Wrong, Ken. The white working class maintain infrastructure. They deliver your food to the supermarket. They maintain sanitation and roads. Many wait on you and serve you daily. You should be grateful to the Aryan peasantry. They keep you alive. In contrast, what use are financial parasites such as Wall Street traders, hedge fund managers, and college educated parasites with useless computer science or liberal arts degrees? Jack shit as a low class redneck might say.
You're eternally confusing "working class" with "unemployed." 38% of whites are unemployed (the government employment numbers are totally false) and don't do anything useful at all. They take more in taxes than they give. If they do work, they work part time at McDonalds, which I do not patronize, so I don't care about them at all. I assume you are so defensive of them because you come from a humble background, and now have an egoic / prideful / ethnocentric defensive reaction whenever someone points out the truth. If I told you, "black people built America," you would be just as dismissive as I am, I imagine.
I’m a little confused what is being referred to as unemployed here and now you got to that number. The government usually calls only people looking for work “unemployed”. If you include others, you include a lot of people who are simply retired.
@SA: When I say unemployed, I mean "not engaging in useful labor; labor which is subsidized in whole or in part by the government with no net benefit." Government employees who are a net drain on the economy; people who never contributed to the system and are now "retired" (they were never working in the first place); employees of "private companies" which are subsidized by the government. These aren't real job in any meaningful sense; they don't create value for anyone. Anything having to do with education, healthcare, or unions (longshoreman's union) often fit into this category. I'm not saying the numbers for other races aren't worse, but lionizing people as "working class" when they don't do anything is an insult to the people who actually built the country (coal miners, loggers, sailors, fishers, farmers, factory workers). I'm not blaming these people, since they can't help it, but making them into a victim group and saying "America will stop working if we don't subsidize the white working class" is a dirty game. Computer programmers are the real working class of an information economy, not janitors. These people are not any more deserving of government help than the gifted kid who is effectively held back by a "one size fits all" system. We should be pouring money into talent, not throwing it into a black hole of orange-cones and yellow vests. I support infrastructure spending, and putting generally unemployable people into fake daycare jobs will reduce crime, gangs, suicide, drug addiction. But they aren't holding up the country like some working class Atlas Shrugged fantasy.
No Kenneth, I come from a middle class background but with working class roots. What’s your background, hmm? I’m betting Upper-middle class. Your figures are unsupported by anything; 38% of whites are not unemployed. I have nothing against welfare though and hope more go on it. I’m for destroying this system not saving it.
What’s your problem with compsci majors? If there were no compsci majors you couldn’t even type this comment out. And your supermarket and government services rely on the digital infrastructure made by computer scientists. It’s a job a lot of the working class could never do, because they’re not cut out for it. Meanwhile, the jobs you list are only avoided by “educated parasites” because they suck to do for your whole life. They’re not something you literally cannot get good at
Most people in general dislike their jobs across all classes and occupations and this economic system, but have been conditioned to believe ‘this is all there is’ and ‘the best of all possible worlds.’ If the barometer of societal health are the credentialed upper-middle classes, we’re in big trouble.
Now there is a white underclass (growing sadly due to neoliberalism and bad social policies, immigration). That’s another subject. You’re the one who confuses underclass or lumpenproletariat with working classes.
In my experience, both terms (neocon and neolib) serve the purpose of trying to co-opt the other side’s arguments and rebelliousness. For tradcons, attacking neoconservatism is all about showing that they’re “not your parents conservatives”, that they’re also concerned with the meanieness of the American regime. But, you know, for trad reasons or something… Having the same bleeding heart about CIA, American military attacks, lack of social services etc etc but using a trad justification like blaming it on America being “Judeo-Masonic” or the “Degenerate 1%”. These people are usually more on the reactionary or paleocon side than anything fascist, because a fascist would just say “conservatives”. Likewise, “neoliberalism” is a way for lefties to co-opt the anti-authority in the right which is hard to come by on the contemporary left due to their institutional power. They want you to know that they hate lib’rals, NATO, and even corporate pride month stuff, but not because it’s gay. It’s because Liberalism is an obsolete bourgeois ideology that isn’t what the BASED multiracial working class needs!
And yet… Nobody seems to know what these words mean exactly. I’ve seen a lot of people call Henry Kissinger a neocon because they just associate the term with every American conservative who dirtied their hands at some point. Even though Kissinger spent a lot of his time in office facilitating detente and playing realpolitik (not being world police). People also call Leo Strauss neoconservative, which is bizarre. And they’ll call Carl Schmitt a “source for neoconservatism” as if Schmitt himself ever intended for anything he wrote to be interpreted as modern neoconservatism.
Neoliberalism means… Hmm, not sure, because 10 years ago everyone used Kennedy as an example of a “Classical Liberal”. But now a bunch of Redditors jacked up on autism use him as the symbol of Neoliberalism. Again, very ill defined ideology. Maybe a good break off point would be to split the new Hegelian Francis Fukuyama Star Trek type liberals into the category of Neoliberal, the Liberal of the 20th and 19th century as “Middle Liberal”, and reserving “Classical Liberal” for the enlightenment “liberals” (who weren’t even that associated with Liberalism until the 20th century)
On a side note, I would not describe Americas founders as brutal or rapists. Yes, the continental army did, you know, act aggressively towards enemy military personnel, and got their hands somewhat dirty, but the American a revolution has never come off as particularly awful and brutal to me. Maybe it was a product of the times, but compare it to how awful and devastating a lot of the wars of the previous century had been, like the 30 years war, and how devastating wars of the next century would be, like the Boer War, Napoleonic Wars, and the Civil War. American slave owners were also quite caring of their bastard children, which makes me think their relationships with the mothers of those children was less rapey than often portrayed in media. They were a very intelligent, very moralistic bunch, a people that were richer than basically everywhere else on the planet and some of the best genes from Europe.
Sleeping with the mailman is a natural response if your husband beats you. The mailman may be alcoholic and a worse man by every metric, but the mailman is not hitting her.
Manifest destiny was an idea for America to expand for the benefit of Americans. Expansion meant new land and new opportunities for colonists. Every time America expands now in a war like Ukraine, the benefits are entirely intangible. The money is sucked up through invisible channels and ends up in hunter bidens crack pipe. If Ukraine was an opportunity for Americans to move in and seize the country’s land and assets, it would be a much easier sell.
America is run by an Atlanticist elite. Atlantacists have a deep hatred for white, native Americans. Their goal in conquering land overseas is to find more people to shove into America. They want America to be colonized instead of colonizing. Expanding college education and punishing non interventions would only give atlantacists more power. Neoconservatism is petty and confused, but neoconservatives do not beat their wife.
@anonymous: I'm not saying sleeping with the mailman isn't "natural," but I don't think it's helpful. "neoconservatives do not beat their wife." Are you defending neoconservatives?
What the wife needs in this situation is a new husband who won’t beat her or have fantasies about killing her. Neoconservatives in this metaphor are a weak willed attempt at a new boyfriend who will always buckle down and retreat when the old husband gets mad. They are not a solution for as long as they can’t really protect her.
But the article you wrote seems to imply that it’s a bad, wrong thing to do to sleep with the mailman because the mailman might hurt the wife. The mailman is a loser with bad habits, but those bad habits mean he poses little threat to the wife. The mailman would not make a good new husband, but he’s willing to give some money to the wife if it gets back at her husband.
The dissidents apparently should feel bad for taking the mailman’s help. They should respect the husband - out of patriotism, a respect for the traditional patriarchal role as the head of the family? But the husband is the one loudly speaking at feminist seminars when he isn’t beating his wife.
Weird to hear “neoliberalism” defined as if encompassing something like liberal interventionism. Always thought of it as an economic philosophy, to the extent it's used to make a serious distinction at all.
@MP I would given a loan to George Washington. My point wasn't to say I would have been loyal to Britain, but that American isolationism is paradoxical, incoherent, and historically ignorant.
I’m not going to give this article a “like” because even, though the main thrust of this was nearly impeccable, I think a large portion of your policy proposals are a little off kilter or even wacked. (AND I kind of think they should be in a separate post so you could explain them more thoroughly. I WANNA react to most of them but feel like I’d be jumping down a rabbit hole that would never get me back to the next point you made. )
But your views on Israel, Zionism, and America as a brutal empire resonate nearly perfectly with mine (Am I wacked?). Totally appreciated the bit on Zbiniev (sic). I admire your thinking and analysis there. If you’d confined yourself to THAT huge minefield of a topic, this would have been among (or maybe) THE best long posts I’ve read so far in Substack.
Brezenski was a Pole first and ‘American’ last. His whole Shtick was about destroying Russia/USSR. He also hated and distrusted Germans and generally opposed reunification in 1990. We can thank people like him for building up the empire while neglecting the core and letting it rot. He might not have been a neocon formally but was certainly aligned with them in all but name. The military buildup and imperialist Sabre-rattling started under Carter during the last two years of his term. Reagan, of course, continued it further during his tenure in office.
People are not objective or dispassionate observers of life, politics, events. Their circumstances, genetics, and experiences inform their views. Class, ethnic, and cultural interests often clash because of these factors. Ken hates my European peasant ancestors and their descendants in America today (most of whom are no longer peasants except maybe in spirit). This hatred is deep and genetic/historical on his part. European Jews always feared and despised the peasantry (sometimes for good reason from their pov). This has been transmitted to America via Jewish domination of entertainment, media, and popular culture. The irony of it all is that aside from Catholic and Orthodox Slavs, the Anglo-Celtic-Germanic working classes and peasantry he despises are the most philosemitic segment of the American population, especially the ‘rural white trash’ our friend wants to see dying in dumpsters or replaced by Asians or something.
I am thoroughly confused. This reads just as insanely as a fascist I was reading last week. I don’t understand what you want, or who the enemy is, or what sort of future you envision.
Calling me insane and comparing me to a fascist is not a great way to create understanding. I've written hundreds of articles which you can read for clarification:
I assume you are having an emotional reaction regarding your moral suspicions of my dark and evil ways, and this is clouding your rational ability to read my arguments and judge them with intelligence. If you are genuinely interested in promoting understanding, and can't figure me out by reading my hundred articles, I will invite you on my podcast to interview me and ask me questions. Up to you whether you're interested in dialogue or fear.
Entangling alliances was what George Washington warned against in his farewell address. There is a deep strain of non-interventionism and dislike of rootless cosmopolitan ‘empires’ throughout American history. Lincoln and many others opposed The Mexican Empire. Were your ancestors here at that time?
Every political suggestion you provided is rooted in nationalism.I doubt any democrat coalition is gonna agree with any of those.Those are pretty similar with many 'far righr' european movements-emphasis on national pride/socialist ecomomic policies/strong military and populist low energy costs.In fact anyone on the left wouldd call you a white supremacist for anything besides free college for any of those
I kekked, but most of what you say about neo-conservatives is not true. It's more accurate than the way your critics use the term, but it's not accurate.
Neoconservatism refers to (a) a group of Jewish liberal and (some, this is usually exaggerated) Trotskyite intellectuals who got sick of black crime and social dysfunction in late 60s and 70s and (b) students of Leo Strauss. They were pro New Deal, pro Civil Rights and anti Great Society. One popular definition was 'a liberal who was mugged by reality' another being 'a conservative who a liberal would be happy to invite to a dinner party'. Because of their ability to write in whole paragraphs and use social science, neoconservatives quickly became intellectually dominant in the GOP well beyond their numbers.
They favoured a strong policy against the Soviet Union because (a) the Soviet Union was bad and (b) they saw foreign conflict as a way of creating a national ethos that could ameliorate the problems of modernity (like you, in a way). Their attitude to Israel was chiefly informed by their view of it as an anti-Soviet bulwark, though obviously not without a degree of ethnic favouritism.
After the end of the Cold War, neocons looked for a new struggle that could recreate the spirit of FDR America they sought. For various reasons, lobbying by certain Israeli factions being one of them, they converged on a plan to democratise the Middle East. Unfortunately, this plan was retarded. There are various reasons for this, but the chief one, in my view, is that each generation of Neocons got progressively dumber through nepotism. In Israeli politics, their chief allies are people like Natan Sharansky, not theocrats, as you allege.
Because neocons are basically urbane conservatives who favour a strong foreign policy, they reacted with hostility to Trump. Most did not vote for him, though some did. Some warmed to him afterwards somewhat because he was more interventionist than they thought he would be, but also because he was quite a good president, all told. Around half appear to be planning on voting for Harris this time around.
JD Vance and Trump are not 'The biggest neoconservatives in the world'. This is simply nonsense and you should be embarrassed to have written it.
This seems like semantic nitpicking. Neoconservatism is an evolving movement and Trump and Vance perfectly fit the bill. I'm not saying that any political faction (Democrats, Republicans) is exactly the same as it was in the past -- if you're going to hold me to that standard, we can't use words like "liberal" or "conservative" at all because the definition keeps changing. A neocon in 2024 wants war with Iran and ignores Ukraine; neolibs are the opposite.
It is absolutely not semantic nitpicking. If I google 'list of neoconservatives' I get Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Ken Adelman, Richard Armitage, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, John Podhoretz. All of these people are still alive and kicking and I don't think even one of them takes the positions you ascribe to neoconservatism.
Neither Trump nor Vance have ever described themselves as neocons and when I google 'JD Vance neocons' I get a bunch of hits like 'Neocons are melting down over JD Vance'.
I retract my original comment. Your use of the word neocon appears to be even less accurate than that of your critics. I don't know why you didn't just write 'I can define the word neocon to mean anything I want and therefore I am not a neocon by my definition'.
I assume this comment is referring to the early Neo-conservatives. The ones who foundes the movement were born in Brooklyn during the 1920's and were quite a bit different from Mike Pompeo in their outlook.
First part of your post made me think about a famous Drieu La Rochelle quote: "Extreme civilty produce extreme barbarity".
Ever thought a career as decadentist novelist? :-D
Wrong, Ken. The white working class maintain infrastructure. They deliver your food to the supermarket. They maintain sanitation and roads. Many wait on you and serve you daily. You should be grateful to the Aryan peasantry. They keep you alive. In contrast, what use are financial parasites such as Wall Street traders, hedge fund managers, and college educated parasites with useless computer science or liberal arts degrees? Jack shit as a low class redneck might say.
You're eternally confusing "working class" with "unemployed." 38% of whites are unemployed (the government employment numbers are totally false) and don't do anything useful at all. They take more in taxes than they give. If they do work, they work part time at McDonalds, which I do not patronize, so I don't care about them at all. I assume you are so defensive of them because you come from a humble background, and now have an egoic / prideful / ethnocentric defensive reaction whenever someone points out the truth. If I told you, "black people built America," you would be just as dismissive as I am, I imagine.
I’m a little confused what is being referred to as unemployed here and now you got to that number. The government usually calls only people looking for work “unemployed”. If you include others, you include a lot of people who are simply retired.
@SA: When I say unemployed, I mean "not engaging in useful labor; labor which is subsidized in whole or in part by the government with no net benefit." Government employees who are a net drain on the economy; people who never contributed to the system and are now "retired" (they were never working in the first place); employees of "private companies" which are subsidized by the government. These aren't real job in any meaningful sense; they don't create value for anyone. Anything having to do with education, healthcare, or unions (longshoreman's union) often fit into this category. I'm not saying the numbers for other races aren't worse, but lionizing people as "working class" when they don't do anything is an insult to the people who actually built the country (coal miners, loggers, sailors, fishers, farmers, factory workers). I'm not blaming these people, since they can't help it, but making them into a victim group and saying "America will stop working if we don't subsidize the white working class" is a dirty game. Computer programmers are the real working class of an information economy, not janitors. These people are not any more deserving of government help than the gifted kid who is effectively held back by a "one size fits all" system. We should be pouring money into talent, not throwing it into a black hole of orange-cones and yellow vests. I support infrastructure spending, and putting generally unemployable people into fake daycare jobs will reduce crime, gangs, suicide, drug addiction. But they aren't holding up the country like some working class Atlas Shrugged fantasy.
I concur.
No Kenneth, I come from a middle class background but with working class roots. What’s your background, hmm? I’m betting Upper-middle class. Your figures are unsupported by anything; 38% of whites are not unemployed. I have nothing against welfare though and hope more go on it. I’m for destroying this system not saving it.
Also, hallo! I've heard about Indo-Aryans, but never about Irish-Aryans. Which side of Hyperborea do you guys come from?
The bright side.
Aber die Sonne geht im Westen unter.
Meanwhile you’d better learn Turkish or Arabic.
Why? The Turks and Arabs 'round here all speak fluent Swedish. Has to be one of the easiest languages in the world.
The recent arrivals lustfully eyeing your female relatives aren’t fluent in Swedish. The trashy second and third generation ones are so more or less.
You should learn Spanish because the Reconquista is coming.
Spanish is a great European language.
What’s your problem with compsci majors? If there were no compsci majors you couldn’t even type this comment out. And your supermarket and government services rely on the digital infrastructure made by computer scientists. It’s a job a lot of the working class could never do, because they’re not cut out for it. Meanwhile, the jobs you list are only avoided by “educated parasites” because they suck to do for your whole life. They’re not something you literally cannot get good at
Most people in general dislike their jobs across all classes and occupations and this economic system, but have been conditioned to believe ‘this is all there is’ and ‘the best of all possible worlds.’ If the barometer of societal health are the credentialed upper-middle classes, we’re in big trouble.
That’s strictly your opinion. Others see things differently and not everyone is cut out for the same type of labor.
I have no problem with them whatsoever but they are only one component of the economy and not ‘elite.’
Now there is a white underclass (growing sadly due to neoliberalism and bad social policies, immigration). That’s another subject. You’re the one who confuses underclass or lumpenproletariat with working classes.
In my experience, both terms (neocon and neolib) serve the purpose of trying to co-opt the other side’s arguments and rebelliousness. For tradcons, attacking neoconservatism is all about showing that they’re “not your parents conservatives”, that they’re also concerned with the meanieness of the American regime. But, you know, for trad reasons or something… Having the same bleeding heart about CIA, American military attacks, lack of social services etc etc but using a trad justification like blaming it on America being “Judeo-Masonic” or the “Degenerate 1%”. These people are usually more on the reactionary or paleocon side than anything fascist, because a fascist would just say “conservatives”. Likewise, “neoliberalism” is a way for lefties to co-opt the anti-authority in the right which is hard to come by on the contemporary left due to their institutional power. They want you to know that they hate lib’rals, NATO, and even corporate pride month stuff, but not because it’s gay. It’s because Liberalism is an obsolete bourgeois ideology that isn’t what the BASED multiracial working class needs!
And yet… Nobody seems to know what these words mean exactly. I’ve seen a lot of people call Henry Kissinger a neocon because they just associate the term with every American conservative who dirtied their hands at some point. Even though Kissinger spent a lot of his time in office facilitating detente and playing realpolitik (not being world police). People also call Leo Strauss neoconservative, which is bizarre. And they’ll call Carl Schmitt a “source for neoconservatism” as if Schmitt himself ever intended for anything he wrote to be interpreted as modern neoconservatism.
Neoliberalism means… Hmm, not sure, because 10 years ago everyone used Kennedy as an example of a “Classical Liberal”. But now a bunch of Redditors jacked up on autism use him as the symbol of Neoliberalism. Again, very ill defined ideology. Maybe a good break off point would be to split the new Hegelian Francis Fukuyama Star Trek type liberals into the category of Neoliberal, the Liberal of the 20th and 19th century as “Middle Liberal”, and reserving “Classical Liberal” for the enlightenment “liberals” (who weren’t even that associated with Liberalism until the 20th century)
On a side note, I would not describe Americas founders as brutal or rapists. Yes, the continental army did, you know, act aggressively towards enemy military personnel, and got their hands somewhat dirty, but the American a revolution has never come off as particularly awful and brutal to me. Maybe it was a product of the times, but compare it to how awful and devastating a lot of the wars of the previous century had been, like the 30 years war, and how devastating wars of the next century would be, like the Boer War, Napoleonic Wars, and the Civil War. American slave owners were also quite caring of their bastard children, which makes me think their relationships with the mothers of those children was less rapey than often portrayed in media. They were a very intelligent, very moralistic bunch, a people that were richer than basically everywhere else on the planet and some of the best genes from Europe.
Sleeping with the mailman is a natural response if your husband beats you. The mailman may be alcoholic and a worse man by every metric, but the mailman is not hitting her.
Manifest destiny was an idea for America to expand for the benefit of Americans. Expansion meant new land and new opportunities for colonists. Every time America expands now in a war like Ukraine, the benefits are entirely intangible. The money is sucked up through invisible channels and ends up in hunter bidens crack pipe. If Ukraine was an opportunity for Americans to move in and seize the country’s land and assets, it would be a much easier sell.
America is run by an Atlanticist elite. Atlantacists have a deep hatred for white, native Americans. Their goal in conquering land overseas is to find more people to shove into America. They want America to be colonized instead of colonizing. Expanding college education and punishing non interventions would only give atlantacists more power. Neoconservatism is petty and confused, but neoconservatives do not beat their wife.
@anonymous: I'm not saying sleeping with the mailman isn't "natural," but I don't think it's helpful. "neoconservatives do not beat their wife." Are you defending neoconservatives?
Defending neoconservatives only by comparison.
What the wife needs in this situation is a new husband who won’t beat her or have fantasies about killing her. Neoconservatives in this metaphor are a weak willed attempt at a new boyfriend who will always buckle down and retreat when the old husband gets mad. They are not a solution for as long as they can’t really protect her.
But the article you wrote seems to imply that it’s a bad, wrong thing to do to sleep with the mailman because the mailman might hurt the wife. The mailman is a loser with bad habits, but those bad habits mean he poses little threat to the wife. The mailman would not make a good new husband, but he’s willing to give some money to the wife if it gets back at her husband.
The dissidents apparently should feel bad for taking the mailman’s help. They should respect the husband - out of patriotism, a respect for the traditional patriarchal role as the head of the family? But the husband is the one loudly speaking at feminist seminars when he isn’t beating his wife.
Weird to hear “neoliberalism” defined as if encompassing something like liberal interventionism. Always thought of it as an economic philosophy, to the extent it's used to make a serious distinction at all.
You must not have heard of Hillary Clinton. Welcome to America.
Always interesting to see a defense of the loyalist point of view on the American Revolution from an American
@MP I would given a loan to George Washington. My point wasn't to say I would have been loyal to Britain, but that American isolationism is paradoxical, incoherent, and historically ignorant.
I’m not going to give this article a “like” because even, though the main thrust of this was nearly impeccable, I think a large portion of your policy proposals are a little off kilter or even wacked. (AND I kind of think they should be in a separate post so you could explain them more thoroughly. I WANNA react to most of them but feel like I’d be jumping down a rabbit hole that would never get me back to the next point you made. )
But your views on Israel, Zionism, and America as a brutal empire resonate nearly perfectly with mine (Am I wacked?). Totally appreciated the bit on Zbiniev (sic). I admire your thinking and analysis there. If you’d confined yourself to THAT huge minefield of a topic, this would have been among (or maybe) THE best long posts I’ve read so far in Substack.
Fun, though !
Brezenski was a Pole first and ‘American’ last. His whole Shtick was about destroying Russia/USSR. He also hated and distrusted Germans and generally opposed reunification in 1990. We can thank people like him for building up the empire while neglecting the core and letting it rot. He might not have been a neocon formally but was certainly aligned with them in all but name. The military buildup and imperialist Sabre-rattling started under Carter during the last two years of his term. Reagan, of course, continued it further during his tenure in office.
People are not objective or dispassionate observers of life, politics, events. Their circumstances, genetics, and experiences inform their views. Class, ethnic, and cultural interests often clash because of these factors. Ken hates my European peasant ancestors and their descendants in America today (most of whom are no longer peasants except maybe in spirit). This hatred is deep and genetic/historical on his part. European Jews always feared and despised the peasantry (sometimes for good reason from their pov). This has been transmitted to America via Jewish domination of entertainment, media, and popular culture. The irony of it all is that aside from Catholic and Orthodox Slavs, the Anglo-Celtic-Germanic working classes and peasantry he despises are the most philosemitic segment of the American population, especially the ‘rural white trash’ our friend wants to see dying in dumpsters or replaced by Asians or something.
I am thoroughly confused. This reads just as insanely as a fascist I was reading last week. I don’t understand what you want, or who the enemy is, or what sort of future you envision.
Calling me insane and comparing me to a fascist is not a great way to create understanding. I've written hundreds of articles which you can read for clarification:
https://deepleft.substack.com/p/who-am-i
https://deepleft.substack.com/p/why-im-on-the-left
https://deepleft.substack.com/p/why-im-not-a-centrist
I assume you are having an emotional reaction regarding your moral suspicions of my dark and evil ways, and this is clouding your rational ability to read my arguments and judge them with intelligence. If you are genuinely interested in promoting understanding, and can't figure me out by reading my hundred articles, I will invite you on my podcast to interview me and ask me questions. Up to you whether you're interested in dialogue or fear.
We’ll see.
lol
Entangling alliances was what George Washington warned against in his farewell address. There is a deep strain of non-interventionism and dislike of rootless cosmopolitan ‘empires’ throughout American history. Lincoln and many others opposed The Mexican Empire. Were your ancestors here at that time?
Irish Catholic lecturing me on "fake Americans" lol
Ooofff burn
Half-Irish, half-German. Are you a mischling or full-blooded Hebrew? What do you do for a living? Do you work?
Every political suggestion you provided is rooted in nationalism.I doubt any democrat coalition is gonna agree with any of those.Those are pretty similar with many 'far righr' european movements-emphasis on national pride/socialist ecomomic policies/strong military and populist low energy costs.In fact anyone on the left wouldd call you a white supremacist for anything besides free college for any of those
Put a space after each period. Not putting a space after your periods makes you look schizophrenic.
I kekked, but most of what you say about neo-conservatives is not true. It's more accurate than the way your critics use the term, but it's not accurate.
@nonzionism: You could try to explain at least one way in which I'm inaccurate
Neoconservatism refers to (a) a group of Jewish liberal and (some, this is usually exaggerated) Trotskyite intellectuals who got sick of black crime and social dysfunction in late 60s and 70s and (b) students of Leo Strauss. They were pro New Deal, pro Civil Rights and anti Great Society. One popular definition was 'a liberal who was mugged by reality' another being 'a conservative who a liberal would be happy to invite to a dinner party'. Because of their ability to write in whole paragraphs and use social science, neoconservatives quickly became intellectually dominant in the GOP well beyond their numbers.
They favoured a strong policy against the Soviet Union because (a) the Soviet Union was bad and (b) they saw foreign conflict as a way of creating a national ethos that could ameliorate the problems of modernity (like you, in a way). Their attitude to Israel was chiefly informed by their view of it as an anti-Soviet bulwark, though obviously not without a degree of ethnic favouritism.
After the end of the Cold War, neocons looked for a new struggle that could recreate the spirit of FDR America they sought. For various reasons, lobbying by certain Israeli factions being one of them, they converged on a plan to democratise the Middle East. Unfortunately, this plan was retarded. There are various reasons for this, but the chief one, in my view, is that each generation of Neocons got progressively dumber through nepotism. In Israeli politics, their chief allies are people like Natan Sharansky, not theocrats, as you allege.
Because neocons are basically urbane conservatives who favour a strong foreign policy, they reacted with hostility to Trump. Most did not vote for him, though some did. Some warmed to him afterwards somewhat because he was more interventionist than they thought he would be, but also because he was quite a good president, all told. Around half appear to be planning on voting for Harris this time around.
JD Vance and Trump are not 'The biggest neoconservatives in the world'. This is simply nonsense and you should be embarrassed to have written it.
This seems like semantic nitpicking. Neoconservatism is an evolving movement and Trump and Vance perfectly fit the bill. I'm not saying that any political faction (Democrats, Republicans) is exactly the same as it was in the past -- if you're going to hold me to that standard, we can't use words like "liberal" or "conservative" at all because the definition keeps changing. A neocon in 2024 wants war with Iran and ignores Ukraine; neolibs are the opposite.
It is absolutely not semantic nitpicking. If I google 'list of neoconservatives' I get Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Ken Adelman, Richard Armitage, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, John Podhoretz. All of these people are still alive and kicking and I don't think even one of them takes the positions you ascribe to neoconservatism.
Neither Trump nor Vance have ever described themselves as neocons and when I google 'JD Vance neocons' I get a bunch of hits like 'Neocons are melting down over JD Vance'.
I retract my original comment. Your use of the word neocon appears to be even less accurate than that of your critics. I don't know why you didn't just write 'I can define the word neocon to mean anything I want and therefore I am not a neocon by my definition'.
I assume this comment is referring to the early Neo-conservatives. The ones who foundes the movement were born in Brooklyn during the 1920's and were quite a bit different from Mike Pompeo in their outlook.