Haitham, Thomas and all others: Have you heard about the “Crazy Ramadi” rap video done by two US soldiers? This is a perfect example of my country’s insensitivity and utter lack of respect for Iraqi lives. Here it is http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1979301 Enjoy the SICK music of my fellow country men

I read the PNAC nonsense several years ago. It did not trigger my resentment of the Bush and the US government, it only made it much stronger than it already was.

What those guys are promoting is some seriously sick shit; not much different from the sick shit in Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”.

When I Scroogled for the study/article about fascism for Philip I tripped over this site: http://www.oldamericancentury.org/ that you may find interesting. I just found it, so I cannot rate its reliability and whether it is objective or biased.

“…then you really shouldn?t call me one [neocon]! I am a far cry from wealthy and barely even middle class!”

This is difficult to answer without sounding condescending, but I rather be honest than polite :)

The main goal of propaganda is to generate support for a cause among people (the subjects of a state). Several means of communication are applicable, but propaganda is the number one tool of preference if the cause being promoted is not in the best interest of the people, very controversial, or in direct conflict with the prevailing ethics of the people.

“Lindbergh?s use of the term liberal is the more contemporary term.”

I am conservative, but NOT in the political sense. I believe that the best way to communicate is when both sides speak the same language. That is why I am reluctant to accept any form of Newspeak or ‘localized’ modification of terminology. In the game of manipulation, the best way to make people reject an idea or a concept is not to forbid it, but to promote that the idea or concept means something that is undesirable and completely opposite of what it has always meant!

If I was an oppressive government and I wanted to shut up all the people talking about human rights, then I would not directly admit that “I do not recognize human rights”, but I would promote that “human rights is unpatriotic nonsense designed to make our country volnerable to attacks from those who seek to destroy us”. “unpatriotic” is already recognized as ‘undesirable’, it is also ‘undesirable’ to be “volnerable”, and nobody wants to support somebody who is a threat to “us” which is the concept of everything that should be ‘desireable’.

This kind of psychological manipulation is so transparent when you know what to look for. Why do you think that I do not buy into that the Bush is promoting ‘freedom’? ‘Freedom’ should be something good for everybody, shouldn’t it?

“The idea of removing a ?progressive? tax is not to help the wealthy, but to male taxation fair and not punitive.”

I agree with you fully. Personally, I am in favor of a flat tax rate and a reasonable non-taxable base amount to benefit those on the lowest salaries. However, I was not talking about the domestic policies of the USA in general as they are none of my business.

The only US policies, regardless of whether they are domestic or foreign policy, that are my business are those that are likely to have an affect on me – either directly or indirectly. If the Bush wants to prohibit two-piece swimsuits in the USA that is none of my business, but if he wants to invade yet another country and further destabilize the world then it is my business, because I live in the world and my life and the situation in my country is influenced by what happens in the world.

“But using nationalism and neoconservatism as synonyms ? frankly, it?s more than a little silly.”

I did not say that neoconservatism is equal to nationalism, but that it is somewhere between nationalism and fascism ;)

Why? Because http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm you are not fully there yet, but pretty damn close!

Thanks for the Lindberg link. I have had a blast with it ;)

The definition of liberalism that Lindberg discusses differs greatly from the international (or at least European) definition of liberalism. His explanation of liberalism as a political ideology matches the social-democratic approach, which is considered a socialist idelogy outside the USA rather than a liberal ideology. It seems to me that Lindberg is confusing economic equality (policy of forced/un-free redistribution of wealth) with personal equality (equal accept of personal freedom for all). I cannot recognize his description of neo-conservatives either as he is positioning them somewhere between liberals and conservatives, but his description of their ideas and their political actions place them further out on the far right wing.

From my knowledge of political ideologies, a rough comparison between the European and Lindberg politics would be something like:

Communists
Marxists
Socialists
Social-Democrats (Lindberg Liberals?)
—Centre—
Social-Liberals (US-Democrats)
Liberals
(Lindberg Neo-Conservatives?)
Conservatives (US-Republicans)
Nationalists
(US-Neo-Conservatives)

In European terms the different political ideologies follow three socio-economic trends: Egalitarian (Marxist, Socialist, and Social-Democratic ideologies), Libertarian (Social-liberal and Liberal ideologies), and Elitarian (Communist, Conservative and Nationalistic ideologies).

Strictly speaking, liberalism is not an ideology in its pure form, but rather a principle (everybody has the right to do what they desire as long as it does not infringe on the same right of others) – no more, no less.

The so-called liberal ideologies are all ‘polluted’ with either socialism or conservatism to some degree. Socialism and conservatism are ideological approaches to distribution of power and wealth in society (either workers or capitalists exert power over the other group). Both are incompatible with the prinicple of liberalism, which has no social conscience or democratic ideal as such.

Lindberg seems to have missed that, in terms of economic policy, liberalism (as ideology) goes hand-in-hand with the theory of free markets, which does not argue for intervention in supply and demand. Market intervention as promoted by Keynes is followed the most strictly by socialist influenced governments rather than conservative governments which tend to be more radical liberals in terms of market economy (capitalism). Arguing for a strong military and foreign intervention (neocon policy) is contrary to liberal ideology supporting a strong defense only! In terms of religion, both conservatives and neo-conservatives are placing way too much attention on religion in order to be considered liberal ideology which treats religion as a strictly personal issue!

Actually, it was by mistake that I called neocons for neo-liberals, because the ‘neo’ in Neo-Conservatism is that it is a new hybrid of conservative ideology based on forcefully spreading the conservative concept of freedom (the freedom of the wealthy to accumulate more wealth in order to exert more power over those with less wealth) outside national borders (the political borders of a democracy). When neoconners talk about spreading freedom they do not talk about libertarian freedom, but about their own elitarian freedom to exert their power over others.

The neoconners will often quote the ‘survival of the fittest’ concept, but in their terms it does not mean that the one who is the most intelligent and work the hardest will be the ‘survivor’ but rather that it is the one who has access to wealth and power from parents or friends. In the midieval times it was the aristocracy who was fit for survival, in the neo-midieval times it is the neocons who are the most fit for survival. Both aristocrats and neocons are born or espoused into wealth and power, so things have not really changed that much.

Sorry for bringing up so many issues.

I am not sure you are right about ‘the comodity’ that you claim FARC has to sell. As far as my understanding, FARC is not involved in drug traficing per se, but get their funding by extorting money from legitimate and especially illegitimate (read coca growers) as ‘protection money’. Naturally, this does not vindicate FARC as they remain a terrorist organization.

I am not sure I completely follow you on your claim that Chavez has been trying to disintegrate anything in Colombia either. In the begining of last year, the Colombian government sent military forces into Venezuela where they ‘arrested’ a FARC leader and ‘transferred’ him to Columbia. I use brackets, because it was a clear violation of Venezuelan sovereignty by Colombian military, so they had no jurisdiction to make an arrest and, technically, the transfer was an abduction. The Venezuelan Ministry of Interior established that the covert operation involved recruitment and bribery/bribery attempts of Venezuelan military and scurity officers and that high ranking Colombian officials were involved. When Venezuela asked Colombia for an official apology for their violation of Venezuelan sovereignty the Columbians responded in a less than diplomatic manner which led to Venezuela to temporarily pull back their ambassador to Colombia.

Naturally, you would fully support the Colombian actions, because they are being a very good follower of Bush; and what I see as destabilizing actions you see as ligitimate unilateral intervention (as long as it is to the benefit of the Bush or his supporters).

,varo Uribe seems to be the prick in this conflict!

By the way, you know that I have no particular love for Socialists, but I resent un-democratic behavior even more than Socialist behavior. Besides, in third world countries I do see justification for limited amounts of socialism. In both Denmark and Hungary I am very much against socialism because I know that most of the people being supported by the excessive taxation do not really need it. In a country with large very poor parts of the population it is a different matter.

What you think of Chavez is exactly what I think of the Bush!

Or, in simpler terms, I think the guy’s a prick.