Neocons: A Parasite on the Republican Party
If you’re young, or just recently started following politics, you probably think the Republican party has always been this band of right wing mouth-breathing warbots. But this isn’t the real Republican party. Think of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” A parasite — the Neocons — is using the Republican party as its host.
This interview with U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter will blow you away. Even if you've already suspected these things, you'll still be shocked.
The Neocons have played a background role for a long time; it’s only recently that they’ve oozed into such a powerful position. President Bush Senior used to refer to them as “the crazies in the basement.” Reagan also tried to keep a rein on them. Reagan looks like a bleeding-heart liberal compared to this Neocon band of “Republicans.”
It’s hard to believe the party of Richard Nixon (who signed a lot of environmental and civil rights legislation) and Dwight Eisenhower (who first warned us about the military industrial complex) could have deteriorated into this band of power crazed maniacs.
The goal of the Neocons? Nothing less than total world dominion. True to their nature as parasites, the Neocons will latch themselves onto whichever host will serve their purpose. The Republican party, the U.S. government, multinational corporations — these all serve as convenient temporary vehicles for the Neocons’ ultimate goal.
This interview with Scott Ritter is long but well worth reading. Hopefully you’ll save it and/or e-mail it to your friends; this information needs to be distributed as widely as possible. Not knowing about this global menace isn’t going to diminish it. As the saying goes, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t following you.
Paul Wolfowitz in charge of the World Bank? Not good.
The term “Neocon” has such a neutral, mechanical sound to it; they should be called something more chilling, more repulsive; something to accurately reflect what they really are. Nazi parasites? Neanderthal goons? Hitler wannabes? Let’s have a contest.
posted by Tom Harper @ 11:14 AM
9 Comments:
Two points:
1) Before commenting on a topic, be sure you understand the material. Specifically, research an unbiased account on who these smeared and misunderstood "neo-cons" are. You'll be surprised by what you find. Anyone who thinks the neo-cons have made the republican party more "right wing" is ignorant, to say the least. By their nature, they are disenfranchised liberal democrats and the closest thing remaining to what is the now rare "classic liberal." Their breed has esentialy been purged from the Democratic party and replaced with by the "European socialist." The Democratic party is weaker because of this shift.
2) I find it is wise not rely on the words of (or cite interviews with) alleged pedophiles and/or individuals receiving funds from despotic dictators. Just a suggestion.
OK Democrat: That's very true. There was a time when the 2 parties weren't that different from each other; just two groups who agreed to disagree. That sure isn't the case any more.
Geopol: Personally I'll give more credibility to an interview with a former UN Weapons Inspector, than to any mindless irrelevent rumors about the person.
Chandra: Yeah, that sounds like a good name for them.
Tery: Put your spam comments where the sun doesn't shine.
The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals in the 60's and 70's.They disliked the left's social slant and reluctance to spend more on defense. Most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans. Foreign policy stands have always defined neoconservatism. Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower.They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon", and create an empire by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they believe threaten the US or its interests.
They may have been Dems 40-45 years ago, but they have switched party alliances and been Repulican for two generations. What they were does not change what they are, the power they are weilding and the money they are spending. I consider them to be extremists. Since they are Republicans, they are now right wing extremists.
In the future geopol, if you are branding a source as unreliable or guilty of breaking the law, the appropriate thing to do is attach an unbiased link(s) to support your position. Otherwise, keep it to yourself.
Thanks Jet. Like the saying goes, "Know Your Enemy." Since the Neocons are playing such a large role in our lives, whether we like it or not, it's good to know as much as possible about them; who they are and where they came from.
Sheesh, we can only go by what these creeps are doing NOW, right? They ain't liberal. 'Nuff said.
As for a name, I'm leaning toward "Con-dumbs."
Brother Kenya: Con-dumbs sounds like a good name. They sure aren't liberal now, whatever they were when they started out.
Love your take on Delay and almost everything.
Agree with Jet about the origin of the term neocon. They usually went to City College in New York in the 30's, were members (or supporters) of the Communist party until the Hitler/Stalin non-aggression pact.
The thing that nobody brings up is that generally they were neo-cons only in forigeign (sic) policy.
They were more progressive than most progressives in social issues and would have made mincemeat of Tom Delay and his ilk.
The Democrats now are closer to the Republicans of 20 years ago (hello, Ronald Reagan)
It's the Democrats who have swung to the right.
But I will always respect an old school neo-con, and wish that people wouldn't use that term to describe people like Delay
Pia: Thanks for the compliment, and the neocon history. Until your comment (and Jet's earlier comment) I had no idea of the neocons' origins. It's amazing how a group can mutate.
Post a Comment
<< Home