| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
25 Jan 2005 06:05:47 PM |
| Object: |
Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception |
In our email
From: "Robert Nordlander" [delete]
To: <gartland1@ delete]
Subject: Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:30:24 -0600
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thom [delete]
Someone suggested this be recycled through in the wake of this week's
coronation buzz:
Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/
By Jim Lobe, AlterNet. Posted May 19, 2003.
Many neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz are disciples of a philosopher
who believed that the elite should use deception, religious fervor and
perpetual war to control the ignorant masses.
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.
.
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception |
25 Jan 2005 11:25:30 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:kj2dv0p2v6usefucn7pd8k7nmm7fv1mec6@4ax.com...
In our email
From: "Robert Nordlander" [delete]
To: <gartland1@ delete]
Subject: Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:30:24 -0600
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thom [delete]
Someone suggested this be recycled through in the wake of this week's
coronation buzz:
Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/
By Jim Lobe, AlterNet. Posted May 19, 2003.
Many neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz are disciples of a philosopher
who believed that the elite should use deception, religious fervor and
perpetual war to control the ignorant masses.
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.
what did you expect?
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.
What a novel idea!
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.
How come it isn't working?
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."
This is new?
As Ronald
Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine points out,
"Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be
believers."
Where would we be without having vague allegations pointed out? What a
valuable public service!
"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.
More likely they think that all religious roads eventually lead to Judaism,
i.e. the true religion in their view. Plus the Christian right is the most
aggressive pursuer of revenge against the quasi-Islamic scum who took down
the WTC trying to kill Jews.
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."
Men united against other people, an oxymoron.
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)."
Only thing is, it doesn't have to be manufactured, since it exists, just as
it existed in the time of Machiavelli, who only meant that Eternal Vigilance
is the Price of Liberty, of course understanding that hyper-vigilance
appeared to some as exaggeration of a threat. Of course in Machiavelli's
world Liberty of one group came at the expense of Liberty of another group
just as today. BTW I get tired of hearing Machiavelli's name bandied about
like he was some sort of Devil.
"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.
That might not be such a bad idea, if it weren't for the fact that they are
otherwise incompetent to lead.
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."
Too bad they graduated and appeared to have meaningful credentials.
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."
Tough *****.
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.
Conquering the world? Those Bozos?
Jim Lobe writes on foreign policy for Alternet. His work has also appeared
on Foreign Policy In Focus and TomPaine.com.
Thanks for the opportunity.
--
And what about Cain and Abel? I can just hear the Lord saying, "Vegetables,
you offer me lousy vegetables! Get outta town you silly wimp!"
The Cain says "Man that God really burns me up! I'll teach Him a lesson! He
wants meat does He? I'll show Him some fresh meat!"
then he says to Abel, "Hey Smartass! Take that! (Whack) And that! (Whack!)
And that! (Whack!) And that! (Whack!) And that! (Whack!) And that! (Whack!)
And that! (Whack!) And that! (Whack!) And that! (Whack!)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception |
26 Jan 2005 01:05:16 AM |
|
|
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote:
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:kj2dv0p2v6usefucn7pd8k7nmm7fv1mec6@4ax.com...
"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.
That might not be such a bad idea, if it weren't for the fact that they are
otherwise incompetent to lead.
I ran across the following quote the other day. The current
administration policy is hardly original. Of course wisdom would
suggest learning from history the fate of such policies.
<As a regime that identified itself as an advocate of liberalism, the
<ideology that girded the Second Empire demanded that it, and Napoléon
<III, promote French-style liberalism worldwide, and to make the
<resulting regimes dependent upon France. This inspired a whole series
<of foreign military adventures. For instance, the Crimean War
<(1854-56), fought in conjunction with Britain against Russia, was waged
<by France simply in order to enhance French prestige at the expense of
<autocratic Tsarist Russia.
<
<http://www.ahtg.net/TpA/tpahist3.html
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception |
27 Jan 2005 02:19:54 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:05:47 -0500, buckeye-ELO wrote:
In our email
From: "Robert Nordlander" [delete]
To: <gartland1@ delete]
Subject: Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005
14:30:24 -0600
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thom [delete]
Someone suggested this be recycled through in the wake of this week's
coronation buzz:
Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/
By Jim Lobe, AlterNet. Posted May 19, 2003.
I thought this was a very interesting read, and I agree with much of what
it says. Political leadership has as much to do with manipulating the
emotions of the populace as it does with conducting foreign policy. The
current administration is doing an excellent job of such manipulation. It
makes me wonder if GW's insistence on saying "nukular" isn't part of an
act to make the Dems think he is a hick, while he knows *exactly* what
he's doing. Am I paranoid?
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception |
27 Jan 2005 09:25:07 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.01.27.14.19.53.500334@stopspam.net...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:05:47 -0500, buckeye-ELO wrote:
In our email
From: "Robert Nordlander" [delete]
To: <gartland1@ delete]
Subject: Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005
14:30:24 -0600
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thom [delete]
Someone suggested this be recycled through in the wake of this week's
coronation buzz:
Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/
By Jim Lobe, AlterNet. Posted May 19, 2003.
I thought this was a very interesting read, and I agree with much of what
it says. Political leadership has as much to do with manipulating the
emotions of the populace as it does with conducting foreign policy. The
current administration is doing an excellent job of such manipulation. It
makes me wonder if GW's insistence on saying "nukular" isn't part of an
act to make the Dems think he is a hick, while he knows *exactly* what
he's doing. Am I paranoid?
Yes, with good reason.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shadow Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception |
27 Jan 2005 05:50:01 PM |
|
|
MarkA wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:05:47 -0500, buckeye-ELO wrote:
In our email
From: "Robert Nordlander" [delete]
To: <gartland1@ delete]
Subject: Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005
14:30:24 -0600
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thom [delete]
Someone suggested this be recycled through in the wake of this week's
coronation buzz:
Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/
By Jim Lobe, AlterNet. Posted May 19, 2003.
I thought this was a very interesting read, and I agree with much of what
it says. Political leadership has as much to do with manipulating the
emotions of the populace as it does with conducting foreign policy. The
current administration is doing an excellent job of such manipulation. It
makes me wonder if GW's insistence on saying "nukular" isn't part of an
act to make the Dems think he is a hick, while he knows *exactly* what
he's doing. Am I paranoid?
The question isn't "are you paranoid ?"
The question is "Are you paranoid _enough_ ?"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception |
27 Jan 2005 02:53:57 PM |
|
|
MarkA wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:05:47 -0500, buckeye-ELO wrote:
In our email
From: "Robert Nordlander" [delete]
To: <gartland1@ delete]
Subject: Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception Date: Sun, 23 Jan
2005
14:30:24 -0600
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thom [delete]
Someone suggested this be recycled through in the wake of this
week's
coronation buzz:
Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/
By Jim Lobe, AlterNet. Posted May 19, 2003.
I thought this was a very interesting read, and I agree with much of
what
it says. Political leadership has as much to do with manipulating
the
emotions of the populace as it does with conducting foreign policy.
The
current administration is doing an excellent job of such
manipulation. It
makes me wonder if GW's insistence on saying "nukular" isn't part of
an
act to make the Dems think he is a hick, while he knows *exactly*
what
he's doing. Am I paranoid?
Bush lost his first bid for governor, I understand, because his
opponent made fun of his New England origins. He decided then that no
one would ever out-texican him again. *That's when he developed his
accent. I remember when, as a young man, while his daddy was
President, he made an announcement of some sort. He had no discernible
Texan accent then. So, no, you are not paranoid.
jwk
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
