Archive for the 'Neocon Fallacies' Category

Iraq disproved neocon theory its about genes not freedom

November 15, 2008

Neocons under Bush and Wolfowitz and the rest said that are fight was about freedom not genes. They went into Iraq based on their theory. What we found is that it was about genes not just freedom or other abstractions. Bush brought them here and they kill us here. Its about genes. Why does Bush torture them when he brings them here? If its all about freedom as he says, why is he torturing? Because the truth is, its about genes.


The video shows its about genes.
Freedom grows from genes.


re VA on Nationalism and Neocons

October 28, 2007

The is a great article and great discussion going on at Vanishing American on Nationalism and Neocons: 

Comment posted at Vanishing American discussion:

Great article VA and also great discussion.  The neocon philosphy breaks down by ignoring the issue of continuity of self of the West.  After the article linked to by  John Savage, I wrote on traditionalism from an econ perspective, which you were kind enough to comment on VA.  Let me quote from Wiki:

“In the context of behavioral economics, time inconsistency is related to how much each different self of a decision-maker cares about herself and all of the selves that will then follow her, relative to each other.”

Traditionalism is, at least in part, about maintaining continuity of self. Society won’t honor its promises if it is too inconsistent in identity over time. Immigration, especially third world, disrupts the continuity of self of the West.  If there is not ethnic continuity, there can’t be continuity of self.  This is what the neocons don’t recognize for America or Europe.

The trouble with neocons is neocon inconsistency or lack of loyalty to the people, self, of the West.  The neocons don’t identify the people of the West as the self of the West.  They say that explicitly.

As VA points out, the neocons say the West is a proposition nationality or place, not a people.  They identify those who see the West as a people with Hitler as Vanishing American further points out.  The neocons are really opposed to the continuity of the self of the West as a people or ethnicity or nation.

Neocons are against the nation, if the nation means the people.  They are not just universalists, but anti-nationalists.  They are against the survival of the nation, defined as the people.  Thus neocons identify with the barbarians to use a Rome analogy.

For neocons to stop the barbarian invasion is racism and bigotry.  The neocons don’t identify the people of Rome as being Rome or the carrier of the civilization.  Neither did the Roman government.

In this sense, the Romans adopted neoconservatism, and declined and fell.  Neoconservatism can be viewed as the ancient and tried and true method for the suicide of the West. They are now applying it in America, Australia, Canada, and Europe.

Neocons identified with anti-communism, i.e. the opposition to another universalism, as opposed to the defense of the self of the West identified as the people.  Neocons don’t accept a conflict with Islam in some cases, but they definitely don’t oppose immigration from Muslim lands, just some variant of Islam.  As VA points out, the neocons identify more with the immigrant Muslims than the self of the West as the European peoples.

Anti-nationalism can be seen as part of the universalist leftist movements of the 19th century including anarchism.  Anti-nationalism by immigration does lead to anarchy.  The neocons are attempting to replicate 19th century European immigration with third world immigration.  The neocons are still the descendants of the same movement of anarchists and leftists of the 19th century.  They fail to recognize the costs and problems in 19th century immigration.  They then fail to recognize those costs and hurdles are substantially greater for third world immigration.

Difference in IQ is a major factor in that, but it is behavior in general that is different, both in the third world and after they come here.  Difference in IQ was not the problem in the 19th century, making it viable in the end.  But this is not the case with third world immigration.  This means third world immigration must break the self of the West. 

The above is draft and preliminary and subject to substantial revision. These are hypotheses, speculation or opinion. All other disclaimers apply.

%d bloggers like this: