zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.

Learn More · Register for Free
Welcome to The Great Deception. We hope you enjoy your visit.
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


Pages: (2) [1] 2  ( Go to first unread post )

 Neocon Movement - Their Beliefs & Who They Are, Ideology of Leo Strauss / Iraq & 911
jofortruth
Posted: May 2 2007, 07:57 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,804
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Seymour Hersh: Radical Neoconservatives “Overthrew the American Government.”
http://www.infowars.com/seymour-hersh-radi...can-government/
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011..._america_change

Ron Paul publicly names neoconservatives
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=911_1210767551&c=1#comments




Go to this thread in this forum for more info on the Neocons. These people think the laws don't apply to them, and do as they please:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...topic=7133&st=0

Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and the connection to the War in Iraq: (They got their New Pearl Harbor they called for, on 911)
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...?showtopic=2858
Top
jofortruth
Posted: May 25 2007, 09:53 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,804
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Iraq War & Neocon 'Idea Testing' - Part 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USD5j-1TbJw



NOTE: Ledeen mentioned Libya in his list of target countries, and now it's happening.

Libya: The Rest of the Story
http://www.infowars.com/libya-the-rest-of-the-story/

See also on recent Libya takedown: (on the Neocon hit list)
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?to...3739#msg1203739


Iraq War & Neocon 'Idea Testing' - Part 2 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqUmUbVH31w



Iraq War & Neocon Beliefs & 911 - Part 3 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyuNpbvwZ6Y



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Drinking the Koolaid" - By W. Patrick Lang (EXCELLENT ARTICLE!)
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/files/drink...he-kool-aid.htm
Top
jofortruth
Posted: May 26 2007, 09:34 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,804
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



The Bush Surge, Nukes and Neocons - 1-29-07
http://threeworldwars.com/blog/posts/36


QUOTE
In accordance with my tirade about the Bush surge and the country’s desire to impeach this dictator, I would like to shed a little light on neoconservatism, conspiracy, nuclear war plans and the abuse of our military as a result.

Neoconservatism was born in the 1960’s and became official during the 1970’s with a significant presence under the administration of both George Bush and George Bush Jr.  The folks who follow this mode of socio-political thought are referred to as neocons.  Neocons include politicians, analysts and journalists who have had an aggressive influence, mostly detrimental, on United States foreign policy.  Leo Strauss pushed neoconservatism into the public mainstream in the 1970s through his teachings at the University of Chicago and the bestseller The Closing of the American Mind, written by his pupil Allan Bloom.  Neoconservatism has also been accused of being a codeword for Jewish and a movement led for the benefit of Israel, not in the actual interests of American people.

Irving Kristol was one of the founders of neoconservatism, currently sits on the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) and is a Senior Fellow of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).  William Kristol, Irving’s son, is the editor of the Washington based Weekly Standard.  A contributing editor to the Weekly Standard is Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.  Robert Kagan is also on the board of directors of the Project of the New American Century (PNAC), a Washington based think tank run by William Kristol, with direct ties to the Bush Cabinet.  Frederick Kagan of AEI, the brother of Robert Kagan, is considered to be a major architect in Bush’s latest surge of over 20,000 troops.

The Financial Times reported on January 2, 2007 that Frederick Kagan, with General Jack Keane, argued, “any troop increase must be large and lasting…a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so.”

Irving Kristol, William Kristol, Robert Kagan and Frederick Kagan are all committed to the teachings of Leo Strauss and engaging in America’s “long war”, a war without borders.  Add to this that Bush’s surge is derived from a document entitled Rebuilding American Defenses, which was co-authored by Donal Kagan (father of Frederick and Robert Kagan and Professor of History at Yale University), Gary Schmidt (PNAC Project Coordinator with Donald Kagan, resident fellow at AEI and colleague of Frederick Kagan) and Thomas Donnelly (main author, resident fellow at AEI and colleague of Frederick Kagan).  In this document, the PNAC recommends an expansion of active-duty strength from 475,000 to 525,000 and states the the Army National Guard should “play its essential role in fighting large scale wars” while minimizing civilian functions.

The same group authored a Letter to Congress Increasing U.S. Ground Forces in 2005, stating steps to be taken were, “to increase substantially the size of active duty Army and Marine Corps” because the “United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume.”

Consider the relationship with Washington based think tanks such as Carnegie and PNAC, along with the complex family and personal ties between neocons and it really smells like a long-term conspiracy orchestrated for the gain of a few at the expense of many.

Add to all this Congressman Charles Rangel’s 2006 bill introduced to U.S. Congress seeking to restore the draft, ironically described as an “anti-war” tactic directed against the Bush administration.  Further irony, on January 10, 2007, the same day as the Bush “surge”, Congressman  Rangel reintroduces his bill, entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2007.  Although Rangel is opposed to sending more troops to Iraq, his bill directly serves the interests of the Bush Administration.  The reintroduction of the draft is now on the books of Congress and could be used to substantiate bipartisan legitimacy to support Bush’s “surge”.

Furthermore, there is already what is called a “concealed military draft”  going on where U.S Marines are recalling and legally summoning over 14,000 inactive servicemen to serve in the Middle East and Iraq.  This is done with no regard for the servicepeople, their current lives and their families.  This concealed military draft has caused severe hardship for many, which remains largely unpublicized.

Also consider the thinly disguised operation of the government in executing Hussein and his associates to hype up the situation around Iran and the Middle East.  Isreali military and political circles have been making statements since October, 2006 about possible nuclear attack on the allegedly “unstoppable” Iran.  Bush Jr. supports these ideas and the possible necessity of nuclear strikes and a second United States aircraft carrier is scheduled to arrive at the Persian Gulf during the end of January.  Colonel Same Gardiner (USAF Retired) states, “The second carrier strike group leaves the United States west coast on Tuesday.  It will be joined by naval mine clearing assets from both the United States and the UK.  Patriot missile defense systems have also been ordered to deploy to the Gulf.  This has to be called escalation.  We have to remind ourselves, just as Iran is supporting groups inside Iraq, the United States is supporting groups inside Iran.  Just as Iran has special operations troops operating inside Iraq, we have read the United States has special operation troops operating inside Iran.”

The domestic and international ramifications of this good old boys’ conspiracy are alarming – mass destruction while they remain protected in their ivory towers, armed with the knowledge of their diabolical master plan.  Col. Gardiner says, “I do not accept the notion that the first casualty of war is truth.”  I agree Col. Gardiner – MamaSaid there’d be days like this…
Top
jofortruth
Posted: May 26 2007, 02:56 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,804
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Empire Builders: Neocon 101 - Some basic questions answered - What do Neocons believe?
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html

QUOTE
"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.

Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster.

Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security.

What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs?

The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world.

Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.

What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative?

Liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. The defectors remained more liberal on some domestic policy issues. But foreign policy stands have always defined neoconservatism. Where other conservatives favored détente and containment of the Soviet Union, neocons pushed direct confrontation, which became their raison d'etre during the 1970s and 80s.

Today, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. Neocons share no such reluctance. The post 9/11-campaigns against regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that the neocons are not afraid to force regime change and reshape hostile states in the American image. Neocons believe the US must do to whatever it takes to end state-supported terrorism. For most, this means an aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East. Even after 9/11, many other conservatives, particularly in the isolationist wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences.

How have neoconservatives influenced US foreign policy?

Finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s.

But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and Israel's right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq were deemed provocative and extremist by the political mainstream. With a few notable exceptions, such as President Bill Clinton's decision to launch isolated strikes at suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, their talk of preemptive military action was largely dismissed as overkill.

Despite being muted by a president who called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, neocons used the 1990s to hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power. Their forward thinking and long-time ties to Republican circles helped many neocons win key posts in the Bush administration.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to neoconservative foreign policy. Only days after 9/11, one of the top neoconservative think tanks in Washington, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq. Before long, Bush, who campaigned in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. In a highly significant nod to neocon influence, Bush chose the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as the venue for a key February 2003 speech in which he declared that a US victory in Iraq "could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace." AEI – the de facto headquarters for neconservative policy –had been calling for democratization of the Arab world for more than a decade.

What does a neoconservative dream world look like?

Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the US; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants.

Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary.
Top
jofortruth
Posted: May 26 2007, 02:58 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,804
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



It seems the NEOCONS are opportunists. They believe something one minute, then the total opposite the next. For example:
http://lists.warhead.org.uk/pipermail/iwe/...ary/000402.html

QUOTE
Neocon Evangelical Republican beliefs:

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals.

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's
daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him,
and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade
with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest
national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind
without regulation.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in
speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then
demand their cooperation and money.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing
health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies
have the best interests of the public at heart.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but
creationism should be taught in schools.

A president lying about an extra-marital affair is an impeachable
offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which
thousands die is solid defense policy.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution,
which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but
George Bush's driving record is none of our business

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a
conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers
for your recovery.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but
what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.


Hypocrisy! nonono.gif
Top
jofortruth
Posted: May 26 2007, 03:34 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,804
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Neocons & Bush:
http://threeworldwars.com/blog/posts/36


1. PNAC/Neocon Crusades - World According to Bush




2. PNAC/Neocon Crusades - Who pulls the Strings?



3. PNAC/Neocon Crusades - Pin 9/11 on Iraq




4. PNAC/White House CIA Leak - Story of Joseph

Top
jofortruth
Posted: May 26 2007, 07:43 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,804
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Saving America: Leo Strauss and the Neoconservatives By Shadia B. Drury
http://evatt.labor.net.au/publications/papers/112.html

Drury is an Expert on Strauss

QUOTE
Shadia Drury gets to the bottom of neoconservatism.

There is a growing awareness that a reclusive German émigré philosopher is the inspiration behind the reigning neoconservative ideology of the Republican Party. Leo Strauss has long been a cult figure within the North American academy. And even though he had a profound antipathy to both liberalism and democracy, his disciples have gone to great lengths to conceal the fact. And for the most part they have succeeded -- as the article by James Atlas in The New York Times and the article by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker indicate. This picture of Strauss as the great American patriot, who was a lover of freedom and democracy is pure fabrication. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The trouble with the Straussians is that they are compulsive liars. But it is not altogether their fault. Strauss was very pre-occupied with secrecy because he was convinced that the truth is too harsh for any society to bear; and that the truth-bearers are likely to be persecuted by society - specially a liberal society - because liberal democracy is about as far as one can get from the truth as Strauss understood it.

Strauss's disciples have inherited a superiority complex as well as a persecution complex. They are convinced that they are the superior few who know the truth and are entitled to rule. But they are afraid to speak the truth openly, lest they are persecuted by the vulgar many who do not wish to be ruled by them. This explains why they are eager to misrepresent the nature of Strauss's thought. They are afraid to reveal that Strauss was a critic of liberalism and democracy, lest he be regarded as an enemy of America. So, they wrap him in the American flag and pretend that he is a champion of liberal democracy for political reasons - their own quest for power. The result is that they run roughshod over truth as well as democracy.

It should however be pointed out that being a critic of liberalism or democracy or both does not make one automatically an enemy of America. On the contrary, freedom and democracy can only be strengthened by intellectually confronting their critics. Strauss has no special antipathy for America. He is the enemy of liberty in general. It was for love of America that he wished to save her from her disastrous love affair with liberty, as I will explain.

Strauss's preoccupation with secrecy was no doubt connected to the fact that he did not feel at home in America. He realised how much his ideas were at odds with America's liberal modernity. He felt that in America, everything that does not fit the mould, everything that does not conform to public opinion, was ostracised. In a letter to a friend, Strauss complained that the academic atmosphere in America was oppressive, and that it was very difficult to publish. As a man forced to emigrate from his native Germany, learn a new language by watching television, and forced to conduct his scholarly life in this newly acquired language, Strauss must be the subject of our sympathy. But Strauss's American disciples continue to complain that they are oppressed, beleaguered, and ostracised by the liberal academy, and the equally liberal media. But surely, these are crocodile tears.

The Straussians are the most powerful, the most organised, and the best-funded scholars in Canada and the United States. They are the unequalled masters of right-wing think tanks, foundations, and corporate funding. And now they have the ear of the powerful in the White House. Nothing could have pleased Strauss more; for he believed that intellectuals have an important role to play in politics. It was not prudent for them to rule directly because the masses are inclined to distrust them; but they should certainly not pass up the opportunity to whisper in the ears of the powerful. So, what are they whispering? What did Strauss teach them? What is the impact of the Straussian philosophy on the powerful neoconservatives? And what is neoconservatism anyway?

Strauss is not as obscure or as esoteric as his admirers pretend. There are certain incontestable themes in his work. The most fundamental theme is the distinction between the ancients and the moderns - a distinction that informs all his work. According to Strauss, ancient philosophers (such as Plato) were wise and wily, but modern philosophers (such as Locke and other liberals) were foolish and vulgar. The wise ancients thought that the unwashed masses were not fit for either truth or liberty; and giving them these sublime treasures was like throwing pearls before swine. Accordingly, they believed that society needs an elite of philosophers or intellectuals to manufacture "noble lies" for the consumption of the masses. Not surprisingly, the ancients had no use for democracy. Plato balked at the democratic idea that any Donald, Dick, or George was equally fit to rule.

In contrast to the ancients, the moderns were the foolish lovers of truth and liberty; they believed in the natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They believed that human beings were born free and could be legitimately ruled only by their own consent.

The ancients denied that there is any natural right to liberty. Human beings are born neither free nor equal. The natural human condition is not one of freedom, but of subordination. And in Strauss's estimation, they were right in thinking that there is only one natural right - the right of the superior to rule over the inferior - the master over the slave, the husband over the wife, and the wise few over the vulgar many. As to the pursuit of happiness - what could the vulgar do with happiness except drink, gamble, and fornicate?

Praising the wisdom of the ancients and condemning the folly of the moderns was the whole point of Strauss's most famous book, Natural Right and History. The cover of the book sports the American Declaration of Independence. But the book is a celebration of nature - not the natural rights of man (as the appearance of the book would lead one to believe), but the natural order of domination and subordination.

In his book On Tyranny, Strauss referred to the right of the superior to rule as "the tyrannical teaching" of the ancients which must be kept secret. But what is the reason for secrecy? Strauss tells us that the tyrannical teaching must be kept secret for two reasons - to spare the people's feelings and to protect the elite from possible reprisals. After all, the people are not likely to be favourably disposed to the fact that they are intended for subordination.

But why should anyone object to the idea that in theory the good and wise should rule? The real answer lies in the nature of the rule of the wise as understood by Strauss.

It meant tyranny is the literal sense, which is to say, rule in the absence of law, or rule by those who were above the law. Of course, Strauss believed that the wise would not abuse their power. On the contrary, they would give the people just what was commensurate with their needs and capacities. But what exactly is that? Certainly, giving them freedom, happiness, and prosperity is not the point. In Strauss's estimation, that would turn them into animals. The goal of the wise is to ennoble the vulgar. But what could possibly ennoble the vulgar? Only weeping, worshipping, and sacrificing could ennoble the masses. Religion and war - perpetual war - would lift the masses from the animality of bourgeois consumption and the pre-occupation with "creature comforts." Instead of personal happiness, they would live their lives in perpetual sacrifice to God and the nation.

Irving Kristol, a devoted follower of Strauss and father of neoconservatism, was delighted with the popularity of the film Rambo. He thought it was an indication that the people still love war; and that means that it will not be too difficult to lure them away from the animalistic pleasures that liberal society offers. There is a strong asceticism at the heart of the atheistic philosophy of Leo Strauss that explains why those with religious inclinations are attracted to it.

Strauss loved America enough to try to save her from the errors and terrors of Europe. He was convinced that the liberal democracy of the Weimar Republic led to the rise of the Nazis. That is a debatable matter. But Strauss did not openly debate this issue or provide arguments for his position in his writings. I am inclined to think that it is Strauss's ideas, and not liberal ideas, that invite the kinds of abuses he wished to avoid. It behoves us to remember that Hitler had the utmost contempt for parliamentary democracy. He was impatient with debate and dispute, on the grounds that they were a waste of time for the great genius who knew instinctively the right choices and policies that the people need. Hitler had a profound contempt for the masses - the same contempt that is readily observed in Strauss and his cohorts. But when force of circumstances made it necessary to appeal to the masses, Hitler advocated lies, myths, and illusions as necessary pabulum to placate the people and make them comply with the will of the Fürer. Strauss's political philosophy advocates the same solution to the problem of the recalcitrant masses. Anyone who wants to avoid the horrors of the Nazi past is well advised not to accept Strauss's version of ancient wisdom uncritically. But this is exactly what Strauss encouraged his students to do.

Strauss's students have left the academy in quest of political power. They complain that they are persecuted in the academy because they are illiberal. But in truth, it is not because they are illiberal that they are held in contempt; it is because they are ill-equipped to handle philosophical debate. Strauss's secretive or esoteric style of writing is inimical to philosophical dispute within the academy. He was convinced that there can be no disagreement among the wise. They instinctively recognise the truth. And those who deny it are unfit for the company of the wise. This explains why his students are a cultish clique, which is comfortable only when preaching to the converted and consorting with the like-minded. All the while they fool themselves into thinking that they are the exclusive few who see the unadulterated truth, which is concealed from the eyes of the uninitiated. Not surprisingly, they are not well regarded within the academy. But it is not entirely their fault. They are poorly trained, because Strauss's philosophy is ill-suited for academic life. It aspires to action. Its goal is not to understand the world, but to change it. And now that they are closely allied with the powerful neoconservatives in Washington, they have a chance to make their vision a reality.

So, what is neoconservatism? And how does it propose to change the world in accordance with Straussian political philosophy? 'Neo' comes from the Greek neos, which means new. And, what's neo about neoconservatism? Well, for one thing, the old conservatism relied on tradition and history; it was cautious, slow and moderate; it went with the flow. But under the influence of Leo Strauss, the new conservatism is intoxicated with nature. The new conservatism is not slow or cautious, but active, aggressive, and reactionary in the literal sense of the term. Inspired by Strauss's hatred for liberal modernity, its goal is to turn back the clock on the liberal revolution and its achievements.

Allan Bloom, author of The Closing of the American Mind, Strauss's best known student, was a professor at the University of Toronto. His best selling book demonised the sixties - the age of civil rights for black Americans, and greater freedom and equality for women. Irving Kristol also demonised the sixties. And Francis Fukuyama, student of Allan Bloom, and vanguard of the neoconservative intellectuals, refers to the sixties as "The Great Disruption," the title of his recent book. Supposedly, all these Strauss-inspired writers believe that the new found freedoms of the sixties are the root of all evil, because freedom invites licentiousness, and licentiousness is a harbinger of social decay - divorce, delinquency, crime, and creature comforts. And there is a sense in which they are right - freedom is a treasure that is quickly lost if it is not wisely used. The trouble is that neoconservatives have zero tolerance for human vices or follies, and as a result, they are unwilling to give liberty a chance.

So, what is to be done? How can America be saved from her dangerous fascination with liberty? Irving Kristol came up with the solution that has become the cornerstone of neoconservative policies: use democracy to defeat liberty. Turn the people against their own liberty. Convince them that liberty is licentiousness - that liberty undermines piety, leads to crime, drugs, rampant homosexuality, children out of wedlock, and family breakdown. And worse of all, liberalism is soft on communism or terrorism - whatever happens to be the enemy of the moment. And if you can convince the people that liberty undermines their security, then, you will not have to take away their liberty; they will gladly renounce it.

In an essay entitled "Populism Not to Worry," Irving Kristol argued that Americans should embrace populism, or the rule of the majority, despite the reservations of the Founding Fathers. The latter feared the tyranny of the majority, and institutionalised safeguards to protect the liberty of individuals and minorities. But Kristol and the neoconservatives want to dismantle these very safeguards against majority rule. Kristol tells us not to worry. Why not? Apparently because the neoconservatives believe that America has been ruled by an unwise liberal elite for over two hundred years, and they are willing to gamble that the people will be wiser, which is to say, more likely to endorse conservative policies. Inspired by the same ideology, the Alliance party in Canada is willing to take the same gamble. But, luckily for Canada, it is sagging badly in the polls.

With the neoconservatives in power in the US, it will be difficult to conceal the real nature of neoconservative policies. The "stealth campaigns" are not likely to be as effective. The policies are by now very clear: no gay rights, no liberated women, no uppity blacks, lots of prayer in the schools, a strong commitment to the death penalty, and the re-criminalisation of abortion. The latter is particularly important. Of course it will keep the women at home and out of the way so that world can be ruled by men in the proper manly fashion; but that's not all. More importantly, it will keep women busy having babies - lots of babies. In this way, women will become useful once again; they will return to their vocation as factories for soldiers - and we need lots of soldiers, for we will have plenty of wars to fight, if the neoconservatives have their way. And it seems they have.

The neoconservative goal is reactionary in the classic sense of the term. It is nothing short of turning the clock back on the liberal revolution. And it will use democracy to accomplish its task. After all, Strauss had no objections to democracy as long as a wise elite, inspired by the profound truths of the ancients, was able to shape, invent, or create the will of the people. In his interpretation of Plato's myth of the cave, Strauss maintained that the philosophers who return to the cave should not bring in truth; instead, the philosophers should seek to manipulate the images in the cave, so that the people will remain in the stupor to which they are supremely fit.
It is ironic that American neoconservatives have decided to conquer the world in the name of liberty and democracy, when they have so little regard for either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shadia Drury is among the world's foremost scholars on the history, philosophy and politics of neoconservatism. She is the author of the acclaimed books Leo Strauss and the American Right (1998) and The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (1988). Her forthcoming book is Terror and Civilization. Professor Drury holds the Canada Research Chair in Social Justice at the University of Regina, in Saskatchewan, Canada.


That said, "Social Justice" is a NWO term, so this fringe I have an issue with also. Can we just stop the wars of AGENDA, put actual leaders without an agenda in these jobs, and stop all the insanity and lawlessness that is happening? We don't need SOCIAL JUSTICE, we just need JUSTICE! Enough with the NWO terms and crap!
Top
jofortruth
Posted: May 26 2007, 07:50 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,804
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Behind the Neocon Curtain: Plato, Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom
http://evatt.labor.net.au/publications/papers/90.html


See also this thread in forum:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...p?showtopic=689
Top
jofortruth
Posted: May 26 2007, 10:09 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,804
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag0Df9fQeYw



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Excellent Article: The Strategist and the Philosopher Leo Strauss and Albert Wohlstetter By ALAIN FRACHON and DANIEL VERNET
http://www.counterpunch.org/frachon06022003.html

QUOTE
June 2, 2003

Translated for CounterPunch by Norman Madarasz.

Who are the neoconservatives playing a vital role in the US president's choices by the side of Christian fundamentalists? And who were their master thinkers, Albert Wohlstetter and Leo Strauss?

It was said in the tone of sincere praise: "You are some of our country's best brains". So good, added George W. Bush, "that my government employs around twenty of you." The president was addressing the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC on February 23 (quote from an article published in Le Monde, March 20, 2003). He was paying homage to a think tank that is one of the bastions of the American neoconservative movement. He was saluting a school of thought that has marked his presidency, avowing everything he owes to an intellectual stream whose influence is now predominant. He was also acknowledging the fact of being surrounded by neoconservatives, and giving them credit for the vital role they play in his political choices.

At the outset of the 1960s, John F. Kennedy recruited professors from the center-left, from Harvard University especially. They were chosen among the "best and the brightest", in the words of the essayist David Halberstam who coined the phrase. As for President George W. Bush, he would go on to govern with precisely those who, since the Sixties, began to rebel against the then-dominant center consensus colored as it was with a hue of social democracy.

Who are they and what is their history? Who were their master thinkers? Where do the intellectual origins of Bushian neoconservatism lie?

The neoconservatives must not be confused with Christian fundamentalists who are also found in George W. Bush's entourage. They have nothing to do with the renaissance of protestant fundamentalism begun in the southern Bible Belt states, which is one of the rising powers in today's Republican Party. Neoconservatism is from the East Coast, and a little Californian as well. Those who have inspired them have an 'intellectual' profile. Often they are New Yorkers, often Jewish, having their beginnings 'on the Left'. Some still call themselves Democrats. They have their hands on literary or political reviews, not the Bible. They wear tweed blazers, not the navy blue double-breasted suits of Southern TV-evangelists. Most of the time, they profess liberal ideas on questions related to society and social trends. Their objective is neither to prohibit abortion nor to make school prayer obligatory. Their ambition lies elsewhere.

The peculiarity of the Bush administration, as Pierre Hassner explains, is to have ensured the junction of these two streams. George W. Bush has brought the neoconservatives and Christian fundamentalists to co-exist. The latter are represented in government by a man like John Ashcroft, the Attorney General. The former have one of their stars in the position of Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz. George W. Bush, who led his campaign on the center-right without any very specific political anchorage, has performed a stunning and explosive ideological cocktail. It weds Wolfowitz and Ashcroft, neoconservatives and born-again Christians, planets diametrically opposed.

Ashcroft has taught at Bob Jones University in South Carolina, an academically unknown college though a stronghold of Protestant fundamentalism. The kind of talk one overhears there brushes on anti-Semitism. Jewish and from a family of teachers, Wolfowitz is for his part a brilliant product of East Coast universities. He has studied with two of the most eminent professors of the 1960s. Allan Bloom, the discipline of the German-Jewish philosopher, Leo Strauss, and Albert Wohlstetter, professor of mathematics and a specialist in military strategy. These two names would end up counting. The neoconservatives have placed themselves under the tutelary shadow of the strategist and the philosopher.

'Neoconservative' is a misnomer. They have nothing in common with those striving to guarantee the established order. They reject just about all the attributes of political conservatism as it is understood in Europe. One of them, Francis Fukuyama, who became famous from his book on The End of History, insists: "In no way do the neoconservatives want to defend the order of things such as they are, i.e. founded on hierarchy, tradition and a pessimistic view of human nature" (Wall Street Journal, December 24, 2002).

As idealist-optimists convinced of the universal value of the American democratic model, they want to bring the status quo and soft consensus to an end. They believe in the power of politics to change things. On the domestic front, they have worked out the critique of the welfare state created by Democratic and Republican presidencies (Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, respectively), which has belabored to resolve social problems. On foreign policy, they denounced 1970s Détente, which, they claimed, had benefited the USSR more than the West. As critics of the Sixties' balance sheet who are opposed to Henry Kissinger's diplomatic realism, they are anti-establishment. Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, the founders of Commentary and two of neoconservatism's New-York godfathers, come from the Left. And it was from the Left that they formulated their condemnation of Soviet communism.

In Ni Marx, ni Jesus (Neither Marx nor Jesus) (Robert Laffont, 1970), Jean-François Revel described the USA plunged in the turmoil of the 1960s social revolution. More recently, he has explained neoconservatism as a backlash, above all on the domestic front. The neoconservatives criticize the cultural and moral relativism of the Sixties in the wake of Leo Strauss. In their view, relativism culminated in the 'politically correct' movement of the 1980s.

Another high-ranking intellectual wages the battle at this point. Allan Bloom from the University of Chicago was depicted by his friend Saul Bellow in the novel Ravelstein (Which Books, 2000). In 1987 in The Closing of the American Mind, Bloom assails the university community for having given everything equal merit: "Everything has become culture", he wrote. "Drug culture, Rock culture, Street Gang culture and so on without the least discrimination. The failure of culture has become culture."

For Bloom, who was an important interpreter of the classic works of literature, very much in the image of his mentor Strauss, a part of the legacy of the 1960s "ends up as contempt of Western civilization for itself," explains Jean-François Revel. "In the name of political correctness, all cultures are of equal merit. Bloom questioned the students and professors who were perfectly disposed to accept non-European cultures that often stood against liberty, while at the same time protesting with extreme harshness against Western culture to such a point as to refuse any acknowledgement of it as superior in any respect."

While political correctness gave the impression of holding the high ground, neoconservatives were making headway. Bloom's book was a major best-seller. Within US foreign policy, a true neoconservative school was taking shape. Networks were set up. In the 1970s, the Democratic Senator from Washington State, Henry Jackson (d. 1983) criticized the major treaties on nuclear disarmament. He helped shape a generation of young lions keenly interested in strategy, in which one comes across Richard Perle and William Kristol. The latter had attended Allan Bloom's lectures.

From within the administration and from without, Richard Perle would meet up with Paul Wolfowitz when they both worked for Kenneth Adelman, another contrarian of Détente policies, or Charles Fairbanks, Under-Secretary of State. In strategic matters, their guru was Albert Wohlstetter. A researcher at the RAND Corporation, Pentagon advisor and a gastronomy connoisseur nevertheless, Wohlstetter (d. 1997) was one of the fathers of the American nuclear doctrine.

More precisely, he engaged in the early attempts to reformulate the traditional doctrine that had been the basis for nuclear deterrence: the so-called MAD or "Mutual-Assured Destruction". According to that theory, as both blocs had the capacity to inflict irreparable damage onto each other, their leaders would think twice before unleashing a nuclear attack. For Wohlstetter and his students, MAD was both immoral--due to the destruction it would inflict on civilian populations--and ineffective: it would end up in a mutual neutralization of nuclear arsenals. No sane head of state, or at any rate no American president, would decide on "reciprocal suicide". To the contrary, Wohlstetter proposed "staggered deterrence", i.e. accepting limited wars that would eventually use tactical nuclear weapons with high-precision "smart" bombs capable of striking at the enemy's military apparatus.

He criticized the joint nuclear weapons control policy with Moscow. According to him, it amounted to bridling US technological creativity in order to maintain an artificial balance with the USSR.

Ronald Reagan heard him out, and launched the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), baptized "Star Wars". It is the ancestor of the Antimissile Defense System pursued by Wohlstetter's students. They would be the partisans warmest to the idea of a unilateral renunciation of the ABM Treaty, which in their view prevented the US from developing other defense systems. And they managed to convince George W. Bush.

In Perle and Wolfowitz's tracks, one meets Elliott Abrams, these days in charge of the Middle-East at the National Security Council, and Douglas Feith, an Under-Secretary of Defense. They all share unconditional support for the policies of the State of Israel, whatever government sits in Jerusalem. This unwavering support explains how they have stoically sided with Ariel Sharon. President Ronald Reagan's two mandates (1981 and 1985) gave many of them the opportunity to exercise their first responsibilities in government.

In Washington DC, the neoconservatives have woven their web. Creativity is on their side. Throughout the years, they have marginalized intellectuals from the Democratic center and centre-left to hold a preponderant place where the ideas that dominate the political scene are forged. Among their fora are reviews such as the National Review, Commentary, the New Republic, headed for a time by the young 'Straussian' Andrew Sullivan; the Weekly Standard, once under the ownership of the Murdoch group, whose Fox News television network takes care of broadcasting the vulgarized version of neoconservative thought. Under Robert Bartley's charge, the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal have also fallen into neoconservatist activism without qualms. Their hunting grounds are also the research institutes and think tanks such as the Hudson Institute, the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute. Families play a role as well: Irving Kristol's son, the very urbane William Kristol runs the Weekly Standard; one of Norman Podhoretz's sons worked for the Reagan administration; the son of Richard Pipes--a Polish Jew who emigrated to the US in 1939 to become a Harvard University professor and one of the major critics of Soviet communism--Daniel Pipes has denounced Islamism as a new totalitarianism threatening the West.

These men are not isolationists, on the contrary. They are usually very well-educated, having vast knowledge of foreign countries whose languages they have often mastered. They share nothing with Patrick Buchanan's reactionary populism, which espouses a US retreat to deal with its domestic problems.

The neoconservatives are internationalists, partisans of a resolute US activism in the world. Their ways do not resemble those of the GRAND Old Republican party (Nixon, George Bush Sr.), trusting in the merits of a Realpolitik and caring little about the nature of the regimes with which the US was doing business to defend their interests. Someone like Kissinger, for example, is an anti-model for them. Yet they are not internationalists in the Wilsonian democratic tradition (in reference to president Woodrow Wilson, the unfortunate father of the League of Nations), [b]that of Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. The latter are deemed naive or angelic for counting on international institutions to spread democracy.

After the strategist, introducing the philosopher. There are no direct links existing between Albert Wohlstetter and Leo Strauss (d. 1973) prior to the official emergence of neoconservatism. But within the neoconservative network, some of them have spawned bridges between the teachings of these two men, despite the fundamental difference separating their fields of research.

Either by filiation or capillary action (Allan Bloom, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol and so on), Strauss's philosophy has served as neoconservatism's theoretical substratum. Strauss hardly ever wrote on current political affairs or international relations. He was read and recognized for his immense erudition of the classical Greek texts and Christian, Jewish and Islamic scriptures. He was feted for the power of his interpretive method. "He grafted classical philosophy to German profundity in a country lacking a great philosophical tradition", explains Jean-Claude Casanova who was sent to study in the US by his mentor, Raymond Aron. Aron admired Strauss greatly, whom he had met in Berlin before the war. He advised many of his students, like Pierre Hassner or Pierre Manent a few years later, to turn toward him.

Leo Strauss was born in Kirchain, Hesse, in 1899 and left Germany on the eve of Hitler's rise to power. After a short stint in Paris and then in England, he left for New York where he taught at the New School for Social Research before founding the Committee on Social Thought in Chicago, which would become the 'Straussian' crucible.

It would be simplistic and reductive to trace back to Strauss's teaching a few principles from which the neoconservatives in George W. Bush's entourage may have drawn. After all, neoconservatism plunges its roots in traditions other than the Straussian school. But the reference to Strauss forms a pertinent background to the neoconservatism currently at work in Washington. It allows one to understand how neoconservatism is not the simple caprice of a few Hawks. It leans on theoretical bases that are perhaps debatable, though hardly mediocre. Neoconservatism sits at the crossroads of two thoughts present in Strauss' thinking.

The first is linked to his personal experience. As a young man, Strauss lived through the decay of the Weimar Republic under the converging thrusts of Communists and Nazis. From this experience, he concluded that democracy had no chance of being imposed were it to remain weak, even if that meant refusing to bolster itself against tyranny. Expansionist by nature, tyranny might have to be confronted by resorting to the use of force: "The Weimar Republic was weak. It had only one moment of strength if not greatness: its violent reaction to the assassination of the Jewish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Walther Rathenau, in 1922, " wrote Strauss in a foreword to Spinoza's Critique of Religion (1966, trans. 1980). "All in all, Weimar showed the spectacle of justice without force, or of a justice incapable of resorting to force."

The second thought results from his frequentation of the ancients. What is most fundamental for them, as it is for ourselves, is the kind of political regime that ends up shaping the character of people. Why had the 20th century engendered two totalitarian regimes, which Strauss preferred to call "tyrannies" in reference to Aristotle's terminology? To this question that has not ceased provoking contemporary intellectuals, Strauss answered: for modernity caused a rejection of moral values, of the virtue that is the basis for democracies, and a rejection of the European values of Reason and Civilization.

Strauss argued that this rejection had its roots in the Enlightenment. The latter produced historicism and relativism as quasi-necessities, which means as a refusal to admit the existence of a Higher Good reflected in concrete, immediate and contingent goods, but irreducible to them. This Good was an unattainable Good that is the measure for real goods.

Translated into the terms of political philosophy, the extreme consequence of this relativism was the USA-USSR convergence theory, very much in vogue during the 1960s and 1970s. It amounted to eventually acknowledging a moral equivalence between American democracy and Soviet communism. Admittedly for Leo Strauss, there exist good and bad regimes. Political thought must not be deprived of casting value judgments. Good regimes have the right--even duty--to defend themselves against evil ones. It would be simplistic to immediately transpose this idea with the "axis of Evil" denounced by George W. Bush. But it is very clear, indeed, that it proceeds from the same source.

This central notion of regime as political philosophy's matrix was developed by the Straussians who developed an interest in the Constitutional history of the United States. Strauss himself--also an admirer of the British Empire and Winston Churchill as an example of the will-driven statesman--was inclined to think that American democracy was the least-worst case of political systems. Nothing better had been found for the flourishing of mankind, even were there a tendency for special interests to replace virtue as the regime's foundations.

His students, Walter Bens, Hearvey Mansfield or Harry Jaffa, were especially the ones to fill the ranks of the American Constitutionalist school. In the institutions of the United-States they saw much more than merely the application of the thought of the US' Founding Fathers. They saw the living performance of higher principles, or indeed, for a man like Harry Jaffa, of Biblical teachings. In any case, religion, eventually civil religion, must serve as the cement to bind institutions and society. This call to religion was not foreign to Strauss. But the atheist Jew "enjoyed covering his tracks", in Georges Balandier's words. He considered religion as useful to upkeep illusions for the many, without which order could not be maintained. By contrast, the philosopher must conserve a critical spirit to address the few in a coded language as matter to be interpreted and intelligible only to a meritocracy founded on virtue.

Advocating a return to the ancients against the trappings of modernity and illusions of progress, Strauss nonetheless defended liberal democracy as the Enlightenment's daughter--and American democracy as its quintessence. A contradiction? Doubtless, but a contradiction he tackles in the tradition of other thinkers on liberalism (Montesquieu, Tocqueville). For the critique of liberalism, which runs the risk of losing itself in relativism ­schematically speaking: the search for Truth loses value­ is indispensable for its survival. For Strauss, the relativism of the Good results in an inability to react against tyranny.

This active defense of democracy and liberalism reappears in the political vulgate as one of the neoconservative's favorite themes. The nature of political regimes is much more important than all of the institutions and international arrangements to maintain world peace. The greatest threat comes from States that do not share the values of (American) democracy. Changing these regimes and working for the progress of democratic values are the surest ways to reinforcing security (of the US) and peace.

The importance of political regimes, praise for militant democracy, quasi-religious exaltation of American values and firm opposition to tyranny: any number of these themes, which are the stock and trade of the neoconservatives populating the Bush administration, may be drawn from Strauss's teachings. At times, they are reviewed and corrected by second-generation 'Straussians'. Yet one thing separates them from their putative mentor: the Messianic-tainted optimism the neoconservatives unfold to bring freedoms to the world (to the Middle East tomorrow, to Germany and Japan yesterday), as though political voluntarism could change human nature. This is yet another illusion that is perhaps good enough to spread to the masses, but by which the philosopher must not be fooled.

Still, a riddle remains: How does 'Straussism', which was first founded on an oral transmission largely tributary of the master thinker's charisma and expressed in austere books, texts on texts, [b]come to seat its influence in a presidential administration? Pierre Manent, who directs the Raymond-Aron Research Center in Paris, puts forward the idea that the ostracism to which Leo Strauss's pupils were subject in the American university milieu propelled them toward public service, think tanks and the press. They are relatively over-represented in all of these domains.

Another--complementary--explanation holds to the intellectual void that followed the Cold War which the 'Straussians', and in their wake the neoconservatives, seemed best prepared to fill. The fall of the Berlin Wall showed they were right insofar as Reagan's strong-armed policies with respect to the USSR triggered its downfall. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks confirmed their thesis on the vulnerability of democracies faced with tyranny's diverse forms. From the war on Iraq, the neocons will be tempted to draw the conclusion that toppling "evil" regimes is possible and desirable. Faced with this temptation, calls to international law may claim moral legitimacy. What is lacking, as things stand today, are the powers of conviction and constraint.

Article originally published in Le Monde, April 16, 2003.
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Sep 23 2007, 11:26 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,804
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Neocons Are Down But Might Not Be Out
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/08/...in2550384.shtml
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Oct 25 2007, 11:23 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,804
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



This is a 14 part series. Traces the beginnings of the NEOCON movement. Yes, it has been around a while, and came into their own under Bush the pawn. Excellent series!

Pt 1 The Neocons - Ideology and Fantasy (tyranny of souls)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGfa7nM9CNA



Pt.2 The Neocons - Rumsfeld's Imaginary War
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5h3q-SmHhY



Pt.3 The Neocons - Birth of Islamic Extremists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGvcDKog1lY



Pt.4 The Neocons - Recruiting Christians/Concept of Terror
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jlDzxGEu1k



Pt.5 The Neocons - CIA's $1Billion Backs Future Terrorists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbwi-Awj7kc



Pt.6 The Neocons - Ignored Warning of Terrorists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEmGB6_uTNM



Pt.7 The Neocons - Destruction of the Republican Party
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgBesKRJEVU



PT.8 The Neocons - Clinton's Blowjob / Extremist Rampage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p78kADCziJE



Pt.9 The Neocons - "There's No Al-Qaeda Organization"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t0C01k0n20



Pt.10 The Neocons - "We're Gonna Find Those Evil Doers"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V88KxtfqC8



Pt.11 The Neocons - Hunt for Osama / The Disney Terrorists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtfTggrQuiA



Pt.12 The Neocons - Godzilla was a Terrorist Mentor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d7zveqG7cM



Pt.13 The Neocons - Dirty Bomb [color=red]Precautionary Principle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGvEAxRsIJU



Pt.14 The Neocons - Fear is the Only Agenda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yAcpNYwn8Q

Top
jofortruth
Posted: Nov 19 2007, 09:49 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,804
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Nihilism and Neoconservatism; Brothers under the skin
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11163
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Jan 19 2008, 01:40 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,804
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



The "Neocons": From the Cold War to the "Global Intifada"
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0491/9104027.htm
Top
jofortruth
Posted: May 15 2008, 08:22 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,804
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



What the Neocons Believe and How Tied to Israel's Likkud Party:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=911_1210767551&c=1#comments





Ron Paul gives us the names and pictures of the Neocons who were responsible for the USA going into Iraq under false pretenses are in this video. When you see these individuals on any media show saying anything, think twice before you believe what they say. They are liars!
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Jun 25 2008, 11:01 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,804
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Top
jofortruth
Posted: Aug 18 2008, 10:42 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,804
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



The Neocons Do Georgia - Paul Craig Roberts - 8-18-08
http://www.rense.com/general83/rob.htm


QUOTE
The success of the Bush Regime's propaganda, lies, and deception with gullible and inattentive Americans since 9/11 has made it difficult for intelligent, aware people to be optimistic about the future of the United States. For almost 8 years the US media has served as Ministry of Propaganda for a war criminal regime. Americans incapable of thinking for themselves, reading between the lines, or accessing foreign media on the Internet have been brainwashed.
 
As the Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, said, it is easy to deceive a people. You just tell them they have been attacked and wave the flag.
 
It certainly worked with Americans.
 
The gullibility and unconcern of the American people has had many victims. There are 1.25 million dead Iraqis. There are 4 million displaced Iraqis. No one knows how many are maimed and orphaned.
 
Iraq is in ruins, its infrastructure destroyed by American bombs, missiles, and helicopter gunships.
 
We do not know the death toll in Afghanistan, but even the American puppet regime protests the repeated killings of women and children by US and NATO troops.
 
We don't know what the death toll would be in Iran if Darth Cheney and the neocons succeed in their plot with Israel to bomb Iran, perhaps with nuclear weapons.
 
What we do know is that all this murder and destruction has no justification and is evil. It is the work of evil men who have no qualms about lying and deceiving in order to kill innocent people to achieve their undeclared agenda.
 
That such evil people have control over the United States government and media damns the American public for eternity.
 
America will never recover from the shame and dishonor heaped upon her by the neoconned Bush Regime.
 
The success of the neocon propaganda has been so great that the opposition party has not lifted a finger to rein in the Bush Regime's criminal actions. Even Obama, who promises "change" is too intimidated by the neocon's success in brainwashing the American population to do what his supporters hoped he would do and lead us out of the shame in which the neoconned Bush Regime has imprisoned us.
 
This about sums up the pessimistic state in which I existed prior to the go-ahead given by the Bush Regime to its puppet in Georgia to ethnically cleanse South Ossetia of Russians in order to defuse the separatist movement. The American media, aka, the Ministry of Lies and Deceit, again accommodated the criminal Bush Regime and proclaimed "Russian invasion" to cover up the ethnic cleansing of Russians in South Ossetia by the Georgian military assault.
 
Only this time, the rest of the world didn't buy it. The many years of lies--9/11, Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda connections, yellowcake, anthrax attack, Iranian nukes, "the United States doesn't torture," the bombings of weddings, funerals, and children's soccer games, Abu Ghraib, renditions, Guantanamo, various fabricated "terrorist plots," the determined assault on civil liberties--have taken their toll on American credibility. No one outside America any longer believes the US media or the US government.
 
The rest of the world reported the facts--an assault on Russian civilians by American and Israeli trained and equipped Georgian troops.
 
The Bush Regime, overcome by hubris, expected Russia to accept this act of American hegemony. But the Russians did not, and the Georgian military was sent fleeing for its life.
 
The neoconned Republican response to the Russian failure to follow the script and to be intimidated by the "unipower" was so imbecilic that it shattered the brainwashing to which Americans had succumbed.
 
McCain declared: "In the 21st century nations don't invade other nations." Imagine the laughs Jon Stewart will get out of this on the Daily Show. In the early years of the 21st century the United States has already invaded two countries and has been beating the drums for attacking a third. President Bush, the chief invader of the 21st century, echoed McCain's claim that nations don't invade other nations. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7556857.stm
 
This dissonant claim shocked even brainwashed Americans, as readers' emails reveal. If in the 21st century countries don't invade other countries, what is Bush doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what are the naval armadas and propaganda arrayed against Iran about?
 
Have two of the worst warmongers of modern times--Bush and McCain--called off the US/Israeli attack on Iran? If McCain is elected president, is he going to pull US troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan as "nations don't invade other nations," or is President Bush going to beat him to it?
 
We all know the answer.
 
The two stooges are astonished that the Americans have taught hegemony to Russians, who were previously operating, naively perhaps, on the basis of good will.
 
Suddenly the Western Europeans have realized that being allied with the United States is like holding a tiger by the tail. No European country wants to be hurled into war with Russia. Germany, France, and Italy must be thanking God they blocked Georgia's membership in NATO.
 
The Ukraine, where a sick nationalism has taken hold funded by the neocon National Endowment for Democracy, will be the next conflict between American pretensions and Russia. Russia is being taught by the neocons that freeing the constituent parts of its empire has not resulted in their independence but in their absorption into the American Empire.
 
Unless enough Americans can overcome their brainwashed state and the rigged Diebold voting machines, turn out the imbecilic Republicans and hold the neoconservatives accountable for their crimes against humanity, a crazed neocon US government will provoke nuclear war with Russia.
 
The neoconservatives represent the greatest danger ever faced by the United States and the world. Humanity has no greater enemy.
 
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at:

<mailto:PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com>PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Aug 26 2008, 11:40 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,804
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



QUOTE
While none of the American archive documents reviewed to date by EIR identify Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt as a Synarchist, circumstantial evidence points to that conclusion. Schmitt was an emissary to Spain, Portugal, France, and Italy, during the height of fascism, turning out a series of juridical documents, justifying the jackboot tyrannies. Schmitt was a protected asset of Goering, the leading Synarchist figure in Nazi Germany. Like the banker Hjalmar Schacht, Schmitt was cleared of war crimes by the Nuremberg Tribunals.

In effect, as documented in "The Hitler Book", Schacht blackmailed the Tribunal, by aggressively asserting that he was only acting on behalf of the international financial establishment, represented by the Bank for International Settlements, in his incarnation as a top Nazi official. If backed against a wall, he threatened, he would provide evidence of the international financial cabal behind the "Hitler project." Schacht was acquitted, over the strenuous objections of both the American and Soviet judges.

In effect, the perpetrators of the Nazi Holocaust were brought to justice at Nuremberg, while the architects of the larger Synarchist scheme, like Schacht and Leo Strauss' mentor Carl Schmitt, were given a safe conduct, and, through the efforts of postwar occupation figures like John J. McCloy and Gen. William Draper, were vetted for future service.

A final note: In 1955, Schmitt was corresponding with Kojeve, arranging for the Paris-based Russian emigre to address the Dusseldorf industrialists' association -- which had been a focal point of Franco-German "Synarchist" collaboration between the Nazi and Vichy governments -- and meet, during that visit, with Schmitt's close friend Schacht.

It was this Kojeve who maintained the closest collaboration with Leo Strauss, and who promoted his theories of purgative violence and universal tyranny with such leading Strauss disciples as Allan Bloom (the mentor of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz) and Francis Fukuyama. This Synarchist stew remains Vice President Dick Cheney's gang's "French Connection."

-- Al and Rachel Douglas, Katherine Kantor, Pierre and Irene Boudry, Anton Chaitkin, Stephanie Ezrol, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, and Barbara Boyd contributed vital research to this article.
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Dec 21 2008, 06:20 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,804
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Frank Gaffney is another Neocon idiot: (He even looks like a weasel. Hey, Frank, if you can't support your country then you need to live elsewhere! Enough of your type of ignorance and treasonous behavior! Since you helped lie us into Iraq, the blood of those soldiers is on you and your NEOCON lying buddies heads.)

Top
jofortruth
Posted: Jan 25 2009, 10:53 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,804
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



What is a NeoConservative?
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=3PYggjQVwAs

Top
jofortruth
Posted: Jun 16 2009, 01:00 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,804
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



QUOTE
Charley Reese
Lew Rockwell.com
Monday, June 15, 2009

The basic flaw in the neoconservative ideology is that democracy cannot be imposed on other people at the point of a gun. (IMO, this should be common sense!)  rolleyes.gif

Furthermore, if neoconservatives came from an American tradition rather than a Trotskyite tradition, they would understand that America itself is not a democracy. Benjamin Franklin emerged from the Constitutional Convention and a lady asked him, “Well, Mr. Franklin, what kind of government have you given us?” He did not say democracy. He replied, “Madam, we have given you a republic – if you can keep it.”

A republic and a democracy are two different animals. A democracy, which can actually work only in a very small country, allows citizens to vote on every issue. A republic allows citizens to elect representatives, who then use their own judgment to decide issues. If the citizens disagree with the representatives’ decisions, they can replace them at the next election.

Furthermore, mere elections are not what define America’s unique form of freedom. Today, practically every country in the world has elections, most of dubious validity. What most countries lack is a commitment on the part of their individual citizens to the concept of human rights, which cannot be legitimately abrogated by government.

For us, that concept took centuries of thought and conflicts to mature. It began at Runnymede when some barons presented a British king with demands that became known as the Magna Carta. It placed limits on the king’s powers and defined certain rights not only for the aristocracy but for the common folk, too. And the barons were there with their swords to make sure the king understood that it was not negotiable.

A great deal of blood was shed and words written and spoken before the concept matured. Today it’s found mainly in what in politically incorrect days were called the Anglo-Saxon countries – the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand. Our form of freedom is a gift from our English-speaking ancestors. In other parts of the world, government went off in different directions, even those we consider more or less free. But their concept of freedom is not the same as ours.
Ours is best summed up in the Declaration of Independence. All men are given unalienable rights by God. The sole purpose of government is to protect those rights. When a government instead abuses those rights, then the people have the right and the duty to overthrow it and create a new government.

Some Americans today are so stupid and/or ignorant of their country’s history that if you asked them if people have the right to overthrow a government, they would reply in the negative. I had a professor who asked that question, and in a class of more than 30 students, only four of us said “Yes.”

For God’s sake, if you’re going to claim to be an American, at least read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. A good history of England and America certainly wouldn’t hurt.

Our concepts of a free society are as foreign to the Arabs (and the rest of the non-Anglo-Saxon world) as Arabic and Chinese are to us. If Allah wills, they might evolve their own version of a more or less free society, but it will not be like ours. And they darn sure are not going to accept anything imposed on them at the point of a gun by “infidels.”

George W. Bush is dead-wrong to believe he’s been anointed by God to spread democracy. He was merely barely elected to serve the people of the United States in accordance with our Constitution. Even that appears to be more than he can handle. But if he tries to lead a crusade against the Muslim world, he will meet the same fate as the earlier Crusaders – defeat and disgrace.
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Dec 29 2009, 03:24 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,804
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



QUOTE
Neo-conservatives/list also known as Neo-cons

See the neo-conservative entry for background information.

Elliott Abrams (PNAC)
Ken Adelman
Richard Armitage (PNAC)
John David Ashcroft
Fred Barnes
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett (PNAC)
Jeffrey Bergner (PNAC)
John Bolton (PNAC)
Max Boot
Ellen Bork
Paul Bremer Lewis Paul "Jerry" Bremer III
David Brooks
Shoshana Bryen
Stephen D. Bryen
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Stephen A. Cambone
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula J. Dobriansky (PNAC)
Thomas Donnelly
John Doolittle
Douglas Jay Feith
David Frum
Francis Fukuyama (PNAC)
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. (PNAC)
Reuel Marc Gerecht (PNAC)
Newt Gingrich (Notice how you see him back in the media now! His Contract with America is more like Contract on America!)
Joshua Goldberg
Owen Harries
Bruce P. Jackson
Michael Johns
Robert Kagan (PNAC)
Zalmay Khalilzad (PNAC)
Jeane Kirkpatrick
Henry Kissinger
Neal Kozodoy
Charles Krauthammer
Irving Kristol
William Kristol (PNAC)
Michael Arthur Ledeen
Jay Lefkowitz
I. Lewis Libby a.k.a. "Scooter"
Michael H. Mobbs
Joshua Muravchik
Rupert Murdoch
Richard J. Neuhaus
Michael Novak
Martin Peretz
Richard N. Perle (PNAC)
Daniel Pipes
Norman Podhoretz
Howard Raines
Peter W. Rodman (PNAC)
Karl Rove
Donald H. Rumsfeld (PNAC)
Richard Mellon Scaife
Gary J. Schmitt
William Schneider, Jr. (PNAC)
Abram N. Shulsky
Robert W. Tucker
Harlan Ullman
Vin Weber (PNAC)
Paul Dundes Wolfowitz (PNAC)
R. James Woolsey, Jr. (PNAC)
David Wurmser
Meyrav Wurmser
Dov Zakheim
Karl Zinsmeister
Robert B. Zoellick

Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Neo-conservatives/list"
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Feb 18 2011, 08:54 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,804
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Horowitz and the Neocons Fear Patriot Ron Paul
http://www.infowars.com/horowitz-and-the-n...triot-ron-paul/


The neocons will be their own downfall due to their extreme arrogance. They attack people both physically and verbally. They call anyone who doesn't like what they do, antisemitic. This dog won't hunt anymore. It's an overused word that no longer has the power it use to have, since we are now educated as to how these babies operate.

Ron Paul disagrees with these menaces, but is never nasty to them like they are to him. That should tell you who is the better man.

The neocons have serious character defects, and it is these defects the people are now seeing. Ron Paul shows them up in so many ways, and they can't stand it. The bullies will do what they will, and they will fail due to their actions.

Ron Paul is the real man that these people will never be, and his popularity is skyrocketing because he has true character, and he loves his country. The neocons on the other hand use pseudo patriotism to fool people, while selling us out to the globalists agenda. Shameful!



nonono.gif
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Feb 24 2011, 01:51 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,804
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



NOTE: In Part 1 of 3 part video above, Ledeen mentioned Libya in his list of target countries, and now it's happening.

Libya: The Rest of the Story
http://www.infowars.com/libya-the-rest-of-the-story/

See also on recent Libya takedown: (on the Neocon hit list)
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?to...3739#msg1203739
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Feb 28 2011, 08:23 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,804
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



An Excellent Article "Drinking the Koolaid" by Patrick Lang, tells the truth about how the NEOCONs lied us into Iraq, and how many idiots in Congress just went along, and millions died: angry.gif
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...wtopic=240&st=0
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Mar 18 2011, 05:53 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,804
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



The RMA boys wrote a letter to Obama on March 15 ASKING FOR WAR WITH LIBYA
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?to...7650#msg1217650
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | Other Research | Next Newest »
zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register Now

Topic OptionsPages: (2) [1] 2 



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.3789 seconds | Archive