posted on May, 25 2005 @ 02:03 AM
Good summary, koji K.
Originally posted by koji_K
Bush isn't a conservative at all, he's (a monkey who's trained to be) a neo-conservative. The differences are extreme.
The essential difference is that neoconservatism has more in common with a special interest group than a political movement. Their interests are very
I'd like to add one interesting historical tidbit for conspiracy buffs to chew on:
An amazing number of the leading "neo-conservative" writers are former Marxists, mostly of the Trotskyite persuasion.
David Horowitz springs immediately to mind as an example, but there are quite a few others.
It seems that they haven't strayed far from their old beliefs, especially in your points # 1 & #2.
As students of the defunct USSR will recall, Trotsky was the leader of the Red Army during the Russian Civil War following the Bolshevik coup [AKA
"October Revolution.] Until he was squeezed out of the CPSU & the Comintern by Stalin, he was leading the call to use the Red Army to expand the
Revolution to the rest of Europe, and then the world.
Now we have the Neocons, who have the "Red-White-&-Blue" Army to spread their
reign of terror.
Any other thoughts on this parallel?
BTW, this is "on topic" in the sense that we are clarifying the intellectual roots of Neo-Conservativism as opposed to the intellectual roots of
I mean, no one who is conservative in the true sense of the term makes revolutionary crusades a number one foreign policy objective. Or so it has
heretofor been, methinks.
//ed to shorten quote//
[edit on 25-5-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]