Today on Blogcritics
Home » Neoconservativism 101: Politics of the Wolf

Neoconservativism 101: Politics of the Wolf

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

It’s funny how some of the right wingers get all loopy when they hear somebody speak the truth. They can’t handle hearing it (i.e., Cindy Sheehan, Ambassador Joe Wilson, Scott Ritter, Sen. Max Cleland, Richard Clarke, and Hans Blix). Nothing bothers these people more than the truth. It drives them up the friggin’ wall. They will smear anybody who speaks the truth. There is a reason for this, and it comes from the very foundation of the Neoconservative belief system.

The Neoconservatism movement is built upon the notion that it’s better to get people to believe in “noble lies” than have them unsettled by the truth. The father of Neoconservatism, Leo Strauss, argued that:

Contemporary liberalism was the logical outcome of the philosophical principles of modernity, as practiced in the “advanced” nations of the Western world in the 20th century. He believed that contemporary liberalism contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards relativism, which in turn led to the nihilism that he saw as permeating contemporary American society.– Wikipedia on Leo Strauss

Thus, for Strauss, overcoming relativism was of primary importance.

Strauss noted that thinkers of the first rank, going back to Plato, had raised the problem of whether good and effective politicians could be completely truthful and still achieve the necessary ends of their society. By implication, Strauss asks his readers to consider whether “noble lies” (Plato) have any role at all to play in uniting and guiding the cities of man. Are certain, unprovable “myths” taught by wise leaders needed to give most people meaning and purpose and to ensure a stable society? Or can society flourish on a foundation of those “deadly truths” (Nietzsche) limited to what we can know absolutely?

You see, neoconservatism is a political school of thought that suffers from an elevated ego. The proponents of the theory believe they know “what’s good for the rest of us”. These people believe that the American people are better off ignorant and blind, than with actual freewill. In their view, freewill can lead to nihilism. And to them, nihilism will lead to the end of civilization.

To put it another way, in the view of the Neocons, people are no different than a pack of wolves. In a wolf pack (no relation to neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz), the dogs need to know their place in the pecking order or the pack will become unstable and inefficient. Through dominance, submission, and aggression, each dog will find it’s place, and the pack will be happy. The Neocons believe that people need a hierarchy of order– people need to be given commands that are easy to understand, and they need to have a routine. Freewill is bad for the pack. Uncertainty is bad for the pack. Questioning the alpha-male puts the balance of the pack in danger. If the leader of the pack wants you to roll over, do it. Don’t ask questions, just do it. Good dog!

You see, if the wolf pack can’t understand quantum mechanics, evolution, the general theory of relativity or esoteric spiritual or philosophical texts– teach them something they can understand, regardless of whether it’s right or not. Make it simple, make it rigid, and do not waiver from it ever. Stay the course, or the rest of the wolves may get restless. The pack needs, above all else, uniformity and security. They need to know what is good and what is bad. There is no grey area for a wolf. A wolf hunts, it doesn’t question it’s existence, it’s habitat, or the alpha-male.

You see, neoconservatism does not give Man much credit (or compassion). It is anti-humanist. It is sheer wolf. It believes ignorance is better than knowledge. It values power more than love. It fears science, knowledge and enlightenment. It fears foreign packs. But most of all, it fears its true nature as a human being. And thus, it fears truth.

Mythologically speaking, Neoconservatism plays only to Man’s masculine attributes (power, violence, discipline, order, etc.) without care for it’s feminine attributes (love, compassion, chaos, etc. – think of the Goddess Aphrodite, goddess of Love and Chaos) As such, neoconservatism is completely out of balance. It fails to recognize half of our given human nature. It is out of touch with the moon– the mother. It exhalts the sun– the father. It disregards compassion, and knows not how to forgive. It thrives on competition and cannot handle cooperation. Neoconservatism is a philosophy of self-destruction.

So next time you see some neoconservative doing everything under the sun to avoid the truth– have pity on him. He has not yet realized that he is a human being. His world view does not permit him to seek the truth. On the contrary, a neocon has not evolved from his animal past. He has no other choice than to just “howl at the moon.”


PLEASE NOTE: THE BULLDOG MANIFESTO DOES NOT WISH TO INSULT ANY FELLOW CANINES WITH THE PRECEDING POST. THE BULLDOG MANIFESTO BELIEVES WOLVES ARE BEAUTIFUL ANIMALS, AND HAVE SOME VERY GOOD THINGS TO TEACH US. WOLVES ARE NICE. HUMAN BEINGS BEHAVING LIKE WOLVES ARE NOT NICE.
ed: JH/Pub:LM

Powered by

About The Bulldog Manifesto

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Bulldog. This is a piece of art. It’s filled with Truth. This is a Gospel. The day will come when mankind will come to realize that Leo Strauss and his ‘truth’ is a manifestation of pure evil. His ‘black & white’ view of the world is completely contrary to the nature of humans.

  • Eric Olsen

    well, it’s well written and thought-out, anyway. Thanks BD.

    But enabling the expression of “free will” is exactly the goal of neoconservatism as I understand it.

    “It fears science, knowledge and enlightenment”: perhaps you are conflating neoconservatism with some kind of religious fundamentalism.

    As I understand it, all neoconservatism means is the willingness to use American military power to promote and foster liberty and democracy abroad, which I am for 100%

  • Nancy

    I would say neoconservatism is closer to fascism (so far as I understand it): total submission of all to the state (as represented in the blog by the image of the alpha male wolf) as embodied by the president/neocon-led administration (whichever president & admin, as long as it’s neocon-governed; not necessarily speaking of BushCo.).

  • Georgio

    >>>>>As I understand it, all neoconservatism means is the willingness to use American military power to promote and foster liberty and democracy abroad, which I am for 100%>>>>>Eric when they use it to help the ppl in Darfur then I will accept your premise…until then we are just waving our dicks on a phony war

  • Eric Olsen

    but this is the real world: you can only do what you can do, and I’d say our forces are stretched rather thin right now, wouldn’t you?

  • Nancy

    Somebody pointed out this morning on the radio that the US has tens of thousands (? where they got that figure, they didn’t cite) posted to places like Japan & Germany, places that hardly are central to current combat operations. Why are these troops being held, & reserves – who should be here at home on “reserve” as their title says – kept here? What is the point of maintaining large numbers of actual combat troops in places where there is no combat?

  • Eric Olsen

    1) the security of those strategic locations, 2) agreements with those countries

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    the primary difference between conservatism and neoconservatism is foreign policy?

    Conservatism to me, means an aristocracy. They lament about big government (while building one), but the Big Brother that they are creating is corporate controlled. To me, it’s elitism, or a ruling class, rather than just a ruler.

    That’s conservatism to me. My understanding of a neo-con is someone who wants to do foreign policy based on the conservative premise. Meaning foreign policy decisions are corporate based. (i.e. war for oil).

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    There’s a lot to be said for conservatism. Neoconservatism, on the other hand, is its own animal. Extremism in any form is detrimental to society and it seems that most of us here at BC agree on that specific point. The more I read about Leo Strauss, the more convinced I become that we’ve been grossly misled by this Administration with regard to Iraq and the war on terror. Unfortunately, I think this is a case where the President has been hoodwinked by members of his Administration. Many talk about his personal intelligence. Judging by the way he disseminated his government intelligence reports I think he’s been rather dyslexic.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    You make a very good point which you may not realize you even made. Neoconservatism is in most ways indistinguishable from the same liberal elitism that dominates the Democratic party. Which is why the GOP needs to kick them out and send them home to the Dems.

    Dave

  • William Edelstein

    I really liked this post, and I think BD is absolutely right. Re fearing science and knowledge, Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al don’t even want to listen to the generals who told them that they did not have enough troops and that the there would be an insurgency. They still do not want to listen or even recognize facts that are smacking them in the face.

  • troll

    why you gotta diss wolves like this

    -You see, neoconservatism does not give Man much credit (or compassion). It is anti-humanist. It is sheer wolf. It believes ignorance is better than knowledge. It values power more than love. It fears science, knowledge and enlightenment. It fears foreign packs. But most of all, it fears its true nature as a human being. And thus, it fears truth. –

    some of my best friends are wolves and they will not appreciate your description

    take your brothers Grimm fear of wolves biased imagery off my bridge

    troll

  • babblingpoet

    now seriously, don’t you think it is demeaning to both men and women to so crassly categorize power, violence, chaos, order, compassion as functions of gender?

    i mean, was Gandhi less of a man because he was compassionate? is Hillary less of a woman because she is powerful? personally, the women in my life seem to be more organized than the men.

    i don’t see how this duality you propose is useful in any way, unless somehow it is the basic of some mythological understanding of the world. as a matter of fact, part of the mythology of feminism is that the feminine represents all that is good–compassion, love, equality, etc; while masculunity represents all that is bad–competition, hierarchy, violence, power, agression, hatred, etc.

    every social movement is based at its base on some myth that unites people–the born-again right is united around the idea of the imminence of the end of the world; thus for various reasons they believe much of modernity is the work of Satan–liberals believe in this notion of progress, that somehow we will inevitably grow as a race; thus, they are more likely to accept new ideas as in some way part of a better society. it’s easy to see how the myths have shaped Communism, Nazism, al Qaeda, feminism, the Civil Rights movement, the gay rights movement, the anti-abortion movement, and every other political movement–whether it is recalling the biblical exodus from slavery or imagining a great world catastrophe, myths help groups find their place in the world–and serve a valuable function.

    don’t diss myths–they are what keep societies and social movements together; a myth is the story that people accept that then shapes their worldview–for political movements, a myth is generally about a group’s place in history; a myth is not a lie, but instead a story, a vision. it is not literal, but rather imaginative.

    the problem with neo-conservatism is not that they accept the teachings of Plato–and i do not fault Leo Strauss for asking his followers to consider if it is right to tell the people a “noble lie”–it is not a simple question. democracy is not self-evidently the best form of government. and knowledge does not necessarily lead to happiness or freedom–it often curtails both.

    the problem with neo-conservatism is not that they have decided to feed the people “noble lies” and thus are allergic to the truth and have embraced a masculine vision of power and violence–no–it is that the movement is a mish-mash of politics jerking one way then the next; iraq wasn’t a calculated mistake–it was a mistake based on ignorance and wishful thinking; the problem with neoconservatism is not that they have embraced Leo Strauss, but that they have embraced Machiavelli and Sun Tzu–they have become slaves to power, and seem to believe that they can hold on to power indefinitely.

    at least, that’s one man’s opinion.

  • http://www.morethings.com/senate Al Barger

    Alright Bulldog, you’re right in pointing out the “noble lies” nonsense. It is stupid and wrong, and SCREW Leo Strauss.

    However, please do NOT lump all people to the right in with this nonsense, cause I don’t know ANYONE who supports it.

    Also, liberals are AT LEAST equally good at promoting belief in big dumb lies for their own ends.

  • gonzo marx

    first, very nice Post..great read, i’m sort of with troll that it ain’t right ta diss wolves that way…

    but i digress…

    to the babblingpoet…
    i must disagree with one of yoru points…they DO know, and love Machiavelli…but NONE of them have any concept regarding the writings of Sun Tzu, if they did..then the US would NOT be in the military and strategic mess it is in currently…

    and THAT is their problem..too much Machiavelli( politics and ruling via Fear) and not enough Sun Tzu (strategy and tactics to enable overcoming opposing Forces…no matter what they may be)

    your mileage may vary

    Excelsior!

  • http://bulldogpolitics.blogspot.com/ The Bulldog Manifesto

    babblingpoet,

    I must say, for somebody who suggests a knowledge of mythology, you sure fail to recognize the symbology of the language of mythology. There is nothing demeaning in referring to the mythological language of masculine and feminine attributes. Its nothing new to mythology. The Sun, the Moon, Mars, Venus, etc. I suggest you revist the subjects and perhaps the Gods and Goddesses of Greek mythology to understand what I am saying.

    I’m sure you recall the mythology that Man was split into two halves, one male and one female, and that he/she will spend the rest of his/her lives searching for the other half. This isn’t literal language insomuch as it is metaphorical language. If we are a man, we need to get in touch with our feminine attributes to make us more human. If we are female, the mascluline attributes.

    The Neocons only value the masculine attributes. This is foolish. Moreover, it lacks balance and depth. It is a self-destrctive ethos.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>and THAT is their problem..too much Machiavelli( politics and ruling via Fear) and not enough Sun Tzu (strategy and tactics to enable overcoming opposing Forces…no matter what they may be)< <

    If they're reading Machiavelli they're reading the wrong book. He also wrote The Art of War, which they are clearly not using as a handbook. For that matter they really aren’t using The Prince either. They’re on a different wavelength alltogether.

    The good thing is that they are small in number and easily marginalized as extremists. Even their most famous adherents aren’t really fully in their camp and distance themselves when the wind blows the wrong direction.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    too bad they are running the WH, Senate, Congress and K street, Mr Nalle..

    would that folks that adhere to the likes of George Will, and WF Buckley..hell, even McLaughlin…would rise up and smite the noecons and their partners in grime the theofascists (pat pending)

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Bull, Gonzo. The people running the house and senate aren’t Neocons in any sense of the word. The Neocons probably quietly despise them. They’re religious loonies and ideological extremists who are former dixiecrats who switched over to the Republican party. They’re also no fans of the Neocons who are a bunch of furriners and jews like their pappys used to talk about at the Klan meetings.

    There are only two notable Neocon figures who hold elective office that I know of, and those are Dick Cheney and Jeb Bush, and neither of them are among the true diehards of the group. They’re relatively mainstream folks who felt it was advantageous to be associated with the Neocons for purposes of foreign policy gravitas.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    i understand that you and i may define them differently, Mr Nalle

    however, if you do not think that the neocons are running the show, may i submit that you are deliberately not looking closely at uncomfortable Truths…

    Cheney (who is willling to sacrifice his own lesbian daughter on the alter of the Cause)m Rove ( the grand Architect), Wolfowitz (now running the world bank), Perle (originator of the Iraq policy), Ashcroft(theofascist and fellow traveller to the neocons), Rice…

    on and on

    you see, i do NOT care how they want to define themselves…after all, fucking with definitions and “newspeak” are their hallmarks…by attempting to control the definitions of words used, and to pose the Discussion in false binary terms( “yer either with us, or against us”) they strive towards orwellian , authoratarian control

    you can tell the dread neocon by the fact that Ideology and the well being of the Nation are NOT their concerns…to them, the Ends justify the Means…and their only Ends are to seek, maintain and control Power to further their underlying Agenda…they will Ally with ANY one or ANY thing that will further their Agenda, regardless of ethics, consequence or Ideology

    i much prefer the paleocons…at least they were honest, straightforward, and working towards the betterment of the Nation, and not just their oligarchy

    those paleocons would scream at the budgetary mess, the theofascists and pre-emptive war

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Gonzo, I don’t think Rice is actually a Neocon, and Rove certainly doesn’t seem to be one either. My point was that there are virtually NO actual Neocons in the congress. The problem there is entirely different. The fact that there are some Neocons in the administration is much easier to fix. Just elect someone who doesn’t hang with Neocons next time.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    DeLay and Frist?

    oh ..puh-leeeEEEEEeeeEEEezzZZZzzzeee

    fill up yer HumVee{insert SUV of choice} lately?

    arrrRRRrrgGGGGghHHhh!

    Excelsior!

  • GOD

    There are analogies, and then there are bad analogies.
    In order to compare a person, or anything to a wolf, one must first understand what the true nature of a wolf and its pack is.
    Wolves are not dogs. Dogs are not wolves. Wolves in a pack know their place and accept it. humans(republican, neocon, or democrat) will never know their place- and neither do you.
    The ‘people’ that you compare to wolves make ‘Life Itself’ look bad. Don’t drag nature into the raging abyss that is politics.
    If you’d find your place in life you’d care a lot less about the soap opera of the Second Roman Empire.

  • Neocon at large

    Hehe. Bulldog Manifesto writes “Leo Strauss argues…”, and then quotes Wikipedia. Too funny.

    -Neocon at large

  • Paul

    Is there a superlative for the word “ironic” because if there is, you’re post deserves it. It’s brilliant in the way that it cites one of the most ridiculous lies — that Leo Strauss’s work has anything to do with the Bush administration foreigh policy — in the service of Truth! Oddly, you end up vindicating the view you falsely attribute to Strauss and then criticize. It just doesn’t get anymore ironic than that.

    Let’s get a few facts on the table. None, I repeat NONE, of those chiefly responsible for the decission to go to war in Iraq — Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Perle, Rice, Powell — has any connection to Leo Strauss. Wolfowitz took two classes from Strauss, but his serious academic work was done under Albert Wohlstetter. When asked about the influence of Strauss on his thinking, he dismissed such talk as nonsense. Anyone below Wolfowitz was too lowly placed to have any influence regardless of any Strauss affiliation.

    Almost all past presidents have found the need to lie even about war. As far as I know, LBJ was not in the thrall of a Straussian mesmerist when he cooked up the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Nor was FDR when he repreatedly make public speeches saying he would not get the U.S. involved in a European war even as he was directing his military commanders to prepare for a European war. Presidents often find the need to lie. They do not need the teachings of an obscure professor to justify it.

    There’s a reason Wiki, and those who trade on the Straussian influence myth (like Shadia Drury), never actually quote Strauss. That’s because he never actually said what they say he said! He wrote several books — read one, it’s not hard. In any case, the quotes from wiki that you give us do not support loopy claim of Strauss’s influence that you assert.

    Leocons are so yesterday. Get with the program! The new leftist narrative criticizing the Bush administration has it in the thrall of fascist theocons.