Was this person too dumb even for LGF?
LGFers are typical neocon leftists. I wouldn't expect them to engage in any kind of debate. To them moralistic name-calling is a tactic. Truth is of no interest to the Trotskyites at LGF, Pajamas, and the Weekly Standard. They are not interested in facts so why bother with them at all?Brussels Journal comment section moron 'Johnny Canuck'.
21 comments:
Either he's got left and right confused (because apart from that he's not wrong), or MY HEAD A SPLODE.
The paleocons call the neo cons trotskyites
The point remains the same. Johnny Canuck is a moron.
The view that Neoconservative military intervention and the cheerleaders thereof have their roots in the Trotskyite faction or even in the Jacobin movement of the French Revolution is actually fairly common on the paleo right.
A Jacobin in Chief
Exporting the French Revolution to the world
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_04_11/article2.html
THE NEO-JACOBINS
Why the neocons abhor the spotlight
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j100103.html
Neo-Jacobins Push For World War IV by Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts8.html
Trotsky, Strauss, and the Neocons, by Justin Raimondo
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j061303.html
If that makes me a "moron," so be it - I call it intellectual honesty.
Those genocidalist dickwads at LGF ARE Trotskyites, M.J.
Read the articles linked by Skeptic instead of brushing them off.
From Memoirs of a Trotskyist by Irving Kristol
http://www.pbs.org/arguing/nyintellectuals_krystol_2.html
See also: The Neoconservative Persuasion, by Irving Kristol
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3000&R=785F27881
More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:
They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity.
They express no opposition to the welfare state.
They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.
They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.
Read the articles linked by Skeptic instead of brushing them off.
I read them and you know what? They're a bunch of horseshit. It's the sound of desperate anti-war rightwingers frantically trying to pass the neo-cons of as lefties.
For example, the day I take Lew Rockwell's negatavist Libertarian propaganda seriously is the day I sit down for a chat with a psychotherapist.
LGF'ers are Trotskyites in the same way Ron Paul is likely to be President.
I gather that this is a common theme on the Libertarian right - somehow, some filthy Marxist strain has gotten into their beloved conservatism and perverted it.
"I read them and you know what? They're a bunch of horseshit. It's the sound of desperate anti-war rightwingers frantically trying to pass the neo-cons of as lefties."
I am sorry to see that you view truth as horseshit
I notice you have not given me any actual counter-argument to the necons not being trotskyites. Thats most likely because you can't
Actually MJ is right, per Irving Kristol, Neoconservatives are not Trotskyites but Trotskyists.
It is interesting to note however that MJ will not actually engage in a reasoned and polite point of disagreement with a blog reader who probably agrees with 99% of the other observations made on LGFWatch, but instead immediately descends to foul language and childish rage over this one rather esoteric and arcane terminological quibble.
Kind of ironic in light of "Johhny Canuck's" original point about LGFers:
"I wouldn't expect them to engage in any kind of debate. To them moralistic name-calling is a tactic."
Hmmm....
Why would I want to argue with someone who sees that blatant propaganda as 'Truth'?
Are there two (2) Irving Kristols, MJ?
If you have evidence of some sort of rift in the fabric of spacetime, or perhaps a secret government cloning program, then please do share.
Once again M.J. avoids giving any actual evidence and goes straight to name calling and avoiding the issue completely.
Just like the lizards....
Nice to see LGFW is having the same trouble with the idiotic libertarian loony party that LGF had.
If there's one thing that brings people together it's laughing and pitying them and their bizarre politics.
Say hello to your fellow travellers at Stormfront Skeptic.
"the idiotic libertarian loony party..."
Oh no, God forbid we live in a world without war, without government spying on us, and where we are judged on our individual merits instead of based on our race or what social class we were born into
The horror! THE HORROR!
Nice to see LGFW is having the same trouble with the idiotic libertarian loony party that LGF had.
If there's one thing that brings people together it's laughing and pitying them and their bizarre politics.
Say hello to your fellow travellers at Stormfront Skeptic.
************
Again, this simply reinforces the original point.
An adult with even the barest grasp of European history or political theory would make some sort of reasoned counterpoint, e.g:
"While the neoconservative commitment to international democratic revolution may bear certain superficial resemblances to the Jacobin program, this analogy is in error, because..."
Or whatever.
I could be a libertarian. Or I could be a paleoconservative. Or a constitutionalist, Or whatever. I might be Canadian for all you know.
Hell, you have no idea what I am at all because I haven't said, and this is (after all) a blog.
I have observed the specious argument made above many times, actually, in my journeys around some of the more intellectually challenged corners of the internet and it rarely varies - goes something like this:
A. Muslims are like Nazis
B. Therefor the Iraq War is the "moral equivalent" of WWII.
C. Therefore anyone who opposes the neoconservative program of unconstitutional military adventurism and its attendant civil rights abuses and grotesque squandering of life and capital is ipso facto a Nazi!
Suffice it to say that I do not find this argument compelling in the least and do find its proponents somewhat childish and unreflective.
And FWIW I am hardly more impressed by the original poster "mj."
MetaFilter v LGF! FIGHT!
http://metatalk.metafilter.com/16261/Mission-Accomplished
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29993_Metafilter_Doesnt_Heart_LGF
Whoa, that comment is so typical of the comments sections over at Gates of Vienna (note that that blog was mentioned in the BJ comment) that it didn't even strike me as the least bit off. Not for that crowd. Of course, when you're falling off the far-right cliff anything's left-wing.
But then that's why these guys are so much fun, eh?
Whoever is in charge of LGF watch needs to jettison this "M.J." and soon. Rational thought and reasonable discussion are clearly beyond its abilities and it's dragging down your blog.
I for one are very satisfied with MJ as a contributor to this blog (who has been here much longer than I have). But throwing in some extremely strange claims that are just wrong from the ground up and accusing the other party of not responding aptly is just silly.
If I told you I had all evidence in the world that you must be a giraffe, then attacked you for calling me an idiot, you'd be shaking your head in disbelief as well.
As Edward Abbey once wrote: "Our "neoconservatives" are neither new nor conservative, but old as Babylon and evil as Hell."
Post a Comment