Neo-Conservatism and its Roots in Warfare State Propaganda

[xorbie]

So in a thread where people are complaining about dismissing things offhand due to source, it's nice to see two posts in a row... dismissing things offhand due to source.

Worse yet, the source happens to be someone who probably knows what he is talking about, even if some of the systemic conclusions (particularly making things seem more like a systemic conspiracy and having this underly everyone's intentions) aren't wholly accurate.

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
So in a thread where people are complaining about dismissing things offhand due to source, it's nice to see two posts in a row... dismissing things offhand due to source.

Worse yet, the source happens to be someone who probably knows what he is talking about, even if some of the systemic conclusions (particularly making things seem more like a systemic conspiracy and having this underly everyone's intentions) aren't wholly accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't dismissing anything, I was just making the observation that the quote sounded like it had been written by Chomsky, as I was wondering if there was a connection.

[andyfox]

They've written several books together.

[Money2Burn]

Thanks

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Foreign military adventurism has been actively sought by the United States government practically from its founding.

[/ QUOTE ]

America first had to solidify its position on the Eastern Seaboard and gain economic strength before foreign military adventures could really start and I would put the kickoff date at around 1848 when we had our little (somewhat fabricated) war with Mexico and stole some very valuable real estate from a weak and slipshod neighbor. But there was also agitation for us to war with Britain ( 54-40 or fight) over a boundary dispute in the Oregon Territory that never came to fruition. It was, unfortunately, resolved though diplomacy and the boundary with Canada was set at the 49th parallel. Something America still adheres by to this day, for reasons of both self-interest and honor.

[ QUOTE ]
Saying that "the threats as perceived at the time turn out to be less dangerous than judged by the people involved, but this is seldom seen at the moment and the passage of time allows for historical and objective analysis to offer up its judgment" is just a way of saying that those in the warfare state will portray threats in as dire a light as they possibly can because it serves them to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those in power seek a variety of policies that reflect a myriad of interests, some self-serving, some not, with most falling into a mixture of competing interests and issues that dictate actions, reactions and the formation of any number of policies and activities. To adhere to a single dictum of ‘warfare state’ as an explanation to historical military (and other) events to the exclusion of the full spectrum of human actions is to miss out on some of the best humanity has to offer in the way of acting like imbeciles. Man is not a rational being and the world is not a clear-cut block to be fitted neatly into preconceived holes of convenience for explanations to not only the randomness of human activities and follies, but also the very unwieldy nature of human institutions themselves.

However it may seem to you, much of the linked article relies too much, in my opinion, on some conspiratorial trajectory that is unwarranted by any objective analysis and relation to the full facts. War is a useful vehicle and policy at times; sometimes it is not. But it is not some all-consuming, fire-eating dragon of policy adventure for those in power to use at any whim and fancy.

The world is a foggy and muddy swamp that humanity wades through to some misunderstood and vain preconceived destination dimly viewed through the fog. It is a slog and all meaningless to boot - which adds to the hilarity of it all in my view and why a bemused detachment of the soggy march is the wisest policy. Or so it seems to me.

And I never thought that I supplied excuses or apologies, just an explanation or worldview. Apologies and excuses are usually bad form and policy. See P.G. Wodehouse for the explanation on that.

Le Misanthrope

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Foreign military adventurism has been actively sought by the United States government practically from its founding.

[/ QUOTE ]

America first had to solidify its position on the Eastern Seaboard and gain economic strength before foreign military adventures could really start and I would put the kickoff date at around 1848 when we had our little (somewhat fabricated) war with Mexico and stole some very valuable real estate from a weak and slipshod neighbor. But there was also agitation for us to war with Britain ( 54-40 or fight) over a boundary dispute in the Oregon Territory that never came to fruition. It was, unfortunately, resolved though diplomacy and the boundary with Canada was set at the 49th parallel. Something America still adheres by to this day, for reasons of both self-interest and honor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andrew Jackson attacked Spanish Florida in 1817 in an incident that ultimately led the Spanish to cede Florida to the US (with Jackson as territorial governor no less). By the late 1820s Southerners were agitating to have the Cherokee forceably removed from their lands (a sovereign nation), ultimately leading to the Indian Removal Act of 1832 and the Trail of Tears, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Cherokee as they were force marched across the land.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Saying that "the threats as perceived at the time turn out to be less dangerous than judged by the people involved, but this is seldom seen at the moment and the passage of time allows for historical and objective analysis to offer up its judgment" is just a way of saying that those in the warfare state will portray threats in as dire a light as they possibly can because it serves them to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those in power seek a variety of policies that reflect a myriad of interests, some self-serving, some not,

[/ QUOTE ]

Name one.

[ QUOTE ]
with most falling into a mixture of competing interests and issues that dictate actions, reactions and the formation of any number of policies and activities. To adhere to a single dictum of ‘warfare state’ as an explanation to historical military (and other) events to the exclusion of the full spectrum of human actions is to miss out on some of the best humanity has to offer in the way of acting like imbeciles. Man is not a rational being and the world is not a clear-cut block to be fitted neatly into preconceived holes of convenience for explanations to not only the randomness of human activities and follies, but also the very unwieldy nature of human institutions themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man is an eminently rational being, and to recognize the existence of the warfare state does not preclude the existence of the welfare state, the bureaucrat state, the regulatory state, or any of the rest of the faces of the hydra. Nor does understanding the motivations of those in power preclude them from being imbeciles. Nor does it imply "the world is . . . a clear-cut block to be fitted neatly into preconceived holes of convenience". To presume that human action is essentially random is to state that you believe there is no hope in understanding history.

[ QUOTE ]
However it may seem to you, much of the linked article relies too much, in my opinion, on some conspiratorial trajectory that is unwarranted by any objective analysis and relation to the full facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please. However it may seem to you, there is no conspiracy required. Everyone knows who licenses television and radio stations. Everyone knows that journalism considers itself the regulator of government, and hence is just as transparently open to capture by the organizations it seeks to regulate as any other regulatory agency. See regulatory capture theory. I invite you to actually show anything in the article is actually wrong, rather than tarring it with the "conspiracy" brush and empty purple rhetoric.

[ QUOTE ]
War is a useful vehicle and policy at times;

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. That's exactly what I've been saying, isn't it?

[ QUOTE ]
sometimes it is not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that it is almost always extremely useful. You can justify anything with a war. Perpetual war is the Holy Grail of those is the state. Or as Randolph Bourne made clear in 1918, War is the Health of the State.

[ QUOTE ]
But it is not some all-consuming, fire-eating dragon of policy adventure for those in power to use at any whim and fancy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is. Most US administrations would give their eye teeth for a war, and if there isn't one to be had, they'll manufacture one: the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, the War on Terror. Neverending unwinnable wars, each accompanied by its own gigantic, cancerous warfare bureacracy and symbiotic industries dependent upon the Federal teat.

[ QUOTE ]
The world is a foggy and muddy swamp that humanity wades through to some misunderstood and vain preconceived destination dimly viewed through the fog. It is a slog and all meaningless to boot - which adds to the hilarity of it all in my view and why a bemused detachment of the soggy march is the wisest policy. Or so it seems to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Blah blah blah. The world is crystal clear when you bother to learn to look through the right lenses.

[ QUOTE ]
And I never thought that I supplied excuses or apologies, just an explanation or worldview. Apologies and excuses are usually bad form and policy. See P.G. Whodehouse for the explanation on that.

[/ QUOTE ]

They still seem like apologies and excuses to me.

[Mr_Moore]

Borodog you rock.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
So in a thread where people are complaining about dismissing things offhand due to source, it's nice to see two posts in a row... dismissing things offhand due to source.

Worse yet, the source happens to be someone who probably knows what he is talking about, even if some of the systemic conclusions (particularly making things seem more like a systemic conspiracy and having this underly everyone's intentions) aren't wholly accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a finite amount of time one (at least one who works and is productive) to spend reading and researching. When you know that an author or a website has an agenda, and that anything that is written will be spun to that agenda and has a huge probability of leading to the same garbage, that is plenty of reason to not bother reading it.

That isnt the same as attempting to refute their arguments, it is simply a prudent use of time. I will not lack any information that is important to me if I never read/see Chomsky again.

[Case Closed]

copernicus,

There are no available sources in the known world that do not have an appreciable agenda.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What difference does it make where the stuff is linked from? Defend or critique the arguments contained therein.

[/ QUOTE ]

He already responded to what difference it makes, particularly when the sources are indirect and 10 years old. If you know you have to dig through 30 yards of cow [censored] to determine if one cow actually swallowed and pooped out a silver dollar, it isnt worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cliff Notes maybe?