Leo Strauss is the father of the NeoConservative movement, including many leaders of the current administration. Indeed, some of the main neocon players were students of Strauss at the University of Chicago, where he taught for many years. Strauss, born in Germany, was an admirer of Nazi philosophers and of Machiavelli.
Strauss believed that a stable political order required an external threat and that if an external threat did not exist, one should be manufactured. Specifically, Strauss thought that:
"A political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat . . . . Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured".(quote is by one of Strauss' main biographers).
Indeed, Stauss used the analogy of Gulliver's Travels to show what a Neocon-run society would look like:
"When Lilliput [the town] 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."Moreover, Strauss said:
"Only a great fool would call the new political science diabolic . . . Nevertheless one may say of it that it fiddles while Rome burns. It is excused by two facts: it does not know that it fiddles, and it does not know that Rome burns."So Strauss seems to have advocated governments letting terrorizing catastrophes happen on one's own soil to one's own people -- of "pissing" on one's own people, to use his Gulliver's travel analogy. And he advocates that government's should pretend that they did not know about such acts of mayhem: to intentionally "not know" that Rome is burning. He advocates messing with one's own people in order to save them from some "catastrophe" (perhaps to justify military efforts to monopolize middle eastern oil to keep it away from an increasingly-powerful China?).
Fast Forward a Couple of Decades
Fast forward to the 1990's . . .
Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor seemed to hint at this approach when he wrote in 1997:
"as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)Similarly, the Project For A New American Century, a think tank lobbying group with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and the other leading Neocons in its ranks, lamented that its rapacious military agenda would not be realized "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."
Don't believe that these quotes represent anything nefarious yet?
Fast forward to today . . .
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said the American people lack "the maturity to recognize the seriousness of the threats." What's to be done? According to Rumsfeld, "The correction for that, I suppose, is [another] attack."
Newt Gingrich recently said:
"the better they've done at making sure there isn't an attack, the easier it is to say, 'Well, there never was going to be an attack anyway.' And it's almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to remind us."The head of the Arkansas Republican party said:
"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001]" so people appreciate Bush.Philadelphia Daily News columnist Stu Bykofsky openly called for "another 9/11" that "would help America" restore a "community of outrage and national resolve".
Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, told the Toronto Star that "The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago."
And an allegedly-leaked GOP memo touts a new terror attack as a way to reverse the party's decline.
It's All Hot Air, Isn't It?But isn't this all talk? They wouldn't really allow terror to happen . . . or aid and abet such attacks. Would they?
Well, President Carter recently impliedly acknowledged the risk of staged provocation in order to start a war against Iran.
A former National Security Adviser told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation.
1 | 2
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/
George Washington George Washington is a pen name. I am using the pen name, with the approval of the publisher, because I have received death threats due to my 9/11 research and writing. I am using a pen name to protect myself and my family.
| 4 comments |
|
|
Of course I could have cited the whole false flag thing (for example the following quotes), but I didn't want to make the essay too long: by
George Washington (76 articles, 24 quicklinks, 167 diaries, 185 comments)
on Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 7:44:04 PM
|
|
External Threats In Platos "Republic" he outlined the basis of the future totalitarian state, ruled by the elite he called "philosopher kings", or "guardians". The Republic provided the basis for all future Illuminati projects, including communism, the elimination of marriage and the family, compulsory education, the use of eugenics by the state, and the employment of deceptive propaganda methods. Strauss, like Plato, taught that within societies, some are fit to lead, while others are fit only to be led. For Strauss, a NWO would accept, understand, and harness man’s tendency for "self-interest", or "human nature". Those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality. He believed the world to be a place where policy advisers may have to deceive their own public leaders. If exposed to the absence of absolute truth, the masses would quickly succumb to nihilism or anarchy. They "can’t handle the truth". Thus, according to Strauss, it is necessary to maintain "the Noble Lie". Strauss believed that the aggressive nature of human beings could only be restrained by a powerful state. In other words, Fascism. "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." In the Report From Iron Mountain, said to have been commissioned at the time of the Kennedy Administration, but not completed until after his death, it concluded in part that in order to maintain social control in the absence of war, we need an external threat. Our leaders create these threats for our own good, so they believe. Remember, in order for men who believe themsleves to be good to do evil, they must believe that the end justifies the means, and that evil they is achieve good. Right. What we call Wars today are essentially military exercises to present the appearance of war and an external threat, but which are essentially target practice with an unfortunate "enemy" and human sacrifice of Americans in numbers that are acceptable to the people. These are not real wars since they are not being fought to be won, the conflict is extended by design, and there is no risk of sovereignty (actually we have already surrendered that to the defacto World Government operating in the shadows). Some extracts (google it for the entire report if still available) snip It has been hotly argued that such a menace would offer the "last, best hope of peace," etc., by uniting mankind against the danger of destruction by "creatures" from other planets or from outer space. Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain "flying saucer" incidents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind. If so, they could hardly have been judged encouraging." [technology today, esp with HAARP, sattelites, etc could make a threat more easily staged to be believable] snip "The environmental pollution model does not seem sufficiently responsive to immediate social control, except through arbitrary acceleration of current pollution trends; this in turn raises questions of political acceptability. New, less regressive, approaches to the creation of fictitious global "enemies" invite further investigation" [Global Warming is designed for this purpose] Today we have the Rothschild/Shultz neocon psychopathic neo-malthusian Straussian Fascists and the Windsor/Gore mother earth neo malthusian worshipping psychopathic Communists. Both believers in One World Government and Totalitarian rule with a different roadmap and timeline to get there. Obama represents one side, McCain/Bush the other. Those are the only choices on the menu. Enjoy. by
pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 464 comments)
on Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 10:36:11 PM
|
|
I have achieved nothing of consequence apart from raising children in a way that they would excel where I failed. And they are on good tracks. |
Any Alternative ? GW, Excellent as usual. Eye-popping insight into the current quagmire. But, could't we envisage a better world order for future generations devoid of agression and based on more humanitarian challenges than just a lust for destruction/dominance? Shouldn't we reject obsolete political views based on terrormongering and strive to build a peaceful community for humanity to thrive? Could't the entire planet become a sort of Switzerland, neat and safe? We are here not to just analyse Illuminati's nightmarish barbarism, but also to come up with and to propose viable political alternatives so as life becomes sustainable on this planet for future generations, don't you think so ? by
ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 452 comments)
on Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 11:55:39 PM
|
| 4 comments |
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
