 ! Predicting the future
Woodrow Wilson Institute? 😅Giving what amounts to a crypto-apologetic for Neoconaristry? 🤣May as had an ad that said "this is the Clinton Center's seminar on how to make people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time disappear as you ascend the political ladder." Hell's Congress must have a gigantic Neoconservative faction (I'm sure they're not at a loss of representation).
You like to pontificate on You tube, don't you?
@@stevegiannotti2338 Go back to Destiny's channel and blow a wad, you shit.
What should be important to point out is the difference between the threat that was posed by the former Soviet Union during the Cold War, and Iraq after 9/11. The Soviet Union was a real threat. Iraq under Sadaam was not.
Saddam's sponsorship of terrorism wasn't a threat to the US? Tell that to the families of the Americans killed by Saddam-sponsored terrorism (PLF, Hamas, Ansar al-Islam, Abu Sayyaf, etc).
@@stevegiannotti2338 exactly.
people are very naive when it comes to how the world actually works.
I am an American Muslim convert and I grew up rabidly Liberal. I now consider myself a Reagan Republican and have studied George W Bush in depth.
@@stevegiannotti2338 hey bro, look me up on FB, hard to find rational people nowadays!
To understand why Bush went into Iraq and destroyed it, murdering around 1 million Iraqis, all political ideological claims must be rejected, like the false WMD claim and the antisemitism claim which asserted that payouts for suicide bombers and sending in a division now and then to fight Israel are deeply reprehensible, the economic purposes must be addressed such as taking the oil.
Very educational
Neo cons are just that, Cons, and neo-confederates more so than conservatives.
NEOCONS = Fascist PIGS.
They missed one of the families of Neoconservative, which is technically the Neoliberal. The Neoliberal (as defined over at the Yale speech) consists of a modern Leftist politician who has the formerly anti-liberal concepts of lightly regulated, global free-traded, free-marketed capitalism as central perspectives that shape political relationships with corporations, their actions and their interests.
The only difference is that the Neoconservative was resigned to abandon the then-conservative isolationist standpoint, with nationalistic corporate policies at home and foreign policy that was almost outright principled by classically Aquinan just war theory, as opposed to manifest destiny and as opposed to the "hit one, hit all" treaties that defined the day and that produced almost all the deaths in World War I. This latter point is especially painful keeping in mind the UK's open policy of admitting the WWI dead died for nothing (worse; they died for the first iteration of globalism).
The brief way to say how the Conservative believed, at least to me, is to temper the libertarian idea of "hands-off" government approaches in general both at home and abroad for foreign policy and with a more laissez-faire approach to the Free Market, with the more classically Calvinist and Catholic view that government should legislate morality so that those condemned by the nation's (or in the case of the US, the particular state of residence's) church or Church could also face up and pay for the societal dues owed for one's sins, to follow after Confession, excommunication, or similar spiritual assessment and extraction of debt owed by one's sin, which is specifically and only the purview of religion.
Another break with libertarians (or proto-libertarians, as it were; the "Classical Liberal") would be over major corporations, which Republicans (IIRC) watched with a careful eye, eventually spearheading a trust-busting, teamster-organizing, hardhat and lunchpail approach to protecting workers. More liberal progressives instead leaned solely on Marxian language and/or approaches, especially with the idea of continuous revolution as the single impetus for change and seizure of power at work and, increasingly, in other social issues as well - though this is only an analogy to Marxism after leaving the realm of the worker, the idea of continuous revolution is still present both with older and current Leftists as well as, arguably, Marx.
This becomes the Neoconservative, ironically. They are not only the biggest fans of ideologies like BLM, third and fourth wave feminism, LGBTQ+ rights, and other Leftist mainstays outside of organized labor and SOLELY organized labor, but they are the biggest fan of adapting top-down enforcement by government might at home - a sort of Neocon foreign policy by Patriot Act scheme.
Neocons tend to force these ideals down the throats of their mostly conservative churches or Churches, and almost always end up in their own group because of how intolerable they are to the rest of the gang - one needs to think no further than the Knights of Columbus, for instance, for but one example, and the once-impenetrable bastion of the Southern Baptist Convention for antoher example (which they almost destroyed these last three years in the single fell swoop of top-downing Critical Race Theory by deceptive and forceful means).
Neoconservatism breaks this by adapting a then-progressive stance in spreading liberation to those nations not yet in the "man-uplifting" bask of Enlightenment thinking as regards faith and morals on one hand and markets, rights, progression on the other. This is the basis of Israel-first as a near-universal policy, though its use as a Pentecostal recruitment tool should not be ignored here.
Key here is a Manifest Destiny of self-bequeathed righthood and means-justifying-the-ends morality in assessing these doctrines. The presence of oil and other necessary natural resources is a determinist of which troubled nation to choose to "teach" next, and it is not long until corporations uplifted by the same politicians that spearheaded the wars that seized these alien resources are given government contracts to exclusively take ownership on part of the United States. You don't want someone to potentially misuse these elements; they are only just NEWLY minted Republics, after all, and who would trust a country who "must" be put under the tutelage of these same hawks' friends in private security forces lest the ghost of the recently defeated regime return to haunt that nation?
Looking at every Presidential race between Nixon and Trump, every Republican candidate was of some degree neoconservative, except maybe partially the first four years of Reagan; the opponent is universally neoliberal. It is clear that these two parties, often targets of "two sides of the same coin" platitudes, serve as a single ruling class with only nominal points of disagreement sufficient enough to give an appearance of a polite "loyal opposition." Even the Moral Majority "revival" among the same Neoconservatives tended to be polite, somehow, while protesting Disney over gay content or complaining about Dungeons and Dragons and "backwards masking" in music.
What a theatrical movement Neoconservativism is! All of the insufferable, boogeyman-creating Manichaean old men needing younger men to bark at (until a weak one ready for mutating to the ideology of a topically stronger, smarter, more assertive, older figure pops out of the crowd). All of their war games and "Think Tanks!" All of their ... billions in funding by major corporations whose day they never make hard in any way (there's a reason Teamsters became associated in the American mind solely with the criminals with whom it flirted). Their inevitably silly suit and tie at the lounge. Their Buckley, Jr. accent. All that hard work for someone who wants you to be accepting of homosexuality or else a target of relentless personal attacks and wrecked careers, to say the right things about war or else to sit in jail as long as possible due to some LOE raid or another that happned to coincide with this week's antiwar article.
In other words, all this hard work for a brutal thug.
You could argue that neocons are a militant wing of neoliberals. Different ends of the neoliberal spectrum.
its israel first because the important neocons are all jews. read elders of zion.
Thanks