Lew Rockwell's powerful peace manifesto Ron Paul's Institute for Peace and Prosperity

[randpaul2016]

Another Nail in the Neocon Coffin

http://lewrockwell.com/rockwell/manifesto-for-peace212.html

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Nice! This part is VERY important (take it to heart, y'all)-
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif](4) Never use "we" when speaking of the government.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The people and the warmakers are two distinct groups. We must never say "we" when discussing the US government’s foreign policy. For one thing, the warmakers do not care about the opinions of the majority of Americans. It is silly and embarrassing for Americans to speak of "we" when discussing their government’s foreign policy, as if their input were necessary to or desired by those who make war.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But it is also wrong, not to mention mischievous. When people identify themselves so closely with their government, they perceive attacks on their government’s foreign policy as attacks on themselves. It then becomes all the more difficult to reason with them – why, you’re insulting my foreign policy![/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Likewise, the use of "we" feeds into war fever. "We" have to get "them." People root for their governments as they would for a football team. And since we know ourselves to be decent and good, "they" can only be monstrous and evil, and deserving of whatever righteous justice "we" dispense to them.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The antiwar left falls into this error just as often. They appeal to Americans with a catalogue of horrific crimes "we" have committed. But we haven’t committed those crimes. The same sociopaths who victimize Americans themselves every day, and over whom we have no real control, committed those crimes.[/FONT]

 

[sailingaway]

this is good, but I really wish they would quit slinging 'neocon' around. It turns off so many people. Even 'neoconservative' seems more of a term of art, to those who aren't familiar with the distinction. The right was demonized as 'neocons' so long, even the bulk who weren't, that they just see that as an 'insult from the other side.' I think they should define 'neoconservative' and have the definition as a link on the Institute front page, personally.

 

[Lucille]

this is good, but I really wish they would quit slinging 'neocon' around. It turns off so many people. Even 'neoconservative' seems more of a term of art, to those who aren't familiar with the distinction. The right was demonized as 'neocons' so long, even the bulk who weren't, that they just see that as an 'insult from the other side.' I think they should define 'neoconservative' and have the definition as a link on the Institute front page, personally.

That's a great idea.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

That's a great idea.

I agree. The semantic shift in recent decades seems to have caused confusion among the booboisie as to what "neocon" means and its etymology. I once heard someone on the radio say that it's an anti-semitic slur.

 

[supermario21]

I think something like "an overly interventionist foreign policy bolstered by excessive levels of military spending" would be a better way to characterize neocons, that'll help with the average base folks as well.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Nice! This part is VERY important (take it to heart, y'all)-
(4) Never use "we" when speaking of the government.
The people and the warmakers are two distinct groups. We must never say "we" when discussing the US government’s foreign policy. For one thing, the warmakers do not care about the opinions of the majority of Americans. It is silly and embarrassing for Americans to speak of "we" when discussing their government’s foreign policy, as if their input were necessary to or desired by those who make war.
But it is also wrong, not to mention mischievous. When people identify themselves so closely with their government, they perceive attacks on their government’s foreign policy as attacks on themselves. It then becomes all the more difficult to reason with them – why, you’re insulting my foreign policy!
Likewise, the use of "we" feeds into war fever. "We" have to get "them." People root for their governments as they would for a football team. And since we know ourselves to be decent and good, "they" can only be monstrous and evil, and deserving of whatever righteous justice "we" dispense to them.
The antiwar left falls into this error just as often. They appeal to Americans with a catalogue of horrific crimes "we" have committed. But we haven’t committed those crimes. The same sociopaths who victimize Americans themselves every day, and over whom we have no real control, committed those crimes.

I admit I make this mistake... To be technical, don't the people who vote these fools into power bear some responsbility? (Admittedly, this includes a lot of my own family.)

I think something like "an overly interventionist foreign policy bolstered by excessive levels of military spending" would be a better way to characterize neocons, that'll help with the average base folks as well.

Yeah, that's about it, although "Overly interventionist" and "Excessive" are up for debate. By anarcho-capitalist definitions, even minarchists would be neocons under those definitions

 

[sailingaway]

I think something like "an overly interventionist foreign policy bolstered by excessive levels of military spending" would be a better way to characterize neocons, that'll help with the average base folks as well.

but that isn't it either.

they are a big government group that believes in the Nobel Lie to achieve their ends by activating masses using evangelical or security arguments, but they themselves are about power.