Neocon vs Neolib

Why do these words exist, when they mean the same things?

Yes, they wear slightly different masks. Neolibs are MUH POOR, MUH MINORITIES, MUH VAGINA when promoting jewish globalism. Neocons are MUH FREEDOM, MUH CHRISTIANITY, MUH RESPECTABILITAH when promoting jewish globalism.

disregard them
there is only one way to go

Classical liberals and Paleoconservatives are basically the same thing. Neocons and neolibs are also basically the same thing.

>choose ancaps instead of ancaps
hi Shlomo

This
It stopped being left and right in this country and now it's globalism or nationalism. Globalism is the establishment both sides.

just replace any instance of "neo" with "judeo" and it's astounding how accurate it is

mind blown

No they don't you fucking retard.
NeoCon = social conservatism + war mongering + crony capitalism
NeoLib = social degeneracy + war mongering + socialism
They're completely different don't you see???

Both are for global hegemony, but through different means.

Neolibs are globalists via trade and monetary policy.

Neocons are globalists via military and fiscal policy.

You can be both, such as someone like Hillary Clinton who is pro military intervention, pro free trade, pro centralized banking, and pro austerity.

>NeoCon = social conservatism + war mongering + crony capitalism
Obama expanded the war to 11 countries, opposed gay marriage, and most TARP money went to his political donors on boondoggles like windmills and green energy. Clinton voted for all of Bush's wars. McCain and Gramnesty support everything Clinton and Obama support, have all the same donors, and fight tooth and nail for the interests of international finance, wall street, etc. The list of fundamental similarities is endless, the list of superficial differences is short.
>retard
You're either an idiot or a shill. Fuck off.

>socialism

NeoLibs aren't actually for socialism. You didn't see Hillary jumping for joy at Bernie Sander's policies. Nor did you see the EU "helping" out Greece during their debt crisis.

They're pretty far from socialism and are much more corporate friendly. Or in other words, pro-capital and anti-labor.

just realized you were being sarcastic, nvm

There you go, now you get it.

They're for it where ever they think they can get away with it.
see
>welfare state

Eh, it's not really a welfare state, it's more of a Walmart state.

Tell that to Tyrone and his twelve kids living on food-stamps and unemployment.

Neoliberal is economic policy.
Neoconservative is force projection.

Neoconservatives believe the US has a "manifest destiny" to bring "Democracy" to everywhere in the world.

Neoliberals believe the in Chicago school economics and worship Hayek and Friedman. In fact, neoliberalism basically became government policy, because Thatcher threw Hayeks books at her advisors and said "how can we make this happen".

You can be both Neoliberal and Neoconservative. Most Republicans are both Neolibs and NeoCons same with those on the right of the Democratic party.

Didn't know Tyrona got a free sex change with her Obamacare. But let's be real, do you really think Hillary or any Neolib democrat gives a flying fuck about her and her 12 McNigglets?

>12 McNigglets that will grow up to vote Democrat
Why in the fuck do you think they want them suckling off the government teet in the first place?

Who they gonna run to, the Republicans?

Yeah, it's not like the Republican party has every done any good for the negro...

>Neoliberal is economic policy.
Neocons always have neoliberal economic policies.
>Neoconservative is force projection.
Implying neocon/neolib doctrines aren't designed around US/NATO countries economic interests. Come on now, we all know why we're still in Afghan, we all know why we pay billions to Israel, we all know we don't put boots on the ground unless there is an economic interest at stake.
>You can be both Neoliberal and Neoconservative.
Well, then we agree, that's what I'm arguing here. There's a pretense that there's some kind of difference between these two, when in fact, there is none. There was no difference in US foreign policy from Reagan to Obama, despite minor turns of phrase and differences in rhetoric. Everything serves international finance.