Zar

Whether defenders of the Bush regime know it or not, they seem to be staunch Straussians (as in Leo Strauss). They are of the mindset that you must look beyond the data and other considerations -- no matter what it says -- and assume your worst fears and suspicions. Its not about having suspicions and then checking them out first. Its about acting on nothing more than what you can dream up in your head. You must assume nothing more than what the "logic of the situation" tells you. There are apparently no real limits on what that logic might be.

Another term for this Straussian outlook might be "crackpot realism" a term I like because it acknowledges that these people think they are being "realistic" when in fact they often wind up simply being paranoid.

What is amazing is how easily this meme or mental attitude has been seeded by the Bush administration and so readily swallowed by so many. People who recognize this shift are rightly alarmed. It amounts to enshrining psychological projection and an exchange of rational scientism for pure rationalism. However, I think things rarely achieve even the level of rationalism, but more an abject emotionalism mixed with a little bit of thinking.

Of course, this attitude overthrows any possibility of international law in favor of rule by fiat. Might really does make right with this idea, because only the very strongest can live by such rules.

Mike S.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact

This article goes into the many Strauss ties in the administration. Top policy maker Wolfowitz even got his doctorate under Strauss in 1972. Great bit of observation on your part.

Edit - there was a thread a couple of days back on this connection. Here is a better article from that thread

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0508-02.htm

geddit?

For what it's worth, another viewpoint. Cut and paste it at yer whim.

http://chronicle.com/cgi2-bin/printa...4/34b01401.htm

And this for my own amusement.....

Whether defenders of the opposition's opinion know it or not, they seem to be staunch conspiracy theorists. They are of the mindset that you must look beyond the data and other considerations -- no matter what it says -- and assume your worst fears and suspicions. Its not about having suspicions and then checking them out first. Its about acting on nothing more than what you can dream up in your head and google up on your computer. You must assume nothing more than what the "logic of the situation" tells you. There are apparently no real limits on what that logic might be.

Another term for this conspiracy theorist outlook might be "crackpot realism" a term I like because it acknowledges that these people think they are being "realistic" when in fact they often wind up simply being paranoid.

What is amazing is how easily this meme or mental attitude has been seeded by conspiracy theorists and so readily swallowed by so many. People who recognize this shift are rightly alarmed. It amounts to enshrining psychological projection and an exchange of rational scientism for pure rationalism. However, I think things rarely achieve even the level of rationalism, but more an abject emotionalism mixed with a little bit of thinking.

Of course, this attitude overthrows any possibility of decision making based on facts in favor of googling crap up to support a position. Nothing really is right with this idea even though many live by such rules.

Which is correct?
Don't ask me.
btw, I don't support Bush.

Zar

Let's dispatch a very lame-brained smear, which underpins his entire argument.

He said it, not me. This is because I do not make this automatic translation. Perhaps some people do, but this is a mistake. By the way, is Dick Cheney jewish? Is Donald Rumsfeld jewish? For that matter, was Plato, the progenitor of Leo Strauss jewish? Platonist love of a Spartan state and hatred of democracy isn't new, nor is it jewish, its just that the neocons are one of the newer incarnations -- kind of like Sparta-lite with access to a lot more guns.

So, once we've dispensed with this, the rest falls to pieces, because it is about the jews, jews, jews from beginning to end, disavowing any connections, etc.

I don't know about "empty vessel." But isn't he under the influence of these people? It is stunning for this writer to simply deny this. No evidece, just a flat denial. I mean, com on, the people listed only make up pretty much his entire government. Imagine him not listening to a single one of them! I guess we could play that silly game until kingdom come.

Really this whole opinion piece is put in the following form:

1) This is anti-Semitic.

As shown by me and the author himself, it need not be.

2) The U.S. has supported Israel before this.

No kidding. What insight this man has! And it continues to bow to Israel before the Arabs, just as before. Precedent doesn't make perfect.

3) This is a conspiracy theory, and by automatic extension, it is invalid.

It is not. By the authors own admission, the ideas they have are largely publicly available and their intellectual heritage is quite traceable. All that means is that they don't hide their crackpot ideas. It doesn't make them any more palatable, which is what people are complaining about. On the other hand, they don't really advertise their philosophy either. It seeps through the airwaves. Only dedicated critics have really attempted to make any sense of it. Mainstream media doesn't try very hard. Indeed whenever I ask anyone I know about this, they have no idea whatsoever. This means that their background is little known, not necessarily diabolically secretive. The point is to make people aware, because these guys won't out themselves any more than they have to. They'll just run roughshod over you and they won't explain why. They don't care. In fact, its part of their philosophy that the masses are too stupid to know the difference and that you can speak philosophy to each other in broad daylight and the people will not be the wiser. They seem to be mostly correct on that point.

The success of these ideas depends little on whether the public at large recognizes them. It depends on the almost infinite ability for the public to fail to understand and to forget. Sometimes I'm tempted to go right along with them, when I see the steadfast desire of the public to be led by them. Maybe I'm on the wrong team! The people really are sheep! Why not rule the world? You only need to give them a bone once it a while, but who needs democracy? But my better angles prevent me. Anyway, these guys have done everything they wanted in the open. Indeed, they've had to, since they are in power. But they don't care. They seem to believe in their position as the high-priesthood and they care little for what the public thinks because they figure they have a formula that will work: fear and doubt. They, as the "insiders" have a special place to do as they see fit -- for themselves or for what they see as maintaining the power of their realm.


This guy says these things while ignoring the deacade-old progression of these very same men and their ideas. They've been trying to sell their views since Bush I and have finally succeeded. All these guys go to the same think-tank meetings. It is indeed a policy coup. Or you might call it a triumph. Calling it a "shift" doesn't make me any more comfortable with it.


P.S.:

I'm not "looking beyond the data." As the author of the article stated himself, the evidence is right there. I'm only relating their ideas, not making them up.

I have to add that if anyone is in a fantasy land, it is Robert J. Lieber. The ideas of most of the people in higher office are so obvious to anyone willing to look, it is inoperable to resort to slander and wild conspiracy theory to ward off critics. You must deal with the ideas at this point because far too many people see it now. Only timid and ignorant people would allow Lieber's article to be the final word on any of this. Perhaps that was his audience.

geddit?

Actually, Lieber is adressing statements made by Lind and Alterman in Straussian conspiracy articles. Ton's of references to jews there.


Not dispensed with - you're point is flat out incorrect. It's still holding up.


Ummmmm, they're advisors - they advise. They do not make his decisions for him - that's Lieber's point. And no, Lieber doesn't see these "Straussians" making up "pretty much his entire govt". If you have evidence that they do, share it, it's not a silly game.


So, by whim, you negate demonstrated NEGATIVE references about jewish advisors and jewish media which he counters by listing protestant govt members among other things. Then you go on to say that the US "Bows to Israel"- Bullsh1te. So US policy wasn't affected by guys like Huseini hooking up with Hitler or the Pan_Arab efforts to destroy Israel and Pan-Arab ties to the Soviet Union and their efforts to project hegemony into the mid-east etc, etc....?Nah, We're bowing before Israel, the Jewish state - not continuing a productive relationship with an ally.



An attempt by the author to prove an invalid conspiracy theory. No automatic extension.


Can you astral project too....Because you seem to think you can read minds and discern secret motivations that the average person can't, and you say it's right in the open, - yet only you and a few others can see it!. This isn't quantum mechanics. Demonstrate the means by which "see the evil which lurks in the hearts of men".

Your words:

I'm not "looking beyond the data."

Yet you said earlier:

It seeps through the airwaves.
Only dedicated critics have really attempted to make any sense of it.
It depends on the almost infinite ability for the public to fail to understand and to forget.


You have out Straussed the Straussians.

geddit?

I bow to you oh courageous and informed one.

Ion

geddit,

do this:

in 2004 you vote for a presidential candidate other than Bush, who is not corrupted by a life in the inner circles of U.S. politics, who is intelligent and who means well to the U.S. people.

In the style of candidates Carol Moseley-Braun and Howard Dean.

Like Clinton was.

If the candidate is elected U.S. President, then:

.) religious Bush, gullible to be influenced by the neo-conservatives in thinking that U.S. strength is being a hooligan, off he goes;

.) the neo-conservatives, and their preying on Bush, off they go;

.) the U.S. economy improves again;

.) U.S. is respectful of the U.N..

You will thank my advice:

it is worthwhile.

Ion

No need to bow here.

You bow to Bush, but not bow here:

here, you only need to be on par with the information.

Optional

No, he's talking about the 'neocon conspiracy theory' in general, and picking out extremist statements to disagree with. It's a massive game of kill the strawman. MOST critics of neocons and the neocon agenda would not agree that it is some kind of 'jewish conspiracy'. As such, his criticism of the 'neocon conspiracy theory' as being essentially repackaged anti-semitism is just flat out wrong. I'm sure there are anti-semite neocon critics, and there are some who perceive some kind of 'jew conspiracy' at work, but then I'm also sure there are plenty of conservative True Believers who are certain they have been anal-probed by alien Grays, that doesn't mean conservatism is repackaged alienism...

Yep, dispensed with. Sorry.

Except that it's not necessary to read minds, and these are hardly secret motivations we're talking about here. The neocons have been quietly strategising and publishing positions papers for YEARS, and people HAVE been aware of them during that time. To understand the new american foreign policy, ,you only have to read the material they themselves have written... This ain't rocket science, anybody that has half a brain open to criticism can see it just as easily as anybody else.

*shrug* If you want to discuss whether or not the neocon foreign policy is good or bad, that's certainly a valid political discussion.... But to just deny their influence is simply closing your eyes to the facts.

-me

geddit?

I plan to vote against Bush. Don't like him, never have.

Screw your advice.