Disclaimer: I am no expert on Leo Strauss. Nor do I care to become one. The reason for this post is to examine Strauss’s influence on Neocons. And to focus a laser on how the Neocon Ideology, based on a few cardinal (straussian) principles, gives us such a clear map, like a spiderweb, interlinking Iraq-Torture-Deceit-Elistism and more.
Let’s begin with a lovely question by Purple State in a comment at a recent blog of mine:
What kind of democracy do we have when what our government is doing is
so secret even our elected representatives aren’t allowed to know
what’s happening or, if they are allowed, can’t speak of it to anyone,
not even to other elected representatives. …There’s something strange here… This is all a great mystery to me.
Hmmmm….. No kidding!
It seems that I have inadvertently been following a slender thread, across many blogs – to a spiderweb. And I never knew it. I was just following the things that frustrated me about bushco. The lies. The Deceit. The Outsourcing of everything. The Marketing of propaganda. The Obsession with Iraq. The Torture. Neverending War. Contempt for citizens. And come to find out: The neocons planned it all out beforehand!
So I hope by the time you finish this post a little light bulb is gonna go off for you. And suddenly you’ll see the spider web, with "Leo Strauss" and his fanatical disciples (and their acolytes) sitting right in the middle of it.
For some reason, and I won’t spend time trying to figure it out here, there are individuals in history who crave disciples. And who foster a kind of "cult" around themselves, so that people who become "disciples" feel special and the group itself becomes a kind of cohesive entity with a sense of mission. Freud did that. A Ponzi scheme works like that. And Leo Strauss seems to have done something similar. Not only do these folks seem to spawn fanatical disciples (or investors – same thing!), but they also seem to spawn fanatical enemies. So if, at times, I link to a fanatical enemy of the neocons, I do so, not because I agree with the radical anti-straussians (some of whom follow Lyndon LaRouche), but because these "enemies" have taken a lot of time and trouble to research their foe. And we’re gonna use their "existing databank" (who? where? what? = the facts), while disregarding their wacko, anti-semitic rhetoric (the nutty why and how = their theories). The principle here is a little like using cumadin, which is a rat poison if you take too much of it, but works really well as a blood thinner, when used very carefully in moderation.
So: careful warning – Do not under any circumstances get taken in by radical theories, even if I have to link to them!
With those caveats in mind, let us proceed into the Dark Machiavellian World of straussian "principles". And I do not use the word "Machiavellian" lightly, for Machiavelli was required reading for straussian disciples. First, I will summarize the main straussian/neocon principles. Following that we’ll take a look at how these "principles" – or perhaps a better word would be "treasonous ideas" – are visible in the emerging landscape of the bush/cheney crime spree, which masqueraded as government.
Nothing is more threatening to Strauss and his acolytes
than the truth in general and the truth about Strauss in particular.
His admirers are determined to conceal the truth about his ideas.[Canadian Professor and Strauss Expert, Shadia Drury]
Straussian/Neocon "Principles" 101 – (TheraP’s cliff notes version):
- Noble Lies (lies/secrecy as "virtue" – > 4,10,13)
- Perpetual War (war as "virtue" -> 5, 6, 8, 13)
- Fear of the masses and democracy (-> 4, 9)
- Government by an elite (covert rule of "the wise" -> 1,10)
- Instilling a sense of superiority in a nation (-> 8, 13)
- Stability/Unity via FEAR of an external threat (->13)
- Exploiting moral issues/religion’s hold on the people (->1,13)
- National survival – supersedes the well-being of others (->2,5)
- Contempt for dissenters (->10,13)
- Those in power make the rules and call it justice (->1,13)
- Combination of religion and nationalism (->7,13)
- Fear – greatest ally of tyranny (->1,6,13)
- Manipulate the images (media, based on idea of Plato’s cave)
[Synopsis above taken from the following sources: Shadia Drury, Brad deLong, Karen Kwiatkowski, Don Swift, Jeffrey Steinberg, and Danny Postel, who includes an extensive bibliography and interview with Shadia Drury, the Strauss expert. More below.]
The basic building blocks of this ideology are found in lying, the manipulation of fear, contempt for anyone outside the "inner circle" of devotees, and the feeling of being part of an elite, whose judgments substitute the "law". (It is an interesting side-note that one of Strauss’s mentors was Carl Schmitt, the man who became a key legal advisor to Hitler.) If you take these building blocks, horrifying as they seem, you can decipher bushco. You can read the glyphs, so to speak.
By playing around with the "principles" above, you can see the outlines, the blueprint for the bushco spiderweb of deceit. You’ll see cheney’s machinations, the lies that led us into Iraq, the manipulation, propaganda, use of torture to gin up a war and keep it going. The Orwellian language and "selling" of every bad policy as "beneficial". The never ending obfuscations and denials, the use of Homeland, the contempt for human rights, for the poor & distressed, the secrecy and "So what?"attitude. It’s all laid out, right in those so-called "principles" that are totally lacking in principle. (Naturally, given the principles of secrecy and lying, they’d deny every bit of what I’ve told you: All of this throws new light on one blog of mine about Systemic Deception and the Breakdown of Civic Trust.)
Not all members of the previous Badministration were straussians. But that’s beside the point. For the non-straussians, like cheney and rice, were willing to sign on to the same principles, whether by personal character as sociopaths (cheney, rumsfeld), desire to be part of an elite (rice?), or perhaps as allies against a common foe. Those who did not share straussian "ideals" were cut off, like branches being pruned. Anyone who signed on was "willing to play."
That’s it in a nutshell. More below if you want it. Do not miss the final paragraph!
_______________________________________________________
For those willing to plow on, here are some more details:
Leo Strauss was born in 1899 in the region of Hessen, Germany, the
son of a Jewish small businessman. He went to secondary school in
Marburg and served as an interpreter in the German army in the first
world war. He was awarded a doctorate at Hamburg University in 1921 for
a thesis on philosophy that was supervised by Ernst Cassirer.Strauss’s post-doctoral work involved study of Edmund Husserl and
Martin Heidegger, and in 1930 he published his first book, on
Spinoza’s critique of religion; his second, on the 12th century Jewish
philosopher Maimonides, was published in 1935. After a research period
in London, he published The Political Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes
in 1936.In 1937, he moved to Columbia University, and from 1938 to 1948
taught political science and philosophy at the New School for Social
Research, New York. During this period he wrote On Tyranny (1948)
and Persecution and the Art of Writing (1952).In 1949, he became professor of political philosophy at the
University of Chicago, and remained there for twenty years. His works of
this period include Natural Right and History (1953), Thoughts
on Machiavelli (1958), What is Political Philosophy? (1959), The
City and Man (1964), Socrates and Aristophanes (1966), and Liberalism
Ancient and Modern (1968).Between 1968 and 1973, Strauss taught in colleges in California and
Maryland, and completed work on Xenophon’s Socratic discourses and Argument
and Action of Plato’s Laws (1975). After his death in October
1973, the essay collection Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy
(1983) was published.
2. Who signed on to the (neocon/straussian) 1997 (Project for a New American Century) Statement of Principles? Scroll down at the link to find out.
3. Why is that Statement of Principles important? Jason Vest provides a brief history of the Committee on the Present Danger, which begins like this:
Almost thirty years ago, a prominent group of neoconservative hawks
found an effective vehicle for advocating their views via the Committee
on the Present Danger, a group that fervently believed the United States
was a hair away from being militarily surpassed by the Soviet Union, and
whose raison d’être was strident advocacy of bigger military
budgets, near-fanatical opposition to any form of arms control and
zealous championing of a Likudnik Israel. Considered a marginal group in
its nascent days during the Carter Administration, with the election of
Ronald Reagan in 1980 CPD went from the margins to the center of power.
4. Further info on authors cited above in cliff notes:
Shadia Drury:
Professor and author of definitive works on Strauss. Critiques how
straussian disciples have influenced US politics and were architects of
the previous administration’s War in Iraq, etc.Brad deLong:
Discussion of Strauss’s early writing before he came to the US. Useful
summary of Straussian lies and principles. Interesting comments to the
blog.Karen Kwiatkowski:
Gives an insider view of how straussians turned "national security
intelligence" into a propaganda factory, ignoring the intelligence-gathering
wisdom of long time experts.Don Swift:
Excellent objective view of straussian thinking and how straussians
sought to influence US politics, particularly under bushco.Jeffrey Steinberg: Tracks Strauss’s disciples, acolytes and who they
mentored, worked with, tracks their career moves. Excellent source for
who, where, how. Names are in bold. Easy to get a sense of major figures
in this movement and roles they played. Ignore his theories unless you
are studying Lyndon Larouche and company’s radical thought.Danny Postel: Extensive bibliography and interview with Shadia Drury,
the Strauss expert. Also studies straussian influence on US politics.
Hopefully, by now, you see how all of this interrelates, how fanatical and dangerous this group of disciples and conspirators is, how deceitful, machiavellian, and traitorous they are, and how tenaciously and deceptively they will fight – against any effort to unearth all the damage they have done to our nation.
[Originally titled: Who is Leo Strauss? And why should we care? (National Disgrace Exposed!)]



38 Comments




The post above is dedicated to perris, who “can’t get enough of it” and wants it to have a wide readership.
A nice a round of applause for: {{{{ perris! }}}}
This diary has a follow-up, to be posted later.
thank YOU theraP, I CANNOT get enough of this piece you posted, I think it should be required reading for all progressive politicians, thank you so much!
Still reading (rather slow, myself) but add some Edward Bernays in someday.
ooops – meant to thank you.
Add any links you feel would be helpful. This is just a start. Actually, Edward Bernays fits more with a link I’ll provide in the next installment here. It fits with a post of mine from a while back, titled:
Systemic Deception and the Breakdown of Civic Trust
Which can be found here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsme…..he-bre.php
Nicely written, enjoyed the information.
However, if you’ve never read “The Authoritarians” by Bob Altemeyer, Associate Professor Department of Psychology University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Canada, then I highly suggest you do so. John Dean was so inspired by the author’s research and his book, he wrote “Conservatives Without Conscience”.
We all know these Neocons are warped. Their mental issues are enmeshed and ingrained into their psyche’s. Not much “exposed” here in this post that wasn’t covered in detail by Altemeyer. Your post excellently points out what is manifested by the personality types that Altemeyer writes about in his book.
So, while your post does a wonderful job of pointing out real world examples of the Authoritarian and RWA (Right Wing Authoritarians, aka “disciples” as you call them) dynamic, if you want to truly understand what makes these people tick, read Altemeyer and Dean. You won’t be able to put down either book.
“The Authoritarians” is available for free download (in pdf form) here:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
but can be bought at a very reasonable price on Amazon for a bound version.
It changed my thinking. I realize that these people are born that way, and very VERY few ever move from the dark side over into the light. It doesn’t suit their purposes, needs or desires. They truly have no conscience, which is what Dean pointed out in his book. Your post just adds to the long list of horrors these types have subjected us to over the years. We can’t change them. What we need to do is expose them for what they are to the “average low info voter”.
really glad this made the front page, as many people as possible need this information
oops, I thought this was front paged but it was just up on my browser, sorry bout that, wishful thinking
Thanks. I’ll download the Altmeyer book and take another look at the material. To some degree, for myself anyway, it’s easier to have deduced the building blocks and then my background on how people tick basically fills in the rest. I’m trying to work in “shorthand” as much as possible, which is the way my neural networks seem to be set up at this point. I originally distilled this for myself. And found it so helpful, I felt obliged to share it: A shorthand version anyone could refer to. I’m not doing an in-depth study here, simply trying to give people a handy guide.
But many people may want to follow up further. With advice from comments here as well as the links above.
The reason these people won’t change is not because they were born that way, but because they have “character disorders” – and those are difficult to change, even if someone like that decides their personality has caused harm to many and they want to change. It would take maybe a decade of hard work in therapy – IF a person wanted to try and change.
hi. i appreciate your distillation of complex informations and threads of human behavior. I have read that Condoleeza was also a Strauss follower; I think she studied under one of his disciples at U of Chicago.
Wasn’t strauss one of the nazi social scientists eased into the us with modified dossiers?
Wow, TheraP. This is excellent work! Now I’ll go back and read the links since all I read was the statement with the gruesome signatories.
Thanks so much!
Hi, I can supply a bit of “color commentary” to the Straussian phenomenon at the University of Chicago in the late 60’s. I entered the the political science program there as a graduate student with an interest in political thought/theory/philosophy. Unfortunately my profs at my small though well-respected undergraduate school did not realize where they were sending me; nor did I. The wide range of of courses in the catalogue were essentially a single course (only slight exaggeration) taught by Mr. Strauss or one or two disciples. The classes were filled with young mostly men (I am not male) who assembled to write down just about each and every word spoken by the master; to laugh at “in” jokes I did not get; to nod in appreciation at the use of certain words and phrases with, to me, unclear meanings – such as “virtue”; to smirk at references to the division of the world into such categories as “the few” (them-wise) and “the many” (others-not wise). When once I summoned the courage to ask what they meant by that word “virtue,” I created a minor sensation. In a word, yes, a cult. I eventually escaped, never got that career throwing around ideas with undergrads I wanted, and forgot them. Then came Iraq,etc.
No, I do not think Condi studied with Straussians. Her mentor was Madeleine Albright’s father, a Russia specialist I believe.
I can se that’s been answered now @12.
I’m unaware that Strauss had specific Nazi ties. But may have believed in fascism.
@ 12: Marvelous description of a “cult” – which is basically a group which uses esoteric terms, takes up all your time, because everybody does the same things together, and it provides a sense of “identity” – not just an education. I’m glad you escaped! In another thread several people recounted experiences like yours. Or experiences of being recruited by disciples of strauss at colleges and universities, where they were invited to join small study groups.
Hey, TheraP
Thanks! This is, as Loo Hoo said, truly excellent work.
Funny Wheelie Diva
Character flaw vs. born that way. hmmm…. I don’t think its a 100% thing one way or the other. I think some people are BORN w/ a propensity towards certain “flaws” in their character. I’ll concede the point cuz I really really think you’d find Altemeyer and Dean’s book spot on in what you have written above.
I’m not trying to rain on your parade at all… I think you have added to the research and once again underscored what Altemeyer uncovered about the Authoritarian personality…
Here is what is on the front page of the site that I have the link for above. Written by Bob Altemeyer:
OK, what’s this book about? It’s about what happened to the American government after “conservatives” gained control of Congress in the 1990s and the White House in 2000. It’s about the disastrous decisions that government made, which have created the enormous problems we face now. It’s about the corruption that rotted the Congress. It’s about how traditional conservatism has nearly been destroyed by authoritarianism. It’s about how the “Religious Right” teamed up with amoral authoritarian leaders to push its un-democratic agenda onto the country.
“Well,” you might be thinking, “I don’t believe any of this is true.” Or maybe you’re thinking, “What else is new? I’ve known this all along.” Why should a conservative, moderate, or liberal bother with this book? Why should any Republican, Independent, or Democrat click the “Introduction” link on this page?
Because if you do, you’ll begin an easy-ride journey through some relevant scientific studies I have done on authoritarian personalities–one that will take you a heck of a lot less time than the decades it took me. Those studies have a direct bearing on all the topics mentioned above. So if you think the first paragraph is a lot of hokum, or full of half-truths, I invite you to look at the research.
For example, take the following statement: “Once our government leaders and the authorities condemn the dangerous elements in our society, it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poisoning our country from within.” Sounds like something Hitler would say, right? Want to guess how many politicians, how many lawmakers in the United States agreed with it? Want to guess what they had in common?
Or how about a government program that persecutes political parties, or minorities, or journalists the authorities do not like, by putting them in jail, even torturing and killing them. Nobody would approve of that, right? Guess again.
Don’t think for a minute this doesn’t concern you personally. Let me ask you, as we’re passing the time here, how many ordinary people do you think an evil authority would have to order to kill you before he found someone who would, unjustly, out of sheer obedience, just because the authority said to? What sort of person is most likely to follow such an order? What kind of official is most likely to give that order, if it suited his purposes? Look at what experiments tell us, as I did.
If, on the other hand, you’re way ahead of me, and believe the extreme right-wing elements in America are still working to take over the country despite the recent election–nay because of it–I think you can still get a lot from this book. The authoritarians aren’t going away.
The studies explain so much about these people. Yes, the research shows they are very aggressive, but why are they so hostile? Yes, experiments show they are almost totally uninfluenced by reasoning and evidence, but why are they so dogmatic? Yes, studies show the Religious Right has more than its fair share of hypocrites, from top to bottom; but why are they two-faced, and how come one face never notices the other? Yes, their leaders can give the flimsiest of excuses and even outright lies about things they’ve done wrong, but why do the rank-and-file believe them? What happens when authoritarian followers find the authoritarian leaders they crave and start marching together?
I think you’ll find this book “explains a lot.” Many scattered impressions about the enemies of freedom and equality become solidified by science and coherently connected here.
You think I’m pulling your leg? Push the button.
of course now you’ll need to actually go to the site and push the button. :)
I will do my part and read up more on Strauss… thanks for the new info!
Understanding Strauss’s influence is core to understanding the “few bad apples” claims, “the big lie” “means justify the end” horseshit.
A few articles that I read early on that were helpful
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020902/vestThe Men From JINSA and CSP
By Jason Vest
This article appeared in the September 2, 2002 edition of The Nation.
August 15, 2002
Almost thirty years ago, a prominent group of neoconservative hawks found an effective vehicle for advocating their views via the Committee on the Present Danger, a group that fervently believed the United States was a hair away from being militarily surpassed by the Soviet Union, and whose raison d’être was strident advocacy of bigger military budgets, near-fanatical opposition to any form of arms control and zealous championing of a Likudnik Israel. Considered a marginal group in its nascent days during the Carter Administration, with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 CPD went from the margins to the center of power.
A Rose By Another Other Name
The Bush Administration’s Dual Loyalties
by KATHLEEN and BILL CHRISTISON
former CIA political analysts
http://www.counterpunch.org/christison1213.html
http://www.newyorker.com/archi…..027fa_fact
The Stovepipe
How conflicts between the Bush Administration and the intelligence community marred the reporting on Iraq’s weapons.
by Seymour M. Hersh
Serving Two Flags
http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html
the New Pentagon Papers
http://dir.salon.com/story/opi…..index.html
Most of the warmongers Wolfowitz, Feith, Kristol, etc have a connection to Univ of Chicago, Strauss, Irving Kristol (Bloody Bill’s father) and the “means justify the ends” belief. They don’t much care about the millions killed, injured or displaced in the process of implementing their agenda
I’ve checked that that site and the guy years ago. I’m glad you find it helpful, but I’d caution people that trying to “prove” a certain personality type on the basis of a instrument that someone can fill out according to how they want others to view them presents certain statistical problems in validity and reliability. So, just a caution about the “research” basis for this. So, be careful making assumptions about how “scientific” this is claimed to be.
I won’t go into the issues related to nature vs nurture – but we obviously differ there.
Thanks for your great interest in this topic.
I certainly appreciate your interest in this. And maybe you want to do a separate blog on that.
Some of what you’ve put into your comment is in my post. And for anyone who notices that Leen’s link to the Nation article not working, you can find it in my post at #3.
It may not have been clear that there are links using the names in each entry of #4 above. Thus we’re recommending some of the same people and articles. Which only goes to show how valuable they are!
Thanks so much for the extra links. This is so crucial as you underscore.
What I did to come up with the “principles” was go through a bunch of articles, trying to extract the “basics” – but you’ve added wonderful further reading for anyone who wants it.
I’m going to also take an educated guess that there is a connection to “koch industries”
they are taught that what they want is all that matters, lie and cheat and do whatever it takes to get it
this is a bizarre form of sociopathy, socipaths that are atually taught to be socipathic
As in crime families!
@#5:
Thank you for the reference to Bernays, brother-in-law of Freud,and father of modern PR manipulation.
Much reference to the principles of Leo Strauss in the excellent piece entitled “Christian Mafia”,by Wayne Madsen.
The Straussian theories were the underpinnings for the Nazi roots of modern day Prayer Breakfast group known as the “Family” out of Arlington,Virginia.
PLEASE read or bookmark the article . It is superb in its breadth and scope.
Also, a book by Mark Crispin Miller a few years ago about Bush and Cheney’s New World Order goes into detail about the Straussian “Shock and Awe” approach.
THE “CHRISTIAN” MAFIA The term “Christian Mafia” is what several Washington politicians have termed the major conspirators and it is not intended to debase Christians or infer …
http://www.insider-magazine.com/ChristianMafia.htm – 238k – Cached – Similar pages
Correction: Bernays was Sigmund Freud’s nephew, NOT his brother-in-law.
TheraP
As you’ll probably explain in your next installment, the way they do it is manipulation, which they called manufacturing consent, which leads to Tinah’s comment and that Bernays work should definitely be explored.
If there are people who haven’t seen the documentary on Bernays work watch
The Century of the Self
http://video.google.com/videos…..038;emb=0#
A short primer on how they’ve manufactured consent for example was the coup in Guatemala
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yfuoenn7138
Thanks for the refresher TheraP, I had forgotten about Strauss’ deep influence on the Neocons
Well, Altemeyer is careful to say he isn’t trying to define some new psycho term or anything. Its for the reader to take away what they find valuable. I think none of us needs any instruments to know that there are really warped people out there. And something is definitely wrong with them. I think for me, reading Altemeyer allowed me to relate his insights and points of view to my mother and certain friends I have who are rabid Fox viewers and live in this sweat-inducing fear all the time about their guns and “keeping the country safe”, etc… I don’t get it. None of us who love this website can relate to that.
I was able to associate what I know personally first hand about neo-con’s (my mother) with your observations about Strauss. And its easy and almost like candy to sit and constantly pull out concrete facts about how screwed up these types of people are, especially the ones running the country. The list and stories are endless.
My point that I was obviously trying too hard to make was, sitting and ruminating and chewing over like cud all the effects of the neo-cons is one thing. Us pol junkies live to do it. But to be incredulous about it is quite another. I’ve stopped being surprised or shocked or awed by the twisted things that twisted people do. Of COURSE they all flock to Strauss… they all have certain traits in them that draws them to Strauss like a bee to pollen. Not saying its bad. Not saying everybody with those traits turns to Strauss as their god-icon. BUT, the ones that DO have commonalities.
That’s all I was trying to say. Nature/nurture isn’t necessarily relevant here. Altemeyer is making an observation. I am finally at peace with turning my back on my neo-con family members because I recognize that I’ll never change their mind. It is what it is.
You cited in your post:
Nothing is more threatening to Strauss and his acolytes
than the truth in general and the truth about Strauss in particular.
His admirers are determined to conceal the truth about his ideas.
[Canadian Professor and Strauss Expert, Shadia Drury]
They don’t want the truth out. They know the truth. And they are perfectly comfortable with it. They will never admit that it is wrong though they know very well that it is. They don’t care.
Altemeyer and Dean gave me a little peace of mind such that I quit being so obsessed with what was wrong with these people. I stopped digging up fact after fact after fact to try to change their minds…. the disciples don’t want to hear it. Won’t believe it. And the straussians (Authoritarians) couldn’t find a better audience than one that thinks authority is always right, no matter what.
Understanding this dynamic is important because once a person understands it, they can stop wasting time doing things that don’t work and get on with the business of educating those who would benefit from that knowledge and being active in standing up for our God given rights.
Thanks for the gentle nudge to start my own blog… I’ll take it under advisement.
;)
The dots between the University of Chicago, Milton Friedman,and Alan Greenspan have evidently not been connected in the “manufactured consent” :re: Free Market theory and PR economic propaganda.
Interesting, that after the US taxpayer was swindled out of billions, Greenspan admits-” “I have found a flaw.”!!!!!!!!
there’s a differance between a crime family and a fraternity of sociopaths
the crime family believes in right and wrong, they think their law is more important then social law
further, in most cases they understand what they are doing is wrong however they think they are weighing it against a larger good or an immediate reward
the leo strauss’s, the cheney’s, they do not believe in right or wrong, they believe that whatever they want to do is fine, no matter, it’s simply a struggle to convince others, there is no internal struggle, nor is there a struggle against a differant set of law, morality, social code
there is no right or wrong, there is simply, “I want to do it and I will”
Very good points, perris! I concede to all of them. In any case I’m glad I’m not among these folks. I concede with pleasure….
Leen, thanks so much for the New Yorker article by Hersh. Was that guy ever ahead of his time. I can hardly wait for his book.
Thanks very much for this great, informative post, TheraP.
It will take me some time to follow all the links and do the reading but I very much appreciate your Point Of View.
I’ve been linking to theraP’s post for a couple of weeks now, it is definately an education for most people
even those like myself, people saying cheney was a sociopath, it was based on his actions without any knowledge of his philosophy
now we know the philosophy as well
Might I suggest the ’60’s template for the restructuring of American Society?
Very few people seem aware of this blueprint .I heartily recommend familiarizing oneself with this intriguing Stanford Research plan,commissioned by the government way back in the “60’s.
Its called “Changing Images of Man.”
The ENTIRE work is available online.
An excellent synopsis is also availabl,written by Peter Chamberlain over at Online Journal.
Here’s a link,or two:
The planned collapse of AmericaDec 7, 2007 … Their final report was released as the Changing Images of Man. … Changing Images of Man predicts an American economic collapse and a …
http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/p…..2715.shtml – 33k – Cached – Similar pages
cryptogon.com » Archives » Changing Images of ManDec 11, 2007 … Unfortunately, I hadn’t heard of Changing Images of Man until 2005. (I wish I’d read it about 15 years earlier.) I felt very lucky to find …
cryptogon.com/?p=1707 – 16k – Cached – Similar pages
Changing Images of Man OCRChanging Images of Man – Stanford Research Institute (cultural transformation by the Elite) Culture-Dance Uncategorizable-Uncategorizable.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2553613/Cha…..of-Man-OCR – 806k – Cached – Similar pages
I second lmkfromtacwa’s motion regarding Dean’s Conservatives Without Conscience and Altermeyer’s The Authoritarians. I found both immensely informative and thought-provoking.
And theraP, thank you very much for this succinct exposition of the Straussian cult.
sorry to repeat. Have been reading about this history for seven years now. Glad that you have reminded us to review. If they have their way the next stop will be Iran.
Obama has all ready been told you have until late fall with the “diplomacy” angle with Iran. Then more sanctions then…..I believe a pre-emptive attack on facilities in Iran by Israel…possibly pulling U.S. into the illegal mix
Jason Vest and Justin Raimando too. They have been writing about the Straussian crew for quite awhile.
If Feith, Bolton, Ledeen, Luti, Abrams, Schmidt, Cheney, Wolfowitz, have their ways next stop Iran
http://www.dougfeith.com/docs/…..script.pdf
————————————————————————-
March 16, 2005
MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS
FROM: GARY SCHMITT
SUBJECT: Iran’s “Right” to a Nuclear Program
According to a front-page story in the New York Times yesterday (”Reshaping Nuclear Rules,” by David Sanger), the Bush administration is seeking to close loopholes in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The administration’s concern is that the treaty allows states to become virtual or actual nuclear weapons states under the guise of acquiring technology, infrastructure, and know-how for “peaceful” nuclear energy programs.
The core problem with the NPT is that it appears to give non-nuclear weapon states a “right” to nuclear technology and assistance in exchange for foreswearing weapons themselves. This is the “right” that Iran is currently insisting allows it to not only build a nuclear energy plant, but also the infrastructure necessary to enrich uranium to fuel that plant. As Sanger notes, this is a right “Mr. Bush’s aides” appear to “have acknowledged” and, in the case of Iran, have convinced our European allies “that the only acceptable outcome of their negotiations with Iran is that it must give up that right.”
But by accepting the idea that under the NPT Iran has such a prerogative, the administration only makes its own efforts to stop Iran’s program more difficult. It leads in practice to the idea that major concessions must be made to Iran in exchange for giving up its “right” and, bizarrely, allows Iran to position itself internationally as a defender of the treaty itself.
This need not be the case. As Henry Sokolski, Executive Director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, has previously argued, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty can be read differently. The specific intent of the treaty was to prevent proliferation, and it would be a strange thing indeed if the actual provisions of the treaty mandated precisely the danger it was trying to forestall. As the late strategic strategist Albert Wohlstetter noted: “The NPT is, after all, a treaty against proliferation, not for nuclear development.”
Moreover, the so-called right to nuclear technology and know-how found in Article IV of the treaty is itself conditioned on a state behaving “in conformity with articles I and II” of the treaty – articles which prohibit activities that lead to nuclear weapons proliferation. Add to this fact that, during the negotiations over the NPT, specific proposals were rejected that would have made it a “duty” for weapon states to aid non-weapon states with nuclear technology transfers and know-how. The strong inference is that Article IV should not be interpreted as giving non-weapon states a presumptive title to such transfers.
In the case of Iran, then, the administration should be arguing that Tehran has no inalienable right to its nuclear program. By dint of its multiple and prolonged deceptions with respect to that program, and the fact that the program has no feasible economic rationale, Iran has forfeited the ground on which it can plausibly argue that its program is “in conformity with articles I and II” of the treaty. The administration is right to worry about how the NPT is being abused. But it would be in a stronger position to address those concerns if it didn’t give up the high ground so readily with respect to what the treaty itself requires.
http://www.newamericancentury……050316.htm
Important to examine how we got here and hold those responsible for lying our nation into an unnecessary and immoral war in Iraq
Critical to examine where we are headed and what we can do to interfere with where the “noble lie” criminals want to go. Many have bee warning us including Scott Ritter in his book “Target Iran”
Look Who Is Marching Our Nation Towards An Unnecessary Military Confrontation With Iran…Surprised?
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/5428
Leo Strauss studied under Heidegger. This is my favorite quote from Heidegger:
‘The proposition “man exists” means: man is that being whose Being is distinguished by the open-standing standing-in in the unconcealedness of Being, from Being, in Being.’ — from his Existence and Being
And no, it is not clearer in the original German.
No wonder Strauss was kind of weird. Never read him myself. Don’t care to, either.