What’re the main differences between paleocons, neocons, libertarians and neolibs?
These’re four of the most popular schools of thought in American conservatism.
On the other hand, I’d argue, to what extent are they objectivists?
In other words, take any particular issue: taxes, the role of government, race, gender, sexual preference, gun control, conscription, abortion, religion…
Then focus in on a particular set of circumstances.
For me, it’s not what a paleocon, or a neocon, or a libertarian or a neolib would argue is the most rational and virtuous point of view. Rather it would revolve around the extent to which they hold that point of view because it is said to be in sync with their one true self in sync with the right thing to do — theologically, ideologically, deontologically, naturally, etc.
And, if they profess to believe that, I would introduce them to my own frame of mind. Including that which I call the “psychology of objectivism”.
Paleoconservatives are the Conservatives of the 1950s and 1960s, Christian Ethics and Morals, no Abortion, no sex before Marriage. It is about the Nuclear American (WASP) family and middle-class. These types have all but evaporated and been destroyed by “progressive” culture (replaced by Neo-cons and Neo-Libs).
Neoconservatives are/were the W. Bush Era conservatives at the seat of global power, the “New World Order”. They used 9-11 as a pretext for global war and expansion, into the Middle East Oil Reserves. The Bush family had/have oil dealings over there to the present day which they derive their wealth. Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheyney were part of the leadership trio. They lost most of their power when USA became disillusioned by the false justification “weapons of mass destruction” for war. Progressives destroyed the Neo-cons for this. The Neo-cons did not adapt to “Progressive” culture, because they lost loyalty among the Paleoconservatives. The two camps fell-out and became disunified, leading to the eradication of Neo-con political power. The Neo-liberals took over from them (Obama, Biden, Hilary Clinton).
Libertarians are the True American Patriots, the Tea Party movement, ex-Paleo-cons who are better adapted to the modern climate. Libertarians still carry conservative values, respect for the law, and defend the US Constitution. Libertarians read their US History, believe in Civic Duty, and retain the traditional American values since the founding of the Country. Libertarians are splitting into various camps such as Trump-ist Conservatives, Proud Boys, or anybody else concerned about the Bill of Rights. I fit myself in here at the end, who still believes in the supremacy of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, although it is admittedly weakened by Communist attack and takeover.
Neo-liberals are the “New Conservatives”. Using Progressivism for decades, since the 1970s, they have effectively used “Civil Rights”, sex, gender, race, ethnic division to rise to power. These types explicitly play and pit their “Progressive” pawns against each-other anytime they risk unifying to rise up against them. They have adapted, smarter methods of political control, which they use in-line with Silicone valley. They deemed themselves the “cultural elite” and Academic upper-class of American society. They believe in European, and to their destruction, Asian Class-ism. They are allured and persuaded by Communist promises of power. They have been selling-out to China for the past 3 decades. They are turning against the US Constitution, to continue their sell-out to foreign power (China). They have absorbed the previous Neo-conservatives into their party, giving them a significant political majority. This is how Mitt Romney can be considered a “Neo-Liberal” because he is no longer beholden or loyal to Conservatism on a fundamental level, proved by his disloyalty to Trump, to secure his own personal political power. Neo-liberals do not risk the political gains unnecessarily.
Right, from what I gather, paleocons are the original Americonservatives, they were dominant from 1776 to the mid 20th century.
They were predominantly WASP.
They were strict constitutionalists.
They wanted a free market intranationally, but protectionism internationally.
They were moderately social conservative, they prohibited abortion, gay marriage, certain drugs.
Some were more extreme, they prohibited alcohol, sodomy.
They were white, or civic nationalists and isolationists.
They supported states’ rights.
Neocons came later in the 1960s.
They’re predominantly Jewish.
The Bush administrations were 100% neocon.
With Trump, we saw a bit of a resurgence of paleoconservatism.
Like Reagan, he was a mix of paleoconservatism, neoconservatism and neoliberalism.
I think you’d have to go all the way back to Eisenhower to find a true paleoconservative president.
Neoconservatives aren’t strict constitutionalists, they violated the constitution with their war on drugs and war on terror.
It’s not unconstitutional to criminalize certain drugs, but the way they conduct the war on drugs is.
At best, neocons are ambivalent or apathetic about the constitution, at worst, hostile to it.
Neocons are crony capitalists, they want fractional reserve banking, lots of corporate welfare and a little social welfare.
For the most part, neocons aren’t social conservatives, they’re social progressives.
Neocons aren’t white or civic nationalists and isolationists, they’re globalists, Zionists and imperialists, they want free trade, mass immigration and open borders for the US and protectionism, restricted immigration and borders for Israel.
They don’t support states’ rights, they undermine them.
What it comes down to is, neocons aren’t very conservative at all, what are they conserving exactly?
They’re global, progressive Zio-fascists and if the republican party can’t be purged of them, then it should be abandoned.
I’ll address libertarianism and neoliberalism later.
As for libertarians, like paleocons, I think most of them are strict constitutionalists.
Like paleocons, they want a free market intranationally, but unlike them, they want free trade, not protectionism.
They’re not socially conservative, nor progressive, they’re divided on things like abortion and gay marriage.
They want more cultural, personal and social freedom, not social conservatism, nor progressivism.
Unlike paleocons, most of them aren’t white or civic nationalists, they want mass immigration, so long as it’s legal and economic, but like paleocons, they are isolationists.
As for neolibs, I think they’re a hybrid of paleocons and libertarians, economically and on immigration they side more with libertarians, culturally, personally and socially, they side more with paleocons.
Basically, paleocons, libertarians and classical liberals or neoliberals (classical liberals and neoliberals are basically the same thing as far as I can tell) are good, neocons are bad.
The former are loyal to the constitution, America, its people and peace, the latter isn’t.
I tend to side with paleocons more on some things, and libertarians more on others.
On immigration and trade, I tend to side more with paleocons, socioculturally, I tend to side more with libertarians.
Neocons are Zio-fascists, and if Canada, the UK and US want to survive, we have to get rid of them, like Russia got rid of the Marxists.
That being said, I’m in favor of having some social welfare.
Actually, I think I got classical liberals and neoliberals confused, I guess the two of them are different, I have to do more research.
I think I understand the basics of paleocons, classical liberals and libertarians on the one hand, and neocons on the other, but not sure what a neolib is.
I think paleoconservatism, libertarianism and neoconservatism are broader political philosophies, whereas classical liberalism and neoliberalism are strictly about economics.
Neolibs are in favor of fractional reserve banking, some social, and presumably corporate welfare, unlike classical liberals.
For this reason, classical liberalism and neoliberalism are less interesting to me, I’m going to focus more on paleoconservatism, libertarianism and neoconservatism.
From what I gather, the republican party leaned more paleoconservative up until Teddy Roosevelt.
With Teddy, the republican party became a bit more economically and environmentally progressive, but it was still socially conservative.
Woodrow Wilson, perhaps America’s worst president, sold out America to the banksters.
The democratic party leaned more libertarian up until Franklin Roosevelt.
With Franklin, the democratic party became somewhat economically and environmentally progressive, but it was still socially libertarian.
The neocons gradually took over both parties after JFK’s assassination.
The Bushs, Clintons and Obama were 100% theirs, as is Biden.
Both parties became increasingly corporatist, socially progressive and globalist, Zionist and imperialist.
What I would like to see happen, is for the republican party to return to its paleoconservative roots, and either the democratic party return to its libertarian roots, or the way it was from FDR to JFK, minus what Woodrow Wilson did, from what I gather, JFK tried to undo what Woodrow Wilson did, and paid with his life.
This balance between a paleoconservative right, and either a libertarian left, or a moderately socialist left with no banksterism, corporatism, cultural progressivism, imperialism or Zionism, would in my view, bring about an ideal state of affairs.
I want the same thing for the conservative and liberal parties of Canada.
A populist, fiscally libertarian, and socially moderately conservative right, and either a populist, libertarian left, or a fiscally moderately socialist, and socially libertarian left, no banksterism, corporatism, cultural progressivism, imperialism or Zionism.
The United States have to get to the bottom before they can achieve what you want them to achieve.
There is no other way in sight.
Classical Liberals are similar to paleoconservatives. Classical Liberals are East Coast liberals who believe in the US Constitution, isolationism, anti-war, and civil rights. Classical Liberals are the Union members of the Northern Army who won the Civil War. Classical Liberals agree with paleoconservatives when it comes to family-first morality, ethics, and laws. The difference between Classical Liberals and paleoconservatives are religion & culture (secular v christian) and taxes (higher vs lower, welfare vs not). Other than that, there are many similarities between them. Both want less military intervention worldwide. Both supported the military after 9-11. But Conservatives were forced into the Second Iraq War, which was/is a fundamental disagreement. The “Tea Party” movement was mostly paleoconservative, but did include some Classical Liberals.
Regular ‘Liberals’ are the most expansive group description as per the label. Liberals are anti-abortion, anti-christian, anti-white, anti-male, higher-taxes, pro-welfare state. This is perhaps the simplest dilution of them.
Neoliberals are a large bloc of Liberals who took over politics after W. Bush was shamed into hiding and beaten out of politics. The Bush Dynasty and Neo-Conservatives were swiftly defeated. Some of these Neo-cons simply switched sides and are now Neo-libs. The main difference between Neoliberalism and regular Liberalism is: massive expansion of centralized state-power, switching from anti-war to pro-war, Expansionism, Globalism, and Technocracy. The West Coast self-proclaimed “cultural elite” Technocrats gained immense political and economic power. At the same time, on the East Coast, the Liberals confiscated power from the Neo-cons. Neo-liberals on the East Coast are quickly abusing this power, as can be seen from the contemporary lust for power by the liberal-left establishment. There are two sects of Neoliberals, West Coast elites and East Coast elites. These two groups believe themselves a ‘Class’ above everybody else, and everybody else is a Serf or Second-class citizen. Neoliberals are going so far now as to say that the ‘WASP’ (paleoconservative) is a second class citizen, and everybody else is first class.
This is the current cultural overthrow as of today’s date.
West Coast Neo-libs are distinctly different than East Coast Neo-libs, but they are aligned and merged right now because of their acquisition of power. These groups will be the first to attack each-other when Dems begin arguing over how to divvy up and share their rewards and tax-money, this year. The neo-libs will eventually fracture. Because the East Coast “elites” disagree fundamentally with the West Coast “elites”.
It’s not ironic or coincidental that Elon Musk moved out of California (West Coast neo-libs) to relocate to Texas (Paleoconservatives). Liberals will fracture themselves, because they disagree on too many internal issues. This will become apparent when, after they ban and censor Conservatives, they will turn against each-other.
Unfortunately, it may not be possible to get our democracies back without civil war, or at least extra extraordinary civil unrest.
The elite will use every tool in the toolbox to suppress us, cutting supply chains, cyber, economic and psych warfare, rigged elections, scamdemics, totaliterrorism, you name it.
“or at least extra extraordinary civil unrest”
U cant make something already extra, extra, without creating a redundancy. To say that an extra ordinary thing also belongs to a set of extra extra ordinary things is to imply there is an additional quality of extraness not already contained in the quality of extraness that defines the original set. Ergo; reductio ad extrandem.
I believe only physical, conventional war, will win back Freedom for Western Civilization.
There is no peaceful path back to Liberty. The Communists are closing in, and already have their puppet installed in D.C.
Interesting.
For me, classical liberalism is capitalism.
Neoliberalism is crony capitalism.
As for what most North Americans mean by liberalism these days, I prefer to call it progressivism.
Progressives can be divided into two major schools of thought, just as there’s paleoconservatives and neoconservatives, there’s paleoprogressives and neoprogressives.
Paleoprogressives, like paleoconservatives, are constitutionalists, military noninterventionists and nationalists, if not white nationalists than civic or at least economic nationalists.
Where they differ, is paleoprogs are fiscally moderately socialist and culturally libertarian, whereas paleocons are fiscally libertarian and culturally moderately conservative.
Paleocentrists (got to invent new terminology to cover all of this), if you will, are somewhere in between these two.
As for neoprogressives, like neoconservatives they’re international fascists, and Zionists.
They’re fascists, but they’re culturally progressive globalists.
There’s national, and international fascism, just as there’s national, and international communism.
Of course communism isn’t egalitarian in practice.
Communism is centralized elitism, whereas fascism is a partly decentralized elitism (I’m not against all inequality, but inequality oughta be approximately fair and balanced).
Our elite are international fascists, China’s elite are no longer communists, because it was economically stifling, they’re national fascists.
Neoprogs and neocons are basically the same, they’re both corporatists and culturally progressive, but neoprogs are a bit more socialist and culturally progressive, whereas neocons are a bit more corporatist and culturally conservative.
There’s also neocentrists, which’re somewhere in between these two.
Yea, and then there’s libertarians, which we already covered.
These days, most libertarians are globalists, but some are still nationalists.
Right, I prefer to call them neoprogs.
There’s two wings of the neoprogs, the Biden/Clintons/Obama wing (mainstream neoprogs), and alternative neoprogs or the squad (AOC and so on).
The squad are less corporatist and not culturally conservative at all, they’re more socialist and culturally progressive.
Unfortunately, if the mainstream wing of neoprogs gets supplanted, it may be by the squad, rather than by a paleoprog like Bernie (or at least he was a paleoprog before the squad got to him) or Tulsi.
Tulsi is as close as it comes to an old school paleoprog in the modern democratic party.
I see, what you call neolibs here, I guess I would call neocentrists, a synthesis of neocons and neoprogs.
Again neocons and neoprogs are very similar, they’re both very corporatist and culturally progressive.
Neocons are a bit more conservative and neoprogs a bit more socialist.
Like you were saying, neocons are more militant and neoprogs more globalist.
After Trump took over the republicans, the neocons aligned themselves more with the democratic party.
Both the neocons and the neoprogs have become more extreme.
They took the greater corporatism and militancy from the neocons and the greater cultural progressivism and globalism from the neoprogs and combined them.
You could say they’re full on international fascists now, no longer softcore, they’re hard.
Yea the mainstream neoprogs united with the squad, at least temporarily to defeat the paleocons and the libertarians.
If they end up fighting, not sure who’ll win, probably the mainstream neoprogs will win, unless the masses got behind the squad more.
Both of them suck, I really hate AOC, but I hate Pelosi and her ilk too.
Neo-Progressives are essentially Globalists and self-proclaimed Elitists.
The Neo-Liberal “elites” have been fighting against the Paleoconservative Elites (like Mitt Romney) for decades and have now finally conquered them. But they still hold hands. The Paleoconservative Elites are nullified and ousted from political power, and so are functionally Neo-Democrats. They are no longer “Republican” as the definitions go. You’ve mentioned this before as the One-Party-System, where the Democrats and Republicans are essentially both the same Statists. This was also proved recently with Biden’s “Certification” where the Republicans were knowingly forced to certify the most flagrantly violated Presidential Election in Postmodern History. Their loyalty is to the Status-Quo, which has been taken by the Democrat/Communists. I paint them under the same brush: Democr-ommunists or Commu-crats. I like the latter sound better. These are functionally Commucrats.
Using Cultural Marxism, Progressivism, and Neo-Liberalism, the formerly “Democrat” political bloc has ushered Totalitarianism, Fascism, and Authoritarianism into US Society. They don’t care about the consequences. They don’t care about overturning the Republic or destroying the US Constitution. They view it as a road-block to the next steps of acquisitioned power.
That is because these Neo-Progressives are Globalists. Some are Technocrats, fully utilizing censorship and full restriction of the internet. They no longer have any real loyalty to the United States, the Constitution, or Nationalism.
They have no connection to the land, the roots, the soil.
Right, they’re autocrats and oligarchs, globalists and imperialists, crony capitalists and cultural progressives or rather subversives.
They’re Malthusians and transhumanists, but they’ll never tell us that straight up, their Malthusianism hides behind pseudosocial and economic justice.
Everything is designed to impoverish the people, break up families and get them hooked on soft kill ‘food’ and ‘medicine’.
In China, they can just impose a 1 child policy, but here they have to be more clever about it, at least for now.
Like neocons, neoprogs are international fascists, but they have slightly different emphases.
Their ultimate objective may be international communism, to do to us what Stalin and Mao did to ‘their’ people + cybergenetic modification, but for now international fascism and RNA modification will do.
I don’t consider Mitt to be a real paleocon.
He wears some of the garb, he’ll talk about free markets and scaling back military intervention, and not mean it.
Unlike Trump, he’ll stop short of advocating for fair rather than free trade or being tougher on illegals and Islamofascists who want to immigrate to the US.
By and large Mitt had the blessing of the MSM.
The Bushs talked about free markets and scaling back military intervention too.
Both the Bushs and Mitt are never Trumpers, never Trumpers are the worst of the worst republicans.
I think we need to be much more careful about who we support.
Almost all of these guys will pay some lip service to paleoconservative values, and then do the opposite once elected.
Even Trump isn’t exactly paleoconservative, he’s a mix.
If you want real paleoconservatism, support the constitution party.
Voting for 3rd parties and independents is not a wasted vote, like the MSM would have us believe.
Even if 3rd parties never get elected, they can take a lot of votes from 1st parties, potentially preventing them from being elected, putting pressure on them to adopt some of their policies.
Myself, I say fuck it, vote your values, if you find yourself in agreement with the constitution party, or the libertarian party a hell of a lot more than with the republicans, vote for them, and if you can spare it, donate to them, get involved, become a member, help them campaign, get the word out.
Playing lesser of two evil politics is what got us to this point, lesser of two evil politics won’t prevent our countries from sliding further into totalitarianism.
Of course election fraud is a massive problem.
As people lose confidence in the system, many may turn to 3rd parties, and these 3rd parties will not only grow, but get organized, and armed, putting additional pressure on the establishment to get it right.
If you do stick with the republican party, then my suggestion is to pick the most antiestablishment, authentic, outsider paleoconservative or libertarian candidate you can find.
Yea it’s really sad, Trump, and a handful of others, like Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz (Ted Cruz supported Trump to the end from what I gather) are all that remains of paleoconservativism and libertarianism in the republican party, there’s very little left.
Most republicans would much rather see neoprogressive fascists in power than paleocons.
They only feigned to support Trump because they were afraid many of their constituents would turn on them if they didn’t, they couldn’t wait to see Trump leave, many of them like Mitch McConnell stabbed Trump in the back on his way out.
The vast majority of them are scum, actually Ted Cruz surprised me a bit, in the 11th hour he showed a bit of spine, good on him.
That’s right, most of these dems, and reps are international fascists, and Zionists, it’s the ideology of the banksters, globalists and multinationals who rule us, it’s what suits them best.
Scientific authoritarianism, in addition to cultural progressivism, also suits them.
In the era of covid, we have to be weary of scientism and technocracy, or the elite will use them to burn what’s left of our constitutions.
The west is at a crossroads, either we can go down the road the USSR and the CCP went down, or we can restore our republics, it’s all up to us, go along to get along, or resist.
That’s what I was thinking, in terms of paleoconservatives: Ted Cruz, Jim Jordan, Rand Paul, Dan Crenshaw, stand out to me. Admittedly I don’t know more details of more Congressmen, but there are is a resurgence of paleoconservatives. Republicans did pickup seats in the House this year, minus the election fraud.
But with this degree of election fraud, the whole ideal of “Democracy” is null and void. It no longer matters. What matters is the leverage of power, money, and corruption that can essentially out-buy Congressional seats or the Presidency. CCP and Communism has done severe damage to the US foundation. While half of the country acts as their puppets.