Posted on 06/26/2011 11:16:48 AM PDT by Publius804
My father suggested to me recently that it might be helpful to better explain what the term “neoconservative” means. “A lot of people don’t know,” he said. As usual, Dad was right. Though decades old, the mainstream use of the word neoconservative is relatively new. I mentally filed away my father’s suggestion agreeing that a layman’s explanation of “neoconservative” might be helpful when the time was right. The time is right—as the American intervention in Libya has drawn a clearer line between neoconservatives and conventional Republicans than any event in recent memory.
The “neocons” believe American greatness is measured by our willingness to be a great power—through vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement. Other nations’ problems invariably become our own because history and fate have designated America the world’s top authority.
Critics say the US cannot afford to be the world’s policeman. Neoconservatives not only say that we can but we must—and that we will cease to be America if we don’t. Writes Boston Globe neoconservative columnist Jeff Jacoby: “Our world needs a policeman. And whether most Americans like it or not, only their indispensable nation is fit for the job.” Neocon intellectual Max Boot says explicitly that the US should be the world’s policeman because we are the best policeman.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) heartily champions the neoconservative view. While virtually every other recognizably Tea Party congressman or senator opposes the Libyan intervention, Rubio believes the world’s top cop should be flashing its Sherriff’s badge more forcefully in Libya—and everywhere else. New York Times columnist Ross Douthat explains:
“Rubio is the great neoconservative hope, the champion of a foreign policy that boldly goes abroad in search of monsters to destroy.
(Excerpt) Read more at southernavenger.com ...
Now I’m really not sure what a neo-con is!
It can become short, nasty and brutish PDQ.
They lost their own military caste sometime in the 2nd Century AD, and didn't begin to recover from that problem until the 18th Century AD when the King of France granted Jews the "right to keep and bear arms".
BTW, that right carried with it the privilege of defending one's self in court! It's not just about carrying firearms and swords! Plus, you could enlist in the French army. The first well known use of Jews in combat occurred on the Plains of Abraham where the White Coats encountered the invading Brits.
It's an interesting dichotomy. The Jews returned as a people in every sense that counts by first defending America. There are Americans who are not Jews who believe we have a moral responsibility to defend Israel.
I once saw a person at a straw poll holding a Ron Paul sign screaming about how anyone who didn’t support Ron Paul in that straw poll was a “Trotskyite Neocon”.
So, I guess if this person is to be believed, Neocons are the Trotskyite wing of the GOP.
It can become short, nasty and brutish PDQ.
They lost their own military caste sometime in the 2nd Century AD, and didn't begin to recover from that problem until the 18th Century AD when the King of France granted Jews the "right to keep and bear arms".
BTW, that right carried with it the privilege of defending one's self in court! It's not just about carrying firearms and swords! Plus, you could enlist in the French army. The first well known use of Jews in combat occurred on the Plains of Abraham where the White Coats encountered the invading Brits.
It's an interesting dichotomy. The Jews returned as a people in every sense that counts by first defending America. There are Americans who are not Jews who believe we have a moral responsibility to defend Israel.
Simple. “Neocon” is Libspeak for “Jooooooo!” Specifically, a Joooooo who believes that Israel has the right to defend itself militarily.
bfl
The term has lost all relevance, it is used against everyone who isn’t a Ron Paulite. Hell, I even saw some Paultards calling Obama a NeoCon in one article and Ronald Reagan a NeoCon in another article- all by the same author.
BlackElk has the best, most complete history of the real Neo-Cons. Pinging.
The end result is that we end up being the "global policeman," but we only act on behalf of those foreign interests who have the means to purchase our military service.
I mean, is there any question anymore about why this kind of sh!t has been tolerated here in the U.S.?
Who knew that the liberals who support Obastard's Libyan war were neocons?
In my mind a neo-con is a temporary conservative, usually a Jewish-liberal, who promotes war in the middle east under a republican president, who then disappears from public view while the administration gets hammered from the left for starting a war.
Daddy Bush and Junior either both fell for them, or used them.
Another FReeper, I can’t recall who, stated that “neocons are warmongering socialists”. A little simplistic, but not far from the truth.
“Neoconservative” is a bit of a misnomer, really. They’re not conservatives at all. They are nearly diametrically opposed to Goldwater limited-government conservatism. Another good euphemism for ‘neocon’ would be ‘big-government republican’.
The original neocons were disaffected democrats who embraced democrat domestic policy, but did not care for the 60’s counter-culture and anti-war protests.
Trademark neocon positions are open-borders internationalism, free trade absolutism, military interventionism a la ‘nation building’, and Keynesian economic policies.
Alternatively, some believe the original neocons were members of the early-20th century Fabian Socialist movement and their real aim was to infiltrate the ranks of the Republican party and move it leftward from within to remove the only viable internal opposition to the socialization of the US economy and destruction of US economic hegemony.
My point was that the Left will call ANY true conservative a “neoconservative” nowadays, emptying it of all meaning. They’re expert at destroying language, as well as everything else.
That is certainly more rationally based position than to believe that "neocons" (a non-existent critter as created by the Nation, the New Republic, Demonrat agitprop meisters and paleoPaulie) "are warmongering socialists."
If being a "big government" Republican or "neocon" means putting an end by federal means to the federal SCOTUS hallucinated right to slaughter 50+ million babies and counting, if it means protecting the institution of marriage (federally if necessary) from the depredations of perverts who want to claim "equal rights" at the expense of normal American taxpayers, if it means maintaining a military far more powerful than any imaginable enemy and using it whenever desirable to kill the enemies of this nation and civilization and break their things (NOT nation building) and making the defeated enemy pay every nickel incurred out of what will be a Stone Age economy, then.... I am certainly what you wrongly describe as a "neocon." We call it being actual conservatives. We do not hallucinate as do the paleowhatevers that Robert Taft was a peacecreep after Pearl Harbor or that Ronald Reagan would tolerate Paulistinian imbecility and call it conservative. The paleos are bad plants without roots.
Goldwater (with a big assist from JFK and LBJ) made me a Republican but also note that his absolute rejection of morality in domestic policy, his cheerleading for abortion and homosexual perversion, his disloyalty to Ronaldus Maximus, his first wife's 35 year service until her death as a corporate director of Planned Barrenhood (the "legalized" Murder, Inc. of our era). His failure to return Reagan's support from 1964 and his support of Ford over Reagan complete with Barry Goldwater cutting an ad asking California primary voters whether they wanted Reagan near the nuclear weapons trigger, settled for me Goldwater's absolute lack of character and dishonesty. There is plenty of reason for the fact that antimorality of Goldwaterism is as dead as Goldwater or as the proverbial doornail in the GOP.
I will further address the meaning of the term neocon in a separate post upon mnehring's request.
The original Neocons" (i.e. the ONLY neocons) are mostly dead now. The survivors are in their eighties and nineties and probably won't be with us for much longer. This is not a good thing for America. The dead include, most importantly Ronald Wilson Reagan, the greatest POTUS we are ever likely to see; Daniel Patrick Moynihan (admittedly liberal but very useful in foreign policy as UN Ambassador and militant defender of the West). He was a native of Hell's Kitchen in New York like Jimmy Cagney and had a similarly pugnacious attitude. Cagney played less of a direct role in politics but left his estate to Young Americans for Freedom as did the New Dealer son of Thomas Edison, New Jersey Governor Charles Edison. These guys moved to the Republican side and Moynihan to the American side because of the war of ideas between Marxism/Leninism and Western Civilization and because they had functioning brain cells unlike Goldwater who became a Republican for business reasons when he lost a coin toss to his brother Bob. For totally non-military effort, read Moynihan's Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding about internal warfare on the left to resist communists who ultimately took control of NYC anti-poverty programs and used that control to supersede the conservatively inclined Tammany Hall in the days when several old Irish NYC Congressmen/Tammany Sachems and bosses like Delaney of Queens had 90% conservative voting records in Congress.
Also among the dead (I believe) are Walt Whitman Rostow who said of the Vietnamese population caught in the war: Grab them by the short hairs and their hearts and minds will follow. Also, his brother Eugene Rostow, and Sidney Hook (died an atheist and a socialist but a militant American and defender of academic freedom for conservatives); Irving Kristol (who wrote Two Cheers for Capitalism after rejecting socialism whatever the paleowhatevers may hallucinate); Yale Law Professor Alexander Bickel; and roughly nine of the founding ten editors of National Review WFB excepted: James Burnham; Will Herberg; John Chamberlain; Max Eastman Who one hundred years ago was a nudist which did not make NR a nudist magazine); Yale Professor Wilmoore Kendall and other people far more distinguished as thinkers than the lightweight likes of Goldwater or paleoPaulie; Jeanne Kirkpatrick was Reagan's UN Ambassador and a brilliant convert (with some weakness toward "legalized" abortion). She brilliantly tagged the Demonrats as "San Francisco Democrats" which easily translated to anti-American in foreign policy because "they always blame America first." She probably never met paleoPaulie. Reagan scrupulously kept most paleos out of his administration. They figured that out in about 1986 at a Mont Pelerin conference and invented themselves with hilarious claims of being the heirs of conservatism.
The living (I believe) include Judge Robert Bork; Gertrude Himmelfarb; Norman Podhoretz (brilliant editor of Commentary who moved it sharply rightward); Midge Decter who wrote much including a great book about red diaper babies _________Parents, Radical Children; Donald Kagan, former Dean of Yale College and a brilliant historian.
The original "NeoCons" had been socialists and even Trotskyites during the Depression as college students. They knew far better than Goldwater that the Democrat Party was seized by outright communists under McGovern in 1972. Most of them then moved to the GOP in intellectual defense of the West. If they hadn't, the likes of Nixon, Ford, Kissinger, James Baker, Howard Baker and other establishmentarian opportunists would have, as Lenin predicted, been happy to sell the rope by which we and they would be hanged by the soviets. Ford actually disgraced America and the GOP when he would not meet with Solzhenitsyn because it might offend his soviet buddies and yakathonpartners.
If it is a bad idea for distinguished Democrat intellectuals to convert to conservatism over foreign policy, would you also tell Ronaldus Maximus to go back to the Demonrats??? Many make mistakes in youth. I was once a Libertarian state party officer and then I grew up.
I personally do not obsess over keeping Mexicans out of the US does but most actual conservatives are certainly not describable as "Open Borders" types, nor as "internationalists" but as interventionists (wherever and whenever we please and not at all if we so please without a by-your-leave to the UN or NATO or any other nation).
One is compelled to observe that, although you personally may be utterly innocent of it, there certainly is a subtheme of antiSemitism among the paleos who have a notable hatred of our support for our ally Israel and who often (again not you) use "neoCon" as a sly synonym for Jew (I am Catholic) and who want to cuddle and smooch our Islamofascist enemies.
Antiwar protests and "counterculture protests," not only in the Sixties but ever after, are the right of each citizen here but also inevitably disgraceful behavior, however legal. Participants ought to be shunned until they repent individually. Rump-ranging does not equate to marriage. Nor does infant slaughter constitute an exercise in "reproductive rights." Next up: "marital" threesomes, foursomes and infinitysomes, "marriage" to household pets and space aliens or to trees and other vegetables. Equality is only right don'tcha know?
If "free trade absolutism" is not a hallmark of libertoonianism, what is??? Again, you are confusing various movements and their attributes. George Meany and the AFL-CIO of his era was much more opposed to "free trade" and to free immigration for that matter. "Military interventionism" and "nation building" are clean different things like filet mignon and strawberry shortcake. We can and ought to have military intervention when we please. We ought to bill the beneficiaries every nickel expended not waste resources on international socialist nation building. Keynes WAS a socialist and actual conservatives are not. Read Road to Serfdom by von Hayek, anything by von Mises, and most of Milton Friedman. Also use less powerful drugs to alter your consciousness and contact with reality and history less.
For a history of Fabian Socialism that is more accurate than your own, read Phil Crane's Democrat's Dilemma. The origin was Boston's Peck's Restaurant Group (mostly Harvard leftists) which met every Sunday afternoon and included FDR, Jack London (its president until he died young), Walter Lippman, many senators, writers and judges. They were not good news for America and they were certainly not "neocons."
Allegra: I think allegra can provide additional material that is beyond my technological capabilities in my advancing age.
That is certainly more rationally based position than to believe that "neocons" (a non-existent critter as created by the Nation, the New Republic, Demonrat agitprop meisters and paleoPaulie) "are warmongering socialists."
If being a "big government" Republican or "neocon" means putting an end by federal means to the federal SCOTUS hallucinated right to slaughter 50+ million babies and counting, if it means protecting the institution of marriage (federally if necessary) from the depredations of perverts who want to claim "equal rights" at the expense of normal American taxpayers, if it means maintaining a military far more powerful than any imaginable enemy and using it whenever desirable to kill the enemies of this nation and civilization and break their things (NOT nation building) and making the defeated enemy pay every nickel incurred out of what will be a Stone Age economy, then.... I am certainly what you wrongly describe as a "neocon." We call it being actual conservatives. We do not hallucinate as do the paleowhatevers that Robert Taft was a peacecreep after Pearl Harbor or that Ronald Reagan would tolerate Paulistinian imbecility and call it conservative. The paleos are bad plants without roots.
Goldwater (with a big assist from JFK and LBJ) made me a Republican but also note that his absolute rejection of morality in domestic policy, his cheerleading for abortion and homosexual perversion, his disloyalty to Ronaldus Maximus, his first wife's 35 year service until her death as a corporate director of Planned Barrenhood (the "legalized" Murder, Inc. of our era). His failure to return Reagan's support from 1964 and his support of Ford over Reagan complete with Barry Goldwater cutting an ad asking California primary voters whether they wanted Reagan near the nuclear weapons trigger, settled for me Goldwater's absolute lack of character and dishonesty. There is plenty of reason for the fact that antimorality of Goldwaterism is as dead as Goldwater or as the proverbial doornail in the GOP.
I will further address the meaning of the term neocon in a separate post upon mnehring's request.
The original Neocons" (i.e. the ONLY neocons) are mostly dead now. The survivors are in their eighties and nineties and probably won't be with us for much longer. This is not a good thing for America. The dead include, most importantly Ronald Wilson Reagan, the greatest POTUS we are ever likely to see; Daniel Patrick Moynihan (admittedly liberal but very useful in foreign policy as UN Ambassador and militant defender of the West). He was a native of Hell's Kitchen in New York like Jimmy Cagney and had a similarly pugnacious attitude. Cagney played less of a direct role in politics but left his estate to Young Americans for Freedom as did the New Dealer son of Thomas Edison, New Jersey Governor Charles Edison. These guys moved to the Republican side and Moynihan to the American side because of the war of ideas between Marxism/Leninism and Western Civilization and because they had functioning brain cells unlike Goldwater who became a Republican for business reasons when he lost a coin toss to his brother Bob. For totally non-military effort, read Moynihan's Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding about internal warfare on the left to resist communists who ultimately took control of NYC anti-poverty programs and used that control to supersede the conservatively inclined Tammany Hall in the days when several old Irish NYC Congressmen/Tammany Sachems and bosses like Delaney of Queens had 90% conservative voting records in Congress.
Also among the dead (I believe) are Walt Whitman Rostow who said of the Vietnamese population caught in the war: Grab them by the short hairs and their hearts and minds will follow. Also, his brother Eugene Rostow, and Sidney Hook (died an atheist and a socialist but a militant American and defender of academic freedom for conservatives); Irving Kristol (who wrote Two Cheers for Capitalism after rejecting socialism whatever the paleowhatevers may hallucinate); Yale Law Professor Alexander Bickel; and roughly nine of the founding ten editors of National Review WFB excepted: James Burnham; Will Herberg; John Chamberlain; Max Eastman Who one hundred years ago was a nudist which did not make NR a nudist magazine); Yale Professor Wilmoore Kendall and other people far more distinguished as thinkers than the lightweight likes of Goldwater or paleoPaulie; Jeanne Kirkpatrick was Reagan's UN Ambassador and a brilliant convert (with some weakness toward "legalized" abortion). She brilliantly tagged the Demonrats as "San Francisco Democrats" which easily translated to anti-American in foreign policy because "they always blame America first." She probably never met paleoPaulie. Reagan scrupulously kept most paleos out of his administration. They figured that out in about 1986 at a Mont Pelerin conference and invented themselves with hilarious claims of being the heirs of conservatism.
The living (I believe) include Judge Robert Bork; Gertrude Himmelfarb; Norman Podhoretz (brilliant editor of Commentary who moved it sharply rightward); Midge Decter who wrote much including a great book about red diaper babies _________Parents, Radical Children; Donald Kagan, former Dean of Yale College and a brilliant historian.
The original "NeoCons" had been socialists and even Trotskyites during the Depression as college students. They knew far better than Goldwater that the Democrat Party was seized by outright communists under McGovern in 1972. Most of them then moved to the GOP in intellectual defense of the West. If they hadn't, the likes of Nixon, Ford, Kissinger, James Baker, Howard Baker and other establishmentarian opportunists would have, as Lenin predicted, been happy to sell the rope by which we and they would be hanged by the soviets. Ford actually disgraced America and the GOP when he would not meet with Solzhenitsyn because it might offend his soviet buddies and yakathonpartners.
If it is a bad idea for distinguished Democrat intellectuals to convert to conservatism over foreign policy, would you also tell Ronaldus Maximus to go back to the Demonrats??? Many make mistakes in youth. I was once a Libertarian state party officer and then I grew up.
I personally do not obsess over keeping Mexicans out of the US does but most actual conservatives are certainly not describable as "Open Borders" types, nor as "internationalists" but as interventionists (wherever and whenever we please and not at all if we so please without a by-your-leave to the UN or NATO or any other nation).
One is compelled to observe that, although you personally may be utterly innocent of it, there certainly is a subtheme of antiSemitism among the paleos who have a notable hatred of our support for our ally Israel and who often (again not you) use "neoCon" as a sly synonym for Jew (I am Catholic) and who want to cuddle and smooch our Islamofascist enemies.
Antiwar protests and "counterculture protests," not only in the Sixties but ever after, are the right of each citizen here but also inevitably disgraceful behavior, however legal. Participants ought to be shunned until they repent individually. Rump-ranging does not equate to marriage. Nor does infant slaughter constitute an exercise in "reproductive rights." Next up: "marital" threesomes, foursomes and infinitysomes, "marriage" to household pets and space aliens or to trees and other vegetables. Equality is only right don'tcha know?
If "free trade absolutism" is not a hallmark of libertoonianism, what is??? Again, you are confusing various movements and their attributes. George Meany and the AFL-CIO of his era was much more opposed to "free trade" and to free immigration for that matter. "Military interventionism" and "nation building" are clean different things like filet mignon and strawberry shortcake. We can and ought to have military intervention when we please. We ought to bill the beneficiaries every nickel expended not waste resources on international socialist nation building. Keynes WAS a socialist and actual conservatives are not. Read Road to Serfdom by von Hayek, anything by von Mises, and most of Milton Friedman. Also use less powerful drugs to alter your consciousness and contact with reality and history less.
For a history of Fabian Socialism that is more accurate than your own, read Phil Crane's Democrat's Dilemma. The origin was Boston's Peck's Restaurant Group (mostly Harvard leftists) which met every Sunday afternoon and included FDR, Jack London (its president until he died young), Walter Lippman, many senators, writers and judges. They were not good news for America and they were certainly not "neocons."
Allegra: I think allegra can provide additional material that is beyond my technological capabilities in my advancing age.
mnehring: did I cover it here? Thanks for your kind words.
Not sure why you pinged me to your rant.
Reagan a neocon? Now I’ve officially heard everything.
Let’s not confuse people who made a genuine conversion to conservatism with the actual neocons who were never more than mildly reformed mensheviks.
Personally am not a peacenik, libertoonian, abortionist, or any of the other invectives you chose to launch.
I believe in ‘peace through superior firepower’. Constant involvement in factional/tribal conflicts in every 3rd world litter can of a country and flushing billions down the tube through ‘nation-building’ is another animal altogether.
I’ve read Hayek, von Mises, Friedman, AND Keynes. Spare me the bibliography.
I was not aware that Goldwater had opposed Reagan’s candidacy. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I’ll have to read up on it when I get a chance.
No dispute here.
In the post to which I am replying here, you have apparently developed a better grasp of what "neocon" means when you reference the actual neocons in your third paragraph. You apparently do not distinguish between libertarianism and conservatism, however, and you are now calling the good actual neocons "mildly reformed Mensheviks." The actual Menshevik leader was Kerensky. I had the privilege of hearing him speak at Yale one night and he spent the entire speech apologizing for his overthrow of the Romanov regime and for being such a dupe of the Bolsheviks who overthrew him soon enough. His behavior in the WWI era was a tragedy but the man sincerely became a voice for freedom trying (in vain) to make up for it.
You will search (if you choose) in vain for so much as one word from me supporting "nation-building." We apparently agree on "peace through superior firepower" as you put it. You would also search in vain for any approval by me of the Obama wars in Libya or Yemen. Europe, if it chooses, should fight its own war in Libya since Libya's oil is sold to them and not to us, because we have no need to shed a drop of blood for the UN or even for NATO and because if the World Criminal Court is indicting Qaddafi, there must be a reason and not a reason in America's interest. Yemen? Yemen??? I don't think so.
I spare no one the bibliography. Try Whittaker Chambers' Witness and James Burnham's Suicide of the West. Though they are about the threat of the soviets to Western Civilization, the same principles apply to the left habit of going on autosmooch for the butts of our (in this case Islamofascist) enemies.
While you are searching Goldwater, look also at his last campaign for the Senate (1980) when he went into the last weekend before the election losing in the polls to some conservative businessman pro-life Democrat (Schmidt?). He was the only incumbent Republican in serous trouble. Mr. Integrity then caved and went to the Arizona Right to Life folks and begged their last minute endorsement to save his bacon. He promised to vote pro-life for the entire term. They endorsed him. He won. He never voted pro-life. After his first post-1980 pro-abort vote (the habit of his lifetime) he told the RTL and the public that when he went to vote pro-life, he was haunted by his dead Planned Barrenhood wife Peggy, would not be running for re-election in 1986 and if the RTLers or others didn't like it, they could kiss his ass.
I would agree that Reagan was not a "neocon." That was my way of saying he certainly never approved of the idiocy known as "paleoconservatism" and, with a notable exception or two, refused to credential the eccentrics who call themselves "paleoconservatives." Pat Buchanan had not yet fallen head over heels for the notion of isolationism and "peace" nor for the notion that we had no business fighting WWII. Ronaldus Maximus was the actually conservative leader without peer. Since you alternate between being accurate on the term "neocon" (parts of the post to which I respond here) and previous erroneous use of the term, one cannot very well fathom your second sentence: "Reagan a neocon? Now I've officially heard everything." which is not meaningful without definition of "neocon" as you use it there. Likewise your use of the word "conservatism" in the third paragraph.
If I am not mistaken, the first neo-cons were in JFK’s cabinet.
In some ways, neo-cons seem simply to be globalists.
US jobs to China. Amnesty. Pretty much RINOs.
“Neoconservative” Republicans and “Progressive” Democrats are different labels for the centrist promoters of global corporatism. Since the time of Theodore Roosevelt these centrists have hijacked both the Democrat, and Republican parties. This is why we find top politicians who are apparently on opposite sides of the political fence, but who have the same corporate elite financial backers. If you want a list of the centrists, then research the Council on Foreign Relations. The centrist globalists are elitists because they believe that they are beyond simplistic terms like “left,” and “right.” They see these terms as useful for public debate only. They believe in creating a dialectic of “left” vs. “right” for the general public while maintaining a central agenda of global corporatism, and Fabian socialism. They introduce a problem, wait for appropriate public reaction, and finally offer the pre-formulated solutions which move the public sentiment closer to their centrist goals. They basically want capitalism for the elite, and socialism for the masses. This is the same type of socialism that was promoted by the National Socialists (and their U.S. backers) in Germany into WW2. The majority of Americans were isolationist (on both the sides of the political “fence”) up until WW2. However, the Fabian Socialist Anglo-American globalist elite had been promoting the idea of an American global police force since at least 1904. This is the year that Theodore Roosevelt introduced the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. The Roosevelt Corollary was an extension of the Monroe Doctrine by United States President Theodore Roosevelt in 1904. “Roosevelt’s extension of the Monroe Doctrine asserted a right of the United States to intervene to “stabilize” the economic affairs of small states in the Caribbean and Central America if they were unable to pay their international debts.” America became the police force for the Anglo American elite international banking, and corporate cartels. We shouldn’t support this agenda because the long-term goal is of benefit to only a small number of top elite.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.