It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The neo-conservative political ideology (Straussism)

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 06:03 PM
link   
This was a reply to another thread i wrote but i thought the discussion of the neo-conservative mindset should have its own topic:

Ok, the founder of the neoconservative movement was a man by the name of Leo Strauss, he was a staunch, harsh political philosopher who believed Liberalism planted the "seeds of decay" into society because of the lack of morals and spiritual direction etc: here is a bit of info about him and his beliefs (that he has since passed on to his neo-conservative students through the generations, Cheny...Wolfowitz etc)

Straussism 101 (thankyou google for the details, i'll list sources at the end of this post):

"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. "

"Strauss was born and educated in Germany, relocated to the UK in 1934, then emigrated to the U.S. in 1937. After lecturing for several years at the New School for Social Research in New York, in 1948 he accepted a post at the University of Chicago, where he spent most of the rest of his career. A charismatic teacher, he attracted a coterie of brilliant students, many of whom became prominent neoconservative thinkers and polemicists; a sizable number of Strauss devotees have served in Republican administrations, starting with Reagan and continuing through Bushes I and II. (Abram Shulsky, the apparatchik you mention, works for the Office of Special Plans, currently under fire for cherry-picking intelligence during the buildup to the Iraq war. And maybe the name Paul Wolfowitz rings a bell?) Strauss's best-known protege is probably Allan Bloom, author of a best-selling critique of U.S. higher education, The Closing of the American Mind (1987)."

Strausse also took a bizzare interest in ancient estrotic texts.

His philosophy can be summed up in 3 major principles:

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.

-------

We live in crazy times, these principals have not been exaggerated, this is what he taught, and this is what Bush's followers in the white house study, respect and live by. A kind "tough love" like policy of political ideology.

www.alternet.org...
www.straightdope.com...

(google Leo Strauss for more info on him, he is the father of the neoconservative movement. )

What supprises me more though, is that the people in America are aware that politicians by the name of "neoconservatives" are running the current administration, but have no idea...or take any interest in what they (the politicians) believe in, and who the founders of the movement were.

If anyone else has anything else to add, please do...this is something i dont believe has been discussed here on ATS before.


[edit on 8-11-2004 by electric squid carpet]




posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 06:57 PM
link   
the term neo con when you break it down makes no sense and its use annoys me.

If you look at the two words neo (meaning new) and Conservitive (meaning holding traditional beliefs) it makes no sense, its non sense.
Its simply a word the left uses to demonize the right. i could call the left neo communists and it would hold as much truth as the term mentioned above.

Also im sure you dont actually believe that this one man is responsible for the conservitive movement. could it be that conservitives actually belive what they belive for their own reasons?

and the "tactics" that you refer to were around long before straus was
remeber teddy roosevelt and the "carry a big stick" mentality of the early 20th century?

its just spin to demonize the right in my opinion



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 07:10 PM
link   
TheRepublic: go read a book, Limbaugh and Fauxnews have made you blind, the term neocon is not derogatory. It simply states a new form of conservatism. It is academic, not "street slang" and even Wolfie calls himself one. Get a clue, go read John Ehrman The Rise of Neoconservatism: Intellectuals and Foreign Affairs 1945-1994
This has been a consistent (wrong but consistent) ideology since after WWII, it is just that it is now getting its day in sun.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 07:30 PM
link   
religion, deception, nationalism
have been motivating forces for countries and wars as long as time remebers.
to repackage this as something new is wrong
my point is there is nothing new about neo conservitism
and you cant simply throw all those you disagree with in a single boat
and say that one man shaped the whole conservitive movement.
a movement is many people deciding to go in one direction, not just one man pulling them all along.

i find it funny you call me blind, you think that someone has brainwashed me from the right? you think it is impossible that i could form my own ideas about something?



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRepublic
religion, deception, nationalism
have been motivating forces for countries and wars as long as time remebers.
to repackage this as something new is wrong
my point is there is nothing new about neo conservatism
and you cant simply throw all those you disagree with in a single boat
and say that one man shaped the whole conservative movement.
a movement is many people deciding to go in one direction, not just one man pulling them all along.

i find it funny you call me blind, you think that someone has brainwashed me from the right? you think it is impossible that i could form my own ideas about something?


It IS a new form of American conservatism. Historically conservatives wanted to stay out of the Civil War, WWI AND WWII. This new brand of conservatism involves spreading your ideology by the point of a weapon. If you want to see a true conservative look to Pat Buchanan or William F. Buckley, I might not like there ideological slant but I respect it, because it is based in theory and rational thought process. Not like FaustNews neoconservatism which thrives on the lack of want of the majority of the american populations willingness to actually go out and read. Economic freedom and tradition of society is what conservatism is all about. Neoconservatism IS old, but it was safely held in pandora's box until this administration decided to open it.

So, how were you indoctrinated in your ideology? Everyone's ideas are the culmination of their experiences and training, so what's yours?


[edit on 8-11-2004 by observer]



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Yep, all us conservatives sher are evil! All them homo's and WOMEN can go and shove it fer all I care! I'd sher like ta say more, but them skunks in mah yard need shootin'! Plus that and the baby's screamin' again! Must be the steak I was a givin' im fer supper. Aint mah fault he gots no teeth!



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Herman
Yep, all us conservatives sher are evil! All them homo's and WOMEN can go and shove it fer all I care! I'd sher like ta say more, but them skunks in mah yard need shootin'! Plus that and the baby's screamin' again! Must be the steak I was a givin' im fer supper. Aint mah fault he gots no teeth!


The above quote proves the thesis of my post. People who do not actually understand their own ideologies enough to defend them assume you are calling them stupid. All I say is read, I know that's hard, bein from kentucky meself and havin a baby to take kare or makes redin and riiightin things fer others to do.
Gimmie a break, if you have no defense for your ideas other then "cause ma preacher told me" or "i hear'd it on Rush, it must be true" then that's fine, but at least admit as much.

Being a conservative does not make one a redneck, rednecks are born not created.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by observer
The above quote proves the thesis of my post. People who do not actually understand their own ideologies enough to defend them assume you are calling them stupid. All I say is read, I know that's hard, bein from kentucky meself and havin a baby to take kare or makes redin and riiightin things fer others to do.
Gimmie a break, if you have no defense for your ideas other then "cause ma preacher told me" or "i hear'd it on Rush, it must be true" then that's fine, but at least admit as much.

Being a conservative does not make one a redneck, rednecks are born not created.


No, my post is my way of stating that I think this topic is too rediculous to discuss, as well as extremely over-done. It's about how neo-con's (Aka, liberals nick-name for anyone who disagrees with them including ordinary republicans), use deception, religion, and strong nationalism to take control of their people. This little artical talks about how the Bush's are neo-cons, and if you tie that in with my little thesis, people who follow him must be neo-cons too (Obviously if you agree with a "neo-con" enough to vote for him, you're probably one yourself). It's stupid, insulting, and it has ben done before.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 08:57 PM
link   
If you have read ANYTHING i posted in this thread I think I make a decent case to argue that the term is deragatory, nor is it applied to all republicans. Isn't your accusation that

Aka, liberals nick-name for anyone who disagrees with them including ordinary republicans


Are you not guilty of the same crime you accuse liberals of?

Anyway, if you look up the term at www.encarta.com or www.dictionary.com it tells you the definition. It is an abberehation of 60' and 70's conservatism, Reagan was the first to toy with it but he did not try to dominate the globe with it.

And Stauss was one of the architects.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Never mind, architects.

"Predators." Those people are predatory on us all.




posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 11:11 AM
link   
People can play the 'my favourite colour is....' game all they like but at the end of the day IMHO 'the devil' simply assumes many forms depending on which suits the time.

Power-pervs. Pure and simple.

People who believe 'the masses' or 'the herd' too ill educated, too stupid, to slow, to self-consumed to be aware of or even concerned with things like a 'noble' or 'great' future.......or that other eternal favourite.....to dumb to see the catastrophe they're 'sleep walking toward'.

But luckily for us these power-perv guys can. Hooray for them, ain't we lucky.


Whether they call themselves nazis, neo-con, communist commisars or what the theme is always the same dreary idiotic self-mastabatory crap.....and usually 'just' happens to involve itself in blood-letting on a massive scale to further it's ends. (oh, all dressed up in every justification going, of course).

They think they have a right to tell people what to do.

For some (naturally undefined) reason they think they have a right to 'order' and the idea of freely enabling could not be further from their minds.

Doesn't matter what label they use or what colour(s) they attach themselves to the point is always the same.

Power perverts.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 11:15 AM
link   
So--given the preponderance of evidence that the Bush Cabal and the NeoCons are evil and power-mad--

WHEN ARE WE THE PEOPLE GOING TO LAWFULLY--OR PHYSICALLY--GOING TO PROSECUTE THEM AND THROW THEM OUT OF AUTHORITY FOR ALL TIME??

Huh? Are we so wimp-ish we cannot pull ourselves together and do what Justice DEMANDS--that we bring these Evils to a HALT???

Tell me.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
So--given the preponderance of evidence that the Bush Cabal and the NeoCons are evil and power-mad--

WHEN ARE WE THE PEOPLE GOING TO LAWFULLY--OR PHYSICALLY--GOING TO PROSECUTE THEM AND THROW THEM OUT OF AUTHORITY FOR ALL TIME??

Huh? Are we so wimp-ish we cannot pull ourselves together and do what Justice DEMANDS--that we bring these Evils to a HALT???

Tell me.



It's called unity...........

If you have unity you can pull the foundation (which is us) out from underneath them and tell them no more...
Start a new.... Thats what he have to do.

But we have to unite doesn't have to be dems and reps......

just people who are willing to fight for a cause...
50 million + people voted to get Bush out....

These are the people that can shake the top to come crumbling down, but it would be an intellectual war...

As ronald regan said, you can't control the economy unles you control the people...

We would have to sink corporate America through the economy...
They would be half of what they are now. Not even half.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 11:18 AM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Try this page. Some good ideas.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Did anyone watch "The Power of Nightmares" on BBC2 aired a couple of weeks ago? I never really knew much about the "Neo-Conservatives" (sorry if that name offends) or Leo Strauss and his political philosophy, but after watching the documentary it made me think about what it means and whether it is true.

Basically, it said that the neo-cons objective is to create fear among the populous by creating a common evil in the world and that America must battle that evil to stay safe. By creating this fear and combating it, the government harnesses support to stay in power. Apparently, when Reagan was in power and the neo-con were high in the government they tried to make the Soviet Union the evil communist state intent on global domination, and even managed to tie them to a global terror network, which was originally made up by the CIA for propaganda purposes. Today it is the radical Islamists, which has an intricate network of sleeper cells and great organisation, but does it really? Were the US, British and coalition forces hunting a phantom menace in Afghanistan? Did they find any bunker complexes in the mountains, apparently not

On the other side, the radical Islamists also saw that a liberal society would ultimately self-destruct and saw that the middle-east was slowly being consumed by the western way of life. They believed that the president/prime minister of Egypt had become corrupted by the west and was no longer true to the Islamic state. So they thought that if they assassinate him, the people would see the corruption and rise up against the government, but the people didnt. They then believed that everyone in Egypt (or the middle-east, I cant remember) had been corrupted by the west and this meant they were all targets, but it was America that became the real threat and thus the main target.

Feel free to correct any mistake, I'm no expert and only watched the programme once.

Here is a link to the programme if anyone wishes to investigate more: hxxp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Excellent summary.

So--again--what are we going to do about the NWO globalist PREDATORS?

Nothing?



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join