Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcos who wrote (122471)	12/29/2003 1:05:10 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Churchill is dead and gone, he saw bolshevism and wrote on it, however we are unable to read his thoughts on the progression from bolsheviks through trotskyists to the current PNAC flavour of neocontrol busheviks. He would have quoted Edmund Burke, or plagiarized this Barking [oops!] bulldog of a thoroughly old fashioned Brit conservative thought: The nature of man is intricate; the objects of society are of the greatest possible complexity; and therefore no simple disposition of direction of power can be suitable either to man's nature or to the quality of his affairs." Now, my friend, let's see your conservative stripes show. vbg.

To: marcos who wrote (122471)	12/30/2003 8:39:19 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

Whatever are you going on about?

To: marcos who wrote (122471)	12/30/2003 9:46:28 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

It occurred to me that you might be passing on misinformation from a piece by Ron Paul that was widely circulated. I copied a response to that piece I made at the time, to post here; Mr. Paul is very ill informed. For one thing, Leo Strauss was not a Trotskyite, and was always considered a conservative thinker. For another, the Machiavelli text favored by the Straussians was "Discourses on Livy", a defense of republican institutions. Most of the early generation of neocons were socialists at some point in their life, but few were Trotskyites. Irving Kristol, one of the few who was, was so for only a couple of years in college, practically. He changed his political opinions after being drafted and serving in the Army, for sure, and spent his entire working life as an anti- Communist. Most of the others were from the anti- Leninist left, that is, supporters of the likes of Norman Thomas, and, by the end of the War, if not before, were part of the Democratic Party. In fact, most of them were against the Wallacites (Henry Wallace) for being blind about the threat of Communism, and supported Harry Truman. Of the younger generation, few of them had any political existence outside of the Democratic Party. Some were leftists, but few were Marxists, and, if Marxists, were revisionists, that is, European style anti- Communist socialists. Some were in the New Left, but few were on the fringe. Some who are called by Paul "neocons" are not at all, such as Rumsfeld, who is a pretty conventional internationalist Republican. Some, like William Kristol, were never really leftists, although their parents may have been at one time. Kristol came out of Harvard under the influence of the Straussians, and was more influenced by Plato and Aristotle than he would ever be by Marx. He is mainly considered a neocon because it is his social milieu, as it were. Paul is a bit of a crank.........