Floodland

Hi aardvark

The people you mention have very public profiles. The CIA (or neocons) would not be interested in being called playground names on a Internet forum.

Neoconservatives is the most exciting and powerful ideology of the modern world and it came just as politics was getting stale. One party could not be distinguished from another.
Neoconservatism was born from a much needed dialectal change, and eventually it will fully absorb the traditonal left and right andmerge them in away they have never been merged before but a way that is so balanced the world will really benefit. Only political traditionalist fear the new Neo-Conservatives, because it is a real ideological threat to traditional political existance.

Fukuyama's analysis of political ideology has come true to an extent but the liberal democracy he noted in the End of History and the last man, had one final tweak and that is neo-conservatism, which is the nearest thing you will get to a liberal democracy. neo-conservatism is a good thing.

Floodland

Actually the re-alignment has already occured, it cannot go back, Bush will never be impeached. Bush is an elected politician, it is far too simple to see him as the architect of neo-conservatism.

I don't really think 'uncomfortable' facts are emerging either, maybe that is what you think is happening because it makes you feel better, but these so called facts are not given credence by anyone that really matters, they are spouted by the usual suspects, and are in reality ignored. When Bush goes, neo-Conservatism will stay.

Aardvark

Mike, I see what you mean.

Floodland, I'm not sure which people have high public profiles. The threat to Bush and Blair (high profile) is not from celebs, but from nameless individuals.

The CIA, MI5, KGB and others monitor the little people as much as those with high profiles. The other names, Booth and Oswald, did not have 'high' public profiles before they shot their respective presidents. The Greenham 'wimmin' as individuals were virtually unknown and most people cannot name one of them, but they were a threat to the deployment of the nuclear deterrent.

It is not my activites on the Internet that are of interest, although they may well be monitored, but my public pronunciations as a campaigning politician and a couple of highly damaging court cases that have embarrassed the government that might have brought me to the attention of security bodies. I have worked for a number of government departments and been a whistleblower (which got me arrested) so know, from documents released to me, that I have attracted certain levels of attention (I exposed fraud and powerful people used their security forces to arrest me). That doesn't mean that I am seen as a threat at the moment and in certain lights my actions would be viewed as benign and positive. I do know that my details will be held, if only out of curiosity, because of the places I have been and the things I have been involved in. I suspect that in certain circumstances I am trusted, but also that notes are added to my files each time I work for my government.

Elected politicians can be impeached, so Bush qualifies. Bush has not got the intellect to be the architect of neo-conservatism. If neo-conservatism is a building designed by an architect then Bush is the wedge the builders are using to keep the door open whilst essential maintenance is done! 8)

Mikeuk

A 'dialectal change' is a change in language.

I assume you mean a 'dialectical change' in the sense of an historical thesis-antithesis-synthesis progression. It is quite obvious, however, that you have not grasped the essentials of the Hegelian model which informs Fukuyama's theories.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of so-called Neo-conservatism it never had any influence beyond the USA and even there its time has now clearly passed.

Fukuyama himself has announced the end of the neoconservative moment and argued for the demilitarisation of the war on terrorism:

In an essay in the New York Times Magazine in 2006 that was strongly critical of the Iraq invasion he identified neoconservatism with Leninism.

He wrote that the neoconservatives:

It's good to see that this leading thinker has recognised his past moral errors and rejoined the human race.

Floodland

Regional language differences has nothing to do with what I am talking about I am discussing dialectical contradictions and I was referring to Marx's theory of history, with contradictions found in material reality. I recommend you look at the philosophy of the meanings of dialectical.

I am not really interested in waht Fukuyama has stated recently, I am putting his 'The end of history and the last man' theory into its dialectical paradigm today. Obviously the stasis reached in Fukuyama's original theory resulted in neo-Conservatism, as neo-conservatism is what is shaping the political, social and economic world today. of course it has teething trouble, there is a strong will to banish it from a very impotent quarter.

clearly passed.

I think that is quite a sweeping generalisation, and really does contradict totally what you, Aardvark and ukpatriot have been stating in earlier posts.

Floodland

Exactly!

Mikeuk

If that is indeed what you mean I suggest you use the correct terminology.

Fukuyama's philosophy has been rightly described as a 'weird, crypto-Marxian, neoconservative version of the Whig interpretation of history' and most people who do not believe in America's God-given right to rule the world have been rightly suspicious of it.

Nevertheless it's good to see that Alcibiades is coming over to Sparta.

Neoconservatism had its big moment and it has passed. It's unlikely that Bush or any successor President will again embark on the disastrous and bloody adventures that are Neoconservatism's legacy to the world.

Neoconservatism is an ideology of the recent past that ranks alongside Nazism, Stalinism and Fascism in its callous disregard for liberty, national sovereignty and human life.

Apart from a few hangers-on such as Blair, it has no significent adherents in Europe. It's an American disease.

Floodland

Dialectics goes back to Plato, and the TERMINILOGY (terminology is totally the wrong word to ascertain its meaning anyway) The interpretation of dialectic has been made by many philosophers, like Kant, Hegel and Marx. So there is no correct and absolute interpretation except in its literal Greek philosophy sense which means ‘argument’ which, is the correct terminology. If you find yourself in the deep end Mikeuk and can't swim, get out of the water.

Wrong, it has hardly begun’ neo-conservatism is in its infancy, and look how powerful it is.

What absolute rot, would you care to substantiate your claim with some evidence please. Again a wide a sweeping statement not backed by any evidence whatsoever. If you were to put such a claim into a real intellectual debate you would be laughed away from the table.

ukpatriot

Floodland, you seem to be becoming very irate. Why is this?

Floodland

Like most things you write ukpatriot, your comment is pure fanatasy. Please do not bait people because you lose the argument, it is not very sporting.