 | |  |  | | | | | | | | | | | | |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
Nesaie
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Aug 04, 2005
Posts: 10156
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:42 am Post subject: The Fraud of Neoconservative "Anti-Communism" |
 |
|
| |
This is from 2002 but a good read.
http://www.originaldissent.com/shpak051502.html
The Fraud of Neoconservative "Anti-Communism"
by Max Shpak
Neoconservatives and their apologists would have the public believe that the neocons were former Leftists who saw the light and came to reject liberal or Marxist ideology as a matter of conviction and principle. Regrettably, this official line has come to be conventional wisdom, no doubt reflecting neocon efforts to hide the fact that their transformation was neither sincerely motivated nor sincerely enacted. To understand the real agenda that drove and continues to drive much of neoconservatism, one needs to look back to the origins of the movement and the cultural backgrounds of those who lead it.
It is a well-established fact that many of the early luminaries of neoconservatism (most famously Irving Kristol in the 1940's, a more recent famous example being David Horowitz) came from Marxist backgrounds, and that neoconservatism (like Marxism itself) began and continues to be a largely a phenomenon of Jewish intellectualism. In the early part of the 20th century, Marxism attracted a disproportionate pool of Jewish recruits for a number of obvious reasons. There are a number of complex psychological and social reasons for the attraction, all of which largely stem from the fact that Marxist internationalism is an ideology which by its very nature finds disciples among a rootless, anti-religious urban intelligentsia.
More important for the purposes of this analysis, however, are the practical reasons for Jewish sympathy with Bolshevism. European and American Jews alike carried deep-seated hatreds for the traditional regimes and religions of the European continent, particularly Czarist Russia and various Eastern European nations due to (real and imagined) "persecution" and "pogroms" that occurred there. Thus, when the Bolsheviks overthrew the Czar, destroyed the hated Orthodox Church, rendered powerless the landed religious peasantry, and replaced traditional Russian authority with a largely Jewish Commissariate, world Jewry (including alleged "capitalists" like the Schiffs and Rothschilds) embraced the Revolution and Marxist ideology alike.
With Russia becoming an effective Jewish colony where "anti-Semitism" was an offense punishable by death and the native gentile culture was effectively stamped out (thanks to a leadership consisting mainly of Jews such as Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Severdlov, held together under the stewardship of the obsequious philosemite Lenin), Jews throughout the world put their hopes in the possibility of similar revolutions elsewhere. Indeed, their comrades in arms were hard at work affecting similar changes in Hungary (Kuhn), Austria (Adler) and Germany (Eisner). The rise of Fascist and Nazi movements only served to further polarize Jewish support in favor of international communism.
This near unanimity would change as a result of two developments: a shift in the character of Soviet Communism on the one hand and the foundation of the State of Israel on the other. Stalin's purges of many of his former Bolshevik colleagues (including Trotsky, who was assassinated while in exile), his 1939 pact with Hitler, and rumors of Stalin's own anti-Jewish prejudices gave many would-be supporters pause. When Hitler invaded the Soviet U.nion, it became clear the Russian masses would not fight for the sake of Bolshevism, an ideology that brought them so much misery, but rather for the sake of Russian blood and soil. From then on, the Soviet leadership had to court the very Russian nationalist elements that the early Bolsheviks had worked so hard to stamp out. This lead to an increasing tolerance towards the Russian Orthodox Church and a decreased Jewish presence in the Soviet politburo and KGB. Thus, the USSR was "betraying" the very elements that made it attractive to the Jewish establishment to begin with.
Perhaps even more significant a factor in the origins of neoconservatism was the emergence of an independent Israeli state. While many Jewish Marxists eagerly supported the Zionist state, the more intellectually consistent Left opposed Zionism on the grounds that all nationalisms, including Jewish ones, are enemies of global proletarian revolution. Thus, Jewish leftists who once advocated internationalism for gentile nations were forced to come to terms with the implications of this ideology for their own nationalist sentiments. Thus, they needed an ideology which would let them have their cake (opposing gentile nationalism) and eat it too (by supporting Israel), and they found just such a worldview with neoconservatism.
At the same time, although the Soviet U.nion initially courted Israel during the 1948 wars of independence, it became clear to the Israeli government that in world polarized between the United States and the Soviet U.nion the former would be wealthier and more pliant cash cow to milk. By the 1950's and the coming of the Suez Wars, regardless of residual Jewish loyalties to Communism, the battle lines were already drawn, with Israel in the US/Western camp and the Arab nations forced to make alliances of convenience with the Soviet U.nion.
It is hardly a coincidence that the changing character of Soviet Communism and the status of Israel as a US ally came at the same time that neoconservatism was becoming an influential political movement. For all of their talk about "capitalism," "democracy," "freedom," and "free markets," the fact that so many Jewish leftists turned on a dime to back the US in the Cold War because America could serve as a life support system for Israel and a bulwark against resurgent Russian "anti-Semitism" makes their real agenda entirely transparent. One can witness an identical phenomenon taking place today, as many Jewish liberal Democrats switch party ranks and join the GOP because of the latter's stronger support for Israel and harder line with the Arab nations. All of the window dressing about their newfound "patriotism" and "Americanism" is a sham designed to mask the fact that the question for the neocons has always been and will always be "is it good for the Jews?"
The different agendas driving neocon Cold Warriors as opposed to their erstwhile Old Right allies could be seen on any number of fronts. The most obvious one has been the different reactions in the two camps to Russia after the end of the Cold War. While paleoconservative leaning Cold Warriors such as Pat Buchanan have pushed for normalized relations with Russia, the neocons continue to fight on the Cold War, enthusiastically supporting Chechen separatists as "freedom fighters" and advocating NATO expansion. The reasons for this difference are entirely obvious: the Old Right's enemy was Communist ideology, while neoconservative Jews nurtured a hatred for Russian nationalism. Thus post-Communist Russia is still very much a threat to the latter, particularly with resurgent Russian "ultra-nationalism" and "anti-Semitism," while in the absence of Communist rule the above are of little concern to the Old Right.
For all their talk about "anti-Communism," the real engine driving neocon Cold Warrior instincts was punishing the hated Russian goyim for the sin of "anti-Semitism," not any opposition to residual or latent Marxism. As further evidence that this is the case, one need only consider the fact that while the Old Right championed Christian dissidents such as Solzhenitsyn, to the neocons the only legimate "dissidents" were Zionists like Natan Sharansky, just as the only "refugees" championed by the neos were invariably Jewish (including today's shady Odessa Mafiosi). Solzhenitsyn represented the Russian nationalism and Orthodox Church that made so many of the neocons' predecessors embrace Bolshevism, thus Solzhenitsyn and the plight of Christian dissidents were relegated to obscurity in neocon publications, while Zionist noise-makers in the USSR were given a hero's welcome.
In this regard, the neocons are the true heirs to Leon Trotsky, who condemned Stalin and his followers not so much for their brutality (as commander of the Red Army and overseer of Lenin's terrorist CHEKA, Trotsky was no stranger to brutality and sadism) but for their "anti-Semitism" and "betrayal of the Revolution." Trotsky's main critique of Stalinism seemed to be that Stalin was moving Russia in a nationalist direction rather than working towards the establishment of an international "proletarian" vanguard. The fact that the intellectual ancestors of neoconservatism had not an unkind word to say about Bolshevism while Leninist-Trotskyite goals were being fulfilled suggests that it was not so much ideological reconsideration as tribal self-interest that drove these most unlikely conversos.
Because their move from the Left to a pseudo-right was insincere, one would expect to find a whole range of issues where the neocons retain leftist instincts and remain true to their Trotskyite heritage. Indeed this is the case. In their portrayal of the Cold War as a struggle between "capitalism" on the one hand and "socialism" on the other, the neocons try to minimize the fact that in many ways the conflict between the Bolsheviks and the West was over much more than economic systems. To most on the Old Right, the economic issues were at best peripheral: Marxism was opposed because it was materialistic, atheistic, and because it rejected nationalism and patriotism in the name of global revolution.
Most neocons came from a culture that was every bit as materialistic and cosmopolitan as the early Bolshevik leaders, so it is rather unlikely that they would have any quarrel with these aspects of Communist doctrine. The fact that neoconservatism is an ideology which is materialistic in nature and internationalist in focus (with its talk of "global democracy" and "global markets") makes it obvious that the fundamental underpinnings of the Marxist Left are alive and well among the scribblers of Commentary and The Weekly Standard. Their "conservative" pretenses seem limited to the fact that they oppose "socialism" (of the nationalist variety) in the name of "capitalism" (of the internationalist variety), and for all too many naοve people that seems to be sufficient and believable.
Understanding the true nature of the neoconservatives illuminates the essence of the struggle between the Right and the Left. It was never a struggle between "capitalism" and "socialism" as neoconservative or Communist progaganda would have one believe. Rather, it was always a conflict between spiritualism and materialism, between nationalism and globalism, between tradition and subversion, between the defenders of Western Civilization and its enemies. With the battle lines drawn as such, it is abundantly clear where the neocons stand. Many "capitalists" understood that economic means are not significant, only the desired end. Jacob Schiff understood it when he financed the Bolsheviks, just as Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner, Marc Rich, Boris Berezovsky, and George Soros understand that their form of "capitalism" is fully compatible with the essence of the Left, and that they can find friends and allies among the ostensibly conservative neocons.
Unfortunately, many Rightists are not nearly as perceptive in their choice of allies.
May 15, 2002 |
|
_________________
Soma: All the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects.
Have you had your Soma today? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Author |
Message |
ralf1986
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Nesaie
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Aug 04, 2005
Posts: 10156
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Many things are wrong with Marxism.
I'll start here. I'm an American who believes in individual rights. That is the complete opposite of Marxism and what my current illegitimate government believes. I believe in my Constitution. Another thing that is opposed by my illegitimate government. I believe in what Thomas Jefferson wrote. I believe that the government works for the people, not the other way around. Another conflict with the current illegitimate government.
Now unfortunately, the reality of my country is such that the commies did win and they've changed their name to neo-cons. They don't have American values and need to get out of my country.
Now, Marxism works on a small scale. However, it does not work on a governmental scale. There are many reasons why it doesn't. One of them is that there are people who are lazy and live off the services. Look to your own country to see that. Another reason is that it penalizes productive people, there is no reason to produce more because you don't get any advantage. It basically creates people who do the least amount of work to get by and survive. Which is exactly what my current illegitimate government has achieved in this country.
Take a look at the ill effects of Marxisms as well as the pros. Decide for yourself. Its a very deep conversation.  |
|
_________________
Soma: All the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects.
Have you had your Soma today? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
screamzero
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Feb 08, 2008
Posts: 2178
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
(SZ)Where this article of yours says the neo-conservative roots are originally is not the same neo-conservative definition then that it is today. Max might be bright - but he ain't perfect. But then this matter by Max needs be read in its entirety -which I haven't completed and heartily suggest you might consider as well.:
The term has been used before, and its meaning has changed over time. Writing in The Contemporary Review (London) in 1883, Henry Dunckley used the term to describe factions within the Conservative Party; James Bryce again uses it in his Modern Democracies (1921) to describe British political history of the 1880s. The German authoritarians Carl Schmitt, who became professor at the University of Berlin in 1933, the same year that he entered the Nazi party (NSDAP), and Arthur Moeller van den Bruck were called "neo-conservatives".[31] In "The Future of Democratic Values" in Partisan Review, July-August 1943, Dwight MacDonald complained of "the neo-conservatives of our time [who] reject the propositions on materialism, Human Nature, and Progress." He cited as an example Jacques Barzun, who was "attempting to combine progressive values and conservative concepts."
In the early 1970s, democratic socialist Michael Harrington used the term in its modern meaning. He characterized neoconservatives as former leftists whom he derided as "socialists for Nixon" who had moved significantly to the right. These people tended to remain supporters of social democracy, but distinguished themselves by allying with the Nixon administration over foreign policy, especially by their support for the Vietnam War and opposition to the Soviet Union. They still supported the welfare state, but not necessarily in its contemporary form.
Irving Kristol remarked that a neoconservative is a "liberal mugged by reality," one who became more conservative after seeing the results of liberal policies. Kristol also claims three distinctive aspects of neoconservatism from previous forms of conservatism: a forward-looking approach drawn from their liberal heritage, rather than the reactionary and dour approach of previous conservatives; a meliorative outlook, proposing alternate reforms rather than simply attacking social liberal reforms; taking philosophical or ideological ideas very seriously.[32]
Political philosopher Leo Strauss (18991973) was an important intellectual antecedent of neoconservativism. Notably Strauss influenced Allan Bloom, author of the 1987 bestseller Closing of the American Mind.
(SZ)The "left" have placed an order for big government contribution into the peoples affairs and have by this request, and therefore proxy, taken up a dusty mantel of neo-Marxism of '33 in a pseudo form that is suspiciously socialistic of which todays neo-cons had abandoned a morphed version of in the '70's. Some lessons of certain failed liberal policies are the reason why. That's not to say that "a meeting of the minds' cannot occur; I am very leery of any centrist tendency.
Polish Communist Party (1918 - 1938):
Nonetheless, research on voting patterns in Poland's parliamentary elections in the 1920s has shown that Jewish support for the communists was proportionally less than their representation in the total population;[7] based on 1928 elections data, it can be estimated that only 5% of Jews were sympathetic enough to the communist cause to vote for the KPP.[6] In the end, while most Jews were neither communists nor communist sympathizers, a substantial and quite visible portion of Polish Communists in the interwar period were Jews. This disproportionately large participation of Jews in the communist movement led to the spread of the Żydokomuna myth, which in the late 1930s was widely used in the propaganda of the National Democrats, who after Jσzef Piłsudski's death in 1935 hoped to take power.[8]
.(SZ)...Nesaei, I might very well get you a good paying job as a propagandist - keep up the good work... Here, let a pro turn you on:
Żydokomuna (Polish for "Judeo-Communism" or "Judeo-Bolshevism") is a pejorative term that has been used to express an antisemitic stereotype that blamed Jews for having advocated, introduced and run Communism in Poland.[1]
You now have a new word to play with.
(SZ)No doubt that Max Shpak is a very brilliant man:
Selection Against Demographic Stochasticity in Age-Structured Populations
Max Shpak
Abstract | Full text | References | Citations arXiv:0705.2607 (May 2007)
The Role of Life Cycle and Migration in Selection for Offspring Variance
Max Shpak and Stephen Proulx
Abstract | Full text | References | Citations q-bio/0512012 (December 2005)
Evolution of Variance in Offspring Number: the Effects of Population Size and Migration
Max Shpak
Abstract | Full text | References | Citations q-bio/0501034 (January 2005)
Simon-Ando Decomposability and Fitness Landscapes
Max Shpak, Peter Stadler, Gunter Wagner and Lee Altenberg
The Novel Role of Sphingolipid Synthesis Genes in Regulating Giardial Encystation.
http://lib.bioinfo.pl/auid:4416766
The Role Of Deleterious Mutations In Allopatric Speciation
Dr. Max Shpak
Monday, 11 April, CS Conference Room (221), 10AM
http://www.cs.utep.edu/DeptCS/archives/colloqPages/20050411-schpak.html
(SZ)It is my understanding that he is a profound authority on mathematics as well.
If indeed this is the one and the same..the name is not a common name -this man is a screamin' genius. There is a whale of a lot more amazing analysis's under this name. Bunches and bunches. A real mind bender.
However, one that spreads himself so, even a spark like this guy, seems to be, like the rest of us lowly beings, would seem subject to political opinion -hard references or not. ...just my grain of salt...
Opinion Not withstanding, this fellow assimilates what seems to be an extraordinary objectivity:
...but I insist this article be read in its entirety, as one might be accused of propagandizing (like yours truly, or yours truly...).
.(Not SZ)...It is precisely for the sake of this false consensus of liberalism and deracinated internationalism that today's political and journalistic hacks are so vocal in their recent anti-Islamism and anti-Arabism. What better a Trojan Horse than a common enemy to peddle one's belief to the crowds? Before too many well-intentioned people jump aboard the latest crusade against Islam (or is it "Islamofascism"?) they should seriously think about who they are allying themselves with and to what end. That neoconservatives have taken advantage of 9/11 to advance the Israel-First agenda has already been well-documented, but there is something else at work here which is in many ways far more sinister. It is a case of the Left using rightwing nationalist sentiment as a means of diffusing the Right and render it toothless. A true pact with the devil if there ever was one.
http://www.originaldissent.com/shpak072402.html
(SZ)My previous contention that fundamental Islamic precepts of Jewish and Christian judgementals (that they be monkeys and pigs,; respectivly) -
as presented from the official Quran website hosted by the Saudi Govt. are concerns of attitudes that adversely inflect international cooperation and remains a stasis of threat to western civilization -I stand firm on this. whether neo-con or neo-Marxist pundification mean anything at all is, for this matter, is non sequitur.:
65] And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath; We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."
[166] When in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions, We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."
http://sidiwda.newsvine.com/_news/2006/07/28/303707-what-does-islam-think-of-the-jews
Any debarring of right? (neo-con) or left? (neo-Marxist; liberals) by any - even Max (really an interesting find Nesaei; it seems both arguments are nicely addressed) does not diminish the socio-political theocratic threat pressed by the Islamic fundamentals.
Nesaei, you also introduced Irving Kristol in this article:
In spite of Irving Kristol's Trotskyist background and the convenient Jewish background with innuendo of your anti-Jewish Rhetoric; Irving Kristol has used ...positions and publications to animate the neo-conservative movement, arguing for low taxes, a well-funded and internationally active military, conservative social policy, and a minimalist interpretation of First Amendment rights. For example, he once stated that "I dont think the advocacy of homosexuality really falls under the First Amendment any more than the advocacy or publication of pornography does."[6].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol
...but then, whats a little ole scruple. ..again..we do tend to connect different philosophical and political dots. Our general welfare is still the same. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
martiandrifter01
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Mar 28, 2008
Posts: 711
Location: Xanthe Terra, Sol IV/Mars
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Nesaie, may I be so bold as to request names of neo-cons which need to be deported from the USA?
ralf1986, I like Marx. Groucho, Harpo and Zeppo, at least.
screamzero, nice post. It won't, however, change the apparent fact of Nesaie having a BS in BS.
 |
|
_________________
Just for fun, and maybe a chance to learn a little solar system astronomy...
martiandrifter.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Loner
Newbie
Joined: Dec 18, 2001
Posts: 21
Location: Hanscom AFB
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Wow - then why have us Neocons been running the world for 20 of the last 28 years with only a break in service for BJ Clinton? I'm still here, the US is still free and dominating the free world. Our fences keep people out!
Please find something newer than 2002 to trash the Right!
Loner |
|
_________________
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom.
Don't ever count on having both at once.
Robert A. Heinlein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Nesaie
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Aug 04, 2005
Posts: 10156
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Ah...here come the brainwashed. 
Sorry Loner, the names may change from commie to neocon, but the policies are the same.
Now, you mention fences, what fence? Who does it keep out? I can only assume that you too live in the US, am I correct? If so, then you too have to press 1 for English. Since we've lost the cold war to the commies/neocons, our life spans have decreased, our standard of living has decreased, more children are on drugs than hippies in the 60's, there are more social services than ever before, the government has increased, and our economy sucks.
What have you commies done? Nothing good. Get out of my country and go back to the USSR where you belong.
Don't worry Loner, I'll give you some reading material so you can self educate (I hope that you're not too indoctrinated to still self educate like my founding fathers did).
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51038
(I assume you'll trust that site because of their "right wing" fundamentalist Christian slant.)
http://www.counterpunch.org/madarasz06022003.html
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/003491.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5010.htm
Go read about your founding fathers, they're not Americans and have no morality or American values. Go look up your Leo Straus and his marxist ways. Then, don't let the door hit you as you leave my country. You may live here, but you're not an American. |
|
_________________
Soma: All the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects.
Have you had your Soma today? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Neal51
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Jul 06, 2007
Posts: 2726
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
It is a tough crowd to deprogram
Good Luck Lovely Nesaie |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Nesaie
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Aug 04, 2005
Posts: 10156
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
I'm patient Neal.  |
|
_________________
Soma: All the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects.
Have you had your Soma today? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
screamzero
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Feb 08, 2008
Posts: 2178
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
The names may have changed from liberal to whack job, but the drooling leers remain the same... 
 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Nesaie
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Aug 04, 2005
Posts: 10156
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/
Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception
By Jim Lobe, AlterNet
Posted on May 19, 2003, Printed on August 12, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/
What would you do if you wanted to topple Saddam Hussein, but your intelligence agencies couldn't find the evidence to justify a war?
A follower of Leo Strauss may just hire the "right" kind of men to get the job done people with the intellect, acuity, and, if necessary, the political commitment, polemical skills, and, above all, the imagination to find the evidence that career intelligence officers could not detect.
The "right" man for Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, suggests Seymour Hersh in his recent New Yorker article entitled 'Selective Intelligence,' was Abram Shulsky, director of the Office of Special Plans (OSP) an agency created specifically to find the evidence of WMDs and/or links with Al Qaeda, piece it together, and clinch the case for the invasion of Iraq.
Like Wolfowitz, Shulsky is a student of an obscure German Jewish political philosopher named Leo Strauss who arrived in the United States in 1938. Strauss taught at several major universities, including Wolfowitz and Shulsky's alma mater, the University of Chicago, before his death in 1973.
Strauss is a popular figure among the neoconservatives. Adherents of his ideas include prominent figures both within and outside the administration. They include 'Weekly Standard' editor William Kristol; his father and indeed the godfather of the neoconservative movement, Irving Kristol; the new Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Stephen Cambone, a number of senior fellows at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) (home to former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle and Lynne Cheney), and Gary Schmitt, the director of the influential Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which is chaired by Kristol the Younger.
Strauss' philosophy is hardly incidental to the strategy and mindset adopted by these men as is obvious in Shulsky's 1999 essay titled "Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence (By Which We Do Not Mean Nous)" (in Greek philosophy the term nous denotes the highest form of rationality). As Hersh notes in his article, Shulsky and his co-author Schmitt "criticize America's intelligence community for its failure to appreciate the duplicitous nature of the regimes it deals with, its susceptibility to social-science notions of proof, and its inability to cope with deliberate concealment." They argued that Strauss's idea of hidden meaning, "alerts one to the possibility that political life may be closely linked to deception. Indeed, it suggests that deception is the norm in political life, and the hope, to say nothing of the expectation, of establishing a politics that can dispense with it is the exception."
Rule One: Deception
It's hardly surprising then why Strauss is so popular in an administration obsessed with secrecy, especially when it comes to matters of foreign policy. Not only did Strauss have few qualms about using deception in politics, he saw it as a necessity. While professing deep respect for American democracy, Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow. But unlike fellow elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of these leaders. According to Shadia Drury, who teaches politics at the University of Calgary, Strauss believed that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right the right of the superior to rule over the inferior."
This dichotomy requires "perpetual deception" between the rulers and the ruled, according to Drury. Robert Locke, another Strauss analyst says,"The people are told what they need to know and no more." While the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses could not cope. If exposed to the absence of absolute truth, they would quickly fall into nihilism or anarchy, according to Drury, author of 'Leo Strauss and the American Right' (St. Martin's 1999).
Second Principle: Power of Religion
According to Drury, Strauss had a "huge contempt" for secular democracy. Nazism, he believed, was a nihilistic reaction to the irreligious and liberal nature of the Weimar Republic. Among other neoconservatives, Irving Kristol has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the public sphere, even suggesting that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic made a major mistake by insisting on the separation of church and state. And why? Because Strauss viewed religion as absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control.
At the same time, he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers need not be bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths proclaimed by religion were "a pious fraud." As Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine points out, "Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers."
"Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing,'' Drury says, because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, precisely those traits that may promote dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats. Bailey argues that it is this firm belief in the political utility of religion as an "opiate of the masses" that helps explain why secular Jews like Kristol in 'Commentary' magazine and other neoconservative journals have allied themselves with the Christian Right and even taken on Darwin's theory of evolution.
Third Principle: Aggressive Nationalism
Like Thomas Hobbes, Strauss believed that the inherently aggressive nature of human beings could only be restrained by a powerful nationalistic state. "Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed," he once wrote. "Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united and they can only be united against other people."
Not surprisingly, Strauss' attitude toward foreign policy was distinctly Machiavellian. "Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured (emphases added)."
"Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in," says Drury. The idea easily translates into, in her words, an "aggressive, belligerent foreign policy," of the kind that has been advocated by neocon groups like PNAC and AEI scholars not to mention Wolfowitz and other administration hawks who have called for a world order dominated by U.S. military power. Strauss' neoconservative students see foreign policy as a means to fulfill a "national destiny" as Irving Kristol defined it already in 1983 that goes far beyond the narrow confines of a " myopic national security."
As to what a Straussian world order might look like, the analogy was best captured by the philosopher himself in one of his and student Allen Bloom's many allusions to Gulliver's Travels. In Drury's words, "When Lilliput was on fire, Gulliver urinated over the city, including the palace. In so doing, he saved all of Lilliput from catastrophe, but the Lilliputians were outraged and appalled by such a show of disrespect."
The image encapsulates the neoconservative vision of the United States' relationship with the rest of the world as well as the relationship between their relationship as a ruling elite with the masses. "They really have no use for liberalism and democracy, but they're conquering the world in the name of liberalism and democracy," Drury says.
Jim Lobe writes on foreign policy for Alternet. His work has also appeared on Foreign Policy In Focus and TomPaine.com. |
|
_________________
Soma: All the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects.
Have you had your Soma today? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
martiandrifter01
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Mar 28, 2008
Posts: 711
Location: Xanthe Terra, Sol IV/Mars
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| Quote: |
| "They really have no use for liberalism and democracy, but they're conquering the world in the name of liberalism and democracy," |
Which explains why we retain the Liberty of publishing such nonsense, as has been taken advantage of by "Right" and "Left" for over 230 years...but who's counting?
 |
|
_________________
Just for fun, and maybe a chance to learn a little solar system astronomy...
martiandrifter.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| | | | | | | |
| |
blocks-left.jpg
blocks-left.jpg
blocks-left.jpg
|  |
Online Stats: 
