Staring down the likelihood of losing my last well placed chickenhawk, Liebercon, at a point in time when all of my pitiful warmongering ideals were being shunned by anyone that wanted to be viewed as respectable...
Desperate to keep the fear alive for the sake of power...
What if Syria never had any nuclear program? What if my bestest warmongering friends forever gave me an ace in the hole to pull out at just the right time?
If I were a bankrupt Neoconservative I would never let the fear end. Because that would be the end of my reign of terror. I want you to think about this:
Lynching is sometimes justified by its supporters as the administration of justice (in a social-moral sense, not in law) without the delays and inefficiencies inherent to the legal system; in this way it echoes the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, which was justified by the claim:Hey! It's not like anyone in our government would ever encourage this kind of terrorizing behavior with its own actions. Especially during an election... Right? And it is not like anyone in our government would find ways to demonize impotent pawns in order to create their own wars of choice... Right?"Terror is nothing other than
prompt, severe, inflexible justice."
Fear has always been their tool. Lies and deception are their only game. These modern day Jacobins, the Neoconservatives, know no other way.
I, for one, do not trust the media to be a fair arbiter of this kind of information. They have been prone to do the bidding of these Neoconservatives time and time again. The Neoconservatives have known this day was coming. The day when they would be cornered with nothing left to do but lash out at anyone and everyone.
The "traditional" conservative Claes G. Ryn has argued that neoconservatives are "a variety of neo-Jacobins." Ryn maintains that true conservatives deny the existence of a universal political and economic philosophy and model that is suitable for all societies and cultures, and believe that a society's institutions should be adjusted to suit its culture, while Neo-Jacobins
are attached in the end to ahistorical, supranational principles that they believe should supplant the traditions of particular societies. The new Jacobins see themselves as on the side of right and fighting evil and are not prone to respecting or looking for common ground with countries that do not share their democratic preferences. (Ryn 2003: 387)
Further examining the relationship between Neoconservatism and moral rhetoric, Ryn argues that
Neo-Jacobinism regards America as founded on universal principles and assigns to the United States the role of supervising the remaking of the world. Its adherents have the intense dogmatic commitment of true believers and are highly prone to moralistic rhetoric. They demand, among other things, "moral clarity" in dealing with regimes that stand in the way of America's universal purpose. They see themselves as champions of "virtue." (p. 384).
Thus, according to Ryn, neoconservatism is analogous to Bolshevism: in the same way that the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy established ways of life throughout the world to replace them with communism, the neoconservatives want to do the same, only imposing free-market capitalism and American-style liberal democracy instead of socialism.
"They are not new conservatives. They're Jacobins. Their predecessor is French Revolution leader Maximilien Robespierre."
So... If I were a bankrupt Neoconservative, would I ask my Likudnik brothers in everlasting wars to deliver a dirty bomb, one that would leave uranium traces on a target of my choice, to an impotent enemy in order to keep the fear alive?
Deep down you already know my answer!
And I would be laughing at you as you coward in fear, yet again, and were lead like lambs to the slaughter in my newest, greatest war for freedumb.