.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;} <$BlogRSDUrl$>




Ontario Empoblog

Ontario Emperor Blog
("yup, its random!")
This blog has been superseded by the mrontemp blog


Home
Archives

October 2003   November 2003   December 2003   January 2004   February 2004   March 2004   April 2004   May 2004   June 2004   July 2004   August 2004   September 2004   October 2004   November 2004   December 2004   January 2005   February 2005   March 2005   April 2005   May 2005   June 2005   July 2005   August 2005   September 2005   October 2005   November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007  


The Breast Cancer Site
Fund free mammograms at no cost to yourself by clicking on the link, then on the pink button.


Hall of Shame (NoteUnworthy Blog Posts)
Other Blogs (sorted regionally)
Ontario Emperor Selected del.icio.us Tags

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Listed on BlogShares

;

pkblogs.com


Who Links Here

Click for Ontario, California Forecast

Thursday, November 10, 2005

You Knew This One Would Get Mentioned Here 


How can I pass up a conservative attack on neo-conservatives that uses the F word?


This may stun some people, but there is such a thing as fiscally responsible conservatives who sincerely want what is best for the entire nation. In fact, it is probably the majority contingent of the Republican party. It is the neo-conservatives or fascist element that has invaded the Republican party and is making these idiotic statements. Their simplistic authoritarian view of the world simply does not jive with reality....

A real conservative understands that poverty exists and promotes fiscal policy that alleviates it. They do not blame poor for their plight. A neo-conservative blames the victim since in their world authority is always correct and if people are poor it’s their own fault. Neo-conservatives are also neo-Christians. They allow authority figures to interpret the Bible for them and denigrate the example Jesus gave by cozying up to the rich and spitting on the impoverished....



And after digging, I found that Howard Stern also uses the F word:


"This regime—and I will now call it a regime—has gotten absolutely bizarre. Between Ashcroft and Cheney . . . and their puppet Bush and Powell and his son [FCC chairman Michael Powell] . . . I mean, this has gone berserk. I mean, I’ll be off the air, and I won’t be able to talk to you about it anymore, but, listen, it’s bad. This is the most unbelievable thing, what’s going on, where people are being thrown off the air without a trial. . . . These fascist, right-wing a-holes are getting so much freaking power, you gotta take back the country. [Those are] my last words to you. I don’t know how many more days I have [left] on the air."

—Radio personality Howard Stern, a former Bush supporter, on his Feb. 26 show



Although I have to admit that if anybody could advance a claim for government control of business (rather than the other way around), it would be Stern. Not that Stern necessarily differentiates between conservatives and neo-conservatives.

Speaking of non-neo-conservatives, I just found a term to describe them: paleocons (as opposed to neocons). Here's a better explanation of the family tree:


Modern conservatism has generally encompassed multiple forms. Over the last half of the 20th century, each decade has contained at least two identifiable strains of conservatism. The 1950’s saw the onset of modern conservatism, beginning with William F. Buckley’s intellectual National Review, which established conservatism as a force against communism and its milder American counterpart, the New Deal. It was an international conservatism, unlike the establishment conservatism of the time, which was isolationist. In the 1960’s, conservatives divided over civil rights. A minority of conservatives rallied around the states’ rights position espoused by Barry Goldwater....

Neoconservatism emerged in the 1970s, as a reaction to the radical leftist agenda of the 1960’s. Neoconservatives were more interested in challenging the hippies and activists than dismantling the entrenched programs of the New Deal. Their conservative counterparts in the 1970’s were the John Birchers and Young Americans for Freedom, who refused to budge an inch in support of any program of the left, and who preferred Barry Goldwater or John Ashbrook for President over President Nixon. In the 1980’s, President Reagan successfully brought together social conservatives and business conservatives to form his base in the Republican party. By the 1990’s, those conservatives had merged to some extent, many of them becoming Rush Limbaugh conservatives who supported both the economic and social agenda of the Republican revolution in 1994. Frustrated by the compromising of the new Republican leaders, particularly the capitulation of Newt Gingrich, a drift to the libertarian right emerged, which had already begun with the founding of the Republican Liberty Caucus in 1990.

As the first decade of the 2000’s progresses, it is becoming increasingly clear that the two types of conservatism that will define this decade are neoconservatism and paleoconservatism. The war in Iraq has brought out a deep division between the two philosophies, exemplified by paleoconservatism opposition to the conservative Bush administration’s intervention into Iraq....

The term paleoconservative actually originated fairly recently, in the Rockford Institute’s Chronicles magazine, as a reaction to what was seen as increasing neocon encroachment into conservatism. Palecons claim that their brand of conservatism is the true descendant of conservative thought of the 1950’s and 1960’s. Paleocons prefer an isolationist foreign policy, and accuse neocons of being interventionist and soft on big government programs....Paleocons tend to believe that most conservatives today and over the past couple of decades are neocons.



And then there's the neo-paleocon:


[T]he neocons are staunchly pro-American and pro-Israeli, and believe (correctly) that the [Islamist] terrorists are out to rebuild the caliphate, destroy America, Israel, and the West, and to impose Islam upon most, if not all, of the world.

However, on the issue of Russia, the neocons are the exact opposite. They are strongly pro-Chechen, and regularly reject, or attempt to de-emphasize, the fact that Chechnya is now a jihadist haven. They blame Russian policies for the terrorism in a manner similar to the way the "Blame America First" lobby blames America. In this case, the neocons are the "Blame Russia First" lobby.

An interesting reversal has taken place on the anti-war right, it appears. Justin Raimondo, the editor of Antiwar.com, has emerged as a staunch defender of Russia.

Raimondo has written numerous articles blaming the policies of the US towards the Middle East, in particular its support for Israel. He believes that the [Islamist] terrorists have legitimate grievances against America, and is generally in agreement with the "Blame America First" lobby. His site even regularly links to far-left sites who share similar opinions regarding terrorism and US policies....

Ladies and gentlemen, I introduce you to Justin Raimondo, a new species of political analyst: the neo-paleocon, a paleoconservative who takes the exact opposite approach to international relations that the neoconservatives do....

Neocons claim that Tiananmen Square was a pro-democratic demonstration that was repressed by a tyrannical "communist" regime. Raimondo claims that it was the beginning of a Maoist counterrevolution against the pro-capitalist reforms made by the regime, and that repressing it was a necessity.



So someone help me follow these lines of reasoning. Does this mean that the neo-paleocons believe that Shi Tao is a fascist? And if so, what do the paleocons believe?

From the Ontario Empoblog (Latest OVVA news here)

Comments: Post a Comment


Links to this post:

Create a Link