If one goes to the famous Wikipedia online and looks up various political terms, it is amazing what they find. For instance, if you are lookup neoconservativism, or neocon you would get an array of names, and conspiracy theories, lots of circumstantial evidence, with no citations to prove any of it.
Not long ago, a political pundit who is a left leaning political activists with PETA stated online; “the NeoCons hijacked the Republican Party, and want to start World War III,” while she was on her way to a K-F-C anti-chicken abuse protest. She was one of their local “community organizers” and had already scheduled the TV station to be there.
It is sometimes amazing folks pick up such tid bits of nonsense, and yet, I didn’t feel it was proper to let her get away with the slanderous remarks, as she called “all” Republicans neocons, and Republican voters just pawns of the ruling elite. You see, not only do I do not accept this definition, I don’t accept any of the slanderous conspiracy theories to go along with them.
Not because the definition is incorrect, because that is not how it is used in public. “Neocon” is used as a slang term, it is a bad word, used as hate speech, and therefore this definition certainly doesn’t apply. So whereas, we can have a conversation about neo-conservatism; the way that the word is used is so slanderous that it is not possible to have a conversation with a conservative, Republican, or anyone that is even close to that without inciting reciprocal verbal attacks. Please consider this.