Replies

The main difference between Paleocons and Neocons is that Neocons have evolved to recognize that in a world with ICBMs, Terrorism, etc. that an isolationist National Security policy does not and cannot work.

Neocons are not conservatives. They are the globalists who will move to the left (Democrats) in a blink if it they find it expedient.

That's the bottom line.

Neocons are not conservatives. They are the globalists who will move to the left (Democrats) in a blink if it they find it expedient.

Do you really think it is globalism which motivates them and which might very well cause them to jump left?

"Neocons" ARE the conservatives. We conservatives are NOT globalists. We are INTERVENTIONISTS. We reject the foreign policy and military cowardice and fecklessness of the Neville Chamberlains. I will be a Democrat as soon as Andrew Jackson returns from the grave to run the party. Until then, as a conservative, I will not give aid and comfort to the Demonrats by even staying home much less by voting for Demonrats.

The GOP has a long way to go in the way of improvement but that path lies not in the direction of those who want the USA to fold up and die in foreign affairs, strip our military of the assets needed for effective projection of force in the interests of the USA, nor to imagine that somehow the SCOTUS will be improved in a Demonrat regime just because paleopantywaists were just NOT GETTING their way on some mini-issues or on peace now!!!! and just HAD to throw some mindless temper tantrum over it.

I do read every ping from you. Sometimes you personally make sense. Sometimes not. This post to which I am responding is worst in show. If you think those conservatives who are mislabeled as "neo" (but are the actual conservatives) are globalists who will turn Demonrat in a blink, then you are flat out wrong. If you think that the eccentric bozos at the Rockford Institute or the pacifists at LlewellynRockwell.com all of whom consort with the likes of Justin(e) Raimondo and the late Sam Francis are at all describable as conservative, we differ greatly on the meaning of conservative and history is NOT on your side.

The defense of toxic but colorful little satrapies like Montenegro or Iraq or Iran or whatever for their own sakes is not conservative. Conservatism has evolved (12/7/41 and 9/11/01 for prime reasons why) leaving isolationists where they belong in the dustbin of history.

American conservatives are NOT feckless and helpless Euroweenies. The GOP will NEVER again be some Main Street, backroom, assemblage of old stock coupon clippers and small time bankers. If you (as I believe you do) want social conservatism as do I, then the future of the GOP will require a substantial helping of Hispanics and maybe even blacks who believe in the Bible they hear preached one or more times per week (see Ohio black voting in 2004).

If the GOP goes pro-abort and/or pro-faggot and/or peace at any price, then the social conservatives may well go to the Demonrat Party and, and with enough Hispanics added to the voter pool, we may make over the Demo Party of our ancestors. If that ever happens, read as much as you can about the Federalists and the Whigs in their death throes.

"Paleos" like to fantasize that they are essential to the GOP. A more likely scenario would be continued control of the GOP (and the government) by actual conservatives and policy modification in tax areas to spread the benefit of them. Intensity does not equal voting strength. However bitter the moan, groan and bitch crowd of "paleowhatevers" may be, their numbers do not approach their intensity. Few people like to be hectored by incessantly whiny obscurantists.

One term of Demonrats running Congress and Mrs. Arkansas Antichrist at 1600 should cure any desire of conservatives to take "paleos" seriously ever again.