<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Reports of neoconservatism&#8217;s death greatly exaggerated?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://thenewneo.com/2007/10/04/reports-of-neoconservatisms-death-greatly-exaggerated/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://thenewneo.com/2007/10/04/reports-of-neoconservatisms-death-greatly-exaggerated/</link>
	<description>A blog about political change, among other things</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:30:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Latest Book Reviews		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2007/10/04/reports-of-neoconservatisms-death-greatly-exaggerated/#comment-45188</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Latest Book Reviews]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:30:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/04/reports-of-neoconservatisms-death-greatly-exaggerated/#comment-45188</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;strong&gt;Latest Book Reviews...&lt;/strong&gt;

I couldn&#039;t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Latest Book Reviews&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>I couldn&#8217;t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Ymarsakar		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2007/10/04/reports-of-neoconservatisms-death-greatly-exaggerated/#comment-44029</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ymarsakar]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:20:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/04/reports-of-neoconservatisms-death-greatly-exaggerated/#comment-44029</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;b&gt;Tatterdemalian says neocons are “self-critical”. How does that translate to “orwellian”, Xanth?&lt;/b&gt;

Orwellian in the sense of an amateur&#039;s understanding of 1984, when war is peace and the ministry of truth is the ministry of lies. It means that as you say one thing, the truth is entirely 180 degrees from what you said. So he sees it as &quot;Orwellian&quot; because he believes neo-cons are the opposite of self-critical and believes you all are lying. Or simply deceived.

What I described is not the fundamental core of what Orwell wrote about in 1984 though. Orwell had two notable themes or schools in which he described in his book. One was doublethink and the other one was EngSoc.

Doublethink is the ability to hold two or more contradictory beliefs in your head at the same time. Both are seen by you as true, at the same time. This has interesting implications, which I will develop later.

The other was English Socialism or EngSoc, the new English vocabulary designed to delete words from the human language in order to prevent humans from even thinking about it. This is different from doublethink in that language controls whether you think of something at all, since it is why we came up with language in the first place. One must have words before we can manipulate or even have abstract thoughts. Doublethink allowed you to equate two different things as if they were true, such as terrorism and the United States, while at the same time recognizing where they are different and exploiting it. 

The reporters, or traitors whatever you prefer, know that the terrorists will punish and execute them if they bring the terrorists bad press and the reporters also know that the United States will do little to them, unless they attack a Democrat, if they give the US bad press. Yet at the same time, American freedom fighters are the same as terrorists and Bin Laden. That is doublethink. It is a very flexible method of self-deception that allows a person to function in a war both without and within. It is very similar to the removal of a person&#039;s consciencei n order to make him a remorseless and merciless killer. When a person has successfully achieved doublethink, triplethink, etc, then they are able to be programmed with the right beliefs and set out to assassinate and destroy whatever targets they were designed to destroy. The Left were designed by the Soviets to weaken and destroy American culture, patriotism, beliefs, etc. for example.

You may think of political correctness as a crude attempt at language control. Chomsky is a notable author concerning linguistics and also took part in the Cognitive School of Psychology. He knows quite well how language controls thought and how thought controls actions and behaviors. It is why so many people believe Chomsky is reasoned, wise, and knowledgeable. Disbelieve if you wish, but those folks do exist and they are everywhere.

All in all, doublethink allows the Left to disengage from reality when they come up with propaganda. So you will hear many things from the Left concerning how the US should be better than the terrorists and are better than the terrorists, but also at the same time you will hear, often from the same people, that the United States cannot defeat terrorism. If we are better than terrorists, why would then we not be able to defeat someone inferior to us? To such people on the Left, the question never comes up, because the question is not possible given their programming. THey can&#039;t even think of it nor can they even wonder what they should think of it.

There are certain degrees of flexibility. For example, look at the Islamic Jihad. Their sort of doublethink concerning Allah is very logical and straight forward. Anything that goes against Allah in terms of say... freedom to choose which god to worship and god or anything else of that matter, must be put to the death, converted, or enslaved. Their foundations for their beliefs are pretty straight forward in this sense, very simple compared to a Leftist&#039;s various political and philosophical beliefs. Oh, those are tangled up quite well, in fact.

Anyone can join the Left, just look at Donald. You don&#039;t have to be a believer in socialism to be a Leftist. You can know as much about history as Victor Davis Hanson and be able to quote military tactics like Petraeus, but in the end you are only as good as human fallibility allows you to be. If a person has an intense enough hatred and amount of bitterness, then this source of hatred will allow them to derive or obtain doublethink. This makes them intellectually honest, but intellectual honest is not the objective when it comes to destroying that which they hate and despise. After all, this tactic is explored in American Total War as well. Why would you give comfort to your enemy, when you are still at war with them? It is a tactic. Doublethink is a tactic and can be used for good or evil. People do it all the time when they accept paradoxes. Think about it, why is the West so weak in terms of its ability to defend itself yet so powerful economically? Is that not a paradox, one that contains two contradictory beliefs?

So doublethink is a human ability, similar but not the same as self-deception. Computers cannot lie or do doublethink since computers know only ones and zeros. Both their hardware and their digital systems rely upon such, and if they get an &quot;amibiguous answer&quot;, then problems may occur. There are &quot;don&#039;t cares&quot; in which either a 1 or a zero may apply, but wouldn&#039;t change anything, but obviously in human affairs it would change things if America was weak or if it was strong.

There are paradoxes all around. Sometimes we find out why, sometimes we don&#039;t. Sometimes the Left cares, most of the time they don&#039;t.

An easy example would be to remember why in 1984 the Minsitry of Propaganda is called and believed to be the Ministry of Truth. How can propaganda be both lies and truth at the same time and place? There are ways and methods for the human mind to justify and self-rationalize conflicting and contradictory beliefs. It is why humans still deceive themselves, even after so long a climb towards self-awareness, civilization, and technological supremacy. For the Ministry of Truth, you may see the truth as containing the fact that &quot;if you don&#039;t believe it is the truth, you will be punished&quot;. That is true, after all, so it is not a stretch to think of the Ministry of Truth as containing truth. The truth of your destruction, if nothing else. But it is also true it is the Ministry of Propaganda and Lies. People back in Saddam&#039;s days had this duality. Same for the Soviets. You had to be able to switch your brain from one set of facts to another, else you would be destroyed.

Remember when the Soviets were allied with the Nazis? How do you think they justified it to their citizens, via the NKVD, that the Soviets are now at war with their former allies against their former enemies, the Capitalistic pigs of the West? Doublethink.

The Left has a very nice control of doublethink over their legions and minions. The Republicans not so much, they got too many standards and ethics that chain them down. Which is why they, the Republicans,  are unable to circle the wagons and defend people accused of unethical actions in Congress, like the Democrats do with Jeffery, Murtha, etc..]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>Tatterdemalian says neocons are “self-critical”. How does that translate to “orwellian”, Xanth?</b></p>
<p>Orwellian in the sense of an amateur&#8217;s understanding of 1984, when war is peace and the ministry of truth is the ministry of lies. It means that as you say one thing, the truth is entirely 180 degrees from what you said. So he sees it as &#8220;Orwellian&#8221; because he believes neo-cons are the opposite of self-critical and believes you all are lying. Or simply deceived.</p>
<p>What I described is not the fundamental core of what Orwell wrote about in 1984 though. Orwell had two notable themes or schools in which he described in his book. One was doublethink and the other one was EngSoc.</p>
<p>Doublethink is the ability to hold two or more contradictory beliefs in your head at the same time. Both are seen by you as true, at the same time. This has interesting implications, which I will develop later.</p>
<p>The other was English Socialism or EngSoc, the new English vocabulary designed to delete words from the human language in order to prevent humans from even thinking about it. This is different from doublethink in that language controls whether you think of something at all, since it is why we came up with language in the first place. One must have words before we can manipulate or even have abstract thoughts. Doublethink allowed you to equate two different things as if they were true, such as terrorism and the United States, while at the same time recognizing where they are different and exploiting it. </p>
<p>The reporters, or traitors whatever you prefer, know that the terrorists will punish and execute them if they bring the terrorists bad press and the reporters also know that the United States will do little to them, unless they attack a Democrat, if they give the US bad press. Yet at the same time, American freedom fighters are the same as terrorists and Bin Laden. That is doublethink. It is a very flexible method of self-deception that allows a person to function in a war both without and within. It is very similar to the removal of a person&#8217;s consciencei n order to make him a remorseless and merciless killer. When a person has successfully achieved doublethink, triplethink, etc, then they are able to be programmed with the right beliefs and set out to assassinate and destroy whatever targets they were designed to destroy. The Left were designed by the Soviets to weaken and destroy American culture, patriotism, beliefs, etc. for example.</p>
<p>You may think of political correctness as a crude attempt at language control. Chomsky is a notable author concerning linguistics and also took part in the Cognitive School of Psychology. He knows quite well how language controls thought and how thought controls actions and behaviors. It is why so many people believe Chomsky is reasoned, wise, and knowledgeable. Disbelieve if you wish, but those folks do exist and they are everywhere.</p>
<p>All in all, doublethink allows the Left to disengage from reality when they come up with propaganda. So you will hear many things from the Left concerning how the US should be better than the terrorists and are better than the terrorists, but also at the same time you will hear, often from the same people, that the United States cannot defeat terrorism. If we are better than terrorists, why would then we not be able to defeat someone inferior to us? To such people on the Left, the question never comes up, because the question is not possible given their programming. THey can&#8217;t even think of it nor can they even wonder what they should think of it.</p>
<p>There are certain degrees of flexibility. For example, look at the Islamic Jihad. Their sort of doublethink concerning Allah is very logical and straight forward. Anything that goes against Allah in terms of say&#8230; freedom to choose which god to worship and god or anything else of that matter, must be put to the death, converted, or enslaved. Their foundations for their beliefs are pretty straight forward in this sense, very simple compared to a Leftist&#8217;s various political and philosophical beliefs. Oh, those are tangled up quite well, in fact.</p>
<p>Anyone can join the Left, just look at Donald. You don&#8217;t have to be a believer in socialism to be a Leftist. You can know as much about history as Victor Davis Hanson and be able to quote military tactics like Petraeus, but in the end you are only as good as human fallibility allows you to be. If a person has an intense enough hatred and amount of bitterness, then this source of hatred will allow them to derive or obtain doublethink. This makes them intellectually honest, but intellectual honest is not the objective when it comes to destroying that which they hate and despise. After all, this tactic is explored in American Total War as well. Why would you give comfort to your enemy, when you are still at war with them? It is a tactic. Doublethink is a tactic and can be used for good or evil. People do it all the time when they accept paradoxes. Think about it, why is the West so weak in terms of its ability to defend itself yet so powerful economically? Is that not a paradox, one that contains two contradictory beliefs?</p>
<p>So doublethink is a human ability, similar but not the same as self-deception. Computers cannot lie or do doublethink since computers know only ones and zeros. Both their hardware and their digital systems rely upon such, and if they get an &#8220;amibiguous answer&#8221;, then problems may occur. There are &#8220;don&#8217;t cares&#8221; in which either a 1 or a zero may apply, but wouldn&#8217;t change anything, but obviously in human affairs it would change things if America was weak or if it was strong.</p>
<p>There are paradoxes all around. Sometimes we find out why, sometimes we don&#8217;t. Sometimes the Left cares, most of the time they don&#8217;t.</p>
<p>An easy example would be to remember why in 1984 the Minsitry of Propaganda is called and believed to be the Ministry of Truth. How can propaganda be both lies and truth at the same time and place? There are ways and methods for the human mind to justify and self-rationalize conflicting and contradictory beliefs. It is why humans still deceive themselves, even after so long a climb towards self-awareness, civilization, and technological supremacy. For the Ministry of Truth, you may see the truth as containing the fact that &#8220;if you don&#8217;t believe it is the truth, you will be punished&#8221;. That is true, after all, so it is not a stretch to think of the Ministry of Truth as containing truth. The truth of your destruction, if nothing else. But it is also true it is the Ministry of Propaganda and Lies. People back in Saddam&#8217;s days had this duality. Same for the Soviets. You had to be able to switch your brain from one set of facts to another, else you would be destroyed.</p>
<p>Remember when the Soviets were allied with the Nazis? How do you think they justified it to their citizens, via the NKVD, that the Soviets are now at war with their former allies against their former enemies, the Capitalistic pigs of the West? Doublethink.</p>
<p>The Left has a very nice control of doublethink over their legions and minions. The Republicans not so much, they got too many standards and ethics that chain them down. Which is why they, the Republicans,  are unable to circle the wagons and defend people accused of unethical actions in Congress, like the Democrats do with Jeffery, Murtha, etc..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Tatterdemalian		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2007/10/04/reports-of-neoconservatisms-death-greatly-exaggerated/#comment-44028</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tatterdemalian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:10:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/04/reports-of-neoconservatisms-death-greatly-exaggerated/#comment-44028</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&quot;How does reflecting on one’s mistakes with an eye toward improvement become a “totaliatarian nightmare”?&quot;

It actually could become one, if the reflection is not performed on the whole as well as the parts. Nazi Germany continuously refined its methods for convincing people to persecute Jews, often going as far as devoting entire SS departments to researching ways to ruin the reputations of individual Jews who happened to be particularly respected or well-liked in their communities. The process of experimentation and peer review was followed to the letter, but not one of the people involved ever questioned whether their goal, namely the demonization and eventual annihilation of loyal citizens for the &quot;crime&quot; of being Jewish, was right or wrong.

In the case of sowing democracy and/or spreading US culture, though, I think we&#039;re solidly in the right. The simple fact is that other nations want what we have, and are willing to kill us for it, in the superstitious belief that cutting open the goose that laid the golden egg will reveal all the golden eggs it was hoarding. One option is to let ourselves be destroyed, and hope these other nations learn from the aftermath that we were not a nation of superhuman thieves, but just a nation of ordinary people that happened to hold a set of beliefs that propelled us to superpower status; this is the option our left would have us choose. Another option, favored by the right, is to fight back against anyone that takes a stab at us. We could do that, though our eventual win would probably be at the cost of rendering 90% of the planet uninhabitable, including most of our own territory.

The neocon option is to teach these morons to lay their own damned golden eggs, if they want them so badly. Even if that means we have to make them walk like a goose, honk like a goose, and grow feathers like a goose to do it.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;How does reflecting on one’s mistakes with an eye toward improvement become a “totaliatarian nightmare”?&#8221;</p>
<p>It actually could become one, if the reflection is not performed on the whole as well as the parts. Nazi Germany continuously refined its methods for convincing people to persecute Jews, often going as far as devoting entire SS departments to researching ways to ruin the reputations of individual Jews who happened to be particularly respected or well-liked in their communities. The process of experimentation and peer review was followed to the letter, but not one of the people involved ever questioned whether their goal, namely the demonization and eventual annihilation of loyal citizens for the &#8220;crime&#8221; of being Jewish, was right or wrong.</p>
<p>In the case of sowing democracy and/or spreading US culture, though, I think we&#8217;re solidly in the right. The simple fact is that other nations want what we have, and are willing to kill us for it, in the superstitious belief that cutting open the goose that laid the golden egg will reveal all the golden eggs it was hoarding. One option is to let ourselves be destroyed, and hope these other nations learn from the aftermath that we were not a nation of superhuman thieves, but just a nation of ordinary people that happened to hold a set of beliefs that propelled us to superpower status; this is the option our left would have us choose. Another option, favored by the right, is to fight back against anyone that takes a stab at us. We could do that, though our eventual win would probably be at the cost of rendering 90% of the planet uninhabitable, including most of our own territory.</p>
<p>The neocon option is to teach these morons to lay their own damned golden eggs, if they want them so badly. Even if that means we have to make them walk like a goose, honk like a goose, and grow feathers like a goose to do it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Tatterdemalian		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2007/10/04/reports-of-neoconservatisms-death-greatly-exaggerated/#comment-44023</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tatterdemalian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:25:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/04/reports-of-neoconservatisms-death-greatly-exaggerated/#comment-44023</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&quot;These people are supposed to be grown-ups, correct? Why can they not run their countries like grown-ups?&quot;

Because just because someone is supposed to be a grown-up doesn&#039;t mean that they are. In fact, many cultures actively discourage Western civilization&#039;s idea of &quot;grown-up,&quot; which makes such concepts as treaties and negotiations a waste of time.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;These people are supposed to be grown-ups, correct? Why can they not run their countries like grown-ups?&#8221;</p>
<p>Because just because someone is supposed to be a grown-up doesn&#8217;t mean that they are. In fact, many cultures actively discourage Western civilization&#8217;s idea of &#8220;grown-up,&#8221; which makes such concepts as treaties and negotiations a waste of time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Lee		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2007/10/04/reports-of-neoconservatisms-death-greatly-exaggerated/#comment-44020</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lee]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:30:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/04/reports-of-neoconservatisms-death-greatly-exaggerated/#comment-44020</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Maybe Xanth and the lefties adhere to the notion of &quot;infallability&quot;, like the Catholic Church.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe Xanth and the lefties adhere to the notion of &#8220;infallability&#8221;, like the Catholic Church.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Lee		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2007/10/04/reports-of-neoconservatisms-death-greatly-exaggerated/#comment-44019</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lee]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:28:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/04/reports-of-neoconservatisms-death-greatly-exaggerated/#comment-44019</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Tatterdemalian says neocons are &quot;self-critical&quot;.  How does that translate to &quot;orwellian&quot;, Xanth?  How does reflecting on one&#039;s mistakes with an eye toward improvement become a &quot;totaliatarian nightmare&quot;?
As opposed to the &quot;liberal stubbornness&quot; of lefties like you, Xanth?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tatterdemalian says neocons are &#8220;self-critical&#8221;.  How does that translate to &#8220;orwellian&#8221;, Xanth?  How does reflecting on one&#8217;s mistakes with an eye toward improvement become a &#8220;totaliatarian nightmare&#8221;?<br />
As opposed to the &#8220;liberal stubbornness&#8221; of lefties like you, Xanth?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Ymarsakar		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2007/10/04/reports-of-neoconservatisms-death-greatly-exaggerated/#comment-44012</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ymarsakar]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:40:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/04/reports-of-neoconservatisms-death-greatly-exaggerated/#comment-44012</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;b&gt;That is a truly Orwellian statement.&lt;/b&gt;

Orwell did good work. If the Left studied him more, they might be more adept at masking their propaganda campaigns like Haditha.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>That is a truly Orwellian statement.</b></p>
<p>Orwell did good work. If the Left studied him more, they might be more adept at masking their propaganda campaigns like Haditha.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Ymarsakar		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2007/10/04/reports-of-neoconservatisms-death-greatly-exaggerated/#comment-44011</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ymarsakar]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:39:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/04/reports-of-neoconservatisms-death-greatly-exaggerated/#comment-44011</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;b&gt;We shouldn’t be the global nursery-nanny, running around chastising naughty nations when they misbehave. Maybe that makes me not a neocon.&lt;/b&gt;

Even if we should do so, we can&#039;t due to the amount of incompetent and corrupt bureacrats that need purging in the US government and policy level sphere.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>We shouldn’t be the global nursery-nanny, running around chastising naughty nations when they misbehave. Maybe that makes me not a neocon.</b></p>
<p>Even if we should do so, we can&#8217;t due to the amount of incompetent and corrupt bureacrats that need purging in the US government and policy level sphere.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Xanthippas		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2007/10/04/reports-of-neoconservatisms-death-greatly-exaggerated/#comment-43972</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Xanthippas]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:31:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/04/reports-of-neoconservatisms-death-greatly-exaggerated/#comment-43972</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;blockquote&gt;To that end, we do research and experiments, and listen to honest criticism at least the first time we hear it. Most importantly, should our plans fall apart on being put into practice, we consider it a failure of our plans, rather than a failure of the world to recognize our genius&lt;/blockquote&gt;

That is a truly Orwellian statement.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>To that end, we do research and experiments, and listen to honest criticism at least the first time we hear it. Most importantly, should our plans fall apart on being put into practice, we consider it a failure of our plans, rather than a failure of the world to recognize our genius</p></blockquote>
<p>That is a truly Orwellian statement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Xanthippas		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2007/10/04/reports-of-neoconservatisms-death-greatly-exaggerated/#comment-43971</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Xanthippas]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:30:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/04/reports-of-neoconservatisms-death-greatly-exaggerated/#comment-43971</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Even if you use the term only in the sense that Muravchik does, neocons are still &lt;a href=&quot;http://threewisemen.blogspot.com/2006/11/neo-cons-brilliant-comeback.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;obstinate fools.&lt;/a&gt;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even if you use the term only in the sense that Muravchik does, neocons are still <a href="http://threewisemen.blogspot.com/2006/11/neo-cons-brilliant-comeback.html" rel="nofollow">obstinate fools.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
