Mark Siljander

South Africa would turn into what Zimbabwe turned into, or Rhodesia, and that the radical leftists would take over in the aftermath of the disintegration of the Apartheid Empire, and all hell would break loose. And it still seems to me that that's a real possibility, still, for South Africa. Right, so these are the sorts of things that you were caught up in, in that nexus.

South Africa would turn into what Zimbabwe turned into, or Rhodesia, and that the radical leftists would take over in the aftermath of the disintegration of the Apartheid Empire, and all hell would break loose. And it still seems to me that that's a real possibility, still, for South Africa. Right, so these are the sorts of things that you were caught up in, in that nexus.

And so the neocons from... from what you've said, from what I understand, they're more likely to stand on the side of resolute and even invasive military force to implement regime changes. Now, I want to add one more thing to that, and then we'll go back to your epiphany. The theoretical...

And so the neocons from... from what you've said, from what I understand, they're more likely to stand on the side of resolute and even invasive military force to implement regime changes. Now, I want to add one more thing to that, and then we'll go back to your epiphany. The theoretical...

And so the neocons from... from what you've said, from what I understand, they're more likely to stand on the side of resolute and even invasive military force to implement regime changes. Now, I want to add one more thing to that, and then we'll go back to your epiphany. The theoretical...

The problem with the neocon theory, in my estimation, is that it seems to be predicated on the belief that a totalitarian state is basically composed of like a hyper thug and his minions oppressing a vast number of essentially freedom-loving people. And I don't think that's a reasonable argument. account of a totalitarian or authoritarian state at all.

The problem with the neocon theory, in my estimation, is that it seems to be predicated on the belief that a totalitarian state is basically composed of like a hyper thug and his minions oppressing a vast number of essentially freedom-loving people. And I don't think that's a reasonable argument. account of a totalitarian or authoritarian state at all.

The problem with the neocon theory, in my estimation, is that it seems to be predicated on the belief that a totalitarian state is basically composed of like a hyper thug and his minions oppressing a vast number of essentially freedom-loving people. And I don't think that's a reasonable argument. account of a totalitarian or authoritarian state at all.

Like, an authoritarian state emerges when everyone is lying about everything all the time. There might be the worst thug at the top, but the pathology is radically distributed through the system. So the idea that if you do a regime change, that you're going to evoke something like democracy in its aftermath strikes me as... wishful thinking in the extreme.

Like, an authoritarian state emerges when everyone is lying about everything all the time. There might be the worst thug at the top, but the pathology is radically distributed through the system. So the idea that if you do a regime change, that you're going to evoke something like democracy in its aftermath strikes me as... wishful thinking in the extreme.

Like, an authoritarian state emerges when everyone is lying about everything all the time. There might be the worst thug at the top, but the pathology is radically distributed through the system. So the idea that if you do a regime change, that you're going to evoke something like democracy in its aftermath strikes me as... wishful thinking in the extreme.

So it doesn't seem to me that the neocon fault is necessarily their proclivity to rely on military might. It seems to me that their fault is that they have a naive view of how complex it is to generate the preconditions for a democracy. Exactly. Okay, so I'd be more than happy to hear your reaction to any or all of that, and then we'll go back to the epiphany. Certainly.

So it doesn't seem to me that the neocon fault is necessarily their proclivity to rely on military might. It seems to me that their fault is that they have a naive view of how complex it is to generate the preconditions for a democracy. Exactly. Okay, so I'd be more than happy to hear your reaction to any or all of that, and then we'll go back to the epiphany. Certainly.

So it doesn't seem to me that the neocon fault is necessarily their proclivity to rely on military might. It seems to me that their fault is that they have a naive view of how complex it is to generate the preconditions for a democracy. Exactly. Okay, so I'd be more than happy to hear your reaction to any or all of that, and then we'll go back to the epiphany. Certainly.

Well... This is extraordinary naivete to think one could go to Iraq, or even Syria for that matter, and force... an American-U.S. style democracy on a people group that is broken into different faith groups.

Well... This is extraordinary naivete to think one could go to Iraq, or even Syria for that matter, and force... an American-U.S. style democracy on a people group that is broken into different faith groups.

Well... This is extraordinary naivete to think one could go to Iraq, or even Syria for that matter, and force... an American-U.S. style democracy on a people group that is broken into different faith groups.

Right. Languages.

Right. Languages.

Right. Languages.