Muslim televangelist Zakir Naik banned from Toronto conference

[JB Globe]

Well, here's the thing . . .

I fully support Ann Coulter's right to come to Canada and say dumb-ass things that could include the following:

"Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

So why not this moron too?

At least I'm no hypocrite, unlike some of you here, who have no problem with a right-wing bigot stopping by, but when someone says something offensive about a group you identify with (ie - Western Civilization) you jump at the chance to shut the gates, and all your support for free-speech shrinks faster than my manhood does at the sight of Coulter's skeleton legs.

And thus, you feed the narrative this idiot promotes - that there really is a war against Islam itself - otherwise the same rules would apply across the board.

[bloodyminded]

To my knowledge, Noam Chomsky has never incited violence to achieve his methods, but I still have problem with him, chiefly because he's been instrumental in convincing thousands of impressionable youths that state capitalism is inherently evil and corrupt and should be replaced by some loosely defined democratic communes that will lead us to some near utopia.

I disagree. One could certainly argue that he considers state capitalism to be inherently corrupt (I doubt he'd use the word "evil")...but he says nothing about "democratic communes"...he does beleive in greater local democratic power; but that's what many conservatives believe, as well.

Yet he himself doesn't offer any reasonable solution.

He has no grand vision for the future, that's true; but i think we should be quite suspicious of anyone who does have a grand vision for the future...say, the more hawkish American policymakers, often named (more or less uselessly, in my view) "neocons." Their grand vision for the future is quite explicit: greater Superpower Rule.

In the link you provided, he says,

Personally, I have no confidence in my own views about the "right way," and am unimpressed with the confident pronouncements of others, including good friends.

He says the only practical anarchist methods would be "specific to time and place," would differ accordingly, and would not necessarily be suitable in all instances.

He also says

I tend to agree that anarchism is formless and utopian, though hardly more so than the inane doctrines of neoliberalism, Marxism-Leninism, and other ideologies that have appealed to the powerful and their intellectual servants over the years

That is not trying to "indoctrinat[e] impressionable people into anarchism," as you call it....saying it is "formless and utopian," and is no worse "than Marxist-Leninism," which he here vilifies, and that he has "no confidence" in sweeping pronouncements about the matter.

I personally think Noam Chomsky is a kook, he's not a policy maker he's an ideologue. He doesn't take responsibility for indoctrinating impressionable people into anarchism, who for many spend their lives rallying against the system and instead of improving their own position in life.

He has no obligation to help people "improve their lives" within a system he considers corrupt. He is no different from any number of commentators from any point on the political spectrum, whose primary purpose is to expose, as they see it, the ills of the current ideological and institutional system.

So would I bar him from the country, no, but if he's invited in there should defiantly be some sort of warning on his content.

I'm surprised at this, actually. It sounds draconian. Who--exactly who--would be responsible for these content advisories, and what exactly would they say?

Edited July 1, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Argus]

Well, here's the thing . . .

I fully support Ann Coulter's right to come to Canada and say dumb-ass things that could include the following:

So why not this moron too?

Because there is a difference between someone who occasionally says something outrageous or provocative, and someone who campaigns incessantly and sometimes successfully, to influence the young and impressionable to carry out violent acts.

The remark people love to quote Coulter on, btw, came the day after 911, and I think we can excuse her some emotional overreaction.

[bloodyminded]

Because there is a difference between someone who occasionally says something outrageous or provocative, and someone who campaigns incessantly and sometimes successfully, to influence the young and impressionable to carry out violent acts.

The remark people love to quote Coulter on, btw, came the day after 911, and I think we can excuse her some emotional overreaction.

Then her emotional overreaction lasted quite some time. She was asked later (years later) if she had been "joking," and she adamantly relplied in the negative, pointing out that "point one and point two are now official policy."

(go to 5:30 min.)

Edited July 1, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Jack Weber]

Then her emotional overreaction lasted quite some time. She was asked later (years later) if she had been "joking," and she adamantly relplied in the negative, pointing out that "point one and point two are now official policy."

(go to 5:30 min.)

Well,well,well...Coultergeist and her nuttiness reigns supreme again.At least this time she did'nt use her pat "It's just a joke" cop out...

[Argus]

Then her emotional overreaction lasted quite some time. She was asked later (years later) if she had been "joking," and she adamantly relplied in the negative,

I don't think she was joking at all. But I remember how emotional that time was, and there were an awful lot of people who were thinking and saying some VERY nasty things about the Muslim world.

The point is anti-Muslim campaigning is not what she's about. She might dismiss them as people who, for the most part, are on the wrong end of her political beliefs, but mostly she does political shtick. And I recall during the fuss over her visit to UofO even the head of the law school there said that nothing she'd ever said even approached violation of Canada's hate laws. You can't say the same about this guy.

[bloodyminded]

I don't think she was joking at all. But I remember how emotional that time was, and there were an awful lot of people who were thinking and saying some VERY nasty things about the Muslim world.

The point is anti-Muslim campaigning is not what she's about. She might dismiss them as people who, for the most part, are on the wrong end of her political beliefs, but mostly she does political shtick. And I recall during the fuss over her visit to UofO even the head of the law school there said that nothing she'd ever said even approached violation of Canada's hate laws. You can't say the same about this guy.

I'm not going to argue this, because I have profound issues with the hate laws themselves...never mind the willy-nilly manner in which they've become confused with the HRC's performances.

As much as I detest Mark Steyn--and I honestly think he's a degenerate (unlike Ezra Levant, with whom I disagree, but have more respect for, his bizarre appreciation for Coulter notwithstanding)--he was on the right side in that ridiculous issue. (As was Levant.)

[Non_Partisan]

I disagree. One could certainly argue that he considers state capitalism to be inherently corrupt (I doubt he'd use the word "evil")...but he says nothing about "democratic communes"...he does beleive in greater local democratic power; but that's what many conservatives believe, as well.

Noam Chomsky is an admirer of the ideals of Mikhail Bakunin and Emma Goldman, both who advocated for the elimination of private property. Chomsky himself has routinely publically favoured societies, both past and present, that have either eliminated private property or have put restrictions on its access to ownership. He himself believes that private property rights should be limited to prevent private enterprise from controlling the means of production, and that anarchism is voluntary socialism that should be run by workers councils.

Chomsky is a pinko red anarchist. If he was any more red he`d be from Mars!

He has no grand vision for the future, that's true; but i think we should be quite suspicious of anyone who does have a grand vision for the future...say, the more hawkish American policymakers, often named (more or less uselessly, in my view) "neocons." Their grand vision for the future is quite explicit: greater Superpower Rule.

The difference between neo conservatism and anarchism is that neo conservatism isn't advocating the dismantling of our constitutional democracy; anarchism is. If you are going to make a career out of criticizing your own government and condemning capitalism as inheritively exploitive, than you should at least be able to offer up some positive realistic alternatives, instead of broad base notions of voluntary socialism.

I tend to agree that anarchism is formless and utopian, though hardly more so than the inane doctrines of neoliberalism, Marxism-Leninism, and other ideologies that have appealed to the powerful and their intellectual servants over the years

I disagree with his statement on the grounds that he states neo liberalism is formless and utopian. Neo liberalism isn`t formless, its been practiced under constitutional democracies with some measure of success. To my knowledge Friedman and Hayek never advocated that capitalism would lead to utopia. Marxism and anarchism on the other hand have.

He has no obligation to help people "improve their lives" within a system he considers corrupt.

I never said he has a responsibility to improve the lives of the impressionable youth he indoctrinates through his writings on anarchism, I said that he takes no responsibility for turning them against capitalism, who many as consequence, will spend their youths rallying against the system instead of pursuing upward mobility. If you were to raid the homes of the Black Bloq, I`m quite positive you wouldn`t find many books by Thomas Friedman or Paul Krugman, however I bet money you’d find a lot of books by anarchist rock stars Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klien.

I'm surprised at this, actually. It sounds draconian. Who--exactly who--would be responsible for these content advisories, and what exactly would they say?

I don't see it as draconian at all. I think there should be some sort of advisory warning, verbal or written on political content that is extremist in nature. Extremist in that the ideology is ultimately at odds with our constitutional democracy. This would include Fascism, National Socialism, Communism, Anarchism and Islamic Fundamentalism. It may do more harm than good by making it taboo for teenagers, but there should be some action taken to prevent these ideologies from indoctrinating impressionable or troubled youth in our society.

[bloodyminded]

Noam Chomsky is an admirer of the ideals of Mikhail Bakunin and Emma Goldman, both who advocated for the elimination of private property. Chomsky himself has routinely publically favoured societies, both past and present, that have either eliminated private property or have put restrictions on its access to ownership.

The latter, yes; not the former. In fact, "Stalinist" was his favourite pejorative back in the days when it wasn't used ubiquitously as it is now. Hell, he was barred from the Soviet Union for being "anti-revolutionary." (Comically, he was simultaneously controversial in Peron's Argentina, and was labelled a "revolutionary.")

He himself believes that private property rights should be limited to prevent private enterprise from controlling the means of production, and that anarchism is voluntary socialism that should be run by workers councils.

Not quite. He speaks positively of things like workers' councils, but has serious misgivings about how they could be efficiently organized and run; and he's conservatively cautious about radical changes to institutions. He's an incrementalist all the way...an attribute that has earned him some scorn among sectors of the radical left, as they consider him a "Left gatekeeper" of entrenched power.

Chomsky is a pinko red anarchist. If he was any more red he`d be from Mars!

He's a lot less radical than you think. Not particularly radical, in fact. The primary controversies have surrounded not his economic philosophy (of which he claims no special expertise in any event), but his unrelenting criticism of Western nations, particularly his own.

The difference between neo conservatism and anarchism is that neo conservatism isn't advocating the dismantling of our constitutional democracy; anarchism is.

No, neoconservatism advocates rule through deception by a coterie of intellectuals, the advisors to the throne, so to speak, because the public is too stupid, and not able to handle the nihilism which is the true nature of existence. They believe the public should be kept orderly through religion and patriotism, while the same rules don't apply to these philosopher kings.

Endless war helps a lot in this regard, they figure; and note how they were quite explicit that a mostly fraudulent "war on terror" would last for the foreseeable future.

In fact, subtract the support for religion (which most of them don't believe themselves)...and you've got a pretty clear picture of Leninism for your delectation.

If you are going to make a career out of criticizing your own government and condemning capitalism as inheritively exploitive, than you should at least be able to offer up some positive realistic alternatives, instead of broad base notions of voluntary socialism.

There's no sense in offering alternatives while you're still battling to get the truth (as you perceive it...I'm making no grandiose claims) heard. First comes education; then the alternatives.

I never said he has a responsibility to improve the lives of the impressionable youth he indoctrinates through his writings on anarchism, I said that he takes no responsibility for turning them against capitalism, who many as consequence, will spend their youths rallying against the system instead of pursuing upward mobility. If you were to raid the homes of the Black Bloq, I`m quite positive you wouldn`t find many books by Thomas Friedman or Paul Krugman, however I bet money youd find a lot of books by anarchist rock stars Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klien.

If Chomsky is responsible for the Black Bloc, then conservative Christianity is responsible for the White Supremacist movement (most of whom self-label as conservative, Christian, and patriotic). Friedman is responsible for the capitalist thugs like Pinochet and Suharto; and so on.

These guys make the Black Bloc look like Gandhi by comparison.

However, anticipating some topic-diverting screaming (not necessarily from yourself, mind you), I will add that I don't think these people aand organizations are responsible for the evils done through ideological and philosophical sympathy with them. Only that the analogy is apt, even exact.

I

don't see it as draconian at all. I think there should be some sort of advisory warning, verbal or written on political content that is extremist in nature. Extremist in that the ideology is ultimately at odds with our constitutional democracy. This would include Fascism, National Socialism, Communism, Anarchism and Islamic Fundamentalism. It may do more harm than good by making it taboo for teenagers, but there should be some action taken to prevent these ideologies from indoctrinating impressionable or troubled youth in our society.

Do you support an advisory when a war criminal like Henry Kisinger comes to speak in Canada (which he has)? What about an Ann Coulter...who is far more extreme than Chomsky?

Edited July 3, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Non_Partisan]

The latter, yes; not the former. In fact, "Stalinist" was his favourite pejorative back in the days when it wasn't used ubiquitously as it is now. Hell, he was barred from the Soviet Union for being "anti-revolutionary." (Comically, he was simultaneously controversial in Peron's Argentina, and was labelled a "revolutionary.")

Your skirting the issue, I never said anything about Stalinism or Marxism. Chomsky is an admirer of both Bakunin and Goldman who advocated for the elimination of private property.

Not quite. He speaks positively of things like workers' councils, but has serious misgivings about how they could be efficiently organized and run; and he's conservatively cautious about radical changes to institutions. He's an incrementalist all the way...an attribute that has earned him some scorn among sectors of the radical left, as they consider him a "Left gatekeeper" of entrenched power.

Chomsky himself believes that the right to own private property should be restricted to prevent large enterprises from controlling the means of production. He has consistently supported movements that have abolished or restricted private property. He is a red anarchist.

He's a lot less radical than you think. Not particularly radical, in fact. The primary controversies have surrounded not his economic philosophy (of which he claims no special expertise in any event), but his unrelenting criticism of Western nations, particularly his own.

He is a red anarchist. That is radical.

No, neoconservatism advocates rule through deception by a coterie of intellectuals, the advisors to the throne, so to speak, because the public is too stupid, and not able to handle the nihilism which is the true nature of existence. They believe the public should be kept orderly through religion and patriotism, while the same rules don't apply to these philosopher kings.

I`ll say it again. Neo Conservatism still does not advocate the dismantling of our constitutional democracy, Anarchism does. I am glad that you hold the general public`s intelligence in such high esteem, perhaps a socialist intelligentsia will one day guide them towards the utopian light, unlikely though.

If Chomsky is responsible for the Black Bloc, then conservative Christianity is responsible for the White Supremacist movement (most of whom self-label as conservative, Christian, and patriotic). Friedman is responsible for the capitalist thugs like Pinochet and Suharto; and so on.

I never said Chomsky is responsible for the Black Bloc, but he is defiantly a gateway into the ideology of Anarchism. I would have no hesitation to bet large amounts of money that you would find numerous texts of books by Chomsky if you raided the houses of the Black Bloq.

Friedman, lol. I don`t think a young adult could get through three pages of Friedman without falling asleep. Friedman had nothing to do with Pinochet`s rise to power the CIA did. Despite Thatcher`s claim that it was Chicago school economics that have led to Chili`s dynamic economy, Pinochet experimented with variety of economic policies including Keynesianism.

As for Christianity, most white supremacists hold Christianity in contempt. National Socialism is based around nature worship, Nordic mythology and the occult teachings of Madame Blavatsky, not Christianity. You cannot compare a 3000 year old text to modern writing. The KKK however, has traditionally distorted biblical versus for their own gain, and I do think that they should be dealt with.

Do you support an advisory when a war criminal like Henry Kisinger comes to speak in Canada (which he has)? What about an Ann Coulter...who is far more extreme than Chomsky?

How is Ann Coulter more extreme than Chomsky? As much as I loathe Ann Coulter, she is a stalwart defender of the American constitution and republican democracy, she is not advocating anarchism which seeks to dismantle our British parliamentary system. Show me evidence that she is and I’d gladly slap on advisory sticker on her mouth.

[bloodyminded]

Your skirting the issue, I never said anything about Stalinism or Marxism. Chomsky is an admirer of both Bakunin and Goldman who advocated for the elimination of private property.

I presented it with the understanding that you were conflating anarchism with the more tyrannical aspects of the Soviet Union. If I mistook your perspective, I apologize.

But I also pointed out that nowhere does Chomsky advocate for the elimination of private property. He in fact has said the opposite. His admiration for Bakunin doesn't mean he subscribes to every aspect, no more than admiring Thomas Jefferson is advocacy for slaveholding.

Chomsky himself believes that the right to own private property should be restricted to prevent large enterprises from controlling the means of production. He has consistently supported movements that have abolished or restricted private property. He is a red anarchist.

Where has he supported the abolition of private property? This is a declarative statement, so it's reasonable to ask for some citation. I've read him, and no matter what one thinks of his views, it can't be denied that he's remained remarkably consistent over the past 40+ years...and I've never come across any such assertion from him.

He is a red anarchist. That is radical.

He's an uneasy combination of socialist and libertarian who is interested in anarchism, but has stated outright (and I've quoted him above) that he doesn't see how anarchism could be practically implemented.

I`ll say it again. Neo Conservatism still does not advocate the dismantling of our constitutional democracy, Anarchism does. I am glad that you hold the general public`s intelligence in such high esteem, perhaps a socialist intelligentsia will one day guide them towards the utopian light, unlikely though.

An odd rejoinder, since I likened the neocons to Lenin, and have displayed open hostility towards just what you mock me for.

What do you mean by "hold[ing] the general public's intelligence in such high esteem"?

I never said Chomsky is responsible for the Black Bloc, but he is defiantly a gateway into the ideology of Anarchism. I would have no hesitation to bet large amounts of money that you would find numerous texts of books by Chomsky if you raided the houses of the Black Bloq.

Friedman, lol. I don`t think a young adult could get through three pages of Friedman without falling asleep. Friedman had nothing to do with Pinochet`s rise to power the CIA did. Despite Thatcher`s claim that it was Chicago school economics that have led to Chili`s dynamic economy, Pinochet experimented with variety of economic policies including Keynesianism.

???? Every capitalist economy is a mixed economy, as is every socialist one. But I don't why you'd hold Chomsy responsible for the Black bloc, and not consider that the Chicago School types have had any possible negative infliences anywhere; the former a force for galvanizing youth, the latter in a vacuum with zero real-world effects? That's absurd.

Friedman et al have been far more influential than Noam Chomsky--obviously!--and to say all their effects are positive is to deny the complexities of human societies and economies, no matter the worth or lack of it within their theories..

As for Christianity, most white supremacists hold Christianity in contempt. National Socialism is based around nature worship, Nordic mythology and the occult teachings of Madame Blavatsky, not Christianity. You cannot compare a 3000 year old text to modern writing. The KKK however, has traditionally distorted biblical versus for their own gain, and I do think that they should be dealt with.

The White Supremacists, most of whom are not the KKK, and are a more seriossu problem than that organization, are certainly Christian. They admire the Nazis, but they are a different version. Visit the numerous websites and read through the forums, if you can stomach them. The overwhelming majority are Christian.

And of course they're a distortion, and of course I don't think the comparison between them and Christian conservatives in general is fair. I use the analogy because you seem to think any Chomsky-like individual is responsible for how others behave...but you can't apply the exact same principles to far more influential agents who happen to be on different points in the political spectrum.

How is Ann Coulter more extreme than Chomsky? As much as I loathe Ann Coulter, she is a stalwart defender of the American constitution and republican democracy, she is not advocating anarchism which seeks to dismantle our British parliamentary system. Show me evidence that she is and Id gladly slap on advisory sticker on her mouth.

She is platitudinously supportive of what you say, but it conflicts with her massive distortions of such things. She supports aggressive war, and considers it "feminine" to disagree with the American "right" to do what it wants, to anyone, anywhere. That's an imperial mentality, which is opposed to republican democracy by definition. She criticized "Old Europe" for going along with the democratic will rather than obeying Washington's demands; similarly, and displaying the same "love of democracy" characterized by Cheney and Wolfowitz, she lavishly praised "New Europe" because it did obey Washington...in total abnegation of the clear and overwhelming popular will of their electorates.

That's "democracy"---going along with what Washington demands, in opposition to the public will.

She doesn't love "republican democracy," she loves American might and displays of power.

It's not as if she's subtle about it.

At any rate, you keep comparing these stalwart defenders of democracy (who actually despise it) to Chomsky's "anarchism"...a view that is not really accurate, as I've shown. Chomsky's entire oeuvre has practically been about democracy and democratic will. He is much more explicit about such things than Coulter, and it is a central part of his ongoing, overarching thesis. He is practically obssessed with democracy, and rejects anything that isn't democratic.

Edited July 3, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Sir Bandelot]

"Zakir Naik". Never heard of him.

But I have now, that he's been banned.

[Non_Partisan]

Where has he supported the abolition of private property? This is a declarative statement, so it's reasonable to ask for some citation. I've read him, and no matter what one thinks of his views, it can't be denied that he's remained remarkably consistent over the past 40+ years...and I've never come across any such assertion from him.

I never said Chomsky supported the abolition of property, I said that he has favoured societies past and present that have eliminated private property or have put restrictions on its access to ownership. In the following article he favours the Israeli kibbutzim settlement that was based around communal property and in this article and others he has spoken well of the short lived Anarchist movement during the Spanish Revolution that also engaged in communal property.

I of course will give you the link. http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19760725.htm

In fact Chomsky has consistently given favour to current societies that engage in communalism such as the Zapatista movement in Mexico and shack dwellers movement in South Africa, while being consistently critical of property rights. It is curious at best that Chomsky attaches his name to so many communal societies, and not all of them have been benevolent, as this includes his downplaying of atrocities carried out by the Khmer Rouge.

Noam Chomsky has described himself as a Libertarian Socialist, primarily because Anarchism can be used to define Libertarian Anarchism, which advocates for free market capitalism. In a 1970 book written by French Socialist Daniel Guerin in support of the ideals of Anarchism, Chomsky writing the preface states.

“A consistent anarchist must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer.” ..... “The consistent anarchist, then, should be a socialist” http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19760725.htm

Thus Chomsky feels private property and the ability of private enterprise should be restricted a point he makes clear in an interview with the Washington Post.

“I think a decent society should protect rights to private property within limits, but not concentrations of private power that infringe on the freedom and rights of others, including exploitation of labor, and that convert any democratic forms into what have been called sometimes "hierarchical democracies," like ours”

What are these concentrations of private property? Superstores like Walmart and the Home Depot? The land assets of mining, oil and other recourse companies??? Lenin allowed for private property within limits as well.

Wikipedia describes Libertarian Socialism as “a group of political philosophies which aspire to create a society that is non-hierarchical, without private ownership of the means of production or an authoritarian state. Chomsky has also stated that he is a sympathizer of Anarcho Syndicalism which advocates the abolishment of private property for controlling the means of production.

I stand by my word Chomsky is a red anarchist. I believed I stated before that I thought that Chomsky is a brilliant intellectual; unfortunately he aligns himself with an extreme political ideology, anarchism.

What do you mean by "hold[ing] the general public's intelligence in such high esteem"?

You put down the intelligence of the general North American public by calling them stupid. In your own words, "No, neoconservatism advocates rule through deception by a coterie of intellectuals, the advisors to the throne, so to speak, because the public is too stupid."

If you’re on the far left this doesn’t surprise me because traditionally leftist intellectuals often hold contempt towards the general public and feel that they are not bright enough to know what is best for them, and thus need guidance by socialist elites.

???? Every capitalist economy is a mixed economy, as is every socialist one. But I don't why you'd hold Chomsy responsible for the Black bloc, and not consider that the Chicago School types have had any possible negative infliences anywhere; the former a force for galvanizing youth, the latter in a vacuum with zero real-world effects? That's absurd.

I already jokingly said that a young adult couldn’t read three pages of Freidman without falling asleep. I don’t think Chomsky is responsible for the Black Bloq, but he is a gateway into anarchism for many troubled young adults in Canada. I feel the same way about other forms of anarchist indoctrination whether it be your local Anarcho poverty society or an anarchist punk rock band espousing the overthrow of the state. I view all political extremists in North America as vultures looking to prey upon the young to further their cause. Say what you want about Ann Coulter, but her indoctrination tells youths to get a job, work hard and invest your money, I haven`t seen many Coulter fans throw bricks through Starbuck windows.

[bloodyminded]

You put down the intelligence of the general North American public by calling them stupid. In your own words, "No, neoconservatism advocates rule through deception by a coterie of intellectuals, the advisors to the throne, so to speak, because the public is too stupid."

If you’re on the far left this doesn’t surprise me because traditionally leftist intellectuals often hold contempt towards the general public and feel that they are not bright enough to know what is best for them, and thus need guidance by socialist elites.

What was clearly implied, and in fact couldn't be taken any other way by an honest reader, was that I was denouncing exactly what you say here I support.

I was saying that the neocons believe this; not that I do.

Why would i thus denounce the neocons...if I agreed with what I feel is their position?

So this is perfectly obvious in the context from which I was discussing the matter.

Further, your final remarks are an apt description not of some "left" entity that scarcely exists as you caricature it, but of the neocons themselves....according to their most eager supporters and enthusiasts:

Christopher Hitchens:

Part of the charm of the regime-change argument (from the point of view of its supporters) is that it depends on premises and objectives that cannot, at least by the administration, be publicly avowed. Since Paul Wolfowitz is from the intellectual school of Leo Strauss—and appears in fictional guise as such in Saul Bellow's novel Ravelstein—one may even suppose that he enjoys this arcane and occluded aspect of the debate.

http://www.slate.com/id/2073634

(And in case the meaning isn't clear, Hitchens--who WAS one of the "supporters" that he coyly amends to third-person here--is quite openly celebrating anti-democratic principles. Whether he did or didn't do such things as a socialist--he certainly does them as a Born-Again hawkish neocon-supporter.)

[Non_Partisan]

What was clearly implied, and in fact couldn't be taken any other way by an honest reader, was that I was denouncing exactly what you say here I support.

I was saying that the neocons believe this; not that I do.

So this is perfectly obvious in the context from which I was discussing the matter.

Well then for next time....

No, neoconservatism advocates rule through deception by a coterie of intellectuals, the advisors to the throne, so to speak, because the public is too stupid, and not able to handle the nihilism which is the true nature of existence. They believe the public should be kept orderly through religion and patriotism, while the same rules don't apply to these philosopher kings.

If you are quoting a neo conservative please use citations, otherwise your remarks can be misinterpreted to appear that you personally believe neo cons can rule through deception because the public is too stupid.

[bloodyminded]

Well then for next time....

If you are quoting a neo conservative please use citations, otherwise your remarks can be misinterpreted to appear that you personally believe neo cons can rule through deception because the public is too stupid.

I wasn't quoting them, but rather paraphrasing, both the critics and supporters.

I had thought I was clearly expressing their contemptuosu view, which is utterly at odds with my own. Re-reading it, I still don't know how you could misconstrue it.