|
|
Home | Switchboard | Unix Administration | Red Hat | TCP/IP Networks | Neoliberalism | Toxic Managers |
| (slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and bastardization of classic Unix | |||||||
The Straussians formed the original core of the Neoconservatives. In two generations, this network of less than a hundred people have penetrated the nerve centers of the American state with the aim of seizing the levers of power in two areas: foreign and military policies.
There are now several prominent neocons that constitute the second generation of this sect: Irving Kristol was succeeded by his son William, Donald Kagan by his son Robert, Richard Pipes by his son Daniel, and Norman Podhoretz by his son John and his son-in-law Elliott Abrams.
Dec 11, 2015 | Peak Prosperity
Mememonkey pointed my to a 2013 essay by Laurent Guyenot, a French historian and writer on the deep state, that addresses the question of "Who Are The Neoconservatives." If you would like to know about that group that sends the US military into battle and tortures prisoners of war in out name, you need to know about these guys.
First, if you are Jewish, or are a GREEN Meme, please stop and take a deep breath. Please put on your thinking cap and don’t react. We are NOT disrespecting a religion, spiritual practice or a culture. We are talking about a radical and very destructive group hidden within a culture and using that culture. Christianity has similar groups and movements--the Crusades, the KKK, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, etc.
My personal investment: This question has been a subject of intense interest for me since I became convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, that the Iraq war was waged for reasons entirely different from those publically stated. I have been horrified to see such a shadowy, powerful group operating from a profoundly "pre-moral" developmental level—i.e., not based in even the most rudimentary principles of morality foundational to civilization.
Who the hell are these people?!
Goyenot’s main points (with a touch of personal editorializing):
1. The American Neocons are Zionists (Their goal is expanding political / military power. Initially this is focused on the state of Israel.)
Neoconservativism is essentially a modern right wing Jewish version of Machiavelli's political strategy. What characterizes the neoconservative movement is therefore not as much Judaism as a religious tradition, but rather Judiasm as a political project, i.e. Zionism, by Machiavellian means.
This is not a religious movement though it may use religions words and vocabulary. It is a political and military movement. They are not concerned with being close to God. This is a movement to expand political and military power. Some are Christian and Mormon, culturally.
Obviously , if Zionism is synonymous with patriotism in Israel, it cannot be an acceptable label in American politics, where it would mean loyalty to a foreign power. This is why the neoconservatives do not represent themselves as Zionists on the American scene. Yet they do not hide it all together either.
He points out dual-citizen (Israel / USA) members and self proclaimed Zionists throughout cabinet level positions in the US government, international banking and controlling the US military. In private writings and occasionally in public, Neocons admit that America’s war policies are actually Israel’s war goals. (Examples provided.)
2. Most American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal and do NOT share the perspective of the radical Zionists.
The neoconservative movement, which is generally perceived as a radical (rather than “conservative”) Republican right, is, in reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of the monthly magazine Commentary, a media arm of the American Jewish Committee, which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. The Forward, the oldest American Jewish weekly, wrote in a January 6th, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: “If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it. It’s a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find horrifying. And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants’ grandchildren”.
3. Intellectual Basis and Moral developmental level
Goyenot traces the Neocon’s origins through its influential writers and thinkers. Highest on the list is Leo Strauss. (Neocons are sometimes called “the Straussians.”) Leo Strauss is a great admirer of Machiavelli with his utter contempt for restraining moral principles making him “uniquely effective,” and, “the ideal patriot.” He gushes over Machiavelli praising the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech.
Other major points:
- believes that Truth is harmful to the common man and the social order and should be reserved for superior minds.
- nations derive their strength from their myths, which are necessary for government and governance.
- national myths have no necessary relationship with historical reality: they are socio-cultural constructions that the State has a duty to disseminate.
- to be effective, any national myth must be based on a clear distinction between good and evil; it derives its cohesive strength from the hatred of an enemy nation.
- As recognized by Abram Shulsky and Gary Schmitt in an article “Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence” (1999), for Strauss, “deception is the norm in political life” – the rule they [the Neocons] applied to fabricating the lie of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein when working inside the Office of Special Plans.
- George Bushes speech from the national cathedral after 9/11 exemplifies myth-making at its finest: “Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of Evil. War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. . . .[W]e ask almighty God to watch over our nation, and grant us patience and resolve in all that is to come. . . . And may He always guide our country. God bless America.
4. The Zionist/Neocons are piggy-backing onto, or utilizing, the religious myths of both the Jewish and Christian world to consolidate power. This is brilliant Machiavellian strategy.
- the “chosen people” myth (God likes us best, we are better than you)
- the Holy Land myth (one area of real estate is more holy than another)
- the second coming of Christ myth
- the establishment of God’s Kingdom on Earth through global destruction/war (nuclear war for the Glory of God)
[The]Pax Judaica will come only when “all the nations shall flow” to the Jerusalem temple, from where “shall go forth the law” (Isaiah 2:1-3). This vision of a new world order with Jerusalem at its center resonates within the Likudnik and neoconservative circles. At the Jerusalem Summit, held from October 12th to 14th, 2003 in the symbolically significant King David Hotel, an alliance was forged between Zionist Jews and Evangelical Christians around a “theopolitical” project, one that would consider Israel… “the key to the harmony of civilizations”, replacing the United Nations that’s become a “a tribalized confederation hijacked by Third World dictatorships”: “Jerusalem’s spiritual and historical importance endows it with a special authority to become a center of world’s unity. [...] We believe that one of the objectives of Israel’s divinely-inspired rebirth is to make it the center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of peace and prosperity, foretold by the Prophets”. Three acting Israeli ministers spoke at the summit, including Benjamin Netanyahu, and Richard Perle.
Jerusalem’s dream empire is expected to come through the nightmare of world war. The prophet Zechariah, often cited on Zionist forums, predicted that the Lord will fight “all nations” allied against Israel. In a single day, the whole earth will become a desert, with the exception of Jerusalem, who “shall remain aloft upon its site” (14:10).
With more than 50 millions members, Christians United for Israel is a major political force in the U.S.. Its Chairman, pastor John Haggee, declared: “The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West, [...] a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ”.
And Guyenot concludes:
Is it possible that this biblical dream, mixed with the neo-Machiavellianism of Leo Strauss and the militarism of Likud, is what is quietly animating an exceptionally determined and organized ultra-Zionist clan? General Wesley Clark testified on numerous occasions before the cameras, that one month after September 11th, 2001 a general from the Pentagon showed him a memo from neoconservative strategists “that describes how we’re gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran”.
Is it just a coincidence that the “seven nations” doomed to be destroyed by Israel form part of the biblical myths? …[W]hen Yahweh will deliver Israel “seven nations greater and mightier than yourself […] you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them.”
My summary:
- We have a group that wishes greatly expanded power (to rule the world??)
- Among them are brilliant strategists
- They operate unrestrained by the most basic moral principles upon which civilization is founded. They are undisturbed by compassion for the suffering of others.
- They use consciously and skillfully use deception and “myth-making” to shape policy
- This is not a spiritual movement in any sense
- They are utilizing religious myths and language to influence public thinking
- They envision “winning” in the aftermath world war.
- They have infiltrated the highest levels of banking, US military, NATO and US government.
|
|
Switchboard | ||||
| Latest | |||||
| Past week | |||||
| Past month | |||||
 |
 |
 |
Jul 25, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
A child waves the United States flag from the crown of Liberty Enlightening the World, less formally known as The Statue of Liberty, on Liberty Island in New York Harbor. | Detail of: 'Statue of Liberty' by Frederic Auguste Bartholdi.Reactions to globalization, the Trump presidency, and the coronavirus pandemic have turned discussions of American conservatism increasingly into discussions of "nationalism." Regrettably, terminological confusion is rampant. Both "conservatism" and "nationalism" are words of many and even contradictory meanings.
The strengths of post-World War II American intellectual conservatism have been widely heralded. As for its weaknesses, one trait stands out that has greatly impeded intellectual stringency: a deep-seated impatience with the supposedly "finer points" of philosophy. Making do with loosely defined terms has made conservatism susceptible to intellectual flabbiness, contradiction, and manipulation.
This deficiency is connected to a virtual obsession with electoral politics. William F. Buckley's path-breaking National Review was an intellectual magazine, but its primary purpose was to prepare the ground for political victories, most of all for capturing the presidency. The desire to forge a political alliance among diverse groups pushed deep intellectual fissures into the background. Having a rather narrowly political understanding of what shapes the future, most conservatives thought that the election and presidency of Ronald Reagan signified the "triumph" of conservatism; but the triumph was hollow. The reason is that in the long run politicians have less power than those who shape our view of reality, our innermost hopes and fears, and our deeper sensibilities. A crucial role is here played by "the culture" -- universities, schools, churches, the arts, media, book publishing, advertising, Hollywood, and the rest of the entertainment industry -- which is why America kept moving leftward.
For post-war so-called "movement" conservatives, conservatism meant chiefly limited government, a free market, anti-communism, and a strong defense. These tenets were all focused on politics, and vastly different motives hid behind each of them. Why were these tenets called "conservatism"? Rather than point to a few policy preferences, should that term not refer to a general attitude to life, a wish to conserve something, the best of a heritage? One thinks of the moral and cultural sources of American liberty and constitutionalism. But, outside of ceremonial occasions, most movement conservatives placed their emphasis elsewhere.
A striking example of philosophical messiness and confusion is that the conservative movement even incorporated clearly anti-conservative ideas, specifically, the anti-historicism advanced by Leo Strauss and his followers. Strauss championed what he called "natural right," which he saw as sharply opposed to tradition. He called the latter "the ancestral" or "convention." To look to them for guidance was to be guilty of the great offense of "historicism," by which he meant moral relativism or nihilism. History, Strauss insisted, is irrelevant to understanding what is right. Only ahistorical, purely abstract reason is normative.
Hampered by a lack of philosophical education, many Straussians have been oblivious to the far-reaching and harmful ramifications of this anti-historicism. By blithely combining it with ideas of very different origin, they have concealed, even from themselves, its animosity to tradition.
One of Strauss's most influential disciples, Harry Jaffa, made the radical implications of Straussian anti-historicism explicit. In his view, America's Founders did not build on a heritage. They deliberately turned their backs on the past. Jaffa wrote: "To celebrate the American Founding is to celebrate revolution." America's revolution belonged among the other modern revolutions. It is mild "as compared with subsequent revolutions in France, Russia, China, Cuba, or elsewhere," he wrote, but "it nonetheless embodied the greatest attempt at innovation that human history had recorded." The U.S. Constitution did not grow out of the achievements of ancestors. On the contrary, radical innovators gave America a fresh start. What is distinctive and noble about America is that, in the name of ahistorical, abstract, universal principles, it broke with the past.
This view flies in the face of overwhelming historical evidence. The reason the Founders were upset with the British government is that it was acting in a radical, arbitrary manner that violated the old British constitution. John Adams spoke of "grievous innovation." John Dickinson protested "dreadful novelty." What the colonists wanted, Adams wrote, was "nothing new," but respect for traditional rights and the common law. The Constitution of the Framers reaffirmed and creatively developed an ancient heritage.
The Jaffaite notion that America rejected the past and was founded on revolutionary, abstract, universal ideas contributed to what this writer has termed "the new Jacobinism." According to this ideology, America is "exceptional" by virtue of its founding principles. Since these principles belong to all humanity, America must help remake societies around the world. "Moral clarity" demands uncompromising adherence to the principles. The forces of good must defeat the forces of evil. Inherently monopolistic and imperial, American principles justify foreign policy hawkishness and interventionism.
Compare this notion of America to what is implied in Benjamin Franklin's famous phrase about what the Constitutional Convention had produced -- "a republic, if you can keep it." To sustain the Constitution, Americans would have to cultivate the moral and cultural traits that had given rise to it in the first place. To be an American is to defend an historically evolved inheritance, to live up to what may be called the "constitutional personality." Only such people are capable of the kind of conduct that the Constitution values and requires. Americans must, first of all, be able to control the will to power, beginning with self. They must respect the law, rise above the passions of the moment, take the long view, deliberate, compromise, and respect minorities. Whether applied to domestic or foreign affairs, the temperament of American constitutionalism is modesty and restraint. There is no place for unilateral dictates.
These contrasting views of America entail wholly different nationalisms. The moralistic universalism of American exceptionalism, with its demand that all respect its dictates runs counter to the American constitutional spirit of compromise, deliberation, and respect for minorities. Exceptionalism does not defuse or restrain the will to power, but feeds it, justifying arrogance, assertiveness, and even belligerence.
During the presidency of Donald Trump many proponents of American exceptionalism who want preferment have recast their anti-historical universalism as "nationalism," showing that the term can mean almost anything. It is now "nationalist" to demand that American principles be everywhere respected. For example, Mike Pompeo, a person of strong appetites and great ambition, has put this belief behind his campaign of assertiveness and "maximum pressure."
In a speech in the spring of 2019, Pompeo declared that America is "exceptional." America is, he said, "a place and history apart from normal human experience." It has a mission to oppose evil in the world. America is entitled to "respect." It should dictate terms to "rogue" powers like Iran and confront countries like China and Russia that are "intent on eroding American power." This speech was given and loudly cheered at the 40th anniversary gala of the Claremont Institute in California, whose intellectual founder was -- Harry Jaffa.
What may seem to political practitioners and political intellectuals to be hair-splitting philosophical distinctions can, on the contrary, have enormous practical significance. American exceptionalism is in important ways the opposite of a conservatism or a nationalism that defends the moral and cultural heritage that generated American constitutionalism. Exceptionalism fans imperial designs. The culture of constitutionalism opposes them.
Claes G. Ryn is professor of politics and founding director of the new Center for the Study of Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America. His many books include America the Virtuous and A Common Human Ground , now in a new paperback edition.
Related: Introducing the TAC Symposium: What Is American Conservatism?
See all the articles published in the symposium, here.
bumbershoot • 10 days agoLeo Strauss is the father of neoconservatism.
kirthigdon • 10 days agoAmericans must, first of all, be able to control the will to power, beginning with self. They must respect the law, rise above the passions of the moment, take the long view, deliberate, compromise, and respect minorities.All lovely ideas. Too bad our "conservative" president is capable of none of these.
Feral Finster • 9 days agoGreat essay by Professor Ryn in exposing again, as he has done so often before, the phony opposition between nationalism and American exceptionalism on the one hand, and globalism. Any nationalism is only one step removed from globalism, but the nationalism of small countries is usually fairly harmless because the countries themselves are weak. But American nationalism and exceptionalism is in practice indistinguishable from globalism. It simply makes explicit from which location the globe will be ruled.
TheSnark • 9 days ago • editedAll true, every word, but the problem with American exceptionalism isn't a matter of semantics or clever arguments but a matter of power.
This is why the definition of exceptionalism keeps shifting, because as a practical matter it means "whatever is in the interests of empire" at this particular moment in this particular case.
Gaius Gracchus TheSnark • 9 days agoThe original idea behind American Exceptionalism is that we are the "Shining City on the Hill". In other words, we were a good example to others. There was nothing in there about the residents of that Shining City going out and invading its neighbors to force them to follow its good example.
These days we are trying to force others to follow good ideals and high standards that we are ourselves following less and less.
Andrew Gaius Gracchus • 8 days agoExactly. The author twists words and creates strawmen and red herrings and argues with dead men.
Washington and Hamilton set forth an idea of country separate from all others and different. Yes, America is and was exceptional. Friend to all, ally to none, an example to all the world, based in English heritage and culture. It was founded by conservative revolutionaries, who attempted to claw back freedoms taken away by those in London, who were becoming overlords of an empire. There was "year zero", and early America could draw on all of English history, plus the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, ancient Greece and Rome, as well as religious traditions going back to antiquity.
It was always the Jeffersonian impulse towards revolution that was different. Jefferson loved the Year Zero France. But Jefferson at his core was an idealist.
The problem was that idealists like Jefferson gradually gained power a little over a hundred years ago. Their idealism was used by those who wanted to exploit America's power to further their own goals contrary to the ideals of American exceptionalism and American tradition. Greed and idealism went together and America used the cover of American exceptionalism to create an empire.
As to Buckley, his goal seems more like controlled opposition than anything else. He was a gatekeeper for the powerful, defining acceptable conservatism, keeping conservatism on the plantation. Conservativism Inc continues to try to do so.
Trump is a return to classic American traditionalism and exceptionalism. He is attempting to reshape the world along nationalistic lines, which is why AMLO in Mexico praised him so much. Globalists don't want to lose their power. Oligarchs don't want to give up their exploitation and extraction systems. Pundits don't want to give up their money train and status. Bureaucrats don't want actual democracy.
We will see how it shakes out.
Disqus10021 L RNY • 9 days agoNot so sure about the traditionalism part, but he at least represents the first real rejection of Wilsonianism in decades.
Daniel Baker • 9 days agoOn Wikipedia's list of the 50 cities with the world's highest homicide rates (per 100,000 population), the US has 4, South Africa has 4 and the rest are in Latin America. It hardly makes us the shining city on a hill or exceptional, unless you think a high crime rate is good.
Mark Twain said, "The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." Today I would modify Twain a bit; when conservatives adopt some radical idea, the radicals respond by declaring that idea worn out. Exhibit A would be the idea of "American exceptionalism."
The historical fact is that American exceptionalism is a Communist concept, devised by Stalin in 1929 to describe -- and to dismiss -- what his American agents told him about the huge differences between American society and European societies, both of which Soviet-sponsored parties were trying to control. These differences included far lesser class distinctions, greater racial animosities, a labor movement much more concerned with economic bargaining than fielding political candidates, vastly weaker political parties, much more ethnic and religious diversity, and more hostility to centralized government. Today, we would have to add far more imprisonment of criminals, more approval of the death penalty, and a jealous passion for the right to have guns, although those differences weren't nearly as wide in 1929 as now. American exceptionalism exists. You can argue about whether it is good or bad, and certainly some of the differences between America and Europe are better or worse than others, but it's pure pretense to claim that America is an ordinary, unexceptional Western country. And no one on the left made any such pretense, until people on the right started talking about and glorifying (or at least not denigrating) "American exceptionalism," which had previously been solely a term of contempt. The radicals invented the views, then declared them worn out when the conservatives adopted them.
The truth that America is an exceptional country does not, of course, mean that its foreign policy has always been wise, and certainly it does not mean that America's catastrophic blundering in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq were either morally right or good for Americans. It merely means that we can't correct those mistakes by pretending that the country we're trying to rescue is unexceptional, that it is no different from other societies, and thus that foreign policies accepted by European or Asian voters will necessarily be winners here too.
Daniel Baker Guest • 8 days ago
Scott McLoughlin • 9 days agoI don't know why you think any of this is even relevant to my point: that American exceptionalism is real, and that desperately needed foreign policy reforms won't work if we ignore that fact. Worse, the points you raise all distort the real nature of America's differences from other Western countries.
American and European laws on abortion are very little different; in most of Europe, as in America, abortion is legal and accepted, Poland being one of the very few exceptions. We're probably closest to Ireland, where abortion has been recently legalized but remains socially frowned on. Again, whether you or I think that's a good thing or a bad thing doesn't matter; it's simply not one of the major points of difference between America and Europe.
Explaining the difference in imprisonment between Europe and America solely by America's greater black and Hispanic population is wrong in so many ways I hardly know where to begin. First, the difference in imprisonment is very recent, starting in the early 1990s and largely devised by a centrist Democratic US president; America's black and Hispanic population has always been much larger than Europe's, so it can't explain the difference in imprisonment. Second, America imprisons whites as well as blacks much more than Europe does. Third, poor blacks and Hispanics commit crimes at the same rate as poor whites of the same economic status; poor people of whatever race or color choose to commit crimes more often, because they have more incentive to make that choice. The higher black and Hispanic crime rate simply reflects the fact that far more of them are poor. As long ago as the 19th century, the British poor were called by the upper class "the criminal classes," and that reflected the undeniable truth that the British poor, like poor people everywhere, committed more crime than anyone else.
I thank you for the BBC link; I had long suspected that Europe's ban on the death penalty often didn't reflect popular opinion at first, but I didn't have the data proving it. But that doesn't in any way change the fact that considerably more Americans than Europeans support the death penalty, and long have, which is why European elites were able to get away with banning it without losing elections, and American elites have not.
Again, I'm not saying anything about whether any of these differences between America and the rest of the West are good or bad.. My point is that they exist, and it's no good pretending that they don't merely because America's foreign policy isn't working very well.
Ray Woodcock • 9 days agoI'll say it over and over, but GOP is Right Wing Lockean (Maritime Imperialist) "Anything Goes" Liberalism. DNC is Left Wing Lockean (Maritime Imperialist) "Anything Goes" Liberalism. We use these words wrong in our USA. Traditionalist Conservatives have NEVER enjoyed political party representation here. We are to-date completely a-historical and delusionally racist "Novum Organum" conquistadors with English accents. Good News? Better futures lie ahead of us. Start with agrarianism, potable water, and arable land. North America is underpopulated. I worked for State Dept. I witnessed the World Bank's destruction of Ukraine. Ask me a real question. I'll answer honestly. We suffer post-WW2 legacy Daddy and Mommy Warbucks here, writing checks to their own kids. We can, must and will do better. Those without pasts are without futures. To Survive is to Sur Vivre, Live Above. Hold tight. Have faith.
dbriz • 8 days ago • editedThere is the wish for what definitions should do in political and religious discussion, and then there is the reality of what they actually do. The wish is that, by using the word "definition," I am referring to something like the definition of a mathematical concept. We can define precisely what addition means. The problem is, we cannot do that with terms like conservatism. Ryn's argument illustrates the failure of that attempt: we have "wholly different nationalisms"; we have something that calls itself conservatism but it's wrong, because Ryn says so.
Definitionism leads to abstruse dispute, as scholars tussle over what is really nationalistic or conservative. The rest of us look on askance. Most people are not interested in a discussion filled with labels, like, "I'm a cisgender vegetarian transsexual white socialistic vegetarian Capricorn with subclinical mental disabilities." For most people, that sort of definition-oriented declaration comes across as hostile to discussion. Like, "I'm here in my castle. I dare you to try to penetrate it." The intrepid soul who attempts to start an actual friendly conversation, in response to that sort of statement, is likely to move away from definitionism. Not "You cannot be white: your skin is brown," but rather, "Really! My sister is a Capricorn!"
Definitionism (in some ways a/k/a labeling) is more likely to destroy dialogue than to create it. "Oh, you're a [fill in the blank]: you can't be good." It is possible to be a Nazi, a Bolshevik, or anything in between -- and still, in various regards, to be smart, friendly, successful, etc. Political dialogue is like dipping a ladle into a soup kettle: you may pull out some beans, some meat, some corn -- but possibly no one knows what else lurks in there. The attempt to define is is not merely a lost cause -- it basically misses the point.
Feral Finster dbriz • 8 days agoAh but the revolution was not based at all on nationalism. It was for liberty. The Articles, as the war, were not based on ideas of nationalism but more libertarian than not. Lest we forget, the convention was called to improve the Articles. That the federalists (nationalists) hijacked the convention required quashing liberty in favor of a cleverly designed campaign masking the future.
Patrick Henry was on to it early:
"When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: liberty, sir, was then the primary object .But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire .Such a government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government..."
In the end the anti federalists have been proven right.
Peekachu dbriz • 3 days agoSociopaths respect no limits on their power.
David Naas • 4 days agoActually, according to Kurt Vonnegut, it was neither nationalism nor liberty - but piracy! One group of pirates trying to break away from another. Then again, perhaps that is what you mean by the heralded "liberty"?
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."(John Adams, October 11, 1798.).
Are we still "a moral and religious people"? Well, are we?
Mayhap we are in deep trouble? Well, are we?
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free . . . it expects what never was and never will be"(Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Colonel Charles Yancey, January 6, 1816.)
No comment.
"I am only one, but I am one. I can't do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, that I ought to do. And what I ought to do, By the grace of God, I shall do."(Edward Everett Hale)
|
|
|
Mar 07, 2020 | getpocket.com
Stories to fuel your mind. "We rise in power and make a difference in the world due to what is best about human nature, but we fall from power due to what is worst." Brain Pickings |
- Maria Popova
Art by Shaun Tan for a special edition of the Brothers Grimm fairy tales .
Thoreau wrote as he contemplated how silence ennobles speech . In the century and a half since, we have created a culture that equates loudness with leadership, abrasiveness with authority. We mistake shouting for powerful speech much as we mistake force for power itself. And yet the real measure of power is more in the realm of Thoreau's "fine things."
So argues UC Berkeley psychologist Dacher Keltner in The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence ( public library ) -- the culmination of twenty years of research exploring what power is, what confers it upon an individual, and how it shapes the structure of a collective, a community, and a culture. Drawing on a wealth of social science studies and insights from successful teams ranging from companies like Pixar and Google to restorative justice programs in San Quentin State Prison, he demonstrates "the surprising and lasting influence of soft power (culture, ideas, art, and institutions) as compared to hard power (military might, invasion, and economic sanctions)."
Keltner writes:
Life is made up of patterns. Patterns of eating, thirst, sleep, and fight-or-flight are crucial to our individual survival; patterns of courtship, sex, attachment, conflict, play, creativity, family life, and collaboration are crucial to our collective survival. Wisdom is our ability to perceive these patterns and to shape them into coherent chapters within the longer narrative of our lives.
Power dynamics, Keltner notes, are among the central patterns that shape our experience of life, from our romantic relationships to the workplace. But at the heart of power is a troubling paradox -- a malignant feature of human psychology responsible for John Dalberg-Acton's oft-cited insight that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Keltner explains the psychological machinery of this malfunction and considers our recourse for resisting its workings:
The power paradox is this: we rise in power and make a difference in the world due to what is best about human nature, but we fall from power due to what is worst. We gain a capacity to make a difference in the world by enhancing the lives of others, but the very experience of having power and privilege leads us to behave, in our worst moments, like impulsive, out-of-control sociopaths.
How we handle the power paradox guides our personal and work lives and determines, ultimately, how happy we and the people we care about will be. It determines our empathy, generosity, civility, innovation, intellectual rigor, and the collaborative strength of our communities and social networks. Its ripple effects shape the patterns that make up our families, neighborhoods, and workplaces, as well as the broader patterns of social organization that define societies and our current political struggles.
[...]
Much of what is most unsettling about human nature -- stigma, greed, arrogance, racial and sexual violence, and the nonrandom distribution of depression and bad health to the poor -- follows from how we handle the power paradox.
Art by Olivier Tallec from Louis I, King of the Sheep, an illustrated parable of how power changes us .
What causes us to mishandle the power paradox, Keltner argues, is our culture's traditional understanding of power -- a sort of time-capsule that no longer serves us. Predicated on force, ruthlessness, and strategic coercion, it was shaped by Niccolò Machiavelli's sixteenth-century book The Prince -- but it is as antiquated today as the geocentric model of the universe that dominated Machiavelli's day. What governs the modern world, Keltner demonstrates through two decades of revelatory studies, is a different kind of power -- softer, more relational, predicated on reputation rather than force, measured by one's ability to affect the lives of others positively and shift the course of the world, however slightly, toward the common good. He writes:
Perhaps most critically, thinking of power as coercive force and fraud blinds us to its pervasiveness in our daily lives and the fact that it shapes our every interaction, from those between parents and children to those between work colleagues.
[...]
Power defines the waking life of every human being. It is found not only in extraordinary acts but also in quotidian acts, indeed in every interaction and every relationship, be it an attempt to get a two-year-old to eat green vegetables or to inspire a stubborn colleague to do her best work. It lies in providing an opportunity to someone, or asking a friend the right question to stir creative thought, or calming a colleague's rattled nerves, or directing resources to a young person trying to make it in society. Power dynamics, patterns of mutual influence, define the ongoing interactions between fetus and mother, infant and parent, between romantic partners, childhood friends, teens, people at work, and groups in conflict. Power is the medium through which we relate to one another. Power is about making a difference in the world by influencing others.
In a sentiment that parallels Thoreau's wisdom on silence and shouting, Keltner adds:
A new wave of thinking about power reveals that it is given to us by others rather than grabbed. We gain power by acting in ways that improve the lives of other people in our social networks.
One key consequence of the fact that power is given to us by others is its reputational nature -- an insight both disquieting to the ego and comforting to the soul, for we are inescapably social creatures. Keltner observes:
Our influence, the lasting difference that we make in the world, is ultimately only as good as what others think of us. Having enduring power is a privilege that depends on other people continuing to give it to us.
"Enduring" is an operative word in Keltner's premise. The "power paradox" is paradoxical precisely because those who manage to wrest power forcibly by the Machiavellian model may have power, or perceived power, for a certain amount of time, but that amount is finite. Its finitude springs from the attrition of the person's reputation. But the most troubling aspect of the power paradox is that even if a person rises to power by counter-Machiavellian means -- kindness, generosity, concern with the common good -- power itself will eventually warp her priorities and render her less kind, less generous, less concerned with the common good, which will in turn erode her power as her reputation for these counter-qualities grows.
Keltner cites a number of studies demonstrating these tendencies empirically -- poor people give to charity a greater portion of their income than rich people, those in positions of power exhibit more entitled behaviors, people who drive expensive cars are significantly crueler to pedestrians at crosswalks, and so forth.
But in reading these alarmingly consistent studies, I had to wonder about one crucial confound that remains unaddressed: People in positions of power also tend to be busier -- that is, they tend to have greater demands on their time. We know from the now-iconic 1970s Good Samaritan study that the single greatest predictor of uncaring, unkind, and uncompassionate behavior, even among people who have devoted their lives to the welfare of others, is a perceived lack of time -- a feeling of being rushed. The sense of urgency seems to consume all of our other concerns -- it is the razor's blade that severs our connection to anything outside ourselves, anything beyond the task at hand, and turns our laser-sharp focus of concern onto the the immediacy of the self alone.
Art from Anne Sexton's little-known children's book .
We know this empirically, and we know its anecdotal truth intimately -- I doubt I'm alone in the awareness that despite a deep commitment to kindness, I find myself most likely to, say, be impatient with a fellow cyclist when I feel pressed for time, when I know I'm running late. Even Keltner's famous and tragicomical study, which found that drivers of expensive cars are most inconsiderate to pedestrians, might suffer from the same confound -- those who can afford expensive cars are typically people we would deem "successful," who also typically have far greater demands on their time. So could it be that a scarcity of time -- that inescapable hum of consciousness -- rather than an excess of power is the true corrupting agent of the psyche?
And so another paradox lives inside the power paradox -- the more powerful a person becomes, the busier and more rushed she is, which cuts her off from the very qualities that define the truly powerful. What would the studies Keltner cites look like if we controlled not only for power, but for time -- for the perception of being rushed and demand-strained beyond capacity? (Kierkegaard condemned the corrosive effect of busyness nearly two centuries ago.)
Still, Keltner's central point -- that power in the modern world is "gained and maintained through a focus on others" -- remains valid and important. He considers the conscious considerations we can make in order to bypass the perils of the power paradox:
Handling the power paradox depends on finding a balance between the gratification of your own desires and your focus on other people. As the most social of species, we evolved several other-focused, universal social practices that bring out the good in others and that make for strong social collectives. A thoughtful practitioner of these practices will not be misled by the rush of the experience of power down the path of self-gratification and abuse, but will choose instead to enjoy the deeper delights of making a lasting difference in the world. These social practices are fourfold: empathizing, giving, expressing gratitude, and telling stories. All four of these practices dignify and delight others. They constitute the basis of strong, mutually empowered ties. You can lean on them to enhance your power at any moment of the day by stirring others to effective action.
But "power" is one of those words -- like "love" and "happiness" -- to have become grab-bag terms for a constellation of behaviors, states, emotions, and phenomena. Noting that "a critical task of science is to provide clear nomenclature -- precise terms that sharpen our understanding of patterned phenomena in the outside world and inside the mind," Keltner offers elegant and necessary definitions of the distinct notions comprising the constellation of power in modern society:
POWER your capacity to make a difference in the world by influencing the states of other people.
STATUS the respect that you enjoy from other people in your social network; the esteem they direct to you. Status goes with power often but not always.
CONTROL your capacity to determine the outcomes in your life. You can have complete control over your life -- think of the reclusive hermit -- but have no power.
SOCIAL CLASS the mixture of family wealth, educational achievement, and occupational prestige that you enjoy; alternatively, the subjective sense you have of where you stand on a class ladder in society, high, middle, or low. Both forms of social class are societal forms of power.
In the remainder of The Power Paradox , Keltner goes on to examine, through a robust body of research bridged with intelligent insight, what we can do both as individuals and as a society to cultivate the qualities that empower us by empowering others and counter those that feed the most selfish and small-spirited tendencies of human nature. Complement it with Blaise Pascal's timeless 17th-century wisdom on the art of persuasion and philosopher Martha Nussbaum on human dignity and the nuanced relationship between agency and victimhood .
HT Shankar Vedantam / Hidden Brain
|
|
|
Dec 01, 1992 | www.moonofalabama.org
On the abandonment of Enlightenment intellectualism, and the emergence of a new form of Volksgeist.
When hatred of culture becomes itself a part of culture, the life of the mind loses all meaning. -- Alain Finkielkraut, The Undoing of ThoughtToday we are trying to spread knowledge everywhere. Who knows if in centuries to come there will not be universities for re-establishing our former ignorance? -- Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742-1799)
I n 1927, the French essayist Julien Benda published his famous attack on the intellectual corruption of the age, La Trahison des clercs. I said "famous," but perhaps "once famous" would have been more accurate. For today, in the United States anyway, only the title of the book, not its argument, enjoys much currency. "La trahison des clercs": it is one of those memorable phrases that bristles with hints and associations without stating anything definite. Benda tells us that he uses the term "clerc" in "the medieval sense," i.e., to mean "scribe," someone we would now call a member of the intelligentsia. Academics and journalists, pundits, moralists, and pontificators of all varieties are in this sense clercs . The English translation, The Treason of the Intellectuals , 1 sums it up neatly.
The "treason" in question was the betrayal by the "clerks" of their vocation as intellectuals. From the time of the pre-Socratics, intellectuals, considered in their role as intellectuals, had been a breed apart. In Benda's terms, they were understood to be "all those whose activity essentially is not the pursuit of practical aims, all those who seek their joy in the practice of an art or a science or a metaphysical speculation, in short in the possession of non-material advantages." Thanks to such men, Benda wrote, "humanity did evil for two thousand years, but honored good. This contradiction was an honor to the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilization slipped into the world."
According to Benda, however, this situation was changing. More and more, intellectuals were abandoning their attachment to the traditional panoply of philosophical and scholarly ideals. One clear sign of the change was the attack on the Enlightenment ideal of universal humanity and the concomitant glorification of various particularisms. The attack on the universal went forward in social and political life as well as in the refined precincts of epistemology and metaphysics: "Those who for centuries had exhorted men, at least theoretically, to deaden the feeling of their differences have now come to praise them, according to where the sermon is given, for their 'fidelity to the French soul,' 'the immutability of their German consciousness,' for the 'fervor of their Italian hearts.'" In short, intellectuals began to immerse themselves in the unsettlingly practical and material world of political passions: precisely those passions, Benda observed, "owing to which men rise up against other men, the chief of which are racial passions, class passions and national passions." The "rift" into which civilization had been wont to slip narrowed and threatened to close altogether.
Writing at a moment when ethnic and nationalistic hatreds were beginning to tear Europe asunder, Benda's diagnosis assumed the lineaments of a prophecy -- a prophecy that continues to have deep resonance today. "Our age is indeed the age of the intellectual organization of political hatreds ," he wrote near the beginning of the book. "It will be one of its chief claims to notice in the moral history of humanity." There was no need to add that its place in moral history would be as a cautionary tale. In little more than a decade, Benda's prediction that, because of the "great betrayal" of the intellectuals, humanity was "heading for the greatest and most perfect war ever seen in the world," would achieve a terrifying corroboration.
J ulien Benda was not so naïve as to believe that intellectuals as a class had ever entirely abstained from political involvement, or, indeed, from involvement in the realm of practical affairs. Nor did he believe that intellectuals, as citizens, necessarily should abstain from political commitment or practical affairs. The "treason" or betrayal he sought to publish concerned the way that intellectuals had lately allowed political commitment to insinuate itself into their understanding of the intellectual vocation as such. Increasingly, Benda claimed, politics was "mingled with their work as artists, as men of learning, as philosophers." The ideal of disinterestedness, the universality of truth: such guiding principles were contemptuously deployed as masks when they were not jettisoned altogether. It was in this sense that he castigated the " desire to abase the values of knowledge before the values of action ."
In its crassest but perhaps also most powerful form, this desire led to that familiar phenomenon Benda dubbed "the cult of success." It is summed up, he writes, in "the teaching that says that when a will is successful that fact alone gives it a moral value, whereas the will which fails is for that reason alone deserving of contempt." In itself, this idea is hardly novel, as history from the Greek sophists on down reminds us. In Plato's Gorgias , for instance, the sophist Callicles expresses his contempt for Socrates' devotion to philosophy: "I feel toward philosophers very much as I do toward those who lisp and play the child." Callicles taunts Socrates with the idea that "the more powerful, the better, and the stronger" are simply different words for the same thing. Successfully pursued, he insists, "luxury and intemperance are virtue and happiness, and all the rest is tinsel." How contemporary Callicles sounds!
In Benda's formula, this boils down to the conviction that "politics decides morality." To be sure, the cynicism that Callicles espoused is perennial: like the poor, it will be always with us. What Benda found novel was the accreditation of such cynicism by intellectuals. "It is true indeed that these new 'clerks' declare that they do not know what is meant by justice, truth, and other 'metaphysical fogs,' that for them the true is determined by the useful, the just by circumstances," he noted. "All these things were taught by Callicles, but with this difference; he revolted all the important thinkers of his time."
In other words, the real treason of the intellectuals was not that they countenanced Callicles but that they championed him. To appreciate the force of Benda's thesis one need only think of that most influential modern Callicles, Friedrich Nietzsche. His doctrine of "the will to power," his contempt for the "slave morality" of Christianity, his plea for an ethic "beyond good and evil," his infatuation with violence -- all epitomize the disastrous "pragmatism" that marks the intellectual's "treason." The real problem was not the unattainability but the disintegration of ideals, an event that Nietzsche hailed as the "transvaluation of all values." "Formerly," Benda observed, "leaders of States practiced realism, but did not honor it; With them morality was violated but moral notions remained intact, and that is why, in spite of all their violence, they did not disturb civilization ."
Benda understood that the stakes were high: the treason of the intellectuals signaled not simply the corruption of a bunch of scribblers but a fundamental betrayal of culture. By embracing the ethic of Callicles, intellectuals had, Benda reckoned, precipitated "one of the most remarkable turning points in the moral history of the human species. It is impossible," he continued,
to exaggerate the importance of a movement whereby those who for twenty centuries taught Man that the criterion of the morality of an act is its disinterestedness, that good is a decree of his reason insofar as it is universal, that his will is only moral if it seeks its law outside its objects, should begin to teach him that the moral act is the act whereby he secures his existence against an environment which disputes it, that his will is moral insofar as it is a will "to power," that the part of his soul which determines what is good is its "will to live" wherein it is most "hostile to all reason," that the morality of an act is measured by its adaptation to its end, and that the only morality is the morality of circumstances. The educators of the human mind now take sides with Callicles against Socrates, a revolution which I dare to say seems to me more important than all political upheavals.T he Treason of the Intellectuals is an energetic hodgepodge of a book. The philosopher Jean-François Revel recently described it as "one of the fussiest pleas on behalf of the necessary independence of intellectuals." Certainly it is rich, quirky, erudite, digressive, and polemical: more an exclamation than an analysis. Partisan in its claims for disinterestedness, it is ruthless in its defense of intellectual high-mindedness. Yet given the horrific events that unfolded in the decades following its publication, Benda's unremitting attack on the politicization of the intellect and ethnic separatism cannot but strike us as prescient. And given the continuing echo in our own time of the problems he anatomized, the relevance of his observations to our situation can hardly be doubted. From the savage flowering of ethnic hatreds in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to the mendacious demands for political correctness and multiculturalism on college campuses across America and Europe, the treason of the intellectuals continues to play out its unedifying drama. Benda spoke of "a cataclysm in the moral notions of those who educate the world." That cataclysm is erupting in every corner of cultural life today.
In 1988, the young French philosopher and cultural critic Alain Finkielkraut took up where Benda left off, producing a brief but searching inventory of our contemporary cataclysms. Entitled La Défaite de la pensée 2 ("The 'Defeat' or 'Undoing' of Thought"), his essay is in part an updated taxonomy of intellectual betrayals. In this sense, the book is a trahison des clercs for the post-Communist world, a world dominated as much by the leveling imperatives of pop culture as by resurgent nationalism and ethnic separatism. Beginning with Benda, Finkielkraut catalogues several prominent strategies that contemporary intellectuals have employed to retreat from the universal. A frequent point of reference is the eighteenth-century German Romantic philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder. "From the beginning, or to be more precise, from the time of Plato until that of Voltaire," he writes, "human diversity had come before the tribunal of universal values; with Herder the eternal values were condemned by the court of diversity."
Finkielkraut focuses especially on Herder's definitively anti-Enlightenment idea of the Volksgeist or "national spirit." Quoting the French historian Joseph Renan, he describes the idea as "the most dangerous explosive of modern times." "Nothing," he writes, "can stop a state that has become prey to the Volksgeist ." It is one of Finkielkraut's leitmotifs that today's multiculturalists are in many respects Herder's (generally unwitting) heirs.
True, Herder's emphasis on history and language did much to temper the tendency to abstraction that one finds in some expressions of the Enlightenment. Ernst Cassirer even remarked that "Herder's achievement is one of the greatest intellectual triumphs of the philosophy of the Enlightenment."
Nevertheless, the multiculturalists' obsession with "diversity" and ethnic origins is in many ways a contemporary redaction of Herder's elevation of racial particularism over the universalizing mandate of reason. Finkielkraut opposes this just as the mature Goethe once took issue with Herder's adoration of the Volksgeist. Finkielkraut concedes that we all "relate to a particular tradition" and are "shaped by our national identity." But, unlike the multiculturalists, he soberly insists that "this reality merit[s] some recognition, not idolatry."
In Goethe's words, "A generalized tolerance will be best achieved if we leave undisturbed whatever it is which constitutes the special character of particular individuals and peoples, whilst at the same time we retain the conviction that the distinctive worth of anything with true merit lies in its belonging to all humanity."
The Undoing of Thought resembles The Treason of the Intellectuals stylistically as well as thematically. Both books are sometimes breathless congeries of sources and aperçus. And Finkielkraut, like Benda (and, indeed, like Montaigne), tends to proceed more by collage than by demonstration. But he does not simply recapitulate Benda's argument.
The geography of intellectual betrayal has changed dramatically in the last sixty-odd years. In 1927, intellectuals still had something definite to betray. In today's "postmodernist" world, the terrain is far mushier: the claims of tradition are much attenuated and betrayal is often only a matter of acquiescence. Finkielkraut's distinctive contribution is to have taken the measure of the cultural swamp that surrounds us, to have delineated the links joining the politicization of the intellect and its current forms of debasement.
In the broadest terms, The Undoing of Thought is a brief for the principles of the Enlightenment. Among other things, this means that it is a brief for the idea that mankind is united by a common humanity that transcends ethnic, racial, and sexual divisions.
The humanizing "reason" that Enlightenment champions is a universal reason, sharable, in principle, by all. Such ideals have not fared well in the twentieth century: Herder's progeny have labored hard to discredit them. Granted, the belief that there is "Jewish thinking" or "Soviet science" or "Aryan art" is no longer as widespread as it once was. But the dispersal of these particular chimeras has provided no inoculation against kindred fabrications: "African knowledge," "female language," "Eurocentric science": these are among today's talismanic fetishes.
Then, too, one finds a stunning array of anti-Enlightenment phantasmagoria congregated under the banner of "anti-positivism." The idea that history is a "myth," that the truths of science are merely "fictions" dressed up in forbidding clothes, that reason and language are powerless to discover the truth -- more, that truth itself is a deceitful ideological construct: these and other absurdities are now part of the standard intellectual diet of Western intellectuals. The Frankfurt School Marxists Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno gave an exemplary but by no means uncharacteristic demonstration of one strain of this brand of anti-rational animus in the mid-1940s.
Safely ensconced in Los Angeles, these refugees from Hitler's Reich published an influential essay on the concept of Enlightenment. Among much else, they assured readers that "Enlightenment is totalitarian." Never mind that at that very moment the Nazi war machine -- what one might be forgiven for calling real totalitarianism -- was busy liquidating millions of people in order to fulfill another set of anti-Enlightenment fantasies inspired by devotion to the Volksgeist .
The diatribe that Horkheimer and Adorno mounted against the concept of Enlightenment reminds us of an important peculiarity about the history of Enlightenment: namely, that it is a movement of thought that began as a reaction against tradition and has now emerged as one of tradition's most important safeguards. Historically, the Enlightenment arose as a deeply anti-clerical and, perforce, anti-traditional movement. Its goal, in Kant's famous phrase, was to release man from his "self-imposed immaturity."
The chief enemy of Enlightenment was "superstition," an omnibus term that included all manner of religious, philosophical, and moral ideas. But as the sociologist Edward Shils has noted, although the Enlightenment was in important respects "antithetical to tradition" in its origins, its success was due in large part "to the fact that it was promulgated and pursued in a society in which substantive traditions were rather strong." "It was successful against its enemies," Shils notes in his book Tradition (1981),
because the enemies were strong enough to resist its complete victory over them. Living on a soil of substantive traditionality, the ideas of the Enlightenment advanced without undoing themselves. As long as respect for authority on the one side and self-confidence in those exercising authority on the other persisted, the Enlightenment's ideal of emancipation through the exercise of reason went forward. It did not ravage society as it would have done had society lost all legitimacy.It is this mature form of Enlightenment, championing reason but respectful of tradition, that Finkielkraut holds up as an ideal.
W hat Finkielkraut calls "the undoing of thought" flows from the widespread disintegration of a faith. At the center of that faith is the assumption that the life of thought is "the higher life" and that culture -- what the Germans call Bildung -- is its end or goal.
The process of disintegration has lately become an explicit attack on culture. This is not simply to say that there are many anti-intellectual elements in society: that has always been the case. "Non-thought," in Finkielkraut's phrase, has always co-existed with the life of the mind. The innovation of contemporary culture is to have obliterated the distinction between the two. "It is," he writes, "the first time in European history that non-thought has donned the same label and enjoyed the same status as thought itself, and the first time that those who, in the name of 'high culture,' dare to call this non-thought by its name, are dismissed as racists and reactionaries." The attack is perpetrated not from outside, by uncomprehending barbarians, but chiefly from inside, by a new class of barbarians, the self-made barbarians of the intelligentsia. This is the undoing of thought. This is the new "treason of the intellectuals."
There are many sides to this phenomenon. What Finkielkraut has given us is not a systematic dissection but a kind of pathologist's scrapbook. He reminds us, for example, that the multiculturalists' demand for "diversity" requires the eclipse of the individual in favor of the group . "Their most extraordinary feat," he observes, "is to have put forward as the ultimate individual liberty the unconditional primacy of the collective." Western rationalism and individualism are rejected in the name of a more "authentic" cult.
One example: Finkielkraut quotes a champion of multiculturalism who maintains that "to help immigrants means first of all respecting them for what they are, respecting whatever they aspire to in their national life, in their distinctive culture and in their attachment to their spiritual and religious roots." Would this, Finkielkraut asks, include "respecting" those religious codes which demanded that the barren woman be cast out and the adulteress be punished with death?
What about those cultures in which the testimony of one man counts for that of two women? In which female circumcision is practiced? In which slavery flourishes? In which mixed marriages are forbidden and polygamy encouraged? Multiculturalism, as Finkielkraut points out, requires that we respect such practices. To criticize them is to be dismissed as "racist" and "ethnocentric." In this secular age, "cultural identity" steps in where the transcendent once was: "Fanaticism is indefensible when it appeals to heaven, but beyond reproach when it is grounded in antiquity and cultural distinctiveness."
To a large extent, the abdication of reason demanded by multiculturalism has been the result of what we might call the subjection of culture to anthropology. Finkielkraut speaks in this context of a "cheerful confusion which raises everyday anthropological practices to the pinnacle of the human race's greatest achievements." This process began in the nineteenth century, but it has been greatly accelerated in our own age. One thinks, for example, of the tireless campaigning of that great anthropological leveler, Claude Lévi-Strauss. Lévi-Strauss is assuredly a brilliant writer, but he has also been an extraordinarily baneful influence. Already in the early 1950s, when he was pontificating for UNESCO , he was urging all and sundry to "fight against ranking cultural differences hierarchically." In La Pensée sauvage (1961), he warned against the "false antinomy between logical and prelogical mentality" and was careful in his descriptions of natives to refer to "so-called primitive thought." "So-called" indeed. In a famous article on race and history, Lévi-Strauss maintained that the barbarian was not the opposite of the civilized man but "first of all the man who believes there is such a thing as barbarism." That of course is good to know. It helps one to appreciate Lévi-Strauss's claim, in Tristes Tropiques (1955), that the "true purpose of civilization" is to produce "inertia." As one ruminates on the proposition that cultures should not be ranked hierarchically, it is also well to consider what Lévi-Strauss coyly refers to as "the positive forms of cannibalism." For Lévi-Strauss, cannibalism has been unfairly stigmatized in the "so-called" civilized West. In fact, he explains, cannibalism was "often observed with great discretion, the vital mouthful being made up of a small quantity of organic matter mixed, on occasion, with other forms of food." What, merely a "vital mouthful"? Not to worry! Only an ignoramus who believed that there were important distinctions, qualitative distinctions, between the barbarian and the civilized man could possibly think of objecting.
Of course, the attack on distinctions that Finkielkraut castigates takes place not only among cultures but also within a given culture. Here again, the anthropological imperative has played a major role. "Under the equalizing eye of social science," he writes,
hierarchies are abolished, and all the criteria of taste are exposed as arbitrary. From now on no rigid division separates masterpieces from run-of-the mill works. The same fundamental structure, the same general and elemental traits are common to the "great" novels (whose excellence will henceforth be demystified by the accompanying quotation marks) and plebian types of narrative activity.F or confirmation of this, one need only glance at the pronouncements of our critics. Whether working in the academy or other cultural institutions, they bring us the same news: there is "no such thing" as intrinsic merit, "quality" is an only ideological construction, aesthetic value is a distillation of social power, etc., etc.
In describing this process of leveling, Finkielkraut distinguishes between those who wish to obliterate distinctions in the name of politics and those who do so out of a kind of narcissism. The multiculturalists wave the standard of radical politics and say (in the words of a nineteenth-century Russian populist slogan that Finkielkraut quotes): "A pair of boots is worth more than Shakespeare."
Those whom Finkielkraut calls "postmodernists," waving the standard of radical chic, declare that Shakespeare is no better than the latest fashion -- no better, say, than the newest item offered by Calvin Klein. The litany that Finkielkraut recites is familiar:
A comic which combines exciting intrigue and some pretty pictures is just as good as a Nabokov novel. What little Lolitas read is as good as Lolita . An effective publicity slogan counts for as much as a poem by Apollinaire or Francis Ponge . The footballer and the choreographer, the painter and the couturier, the writer and the ad-man, the musician and the rock-and-roller, are all the same: creators. We must scrap the prejudice which restricts that title to certain people and regards others as sub-cultural.The upshot is not only that Shakespeare is downgraded, but also that the bootmaker is elevated. "It is not just that high culture must be demystified; sport, fashion and leisure now lay claim to high cultural status." A grotesque fantasy? Anyone who thinks so should take a moment to recall the major exhibition called "High & Low: Modern Art and Popular Culture" that the Museum of Modern Art mounted a few years ago: it might have been called "Krazy Kat Meets Picasso." Few events can have so consummately summed up the corrosive trivialization of culture now perpetrated by those entrusted with preserving it. Among other things, that exhibition demonstrated the extent to which the apotheosis of popular culture undermines the very possibility of appreciating high art on its own terms.
When the distinction between culture and entertainment is obliterated, high art is orphaned, exiled from the only context in which its distinctive meaning can manifest itself: Picasso becomes a kind of cartoon. This, more than any elitism or obscurity, is the real threat to culture today. As Hannah Arendt once observed, "there are many great authors of the past who have survived centuries of oblivion and neglect, but it is still an open question whether they will be able to survive an entertaining version of what they have to say."
And this brings us to the question of freedom. Finkielkraut notes that the rhetoric of postmodernism is in some ways similar to the rhetoric of Enlightenment. Both look forward to releasing man from his "self-imposed immaturity." But there is this difference: Enlightenment looks to culture as a repository of values that transcend the self, postmodernism looks to the fleeting desires of the isolated self as the only legitimate source of value.
For the postmodernist, then, "culture is no longer seen as a means of emancipation, but as one of the élitist obstacles to this." The products of culture are valuable only as a source of amusement or distraction. In order to realize the freedom that postmodernism promises, culture must be transformed into a field of arbitrary "options." "The post-modern individual," Finkielkraut writes, "is a free and easy bundle of fleeting and contingent appetites. He has forgotten that liberty involves more than the ability to change one's chains, and that culture itself is more than a satiated whim."
What Finkielkraut has understood with admirable clarity is that modern attacks on elitism represent not the extension but the destruction of culture. "Democracy," he writes, "once implied access to culture for everybody. From now on it is going to mean everyone's right to the culture of his choice." This may sound marvelous -- it is after all the slogan one hears shouted in academic and cultural institutions across the country -- but the result is precisely the opposite of what was intended.
"'All cultures are equally legitimate and everything is cultural,' is the common cry of affluent society's spoiled children and of the detractors of the West." The irony, alas, is that by removing standards and declaring that "anything goes," one does not get more culture, one gets more and more debased imitations of culture. This fraud is the dirty secret that our cultural commissars refuse to acknowledge.
There is another, perhaps even darker, result of the undoing of thought. The disintegration of faith in reason and common humanity leads not only to a destruction of standards, but also involves a crisis of courage. "A careless indifference to grand causes," Finkielkraut warns, "has its counterpart in abdication in the face of force." As the impassioned proponents of "diversity" meet the postmodern apostles of acquiescence, fanaticism mixes with apathy to challenge the commitment required to preserve freedom.
Communism may have been effectively discredited. But "what is dying along with it is not the totalitarian cast of mind, but the idea of a world common to all men."
Julien Benda took his epigraph for La Trahison des clercs from the nineteenth-century French philosopher Charles Renouvier: Le monde souffre du manque de foi en une vérité transcendante : "The world suffers from lack of faith in a transcendent truth." Without some such faith, we are powerless against the depredations of intellectuals who have embraced the nihilism of Callicles as their truth.
1 The Treason of the Intellectuals, by Julien Benda, translated by Richard Aldington, was first published in 1928. This translation is still in print from Norton.
2 La Défaite de la pensée , by Alain Finkielkraut; Gallimard, 162 pages, 72 FF . It is available in English, in a translation by Dennis O'Keeffe, as The Undoing of Thought (The Claridge Press [London], 133 pages, £6.95 paper).
Roger Kimball is Editor and Publisher of The New Criterion and President and Publisher of Encounter Books. His latest book is The Fortunes of Permanence: Culture and Anarchy in an Age of Amnesia (St. Augustine's Press).
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com
"Carlson concluded by warning about the many other Boltons in the federal bureaucracy, saying that "war may be a disaster for America, but for John Bolton and his fellow neocons, it's always good business."
He went on to slam Trump's special representative for Iran and contender to replace Bolton, Brian Hook, as an "unapologetic neocon" who "has undisguised contempt for President Trump, and he particularly dislikes the president's nationalist foreign policy." Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif echoed Carlson hours later in a tweet, arguing that "Thirst for war – maximum pressure – should go with the warmonger-in-chief." Reuters and Haaretz
-------------
Yes, people tend to forget that Bolton and all the other neocons are worshipers at the altar of a secular religion imported to the US by members of the Frankfurt School of Trotskyite German professors in the 1930s. These people had attempted get the Nazis to consider them allies in a quest for an ordered world. Alas for them they found that the Nazi scum would not accept them and in fact began preparations to hunt them down.
Thus the migration to America and in particular to the University of Chicago where they developed their credo of world revolution under that guidance of a few philosopher kings like Leo Strauss, the Wohlstetters and other academic "geniuses" They also began an enthusiastic campaign of recruitment of enthusiastic graduate students who carefully disguised themselves as whatever was most useful politically.
They are not conservative at all, not one bit. Carlson was absolutely right about that.
They despise nationalism. They despise the idea of countries. In that regard they are like all groups who aspire to globalist dominion for their particular ideas.
They should all be driven from government. pl
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2019 | discussion.theguardian.com
Imagine being stuck in a fall out shelter or an underground bunker during some apocalypse with a devoted Ayn Rand follower or followers. Gurantee they would be killed and eaten with in the first few hours.Rand followers remind me of my little neices and nephews when they fight over candy and toys. You tell them they have to share and they say no mine mine it's all mine. Now imagine a grown man or woman doing the same exact thing except they run a major corporation or worse are an elected official. They have tried to make money off of every crisis in the past thirty years.
Rands followers are selfish greedy, most likely insane, jackles who have destroyed and plundered the American and world economy for thier own ends. Usually so they can have the most toys like cars, houses, hot tubs, private jets, viagra and wild sex parties Mind you they most likely have to pay people to have sex with them. I have nothing against capitalism but they need to reeled in at some point. Sadly goverment does not do it's job by looking after the public but after their own wallets. The people who view her has a sage and goddess are seriously out of touch with reality.
Honestly her idea's are failures, the west is in debt up to it's eyeballs, Asia is rising and Latin America is telling America and Europe to collectively go and screw ourselves. I am not happy about this but apart of me is a bit amused by it.
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2019 | discussion.theguardian.com
Rozina -> tom1832 , 5 Mar 2012 22:15
The intellectual antecedents of the new right go back to Leo Strauss and the University of Chicago among others. Canadian academic Shadia Drury wrote two books critical of Straussian philosophy: "Leo Strauss and the American Right" (1999) and "The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss" (first published 1988, revised 2005). Counterpunch.org carries a number of articles by Gary Leupp, Francis Boyle and others also castigating the influence of Leo Strauss and his followers on US foreign policy. Seymour Hersch also took a blowtorch to Strauss in an article for The New Yorker many years ago when George W Bush was US President (link: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/05/12/030512fa_fact?currentPage=4#ixzz1437Z8MNs).truebluetah -> Callaig , 5 Mar 2012 17:57SEP provides a decent summary of Rand's reasoning.
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2018 | www.unz.com
says: June 5, 2018 at 8:29 pm GMT 800 Words The fates of Christianity and Communism are both strange and ironic.
Christianity was the New Faith of heretical Jews who turned against Jewish Tradition. It was led by radical Jews at odds with Traditional Jews. But even though spread overwhelmingly by Jews, it became the Faith of non-Jews who came to oppress Jews.
Communism was the New Ideology of radical Jews who reviled Jewish Community and Culture. Karl Marx loathed Jewishness and its association with greed, exploitation, and capitalism. And he inspired a generation of radical Jews who were committed to universal justice based on 'scientific' and 'materialist' reading of history. Early communism was dominated by radical Jews as early Christianity was dominated by heretical Jews.
But as with Christianity, Communism eventually came to be owned by non-Jews who turned anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist. Why did this problem arise? Because even as many Jews turned toward universalism and against their own tribalism, many Jews remained tribal or made common cause with forces at war with radical universalism. Suppose ALL JEWS around the world had embraced universal socialism when Soviet Union was coming into its own. Soviet Union would likely not have turned against Jews. But, in fact, even as many Jews did become full-fledged communists and univeralists, many Jews remained either Jewish or allied with International Capitalists that waged war on Communism.
And over time, there were signs of second thoughts or dual loyalty among Communist Jews. Were they communist first or Jewish first? Or did they try to be both at the same time? But can one be Jewish-tribalist and communist all at once? (Can one be Jewish and Christian at once?)Likewise, there would have been no Christian 'antisemitism' IF All Jews had converted to Christianity and gave up on tribalism. But even as a good number of Jews did adopt the New Faith, the bulk of the Jewish community kept with Tribalism. So, even though Christianity was founded by Jews, it turned into an anti-Jewish religion. Too many Jews were seen as resistant and even hostile to the Universal Faith.
Furthermore, there is something intrinsic to Jewish personality and temperament that ultimately recoils from universalism. Even as secularists, Jews tend to feel 'special' and 'unique', indeed superior over dimwit goyim. This egotism among Jews makes them both universalist and anti-universalist. It makes them universalist ON THEIR OWN TERMS. Because they are so smart, wise, and prophetic, their superior ideas must be good and right for all of mankind. They want to play the role of Moses laying down the Laws for all peoples. But once the goy masses adopt the New Law as universal truth, Jews begin to grow bored with established universalism that now seems mediocre and humdrum. It was exciting when they conceived of it and presented it to humanity as The Shining Truth. But once that Truth becomes official dogma to every idiot on the street, Jews grow bored and react against univeralism that has lost its luster.
This contradiction is seen in Judaism itself. It says there is only one God, the only true God; Jews know better than pagans who believe in silly stupid idols. And yet, Jews want to keep this God for themselves through the special Covenant. Thus, Jewish God is universal in conception but tribal in contract(to Jews).Of late, Jews came up with a new faith that might be called Homomania. Will it also go the way of Christianity and Communism? Will it turn against Jews and/or will Jews grow tired of it?
And yet, Homomania may remain as a weapon of Jews because, unlike Christianity and Communism, it favors elite-minoritism. It is essentially a special alliance between homo minority elites and Jewish minority elites. So, even as majority of dimwit goyim become enamored of Homomania, it can never belong to them in the way the Christianity or Communism could. No matter how many goyim worship Homomania, the object of worship won't be universal brotherhood of man but elite tooter-hood of fancy neo-aristo fruits(financed by Jews). Also, unlike Christianity and Communism that eventually came to favor mediocrity -- Jesus favored the meek, and Marx & Lenin stood for common workers -- , the very nature of Homomania is celebration of elitism, vanity, egotism, narcissism, privilege, new fashions & fads, and fancy-pants stuff that homos love so much. As Jews are rich and homos are whoopsy-vain, they make natural allies in the Current Year.'Neoconservatism' also isn't likely to fall into the hands of non-Jews. Unlike the spiritual populism of Christianity and economic populism of Communism, Neoconservatism was devised to be esoteric-elitist-hegemonic based on carefully crafted coordination among media, academia, think-tanks, Intelligence services, Deep State, and Israel. So, even though Neo-conservatism pays lip-service to Humanitarianism and Spreading Democracy, its real agenda and operations are a very exclusive affair. Leo Strauss came up with a way to Talk the Walk and Walk the Talk.
|
|
|
May 05, 2018 | www.unz.com
I first encountered Trotskyists in Minnesota half a century ago during the movement against the Vietnam War. I appreciated their skill in organizing anti-war demonstrations and their courage in daring to call themselves "communists" in the United States of America – a profession of faith that did not groom them for the successful careers enjoyed by their intellectual counterparts in France. So I started my political activism with sympathy toward the movement. In those days it was in clear opposition to U.S. imperialism, but that has changed.
The first thing one learns about Trotskyism is that it is split into rival tendencies. Some remain consistent critics of imperialist war, notably those who write for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS).
Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of "permanent revolution" into the hope that every minority uprising in the world must be a sign of the long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving eye of mainstream media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf of the alleged revolution.
A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March 1, 2018) entitled "Revolution and counterrevolution in Syria" indicates so thoroughly how Trotskyism goes wrong that it is worthy of a critique. Since the author, Tony McKenna, writes well and with evident conviction, this is a strong not a weak example of the Trotskyist mindset.
McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group of children who simply wrote some graffiti on a wall by "beating them, burning them, pulling their fingernails out". The source of this grisly information is not given. There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies.
But this raises the issue of sources. It is certain that there are many sources of accusations against the Assad regime, on which McKenna liberally draws, indicating that he is writing not from personal observation, any more than I am. Clearly, he is strongly disposed to believe the worst, and even to embroider it somewhat. He accepts and develops without the shadow of a doubt the theory that Assad himself is responsible for spoiling the good revolution by releasing Islamic prisoners who went on to poison it with their extremism. The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamic fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable evidence of Assad's perverse wickedness.
This interpretation of events happens to dovetail neatly with the current Western doctrine on Syria, so that it is impossible to tell them apart. In both versions, the West is no more than a passive onlooker, whereas Assad enjoys the backing of Iran and Russia.
"Much has been made of Western imperial support for the rebels in the early years of the revolution. This has, in fact, been an ideological lynchpin of first the Iranian and then the Russian military interventions as they took the side of the Assad government. Such interventions were framed in the spirit of anticolonial rhetoric in which Iran and Russia purported to come to the aid of a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund ", according to McKenna.
Whose "ideological lynchpin"? Not that of Russia, certainly, whose line in the early stages of its intervention was not to denounce Western imperialism but to appeal to the West and especially to the United States to join in the fight against Islamic extremism.
Neither Russia nor Iran "framed their interventions in the spirit of anticolonial rhetoric" but in terms of the fight against Islamic extremism with Wahhabi roots.
In reality, a much more pertinent "framing" of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies.
The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or to have been, the last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights.
There are a few alternative hypotheses as to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse Islamic extremism in order to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks.
It is remarkable that McKenna's long article (some 12 thousand words) about the war in Syria mentions Israel only once (aside from a footnote citing Israeli national news as a source). And this mention actually equates Israelis and Palestinians as co-victims of Assad propaganda: the Syrian government "used the mass media to slander the protestors, to present the revolution as the chaos orchestrated by subversive international interests (the Israelis and the Palestinians were both implicated in the role of foreign infiltrators)."
No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to.
Only one, innocuous mention of Israel! But this article by a Trotskyist mentions Stalin, Stalinists, Stalinism no less than twenty-two times !
And what about Saudi Arabia, Israel's de facto ally in the effort to destroy Syria in order to weaken Iran? Two mentions, both implicitly denying that notorious fact. The only negative mention is blaming the Saudi family enterprise for investing billions in the Syrian economy in its neoliberal phase. But far from blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamic groups, McKenna portrays the House of Saud as a victim of ISIS hostility.
Clearly, the Trotskyist delusion is to see the Russian Revolution everywhere, forever being repressed by a new Stalin. Assad is likened to Stalin several times.
This article is more about the Trotskyist case against Stalin than it is about Syria.
This repetitive obsession does not lead to a clear grasp of events which are not the Russian revolution. And even on this pet subject, something is wrong.
The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. Doesn't that tell them something? Isn't it quite possible that their much-desired "revolution" might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse?
Throughout history, revolts, uprisings, rebellions happen all the time, and usually end in repression. Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth than a reality, especially as Trotskyists tend to imagine it: the people all rising up in one great general strike, chasing their oppressors from power and instituting people's democracy. Has this ever happened?
For the Trotskyists, this seem to be the natural way things should happen and is stopped only by bad guys who spoil it out of meanness.
In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence and "modernization" – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. If the Bolshevik revolution turned Stalinist, maybe it was in part because a strong repressive leader was the only way to save "the revolution" from its internal and external enemies. There is no evidence that, had he defeated Stalin, Trotsky would have been more tender-hearted.
Countries that are deeply divided ideologically and ethnically, such as Syria, are not likely to be "modernized" without a strong rule.
McKenna acknowledges that the beginning of the Assad regime somewhat redeemed its repressive nature by modernization and social reforms. This modernization benefited from Russian aid and trade, which was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed. Yes, there was a Soviet bloc which despite its failure to carry out world revolution as Trotsky advocated, did support the progressive development of newly independent countries.
If Bashar's father Hafez al Assad had some revolutionary legitimacy in McKenna's eyes, there is no excuse for Bashar.
"In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit -- by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers." The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified "revolution".
This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization?
McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: "If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between the rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain, or any other advanced capitalist country?"
One could turn that around. Shouldn't such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: "if we can't defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?"
The trouble with Trotskyists is that they are always "supporting" other people's more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war.
For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home and mind their own business.
|
|
|
Mar 06, 2018 | nationalinterest.org
Machiavelli recounts Livy's tale of the sons of Brutus, consul of Rome, to make his point about eradicating foes of a new regime. Roman republicans had just deposed the Tarquin monarchy, and Brutus' sons intrigued to bring the kings back. Why? "As the history shows," observes Machiavelli, the youths "were induced to conspire with other young Romans against the fatherland because of nothing other than that they could not take advantage extraordinarily under the consuls as under the king, so that the freedom of that people appeared to have become their servitude."
In other words, the sons of Brutus subverted the republic because they couldn't turn its institutions to their personal gain. Their enmity left the fledgling regime in an uncomfortable predicament: "a state that is free and that newly emerges," contends Machiavelli, "comes to have partisan enemies and not partisan friends." Those who profited by the old order become implacable foes of the new order, while friends of the new order hedge their bets until and unless the new rulers consolidate their hold on power.
In other words, the new republic faced resolute opposition while commanding only tepid support. The consul had to vanquish Rome's enemies in dramatic fashion to win wholehearted allegiance from the populace. "If one wishes to remedy these inconveniences and . . . disorders," maintains Machiavelli, "there is no remedy more powerful, nor more valid, more secure, and more necessary, than to kill the sons of Brutus." Brutus oversaw the scourging and beheading of the conspirators -- and endeared himself to generations of republicans.
|
|
|
Mar 02, 2018 | www.unz.com
renfro , March 2, 2018 at 2:59 am GMT
Don't worry about republicans ..democrats are ruining themselves all alone .every time the deplorables see something like this they will double down on anything but a Dem.
Regardless of one's view on blacks or whites this is a major Stupid for a politician.Chuck Schumer votes against South Carolina federal judge nominee because he's white
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer rejected President Donald Trump's nominee for a long-vacant South Carolina federal judgeship not because of his qualifications but because of his race.
The decision drew the quick ire of South Carolina's two U.S. senators and U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-Spartanburg, a former federal prosecutor.Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in a Senate floor speech Wednesday he would not support Greenville attorney Marvin Quattlebaum for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court in South Carolina
Voting for Quattlebaum, he said, would result in having a white man replace two African-American nominees from the state put forth by former President Barack Obama.
Schumer said he would not be a part of the Trump administration's pattern of nominating white men.
"The nomination of Marvin Quattlebaum speaks to the overall lack of diversity in President Trump's selections for the federal judiciary," Schumer said.
"It's long past time that the judiciary starts looking a lot more like the America it represents," he continued. "Having a diversity of views and experience on the federal bench is necessary for the equal administration of justice."
South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, the Senate's sole black Republican, pushed back on Schumer's rationale and urged other Senate Democrats to instead address diversity issues by starting with their offices.
"Perhaps Senate Democrats should be more worried about the lack of diversity on their own staffs than attacking an extremely well-qualified judicial nominee from the great state of South Carolina," Scott tweeted Thursday morning.
|
|
|
Sep 05, 2017 | www.theatlantic.com
My first prophet was a man named James Burnham. In 1941 Burnham was 35 years old. From a wealthy family -- railroad money -- he was a star student at Princeton, then on to Balliol College, Oxford. Burnham was an avowed Communist. He joined with Trotsky during the 1930s.
By 1941, Burnham had moved on, as he published his first great book of prophecy, called The Managerial State . The book made him a celebrity. It was widely discussed on both sides of the Atlantic.
Burnham's vision of the future is one where the old ideologies, like socialism, have been left behind. The rulers are really beyond all that. They are the managerial elite, the technocrats, the scientists, and the bureaucrats who manage the all-powerful enterprises and agencies.
You know this vision. You have seen it so often at the movies. It is the vision in all those science fiction dystopias. You know, with the gilded masterminds ruling all from their swank towers and conference rooms.
It's a quite contemporary vision. For instance, it is not far at all from the way I think the rulers of China imagine themselves and their future.
In this and other writings, Burnham held up Stalin's Soviet Union and Hitler's Germany as the pure exemplars of these emerging managerial states. They were showing the way to the future. By comparison, FDR's New Deal was a primitive version. And he thought it would lose.
Burnham's views were not so unusual among the leading thinkers of the 1940s, like Joseph Schumpeter or Karl Polanyi. All were pessimistic about the future of free societies, including Friedrich Hayek, who really believed that once-free countries were on the "road to serfdom." But Burnham took the logic further.
Just after the second world war ended, my other prophet decided to answer Burnham. You know him as George Orwell.
Eric Blair, who used George Orwell as his pen name, was about Burnham's age. Their backgrounds were very different. Orwell was English. Poor. Orwell's lungs were pretty rotten and he would not live long. Orwell was a democratic socialist who came to loathe Soviet communism. He had volunteered to fight in Spain, was shot through the throat. Didn't stop his writing.
Orwell was profoundly disturbed by Burnham's vision of the emerging "managerial state." All too convincing. Yet he also noticed how, when Burnham described the new superstates and their demigod rulers, Burnham exhibited "a sort of fascinated admiration."
Orwell wrote : For Burnham, "Communism may be wicked, but at any rate it is big: it is a terrible, all-devouring monster which one fights against but which one cannot help admiring." To Orwell, Burnham's mystical picture of "terrifying, irresistible power" amounted to "an act of homage, and even of self-abasement." irresistible power" amounted to "an act of homage, and even of self-abasement."
Burnham had predicted Nazi victory. Later, Burnham had predicted the Soviet conquest of all Eurasia. By 1947 Burnham was calling for the U.S. to launch a preventive nuclear war against the Soviet Union to head off the coming disaster.
Orwell saw a pattern. Such views seemed symptoms of "a major mental disease, and its roots," he argued, which, "lie partly in cowardice and partly in the worship of power, which is not fully separable from cowardice."
Orwell thought that "power worship blurs political judgment because it leads, almost unavoidably, to the belief that present trends will continue. Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible."
Orwell had another critique. He deplored the fact that, "The tendency of writers like Burnham, whose key concept is 'realism,' is to overrate the part played in human affairs by sheer force." Orwell went on. "I do not say that he is wrong all the time. But somehow his picture of the world is always slightly distorted."
Finally, Orwell thought Burnham overestimated the resilience of the managerial state model and underestimated the qualities of open and civilized societies. Burnham's vision did not allow enough play for "the fact that certain rules of conduct have to be observed if human society is to hold together at all."
Having written these critical essays, Orwell then tried to make his case against Burnham in another way. This anti-Burnham argument became a novel -- the novel called Nineteen Eighty-Four.
That book came out in 1949. Orwell died the next year.
By that time, Burnham had become a consultant to the CIA, advising its new office for covert action. That was the capacity in which Burnham met the young William F. Buckley. Burnham mentored Buckley. It was with Buckley that Burnham became one of the original editors of the National Review and a major conservative commentator. In 1983, President Reagan awarded Burnham the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Not that Burnham's core vision had changed. In 1964, he published another book of prophecy. This was entitled Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism . The Soviet Union and its allies had the will to power. Liberalism and its defenders did not. "The primary issue before Western civilization today, and before its member nations, is survival." (Sound familiar?)
And it was liberalism, Burnham argued, with its self-criticism and lack of commitment, that would pull our civilization down from within. Suicide.
So was Burnham wrong? Was Orwell right? This is a first-class historical question. Burnham's ideal of the "managerial state" is so alive today.
State the questions another way: Do open societies really work better than closed ones? Is a more open and civilized world really safer and better for Americans? If we think yes, then what is the best way to prove that point?
My answer comes in three parts. The first is about how to express our core values. American leaders tend to describe their global aims as the promotion of the right values. Notice that these are values in how other countries are governed. President Obama's call for an "international order of laws and institutions," had the objective of winning a clash of domestic governance models around the world. This clash he called: "authoritarianism versus liberalism."
Yet look at how many values he felt "liberalism" had to include. For Obama the "road of true democracy," included a commitment to "liberty, equality, justice, and fairness" and curbing the "excesses of capitalism."
What about our current president? Last month he urged his listeners to be ready to fight to the death for the "values" of the West. He named two: "individual freedom and sovereignty. "
A week later, two of his chief aides, Gary Cohn and H.R. McMaster, doubled down on the theme that America was promoting, with its friends, the values that "drive progress throughout the world." They too had a laundry list. They omitted "sovereignty." But then, narrowing the list only to the "most important," they listed: "[T]he dignity of every person equality of women innovation freedom of speech and of religion and free and fair markets."
By contrast, the anti-liberal core values seem simple. The anti-liberals are for authority and against anarchy and disorder. And they are for community and against the subversive, disruptive outsider.
There are of course many ways to define a "community" -- including tribal, religious, political, or professional. It is a source of identity, of common norms of behavior, of shared ways of life.
Devotees of freedom and liberalism do not dwell as much on "community." Except to urge that everybody be included, and treated fairly.
But beliefs about "community" have always been vital to human societies. In many ways, the last 200 years have been battles about how local communities try to adapt or fight back against growing global pressures -- especially economic and cultural, but often political and even military.
So much of the divide between anti-liberals or liberals is cultural. Little has to do with "policy" preferences. Mass politics are defined around magnetic poles of cultural attraction. If Americans engage this culture war on a global scale, I plead for modesty and simplicity. As few words as possible, as fundamental as possible.
Certainly our history counsels modesty. Americans and the American government have a very mixed and confusing record in the way we have, in practice, related values in foreign governance to what our government does.
Also, until the late 19th century, "democracy" was never at the core of liberal thinking. Liberal thinkers were very interested in the design of republics. But classical liberal thinkers, including many of the American founders, always had a troubled relationship with democracy. There were always two issues.
First, liberals were devoted, above all, to liberty of thought and reason. Pace Tom Paine, the people were often regarded as intolerant, ill-informed, and superstitious -- unreliable judges of scientific truth, historical facts, moral duty, and legal disputes. The other problem is that democracy used to be considered a synonym for mob rule. Elections can be a supreme check on tyranny. But sometimes the people have exalted their dictators and have not cared overmuch about the rule of law. It therefore still puzzles me: Why is there so much debate about which people are "ready for democracy"? Few of the old theorists thought any people were ready for such a thing.
It was thought, though, that any civilized people might be persuaded to reject tyranny. Any civilized community might prefer a suitably designed and confining constitution, limiting powers and working at a reliable rule of law.
By the way, that "rule of law" was a value that Mr. Cohn and General McMaster left off of their "most important" list -- yet is anything more essential to our way of life?
Aside from the relation with democracy, the other great ideal that any liberal order finds necessary, yet troubling, is the one about community: nationalism.
Consider the case of Poland. For 250 years, Poland has been a great symbol to the rest of Europe. For much of Polish and European history, nationalism was an ally of liberalism. Versus Czarist tyranny, versus aristocratic oligarchs.
But sometimes not. Today, Poland's governing Law and Justice party is all about being anti-Russian, anti-Communist, and pro-Catholic. They are all about "authority" and "community." At the expense of ? Poland's president has just had to intervene when the rule of law itself seemed to be at stake.
We Americans and our friends should define what we stand for. Define it in a way that builds a really big tent. In 1989, working for the elder President Bush, I was able to get the phrase, "commonwealth of free nations," into a couple of the president's speeches. It didn't stick. Nearly 20 years later, in 2008, the late Harvard historian Ernest May and I came up with a better formulation. We thought that through human history the most adaptable and successful societies had turned out to be the ones that were "open and civilized."
Rather than the word, "liberal," the word "open" seems more useful. It is the essence of liberty. Indian prime minister Narendra Modi uses it in his speeches; Karl Popper puts it at the core of his philosophy; Anne-Marie Slaughter makes it a touchstone in her latest book. That's a big tent right there.
Also the ideal of being "civilized." Not such an old-fashioned ideal. It gestures to the yearning for community. Not only a rule of law, also community norms, the norms that reassure society and regulate rulers -- whether in a constitution or in holy scripture.
Chinese leaders extol the value of being civilized -- naturally, they commingle it with Sinification. Muslims take pride in a heritage that embraces norms of appropriate conduct by rulers. And, of course, in an open society, community norms can be contested and do evolve.
The retired Indian statesman, Shyam Saran, recently lectured on, "Is a China-centric world inevitable?" To Saran, "A stable world order needs a careful balance between power and legitimacy. Legitimacy is upheld when states, no matter how powerful, observe norms of state behavior." India, Saran said, had the "civilizational attributes."
... ... ...
Philip Zelikow is the White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia, and is a former executive director of the 9/11 Commission.
|
|
|
www.truthdig.com
Editor's note: This article is the last in a four-part series on Truthdig called "Universal Empire" -- an examination of the current stage of the neocon takeover of American policy that began after World War ll. Read Part 1 , Part 2 and Part 3 .
The recent assertion by the Trump White House that Damascus and Moscow released "false narratives" to mislead the world about the April 4 sarin gas attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria, is a dangerous next step in the "fake news" propaganda war launched in the final days of the Obama administration. It is a step whose deep roots in Communist Trotsky's Fourth International must be understood before deciding whether American democracy can be reclaimed.
Muddying the waters of accountability in a way not seen since Sen. Joe McCarthy at the height of the Red Scare in the 1950s, the " Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act " signed into law without fanfare by Obama in December 2016 officially authorized a government censorship bureaucracy comparable only to George Orwell's fictional Ministry of Truth in his novel "1984." Referred to as " the Global Engagement Center ," the official purpose of this new bureaucracy is to "recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests." The real purpose of this Orwellian nightmare is to cook the books on anything that challenges Washington's neoconservative pro-war narrative and to intimidate, harass or jail anyone who tries. As has already been demonstrated by President Trump's firing of Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian government airbase, it is a recipe for a world war, and like it or not, that war has already begun.
This latest attack on Russia's supposed false narrative takes us right back to 1953 and the beginnings of the cultural war between East and West. Its roots are tied to the Congress for Cultural Freedom, to James Burnham's pivot from Trotsky's Fourth International to right-wing conservatism and to the rise of the neoconservative Machiavellians as a political force. As Burnham's " The Struggle for the World " stressed, the Third World War had already begun with the 1944 Communist-led Greek sailors' revolt.In Burnham's Manichean thinking, the West was under siege. George Kennan's Cold War policy of containment was no different than Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement. Détente with the Soviet Union amounted to surrender. Peace was only a disguise for war, and that war would be fought with politics, subversion, terrorism and psychological warfare. Soviet influence had to be rolled back wherever possible. That meant subverting the Soviet Union and its proxies and, when necessary, subverting Western democracies as well.
The true irony of today's late-stage efforts by Washington to monopolize "truth" and attack alternate narratives isn't just in its blatant contempt for genuine free speech. The real irony is that the entire "Freedom Manifesto" employed by the United States and Britain since World War II was never free at all, but a concoction of the CIA's Psychological Strategy Board 's (PSB) comprehensive psychological warfare program waged on friend and foe alike.
The CIA would come to view the entire program, beginning with the 1950 Berlin conference, to be a landmark in the Cold War, not just for solidifying the CIA's control over the non-Communist left and the West's "free" intellectuals, but for enabling the CIA to secretly disenfranchise Europeans and Americans from their own political culture in such a way they would never really know it.
As historian Christopher Lasch wrote in 1969 of the CIA's cooptation of the American left,
"The modern state is an engine of propaganda, alternately manufacturing crises and claiming to be the only instrument that can effectively deal with them. This propaganda, in order to be successful, demands the cooperation of writers, teachers, and artists not as paid propagandists or state-censored time-servers but as 'free' intellectuals capable of policing their own jurisdictions and of enforcing acceptable standards of responsibility within the various intellectual professions."
Key to turning these "free" intellectuals against their own interests was the CIA's doctrinal program for Western cultural transformation contained in the document PSB D-33/2 . PSB D-33/2 foretells of a "long-term intellectual movement, to: break down world-wide doctrinaire thought patterns" while "creating confusion, doubt and loss of confidence" in order to "weaken objectively the intellectual appeal of neutralism and to predispose its adherents towards the spirit of the West." The goal was to "predispose local elites to the philosophy held by the planners," while employing local elites "would help to disguise the American origin of the effort so that it appears to be a native development."
While declaring itself as an antidote to Communist totalitarianism, one internal critic of the program, PSB officer Charles Burton Marshall, viewed PSB D-33/2 itself as frighteningly totalitarian, interposing "a wide doctrinal system" that "accepts uniformity as a substitute for diversity," embracing "all fields of human thought -- all fields of intellectual interests, from anthropology and artistic creations to sociology and scientific methodology." He concluded: "That is just about as totalitarian as one can get."
Burnham's Machiavellian elitism lurks in every shadow of the document. As recounted in Frances Stoner Saunder's "The Cultural Cold War," "Marshall also took issue with the PSB's reliance on 'non-rational social theories' which emphasized the role of an elite 'in the manner reminiscent of Pareto, Sorel, Mussolini and so on.' Weren't these the models used by James Burnham in his book the Machiavellians? Perhaps there was a copy usefully to hand when PSB D-33/2 was being drafted. More likely, James Burnham himself was usefully to hand."
Burnham was more than just at hand when it came to secretly implanting a fascist philosophy of extreme elitism into America's Cold War orthodoxy. With "The Machiavellians," Burnham had composed the manual that forged the old Trotskyist left together with a right-wing Anglo/American elite.
The political offspring of that volatile union would be called neoconservatism, whose overt mission would be to roll back Russian/Soviet influence everywhere. Its covert mission would be to reassert a British cultural dominance over the emerging Anglo/American Empire and maintain it through propaganda.
Hard at work on that task since 1946 was the secret Information Research Department of the British and Commonwealth Foreign Office known as the IRD.
Rarely spoken of in the context of CIA-funded secret operations, the IRD served as a covert anti-Communist propaganda unit from 1946 until 1977. According to Paul Lashmar and James Oliver, authors of " Britain's Secret Propaganda War ," "the vast IRD enterprise had one sole aim: To spread its ceaseless propaganda output (i.e. a mixture of outright lies and distorted facts) among top-ranking journalists who worked for major agencies and magazines, including Reuters and the BBC, as well as every other available channel. It worked abroad to discredit communist parties in Western Europe which might gain a share of power by entirely democratic means, and at home to discredit the British Left."
IRD was to become a self-fulfilling disinformation machine for the far-right wing of the international intelligence elite, at once offering fabricated and distorted information to "independent" news outlets and then using the laundered story as "proof" of the false story's validity. One such front enterprise established with CIA money was Forum World Features, operated at one time by Burnham acolyte Brian Rossiter Crozier . Described by Burnham's biographer Daniel Kelly as a "British political analyst," in reality, the legendary Brian Crozier functioned for over 50 years as one of Britain's top propagandists and secret agents .
If anyone today is shocked by the biased, one-sided, xenophobic rush to judgment alleging Russian influence over the 2016 presidential election, they need look no further than to Brian Crozier's closet for the blueprints. As we were told outright by an American military officer during the first war in Afghanistan in 1982, the U.S. didn't need "proof the Soviets used poison gas" and they don't need proof against Russia now. Crozier might best be described as a daydream believer, a dangerous imperialist who acts out his dreams with open eyes. From the beginning of the Cold War until his death in 2012, Crozier and his protégé Robert Moss propagandized on behalf of military dictators Francisco Franco and Augusto Pinochet, organized private intelligence organizations to destabilize governments in the Middle East, Asia, Latin America and Africa and worked to delegitimize politicians in Europe and Britain viewed as insufficiently anti-Communist.
The mandate of his Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC) set up in 1970 was to expose the supposed KGB campaign of worldwide subversion and put out stories smearing anyone who questioned it as a dupe, a traitor or Communist spy. Crozier regarded "The Machiavellians" as a major formative influence in his own intellectual development, and wrote in 1976 "indeed it was this book above all others that first taught me how [emphasis Crozier] to think about politics." The key to Crozier's thinking was Burnham's distinction between the "formal" meaning of political speech and the "real," a concept which was, of course, grasped only by elites. In a 1976 article, Crozier marveled at how Burnham's understanding of politics had spanned 600 years and how the use of "the formal" to conceal "the real" was no different today than when used by Dante Alighieri's "presumably enlightened Medieval mind." "The point is as valid now as it was in ancient times and in the Florentine Middle Ages, or in 1943. Overwhelmingly, political writers and speakers still use Dante's method. Depending on the degree of obfuscation required (either by circumstances or the person's character), the divorce between formal and real meaning is more of less absolute."
But Crozier was more than just a strategic thinker. Crozier was a high-level covert political agent who put Burnham's talent for obfuscation and his Fourth International experience to use to undermine détente and set the stage for rolling back the Soviet Union.
In a secret meeting at a City of London bank in February 1977, he even patented a private-sector operational intelligence organization known at the Sixth International (6I) to pick up where Burnham left off: politicizing and privatizing many of the dirty tricks the CIA and other intelligence services could no longer be caught doing. As he explained in his memoir "Free Agent," the name 6I was chosen "because the Fourth International split. The Fourth International was the Trotskyist one, and when it split, this meant that, on paper, there were five Internationals. In the numbers game, we would constitute the Sixth International, or '6I.' "
Crozier's cooperation with numerous "able and diligent Congressional staffers" as well as "the remarkable General Vernon ('Dick') Walters, recently retired as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence," cemented the rise of the neoconservatives. When Carter caved in to the Team B and his neoconservative National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski's plot to lure the Soviets into their own Vietnam in Afghanistan, it fulfilled Burnham's mission and delivered the world to the Machiavellians without anyone being the wiser.As George Orwell wrote in his "Second Thoughts on James Burnham": "What Burnham is mainly concerned to show [in The Machiavellians] is that a democratic society has never existed and, so far as we can see, never will exist. Society is of its nature oligarchical, and the power of the oligarchy always rests upon force and fraud. Power can sometimes be won and maintained without violence, but never without fraud."
Today, Burnham's use of Dante's political treatise "De Monarchia" to explain his medieval understanding of politics might best be swapped for Dante's "Divine Comedy," a paranoid comedy of errors in which the door to Hell swings open to one and all, including the elites regardless of their status. Or as they say in Hell, " Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate ." Abandon hope all ye who enter here.
This poart 4 of the series. For previous parts see
- Part 1: American Imperialism Leads the World Into Dante's Vision of Hell
- Part 3: How the CIA Created a Fake Western Reality for 'Unconventional Warfare'
Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould are the authors of " Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story ," " Crossing Zero: The AfPak War at the Turning Point of American Empire " and " The Voice ." Visit their websites at invisiblehistory.com and grailwerk.com .
|
|
|
Mar 03, 2017 | glineq.blogspot.com
Machiavelli as an economist
I was recently rereading The Discourses (as I periodically enjoy doing) and on Sunday I read a review of an interesting new book on Machiavelli -an inexhaustible topic indeed. So I thought of writing down why I, and I would presume many economists, admire Machiavelli (and thus adding to this inexhaustible topic yet another piece).
There is a clear affinity between economists and political scientists in the Machiavelli tradition. For Machiavelli, the objective of a ruler or a politician is maximization of power in two dimensions, at any point in time and over time. This is exactly the same as maximization of income or utility over time. The ruler is a rational homo politicus in the same way that people, according to economists, are rational homo economicuses .
Moreover, the ruler is a political entrepreneur: his job is no different from a job of a tailor, carpenter, teacher. He is after selfish objectives which are attained under constraints. The constraints for the ruler are of two kinds: he must somehow acquire the power and he must be able to keep it despite attempts of many people to prevent him from coming to power or trying to overthrow him.
The ruler therefore must have the famous virtù which is indeed one of the rarest combination of talents. He must fight off domestic foes, foreign enemies or adversaries, and must combine the use of deception, violence and genuine concern for his subjects in the right proportions to be able to stay in power. Machiavelli's politician is like a businessman. There are cases when the businessman will gain more by lying and others when he would gain more by telling the truth. Similarly, the ruler would sometimes gain more through violence, guile and ruse, and at other times through honesty and improvements of his subjects' welfare. The attractiveness of Machiavelli to economists comes also from the fact his ruler always remains a self-interested individual who might do well for his subjects not because he cares about them but because he believes that doing well for them would be ultimately good for himself. In that he is like Adam Smith's baker: he is selling us bread not because he is concerned about our hunger but because he is concerned about his self-interest.
Throughout centuries Machiavelli has, of course, been accused of condoning many evils. Yet his type of the politician is much more benign and better for the mankind that the types that have normally ruled us. This is because the rulers who actually come to believe they are trying to accomplish good things are most likely to create endless bloodsheds. Most of the killings in history have been motivated by "goodness" and desire to be virtuous. Surely, all religious wars have been such. In recent past, all communist exactions (most notably, the collectivization in the Soviet Union and the Great Leap Forward in China) were motivated by the desire to lift people from their millennial poverty. George W. Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq cannot be explained otherwise since no economic or any other rational objective was ever achieved or was even given serious consideration in the decision to wage the war.
The most potentially destructive forces today are hidden under the banner of "goodness". Whether this is done hypocritically or because the rulers believe in such professions of "goodness" is immaterial; the latter is even worse. The terms under which such "goodness" is projected to the heathens-"the American exceptionalism,", "the Third Rome", "Hindutva", "the new (old) Caliphate"-are nothing but a self-license to impose own values and beliefs on those who dare disagree with them. Such rulers are the most bloodthirsty because belief in own moral superiority renders them unconcerned with reality.
Machiavelli's ruler will for sure also engage in deception and cruelty, but his objective will never be to impose one form of government or religion, or more generally a set of beliefs as such, on others. He might decide to impose a new government if he believes that this would increase his dominion. This would be a rational objective, grounded in self-interest. Ideological puritans who want to bring happiness to others would engage in such operations more frequently and fully. Disengaging from them implies for the ideological zealots a destruction of their own intimate world of beliefs; never so with Machiavelli's ruler who would give up the operation once its costs outweigh the benefits.
The world ruled by politicians who follow own interest like Adam Smith's baker, and leave the rest of the world in peace, may be the best world we can hope for.
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
david robbins tien , says: February 24, 2017 at 7:49 am
To understand David Brooks' "thinking" just go back to his initiation by disciples of Leo Strauss during his undergraduate days at the University of Chicago. It is all there, a "political philosophy" that somehow winds up with initiates convinced that they are a tiny elite that needs to lead dumb Americans in defending civilization, viz, the "West", against barbarism. After my own indoctrination, I was ready to jump in an F-16 and attack, well, just about anybody. See Senator Tom Cotton, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, etc., for other examples of the phenomenon. Washington is crawling with these guys and gals.
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
anne -> New Deal democrat... January 14, 2017 at 08:16 AMhttps://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/books/review/napoleon-a-life-by-andrew-roberts.html
November 16, 2014
'Napoleon: A Life,' by Andrew Roberts
By DUNCAN KELLY
On July 22, 1789, a week after the storming of the Bastille in Paris, Napoleon Bonaparte wrote to his older brother, Joseph, that there was nothing much to worry about. "Calm will return. In a month." His timing was off, but perhaps he took the misjudgment to heart because he spent the rest of his life trying to bring glory and order to France by building a new sort of empire. By the time he was crowned emperor on Dec. 2, 1804, he could say, "I am the Revolution." It was, according to the historian Andrew Roberts's epically scaled new biography, "Napoleon: A Life," both the ultimate triumph of the self-made man, an outsider from Corsica who rose to the apex of French political life, and simultaneously a "defining moment of the Enlightenment," fixing the "best" of the French Revolution through his legal, educational and administrative reforms. Such broad contours get at what Napoleon meant by saying to his literary hero Goethe at a meeting in Erfurt, "Politics is fate."
Napoleon didn't mean fatalism by this, rather that political action is unavoidable if you want personal and national glory. It requires a mastery of fortune, and a willingness to be ruthless when necessary. If this sounds Machiavellian, that's because it is - Machiavelli's arguments about politics informed Napoleon's self-consciousness, whether in appraising fortune as a woman or a river to be tamed and harnessed, or assuming that in politics it is better to be feared than loved. Such views went hand in hand with the grand visions of politics outlined in the ancient histories and biographies Napoleon revered as a young man. "Bloodletting is among the ingredients of political medicine" was Napoleon's cool if brutal reminder of an ever-present item on his exhausting schedule.
His strategy always included dashing off thousands of letters and plans, in a personal regime calling for little sleep, much haste and a penchant for being read to while taking baths so as not to waste even a minute. He compartmentalized ruthlessly, changing tack between lobbying for more shoes and brandy for the army at one minute, to directing the personal lives of his siblings or writing love letters to the notorious Josephine at another; here ensuring extravagant financial "contributions" from those whom he had vanquished, there discussing the booty to send back to Paris, particularly from the extraordinary expedition in Egypt where his "savants had missed nothing." The personal and the political ran alongside each other in his mind.
Yet when his longtime collaborator but fair-weather political friend, the diplomat Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand, suggested that Napoleon try to make those he conquered learn to love France, Napoleon replied that this was an irrelevance. "Aimer: I don't really know what this means when applied to politics," he said. Still, if grand strategy and national interest lay behind foreign affairs, there were nevertheless personal rules of conduct to uphold. Talleyrand was a party to Napoleon's strategy since supporting his coup d'état against the French Directory in 1799. That was O.K. And by short-selling securities he made millions for himself. But he was called out by Napoleon and dismissed as vice grand elector when found facing both ways politically at a crucial moment.
Napoleon understood those temptations because he was also flexible enough to tilt toward the winning side, regularly supporting any form of local religion that could help him militarily. Nonetheless, Roberts's Napoleon is a soldier, statesman and "bona fide intellectual," who rode his luck for longer than most intellectuals in politics ever do....
Duncan Kelly teaches political thought at the University of Cambridge.
libezkova -> anne... , January 14, 2017 at 10:25 AMkthomas -> libezkova... , January 14, 2017 at 11:48 AM" "Bloodletting is among the ingredients of political medicine" "Those chickenhawk neocons like Hillary, Kagan or Michael Leeden do not want to die, they want that somebody else died for them implementing their crazy imperial ambitions.
Russian troll?libezkova -> kthomas... , -1I like the way you are thinking about this issue my totally brainwashed friend (sorry Anne ;-)ilsm -> libezkova...Your remark just confirms the power of official propaganda machine
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/13/why-ridiculous-official-propaganda-still-works
== quote ==
The primary aim of official propaganda is to generate an "official narrative" that can be mindlessly repeated by the ruling classes and those who support and identify with them. This official narrative does not have to make sense, or to stand up to any sort of serious scrutiny. Its factualness is not the point. The point is to draw a Maginot line, a defensive ideological boundary, between "the truth" as defined by the ruling classes and any other "truth" that contradicts their narrative.
The current "Russian hacking" hysteria is a perfect example of how this works. No one aside from total morons actually believes this official narrative (the substance of which is beyond ridiculous), not even the stooges selling it to us. This, however, is not a problem, because it isn't intended to be believed it is intended to be accepted and repeated, more or less like religious dogma.
US press is a propaganda mill.libezkova -> ilsm...The DNC is not the "US election", therefore how can hacking the DNC be a serious issue?
Then they give front page to Mr. Lewis who says a deceitful line that 'Russians made Clinton lose'. Nothing in the hack changed my observation that she is a war monger in wall st's employ.
They print and broadcast the lines fed. Lines which have no basis in truth.
If you think of what is said you have to conclude that criminals should have privacy and those digging perpetrate harm when the "leaks" exposed truths the public is not supposed to know.
If the average American could think and get a few facts they would conclude there is no democracy because the things they know are not true.
Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 05:11 PMilsm -> kthomas..., January 14, 2017 at 03:30 PMMSM is an executive arm of "deep state" propaganda machine.
http://carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
== quote ==
During the 1976 investigation of the CIA by the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Senator Frank Church, the dimensions of the Agency's involvement with the press became apparent to several members of the panel, as well as to two or three investigators on the staff.
...Thus, contrary to the notion that the CIA insidiously infiltrated the journalistic community, there is ample evidence that America's leading publishers and news executives allowed themselves and their organizations to become handmaidens to the intelligence services. "Let's not pick on some poor reporters, for God's sake," William Colby exclaimed at one point to the Church committee's investigators. "Let's go to the managements. They were witting." In all, about twenty‑five news organizations including those listed at the beginning of this article) provided cover for the Agency.
== end of quote ==
This is not about DNC hacking. Hacking is just a smokescreen. The real game is to prevent any change in the USA foreign policy, especially in Syria and toward Russia. That's why they tried this "soft coup" against Trump. That's why NYT, CNN, etc published all those dirty stories.
Also many CIA bureaucrats do not want to be sent from bloated Washington headquarters to distant lands to do what they are supposed to do -- collect intelligence, not to engage is domestic politics (and they were fully engaged on the side of Hillary).
ilsm said... , January 14, 2017 at 06:08 AMPreparation and objects make one lucky.
Americans are remiss in ignoring Napoleon, many of his students, etc.
libezkova is worth reading.
The problem with HRC, Kagan or Leeden is they thought a new American century was strategy, then silled a lot of snake oil.
The past year we have had two war parties tilt for the White House. Neither has strategy, both morally bankrupt!RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ilsm... , January 14, 2017 at 01:03 PMhttp://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/pacificaviet/riversidetranscript.html
Rev Martin Luther King at Riverside Church in NYC Apr 1967.
[Awesome, Dude. THX. Should be mandatory reading for everyone that votes or expresses political opinion in the US. As inappropriate as it is to cherry pick anything from this marvelous speech/sermon out of context to its entirety, this one tidbit really stood out:] "... There's something strangely inconsistent about a nation and a press that will praise you when you say, Be non-violent toward Jim Clark, but will curse and damn you when you say, "Be non-violent toward little brown Vietnamese children. There's something wrong with that press!..."ilsm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , January 14, 2017 at 03:34 PMI wonder had I read it as a young man would I have the courage to accept it the way I do now after I have made all the wrong decisions.
He opened my eyes nearly as much as my friend Bob who had been an SF advisor at the province level and confirmed everything written about the corruption and plundering of the RVN government.
MLK was incredibly aware of the truth on the ground in Vietnam.
|
|
|
Sep 05, 2016 | www.unz.com
438 CommentsA year or two ago, I saw the much-touted science fiction film Interstellar , and although the plot wasn't any good, one early scene was quite amusing. For various reasons, the American government of the future claimed that our Moon Landings of the late 1960s had been faked, a trick aimed at winning the Cold War by bankrupting Russia into fruitless space efforts of its own. This inversion of historical reality was accepted as true by nearly everyone, and those few people who claimed that Neil Armstrong had indeed set foot on the Moon were universally ridiculed as "crazy conspiracy theorists." This seems a realistic portrayal of human nature to me.
Obviously, a large fraction of everything described by our government leaders or presented in the pages of our most respectable newspapers-from the 9/11 attacks to the most insignificant local case of petty urban corruption-could objectively be categorized as a "conspiracy theory" but such words are never applied. Instead, use of that highly loaded phrase is reserved for those theories, whether plausible or fanciful, that do not possess the endorsement stamp of establishmentarian approval.
Put another way, there are good "conspiracy theories" and bad "conspiracy theories," with the former being the ones promoted by pundits on mainstream television shows and hence never described as such. I've sometimes joked with people that if ownership and control of our television stations and other major media outlets suddenly changed, the new information regime would require only a few weeks of concerted effort to totally invert all of our most famous "conspiracy theories" in the minds of the gullible American public. The notion that nineteen Arabs armed with box-cutters hijacked several jetliners, easily evaded our NORAD air defenses, and reduced several landmark buildings to rubble would soon be universally ridiculed as the most preposterous "conspiracy theory" ever to have gone straight from the comic books into the minds of the mentally ill, easily surpassing the absurd "lone gunman" theory of the JFK assassination.
Even without such changes in media control, huge shifts in American public beliefs have frequently occurred in the recent past, merely on the basis of implied association. In the initial weeks and months following the 2001 attacks, every American media organ was enlisted to denounce and vilify Osama Bin Laden, the purported Islamicist master-mind, as our greatest national enemy, with his bearded visage endlessly appearing on television and in print, soon becoming one of the most recognizable faces in the world. But as the Bush Administration and its key media allies prepared a war against Iraq, the images of the Burning Towers were instead regularly juxtaposed with mustachioed photos of dictator Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden's arch-enemy. As a consequence, by the time we attacked Iraq in 2003, polls revealed that some 70% of the American public believed that Saddam was personally involved in the destruction of our World Trade Center. By that date I don't doubt that many millions of patriotic but low-information Americans would have angrily denounced and vilified as a "crazy conspiracy theorist" anyone with the temerity to suggest that Saddam had not been behind 9/11, despite almost no one in authority having ever explicitly made such a fallacious claim.
These factors of media manipulation were very much in my mind a couple of years ago when I stumbled across a short but fascinating book published by the University of Texas academic press. The author of Conspiracy Theory in America was Prof. Lance deHaven-Smith, a former president of the Florida Political Science Association.
Based on an important FOIA disclosure, the book's headline revelation was that the CIA was very likely responsible for the widespread introduction of "conspiracy theory" as a term of political abuse, having orchestrated that development as a deliberate means of influencing public opinion.
During the mid-1960s there had been increasing public skepticism about the Warren Commission findings that a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, had been solely responsible for President Kennedy's assassination, and growing suspicions that top-ranking American leaders had also been involved. So as a means of damage control, the CIA distributed a secret memo to all its field offices requesting that they enlist their media assets in efforts to ridicule and attack such critics as irrational supporters of "conspiracy theories." Soon afterward, there suddenly appeared statements in the media making those exact points, with some of the wording, arguments, and patterns of usage closely matching those CIA guidelines. The result was a huge spike in the pejorative use of the phrase, which spread throughout the American media, with the residual impact continuing right down to the present day. Thus, there is considerable evidence in support of this particular "conspiracy theory" explaining the widespread appearance of attacks on "conspiracy theories" in the public media.
But although the CIA appears to have effectively manipulated public opinion in order to transform the phrase "conspiracy theory" into a powerful weapon of ideological combat, the author also describes how the necessary philosophical ground had actually been prepared a couple of decades earlier. Around the time of the Second World War, an important shift in political theory caused a huge decline in the respectability of any "conspiratorial" explanation of historical events.
For decades prior to that conflict, one of our most prominent scholars and public intellectuals had been historian Charles Beard , whose influential writings had heavily focused on the harmful role of various elite conspiracies in shaping American policy for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, with his examples ranging from the earliest history of the United States down to the nation's entry into WWI. Obviously, researchers never claimed that all major historical events had hidden causes, but it was widely accepted that some of them did, and attempting to investigate those possibilities was deemed a perfectly acceptable academic enterprise.
However, Beard was a strong opponent of American entry into the Second World War, and he was marginalized in the years that followed, even prior to his death in 1948. Many younger public intellectuals of a similar bent also suffered the same fate, or were even purged from respectability and denied any access to the mainstream media. At the same time, the totally contrary perspectives of two European political philosophers, Karl Popper and Leo Strauss , gradually gained ascendancy in American intellectual circles, and their ideas became dominant in public life.
Popper, the more widely influential, presented broad, largely theoretical objections to the very possibility of important conspiracies ever existing, suggesting that these would be implausibly difficult to implement given the fallibility of human agents; what might appear a conspiracy actually amounted to individual actors pursuing their narrow aims. Even more importantly, he regarded "conspiratorial beliefs" as an extremely dangerous social malady, a major contributing factor to the rise of Nazism and other deadly totalitarian ideologies. His own background as an individual of Jewish ancestry who had fled Austria in 1937 surely contributed to the depth of his feelings on these philosophical matters.
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.
Even for most educated Americans, theorists such as Beard, Popper, and Strauss are probably no more than vague names mentioned in textbooks, and that was certainly true in my own case. But while the influence of Beard seems to have largely disappeared in elite circles, the same is hardly true of his rivals. Popper probably ranks as one of the founders of modern liberal thought, with an individual as politically influential as left-liberal financier George Soros claiming to be his intellectual disciple . Meanwhile, the neo-conservative thinkers who have totally dominated the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement for the last couple of decades often proudly trace their ideas back to Strauss.
So, through a mixture of Popperian and Straussian thinking, the traditional American tendency to regard elite conspiracies as a real but harmful aspect of our society was gradually stigmatized as either paranoid or politically dangerous, laying the conditions for its exclusion from respectable discourse.
By 1964, this intellectual revolution had largely been completed, as indicated by the overwhelmingly positive reaction to the famous article by political scientist Richard Hofstadter critiquing the so-called "paranoid style" in American politics , which he denounced as the underlying cause of widespread popular belief in implausible conspiracy theories. To a considerable extent, he seemed to be attacking straw men, recounting and ridiculing the most outlandish conspiratorial beliefs, while seeming to ignore the ones that had been proven correct. For example, he described how some of the more hysterical anti-Communists claimed that tens of thousands of Red Chinese troops were hidden in Mexico, preparing an attack on San Diego, while he failed to even acknowledge that for years Communist spies had indeed served near the very top of the U.S. government. Not even the most conspiratorially minded individual suggests that all alleged conspiracies are true, merely that some of them might be.
Most of these shifts in public sentiment occurred before I was born or when I was a very young child, and my own views were shaped by the rather conventional media narratives that I absorbed. Hence, for nearly my entire life, I always automatically dismissed all of the so-called "conspiracy theories" as ridiculous, never once even considering that any of them might possibly be true.
To the extent that I ever thought about the matter, my reasoning was simple and based on what seemed like good, solid common sense. Any conspiracy responsible for some important public event must surely have many separate "moving parts" to it, whether actors or actions taken, let us say numbering at least 100 or more. Now given the imperfect nature of all attempts at concealment, it would surely be impossible for all of these to be kept entirely hidden. So even if a conspiracy were initially 95% successful in remaining undetected, five major clues would still be left in plain sight for investigators to find. And once the buzzing cloud of journalists noticed these, such blatant evidence of conspiracy would certainly attract an additional swarm of energetic investigators, tracing those items back to their origins, with more pieces gradually being uncovered until the entire cover-up likely collapsed. Even if not all the crucial facts were ever determined, at least the simple conclusion that there had indeed been some sort of conspiracy would quickly become established.
However, there was a tacit assumption in my reasoning, one that I have since decided was entirely false. Obviously, many potential conspiracies either involve powerful governmental officials or situations in which their disclosure would represent a source of considerable embarrassment to such individuals. But I had always assumed that even if government failed in its investigatory role, the dedicated bloodhounds of the Fourth Estate would invariably come through, tirelessly seeking truth, ratings, and Pulitzers. However, once I gradually began realizing that the media was merely "Our American Pravda" and perhaps had been so for decades, I suddenly recognized the flaw in my logic. If those five-or ten or twenty or fifty-initial clues were simply ignored by the media, whether through laziness, incompetence, or much less venial sins, then there would be absolutely nothing to prevent successful conspiracies from taking place and remaining undetected, perhaps even the most blatant and careless ones.
In fact, I would extend this notion to a general principle. Substantial control of the media is almost always an absolute prerequisite for any successful conspiracy, the greater the degree of control the better. So when weighing the plausibility of any conspiracy, the first matter to investigate is who controls the local media and to what extent.
Let us consider a simple thought-experiment. For various reasons these days, the entire American media is extraordinarily hostile to Russia, certainly much more so than it ever was toward the Communist Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s. Hence I would argue that the likelihood of any large-scale Russian conspiracy taking place within the operative zone of those media organs is virtually nil. Indeed, we are constantly bombarded with stories of alleged Russian conspiracies that appear to be "false positives," dire allegations seemingly having little factual basis or actually being totally ridiculous. Meanwhile, even the crudest sort of anti-Russian conspiracy might easily occur without receiving any serious mainstream media notice or investigation.
This argument may be more than purely hypothetical. A crucial turning point in America's renewed Cold War against Russia was the passage of the 2012 Magnitsky Act by Congress, punitively targeting various supposedly corrupt Russian officials for their alleged involvement in the illegal persecution and death of an employee of Bill Browder, an American hedge-fund manager with large Russian holdings. However, there's actually quite a bit of evidence that it was Browder himself who was actually the mastermind and beneficiary of the gigantic corruption scheme, while his employee was planning to testify against him and was therefore fearful of his life for that reason. Naturally, the American media has provided scarcely a single mention of these remarkable revelations regarding what might amount to a gigantic Magnitsky Hoax of geopolitical significance.
To some extent the creation of the Internet and the vast proliferation of alternative media outlets, including my own small webzine , have somewhat altered this depressing picture. So it is hardly surprising that a very substantial fraction of the discussion dominating these Samizdat-like publications concerns exactly those subjects regularly condemned as "crazy conspiracy theories" by our mainstream media organs. Such unfiltered speculation must surely be a source of considerable irritation and worry to government officials who have long relied upon the complicity of their tame media organs to allow their serious misdeeds to pass unnoticed and unpunished. Indeed, several years ago a senior Obama Administration official argued that the free discussion of various "conspiracy theories" on the Internet was so potentially harmful that government agents should be recruited to "cognitively infiltrate" and disrupt them, essentially proposing a high-tech version of the highly controversial Cointelpro operations undertaken by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI.
Until just a few years ago I'd scarcely even heard of Charles Beard, once ranked among the towering figures of 20th century American intellectual life . But the more I've discovered the number of serious crimes and disasters that have completely escaped substantial media scrutiny, the more I wonder what other matters may still remain hidden. So perhaps Beard was correct all along in recognizing the respectability of "conspiracy theories," and we should return to his traditional American way of thinking, notwithstanding endless conspiratorial propaganda campaigns by the CIA and others to persuade us that we should dismiss such notions without any serious consideration.
For Further Reading:
- Our American Pravda
- American Pravda: Was General Patton Assassinated?
- American Pravda: Alexander Cockburn and the British Spies
- John McCain: When "Tokyo Rose" Ran for President
- The Good Fortune of Mr. Browder? – Israel Shamir
- The Magnitsky Hoax? – Philip Giraldi
- Kirt says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:26 am GMT • 100 Words
Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement by more than one person to do something evil and then the pursuit of that plan. Secrecy may be needed for the success of a conspiracy, but it is not essential to the definition.
Were it essential to the definition, you could never prove the existence of a conspiracy. Either secrecy would be maintained and there would be little or no evidence or secrecy would not be maintained and the plan would become known and by definition not be a conspiracy.
• Replies: @Erik Sieven "Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement by more than one person to do something evil and then the pursuit of that plan." but probably everything think that what he does is good, not evil Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:55 am GMT • 100 Words
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."
–William Casey, CIA Director, from a first staff meeting in 1981
You can read the context of that quote according to the person who claims to be its original source here:
I think it's worth pointing out what I've never seen explained about that quote, a quote with as much currency in the conspiracy theory fever swamps as any single quote has ever had. The point of the disinformation campaign was not to manipulate the public but to manipulate the soviets. Because our CIA analysts spent so much time unriddling the soviet media, we figured their CIA analysts were doing the same thing with ours.
• Replies: @AnotherLover People dismiss obviousness and redundancy, yet often both are necessary to fully paint the picture. Where you wrote:"The point of the disinformation campaign was not to manipulate the public but to manipulate the soviets"
you could have been more accurate by continuing:
"by manipulating the public."
Ah, redundant and obvious to be sure, but more complete, no? Should it pacify the average prole to know that not even their acquiescence is desired of them, but that they are useful as a disinformation tool? Have things changed since then? Is less intelligence publicly available today? Or more? And what lessons did the CIA learn in manipulating public opinion by domestic propaganda operations in the meantime?
Sure, the context of the quote adds the realism it's clearly lacking as it floats by itself surrounded by quotation marks, yet the takeaway is the same, is it not? A massive intelligence operation designed to confuse the public with the media is what we've got on the table. Let that sink in good and hard. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- FKA Max says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:56 am GMT • 400 Words
Mr. Unz,
this study/paper might by of interest to you: emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/CONSPIRE.doc
[MORE]
Note: This paper was published in Political Psychology 15: 733-744, 1994. This is the original typescript sent to the journal, it does not include any editorial changes that may have been made. The journal itself is not available online, to my knowledge.
Belief in Conspiracy Theories
Ted Goertzel1
Running Head: Belief in Conspiracy Theories.
KEY WORDS: conspiracy theories, anomia, trust
Table Three
Means Scores of Racial/Ethnic Groups on Attitude Scales
White[W] Hispanic[H] Black[B]
Scale
Belief in Conspiracies 2.5[W] 2.8[H] 3.3[B]
Anomia 3.4[W] 3.8[H] 4.1[B]
Trust 3.7[W] 3.3[H] 3.1[B]
Note: All scales varied from 1 to 5, with 3 as a neutral score.One of the most interesting discussions of the paper:
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All CommentsIt is puzzling that conspiratorial thinking has been overlooked in the extensive research on authoritarianism which has dominated quantitative work in political psychology since the 1950s. One possible explanation is that much of this work focuses on right-wing authoritarianism (Altmeyer, 1988), while conspiratorial thinking is characteristic of alienated thinkers on both the right and the left (Citrin, et al., 1975; Graumann, 1987; Berlet, 1992). Even more surprisingly, however, conspiratorial thinking has not been a focus of the efforts to measure "left-wing authoritarianism" (Stone, 1980; Eysenck, 1981; LeVasseur & Gold, 1993) or of research with the "dogmatism" concept (Rokeach, 1960) which was intended to overcome the ideological bias in authoritarianism measures.
On a more fundamental level, the difficulty with existing research traditions may be their focus on the content of beliefs rather than the res[p]ondent's cognitive processes or emotional makeup. As I have argued elsewhere (Goertzel, 1987), most studies of authoritarianism simply ask people what they believe and then assume that these beliefs must be based on underlying psychological processes which go unmeasured. Since these scales ask mostly about beliefs held by those on the right, it is not surprising that they find authoritarianism to be a right-wing phenomenon. Research with projective tests (Rothman and Lichter, 1982) and biographical materials (Goertzel, 1992), on the other hand, has confirmed that many aspects of authoritarian thinking can be found on both the left and the right.
- Carlton Meyer says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:08 am GMT • 900 Words
One of the greatest conspiracy theories of our time is that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9-11. This is refuted by the US government, despite occasional suggestions by political leaders. From my blog, that has links:
May 21, 2016 – Another 9-11 Truther
[MORE]
In my April 16th blog post, I mentioned that former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman and 9-11 Commission co-chair Bob Graham had become a "Truther", i.e. one who openly doubts the official 9-11 story. It seems the powers that be tried to shut him up. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) openly criticized the Obama administration for trying to strong-arm Graham, who is pushing to declassify 28 pages of the 9/11 report dealing with Saudi Arabia. He recounted how Rep. Gwen Graham (D-Fla.) and her father, former Senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.), were detained by the FBI at Dulles International Airport outside Washington. He said the FBI "took a former senator, a former governor, grabbed him in an airport, hustled him into a room with armed force to try to intimidate him into taking different positions on issues of public policy and important national policy."Last week, another Republican member of the 9-11 Commission, former Navy Secretary John F Lehman, said there was clear evidence that Saudi government employees were part of a support network for the 9/11 hijackers – an allegation, congressional officials have confirmed, that is addressed in detail in the 28 pages. Lehman said: "there was an awful lot of participation by Saudi individuals in supporting the hijackers, and some of those people worked in the Saudi government."Events this past year in Syria highlighted close ties between Saudi Arabia, Israel, and our CIA The 9-11 attacks generated the "Pearl Harbor" type of anger they needed to rally the American people to support their semi-secret plan to conquer all the Arab world.
Here is a summary of events for those confused by American corporate media. Al Qaeda is not an organization. It is a CIA computer database of armed Arab nationalists who violently oppose western domination of the Arab world. (Al Qaeda is Arabic for database.) This database was established by the CIA in the 1980s when our CIA trained and armed Arabs to fight the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden (OBL) was never an official leader since it has never been a real organization, although he did lead a large group of Arab nationalists who lived in Afghanistan.
OBL had nothing to do with 9-11, he didn't even know about it until it was reported in the media. He was never formally accused of the attacks because there is zero evidence. OBL was a wealthy Saudi who is said to have inspired the attacks. Our government blamed a Kuwaiti, Khalid Shaikh Mohammad (pictured), and a dozen Saudis who died in the airplanes. These persons had never been to Afghanistan and are said to have planned and trained for the attacks in the Philippines, Germany, and the USA. Then why was Afghanistan invaded, and later Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen? But we did not invade Saudi Arabia! Instead, recall that days after 9-11 several jets from our federal Justice Department rounded up Saudi suspects in the USA and flew them home before FBI agents could ask them questions.
All this explains why the accused mastermind of the attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, has yet to go to trial almost 16 years since 9-11! He has not been allowed to speak to anyone outside the CIA Even the 9-11 Commission was not allowed to interview him. The U.S. military set up a kangaroo court at Gitmo to hold a trial many years ago, but brave military defense lawyers keep causing delays by insisting on a fair trial. It seems evidence is so "sensitive" that our CIA does not want it revealed. even in a secret military court. Whenever documents are requested by the defense, some are destroyed instead! This included all the CIA interrogations of the accused!
Our media propaganda is so prevalent that nearly all Americans think OBL was the 9-11 mastermind, and since he is dead the case is closed. However, there is zero evidence of his involvement, something our government has long acknowledged. Americans watched thousands of hours of television coverage of the 9-11 attacks. Ask one if they think the accused mastermind of the attacks should be put on trial, and they'll have no idea what you are talking about. More Americans are becoming aware and demanding action, who are demeaned as crazy "truthers", which now include two former members of our government's official 9-11 Commission once tasked with investigating these crimes.
The failed invasion of Syria has revealed that the Saudis, our CIA (with its defense contractor and media allies), and Israel have been working to conquer all the Arab world and control it with corruption and puppet dictators. Over the past couple years the Saudi government has changed hands and this CIA-Saudi-Israeli alliance has frayed, mostly because of failures in Syria and Yemen. Will the Saudis now be blamed for 9-11 to satisfy public demands for the truth, and to protect other conspirators? Will this lead to a CIA-Israeli coup to take over Saudi Arabia? Or will other high-level truthers surface and expose our nation's darkest secret? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Lot says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:14 am GMT • 100 Words
Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most of them will be crazy.
Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret because they already are in control. For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson.
The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered, such as Watergate and Iran Contra.
• Replies: @AbrahamGiven how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most of them will be crazy.A statement that appears straight out of the CIA's playbook.
Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret because they already are in control.
Such control does not imply they have nothing to hide, particularly when exposure of the deed would have damaging repercussions for them.
For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson.
It didn't reflect that of Israel's elites.
After JFK's assassination, American foreign policy vis a vis Israel was completely reversed under Johnson, who hung the crew of the USS Liberty out to dry.
The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered, such as Watergate and Iran Contra.
How is this a problem? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Chief Seattle says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:17 am GMT • 100 Words
So, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention. The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in the media, overnight.
Maybe it's true, maybe not, but if the roles had been reversed, the media would be telling its proponents to take off their tin foil hats.
• Replies: @art guerrilla ahhh, but 'Russkie!/squirrel!' worked, didn't it ? ? ?
virtually NOTHING about the actual content of the emails...
what was hysterical, was a followup not too long afterwards, where pelosi 'warned' that there might be a whole raft of other emails which said bad stuff and stuff, and, um, they were -like- probably, um, all, uh, fake and stuff...
it really is a funny tragi-comedy, isn't it ? ? ?
...then why am i crying inside... , @anti_republocrat Note also that the allegations immediately become "fact" because they were reported by someone else. As Business Insider reported, "Amid mounting evidence of Russia's involvement in the hack of the Democratic National Committee...," without any specificity whatsoever as to what that "mounting evidence" was (most likely multiple reports in other media) never mind that the article goes on to quote James Clapper, "...we are not quite ready yet to make a call on attribution." WTF! Here, read it yourself: http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-dnc-hack-black-propaganda-2016-7Totally mindless. So not only is Russia hacking, but we know it's intention is to influence US elections!!! And now their hacking voter DBs and will likely hack our vote tabulating machines. You can't make this s**t up. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Miro23 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:20 am GMT • 300 Words
The British and Americans have been the victims of conspiracies (False Flag operations) for years.
For example:
The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government of Palestine) in which Zionist activists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with explosives against the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44. Israeli prime Minister Netanyahu, attended a celebration to commemorate the event.
Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed British and American cinemas, libraries and educational centers in Egypt to destabilize the country and keep British troops committed to the Middle East.
Or June 8, 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats. 34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following over nine hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all lives lost on the Egyptians and draw the US into the war.
Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the most recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with Israelis once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that seems to carry a lot of kudos with old Israeli ex-terrorist Likudniks. Israeli agents were sent to film the historic day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations including photos of themselves with a background of the burning towers where thousands of Americans were being incinerated.
Iraq was destroyed as a result of 9/11 but unfortunately for the conspirators, the momentum wasn't sufficient for a general war including Iran. Also the general war would have included the nuclear angle and justified the activation of a neo-con led Emergency Regime (dictatorship) in the US enforced with the newly printed Patriot Act and Homeland Security troops – or maybe that's just another Conspiracy Theory?
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz I accept that your explanation of the attack on USS Liberty is relatively plausible but another which runs it close is that Israel had to ensure that there was no proof left of the true order of events which were not in accordance with the Israeli official version. So I ask what are your sources?Likewise, if you are saying that suicidal hijackers flew planes into buildings on 9/11 but that it was organised by Mossad or other Israelis your story needs a lot of filling out and evidence to be credible. Or are you merely saying the Israelis knew what was going to
happen and let it go ahead because it could be turned to their advantage? , @Konga So true!
But you forgot the two missiles shot from a NATO naval and HQ base in Spain towards Damascus, shot down by the Russians (two weeks before the "agreement" on chemical weapons, remember?) and then attributed to Israel's drills turned wrong... , @exiled off mainstreet The Israelis learned their false flag lesson from the Nazis, who used concentration camp inmates dressed as Polish soldiers as part of a phony attack on the frontier radio station "Sender Gleiwitz" a day or so before they invaded Poland. , @WowJustWow Come on. If you're going to false-flag 9/11, you hijack one plane. Hijacking four planes is exactly the kind of plan that has too many moving parts to be sensible. And it didn't go according to plan! Only three out of four planes hit their targets. If the hijackers on United 93 had been fully subdued and found to be Israelis in funny clothes, the other three planes would have been for nothing.I can see the USS Liberty one though. I've never heard a plausible explanation for it. Reply , @Sam Shama [Oh well, a delicious sweet dish will attract a fly as much as a gourmet.]
LOL. I'll compile a mental list of both. Aren't the comments missing someone btw? , Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jason Liu says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:19 am GMT
Kinda hinges on how people define conspiracy, doesn't it? Does a group of powerful people scheming constitute a conspiracy, or does it need to be lizard people in the White House?
The former assuredly happens all the time. And those conspiracies are likely quite boring.
• Replies: @Nathan Hale Correct. Of course conspiracies are real.Among the more famous ones include:
The Watergate break-in and the coverup.
Operation Valkyrie and other plots against Hitler.
The overthrow of the Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954.
In the corporate world, it often seems that upper management spends a bulk of their time conspiring against one another or entering into secret talks to sell the company to a rival, unbeknownst to the employees or shareholders. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
ore... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Emblematic says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 7:17 am GMT
I get the sense Ron's building up to something.
For those who haven't seen it, can I recommend Ryan Dawson's 'War by Deception':
• Replies: @Pat Casey
I get the sense Ron's building up to something.One can only hope. This time he mentioned 9/11--- so that base is covered; no need to say more about that than that; besides I doubt even he could add to what has already been published and posted on this site re that Big Lie. I would like to see how he weighs all the evidence on RFK's assassination, what he would be willing to call what looks like nothing as much as what MK-Ultra was about. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- polistra says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 8:03 am GMT • 100 Words
Simplifying one "contradiction": Our elites have never been primarily anti-Russian or pro-Russian.
Since 1946 our elites have been purely GLOBALIST, and their secondary feelings toward Russia strictly follow from this primary goal.
At first Russia was an obstacle to globalism, blocking much of the UN's efforts. Our elites were anti-Russian. After 1962 or so, Russia became the main driver of the UN, so our elites were pro-Russian. Since 1989, Russia has been the guiding star for ANTI-globalist forces, so our elites are FEROCIOUSLY anti-Russian.
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz I have a problem with the idea of likeminded elites who all move in srep together. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- smiddy says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 8:13 am GMT • 500 Words
Mr. Unz's direct confrontation with this topic leads me to feel a sense of sentimentality or coming full circle as my "red-pilled" experience literally started with his The Myth of American Meritocracy a little over 2 years ago (I finally looked into the "white privilege" I was "highly exposed" to in college).
Long story short, I was a lazy liberal beforehand, now a highly motivated conservative; nothing helps one get their ish together better than understanding the trajectory at which our society is heading. The Myth of American Meritocracy singularly led me to have a more open mind in understanding how non-congruent the mainstream narrative can be with man's shared universal reality, and having spent way too much time in school learning research methodology, I finally applied it via whim thereafter to criminal statistics (but we know where this story ends), then WW2, the mainstream narrative of which I grew up worshiping
For someone who, when I was naive, hung on to every word one heard or read in the countless amount of hours I've spent in American history classes, for me to learn the hard way of Operation Keelhaul, the Haavara Agreement, the disease epidemic, the migrant crisis (before hand), the hand THE banksters probably played (in playing both sides), and so on, it becomes all too clear how amazingly systematically corrupt our academic system has become. Not once did I ever hear one smidgen about those extremely large plot points; they're so consistently implicitly left out of the script its terrifying.
Alternating to my freshman year of high school now, when I was still naive, I complained to our just hired 22 year old (conveniently) Jewish teacher (fresh out of the Ivy League but back to sacrifice where he had graduated high school, he had always reminded us) over having to read about the Little Rock 9 and Ann Frank for literally (in my case) the 4th time (each). Point is, even when I was entirely clueless, and had no defensive instinct at all, it still didn't feel healthy to read over and over again; I was emotionally exhausted already. I accepted their stories at face value, faced the guilt, and just wanted to move on, yet according to my teacher I "lacked empathy" (so if only we were taught about how the Irish were treated in the 17th we'd be fine). It really is this kind of dwelling on the past that has been institutionalized, and its borderline brain-washing, regardless of the said tragedy's validity.
There is one such particular event of WW2 that, once naive, I've personally cried over more than any other historical event easily (perhaps even more than anything subjectively experienced), much in thanks to programmed televising So what's so weird about all of this, is its like a meta-intellectual betrayal, but with all the emotional connotations of a woman who wronged you in all the worse ways (and she's inevitably waiting in seemingly every dark corner of history you delve into, thus the "endless rabbit hole" you fall through). And its this implicit brand of deceit that is patently feminine which can be inductively read from the MSM to "read the tea leaves"
I could go on and on but really I initially just wanted to thank you Mr. Unz, your publication, and your current and past writing staff. I don't even want to imagine a world where I had never stumbled upon your work!
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Gordo says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 9:11 am GMT
Excellent article Mr. Unz.
- JL says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:40 am GMT • 100 Words
Perhaps the media tried too hard, were too eager to be complicit, and now they've completely lost the plot. The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media, suggests that a large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects entire media narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking. Not knowing what to do, they double and triple down on the same fail that got them into this mess. Truly interesting times.
Thanks, Mr. Unz, for your "small webzine".
• Replies: @John Jeremiah SmithThe rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media, suggests that a large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects entire media narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking.Are they? Or, have they simply fired the first few rounds of easily-dispatched, easily-targeted artillery? I do note that this is the most massive full-court press in support of the oligarchy that I have ever seen. But, I sense that political wars have moved from the court of public opinion and perception, into the courtyards of the moneyed elite. Inasmuch as no rich person has ever believed that he or she has enough money and power, the national political conflict is now composed solely of issues that affect the wealth and power of the 0.1%, which is itself segmented into areas of economic focus and varying forms of wealth acquisition. For example, if air transport systems threaten the wealth and power of ocean-based shipping, that competition between oligarchs will morph into politically-expressed contexts.There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human values, human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Gene Tuttle says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:41 am GMT • 300 Words
I've often used the argument myself that conspiracies inevitably have short shelf lives in the US because it was so difficult for Americans to keep secrets. The article makes a useful point in suggesting that secret plots, even after being revealed, may nevertheless remain widely ignored. Ideology, group-think, pack journalism etc. are powerful forces, often subconsciously at work, preventing alternative theories from developing legs.
Though long an admirer of Karl Popper, I hadn't strongly associated him with attacks on conspiracy theories per se. As an American "outsider" living abroad most of my adult life, I've all too often encountered those who assumed my background alone explained an argument of mine that they didn't like. Popper had hit the nail on the head when he wrote about
"a widespread and dangerous fashion of our time of not taking arguments seriously, and at their face value, at least tentatively, but of seeing in them nothing but a way in which deeper irrational motives and tendencies express themselves." It was "the attitude of looking at once for the unconscious motives and determinants in the social habitat of the thinker, instead of first examining the validity of the argument itself."
The powerful nazi and communist ideologies of his day assumed that one's " blood " or " class " precluded "correct" thinking. Those politically incorrect challengers to their own totalitarian weltanschauung were (to put it mildly) persecuted as conspirators. No doubt, as Ron Unz notes, Popper's personal experience "contributed the depth of his feelings" - I would say skepticism – about conspiracy claims.
But the author of the " Open Society " had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously" often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal collective interests.
• Replies: @Connecticut Famer "But the author of the "Open Society" had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously" often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal collective interests."Possibly as in the JFK case? I actually watched Lee Harvey Oswald get drilled by the man who was later identified as Jack Ruby (real surname "Rubenstein") live on television. The minute it happened and even at age 16 at the time I smelled a rat. Who was ultimately behind it all is something which I can't answer and care not to speculate upon, but to this day I remain suspicious about the circumstances surrounding Oswald's death and Ruby's subsequent dissembling. , @Bill Jones Nice try.
The Manhattan Project was successfully kept secret despite its scope and the fact that it consumed 17% of the electricity production of the entire US. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Rehmat says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 12:03 pm GMT • 200 Words
There are more so-called "conspiracy theories" claimed by the US government, CIA, and organized Jewry than the Jews may have been killed by the Nazis. The "conspiracy theorists" like the "terrorists" are chosen by the Zionist-controlled mainstream media.
Like the September 11, 2001 attacks, the lie that Iran's president Ahmadinejad called, WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP, is still kept alive by the Organized Jewry even though Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor admitted that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never said Iran wanted to "wipe Israel off the face of the map" in an interview with Al Jazeera in April 2012.
American investigative writer and author, Robert Parry, claimed on September 19, 2009 that Ahmadinejad never denied Holocaust. He just challenged Israel and the western powers to allow an open debate to find the truth behind the Zionist Holy Cow, "Six Million Died".
In reality, the only country that has been 'wiped off the map' is the 5,000-year-old Palestine by Europe's unwanted Jews.
Iran's current president Dr. Hassan Rouhani like Dr. Ahmadinejad, is also blamed for denying the Zionist Holy Holocaust as parroted by Wiesel, which he never did, saying it's up to historians to decide who's lying.
https://rehmat1.com/2013/09/28/holocaust-the-word-rouhani-never-uttered/
• Replies: @Moi If the Zionists can lie so much about Israeli history (e.g. The Arabs encouraged Palestinians to flee, that the Arabs were about to attack Israel in 1967, land without a people for a people without a land, etc.), one can only wonder about the official holocaust narrative of 6M dead, gas chambers, etc.).I've not read Elie Weisel's book Night, but I understand that no where does he mention gas chambers in Auschwitz.... , @dahoit The only conspiracy with legs is the 70 year old Zionist one,and the only one that matters today.
And only fellow travelers or their duped concern trolls disagree on that obvious truth.
Today's lying times says latent racism by the Danes is behind their resistance to their nation being inundated by the refugees of the zionists war of terror.
Coming from the malevolent racist scum in history,it sure wreaks of total hypocrisy,and another nail in divide and conquer.
Can one point out one synagogue or rabbinical statement condemning the 70 years of CCs and the imprisonment of Gaza?
The only Jewish opponents(outside of a few dissidents),the ultra Orthodox are considered self haters,as are the dissidents. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- The Alarmist says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 12:20 pm GMT
I'll believe in the moon landings as soon as the Mars Rover shows all of us what Congress Woman Shiela Jackson Lee was looking for when she asked if it could see the flags we left on the moon.
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz Are you presuming that it should be easy to travel over the entire moon surface and easily arrive at a precisely defined point - and that where the flags are is such a point? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 12:24 pm GMT • 300 Words
One conspiracy theory is that some of the wilder, more incredible notions of what may have taken place are deliberately circulated so as to muddy the waters and discredit those who question the party line. For example, outlandish claims by some that no planes were crashed on 9-11 but were really just holograms are seized upon by supposed debunkers as being representative of all skeptics, overshadowing the more reasonable types who question the narrative. This seems to be quite deliberate.
The mainstream American press is the freest in the world, we've been told endlessly, and at some point I realized that I was reading these accolades to itself in the very same press. Not the most objective source one comes to realize. Now on the internet it seems there are those who appear to fan out everywhere to influence the discussion, spread their slogans and shout down opposing ideas. Paid trolls and others?Conspiracies exist. Consider the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication which certainly involved many actors and yet the general public was kept in the dark about the real facts. The results need not be rehashed yet again. There's a streak of denial in most people. They don't want to contemplate the idea that FDR may have deliberately allowed American servicemen to die at Pearl Harbor in order to get the war he wanted. Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.
• Replies: @SolontoCroesusStepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.Is this built-in deceit and manipulation unique to American life, or -- beyond the usual understandings about human nature -- is the systematic or institutionalized "deceit and manipulation" present in all cultures? in western cultures? in some but not all cultures? If the lattermost, in which cultures is "deceit and manipulation" less systematic and institutionalized?Was "deceit and manipulation" institutionalized into American life from the beginning -- by the Founders, or did USA deviate from its intended path at some point? If so, at what point? How did it happen?
Is there the possibility of redemption? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 12:44 pm GMT • 100 Words @Emblematic I get the sense Ron's building up to something.
For those who haven't seen it, can I recommend Ryan Dawson's 'War by Deception':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK6VLFdWJ4I
I get the sense Ron's building up to something.
One can only hope. This time he mentioned 9/11- so that base is covered; no need to say more about that than that; besides I doubt even he could add to what has already been published and posted on this site re that Big Lie. I would like to see how he weighs all the evidence on RFK's assassination, what he would be willing to call what looks like nothing as much as what MK-Ultra was about.
• Replies: @anonymous Pearl Harbor (covered in "Day of Deceit") is good starting point. I strongly encourage Mr. Unz to read Robert Stinnet's book next before moving on.FDR never intended that 2,400 Americans would die there. He just thought that if Japan "struck first", he could justify our entry into WWII to the public. What's really fascinating (and almost wholly unknown) is the sequence of events and headlines from December 8 to December 11, 1941, the date Hitler declared war on the USA.
While Pearl Harbor meant war with Japan, it did not necessarily guarantee war with Nazi Germany. For 72 hours, no one could be sure that Germany would declare war on us. Did FDR manipulate events post-Pearl Harbor to ensure it did happen? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 12:44 pm GMT • 100 Words @Miro23 The British and Americans have been the victims of conspiracies (False Flag operations) for years.
For example:
The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government of Palestine) in which Zionist activists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with explosives against the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44. Israeli prime Minister Netanyahu, attended a celebration to commemorate the event.
Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed British and American cinemas, libraries and educational centers in Egypt to destabilize the country and keep British troops committed to the Middle East.
Or June 8, 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats. 34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following over nine hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all lives lost on the Egyptians and draw the US into the war.
Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the most recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with Israelis once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that seems to carry a lot of kudos with old Israeli ex-terrorist Likudniks. Israeli agents were sent to film the historic day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations including photos of themselves with a background of the burning towers where thousands of Americans were being incinerated.
Iraq was destroyed as a result of 9/11 but unfortunately for the conspirators, the momentum wasn't sufficient for a general war including Iran. Also the general war would have included the nuclear angle and justified the activation of a neo-con led Emergency Regime (dictatorship) in the US enforced with the newly printed Patriot Act and Homeland Security troops - or maybe that's just another Conspiracy Theory?
I accept that your explanation of the attack on USS Liberty is relatively plausible but another which runs it close is that Israel had to ensure that there was no proof left of the true order of events which were not in accordance with the Israeli official version. So I ask what are your sources?
Likewise, if you are saying that suicidal hijackers flew planes into buildings on 9/11 but that it was organised by Mossad or other Israelis your story needs a lot of filling out and evidence to be credible. Or are you merely saying the Israelis knew what was going to
• Replies: @Miro23 [Sorry, long reply]
happen and let it go ahead because it could be turned to their advantage?The basic fact about the USS Liberty is that an American navy ship was attacked with the aim of sinking it, which is an Act of War since the ship was clearly marked.
In contrast, the attacking Israeli jets and torpedo boats were unmarked (i.e. they wanted to hide their identity), so a question is why were they unmarked if this was a standard military interception?
Whether the Israelis wanted to trigger a US attack on Egypt or hide their communications with regard to their attack on Syria is a secondary question. The main concern of the United States surely had to be to rescue their seamen and respond to the aggression.
And, this is where the story turns really nasty.
At least two rescue attempts were launched from US aircraft carriers nearby, but after the (obligatory) communication to Washington, both rescue flights were cancelled within minutes on direct orders of Secretary of Defence, Robert McNamara (source: 6th Fleet Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis speaking in confidence to the senior Liberty survivor, Naval Security Group officer, Lieutenant Commander David Lewis in a meeting requested by Geis).
Surviving personnel all received strict orders not say anything to anyone about the attack.
Eyewitness accounts say that 4 nuclear armed aircraft were simultaneously launched from the aircraft carrier America on the instructions of President Johnson only to be recalled when, presumably, the information came through that the Israelis had not succeeded in sinking the Liberty. Nuclear weapons were not needed to defend the Liberty.
Also there was an oral history report from the American Embassy in Cairo, (now in the LBJ Library), which notes that the Embassy received an urgent message from Washington warning that Cairo was about to be bombed by US forces.
An investigation led by Thomas Moorer, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff held the opinion that the Israeli motive was to draw the US into war against Egypt , through a false subterfuge of the same type as their King David Hotel bombing and Lavon Affair operations.
Any rational person has to conclude that Johnson was virtually following Israeli orders, which raises the question of why? Maybe they were blackmailing him with regard to something else that was more important to him than the destruction of Cairo?
9/11 had some of the same features as other Israeli False Flag attacks against Britain and the US, such as Israelis dressed as Arabs (framed Arabs) motivated towards tricking these countries into military action against Arab states. In fact the Israeli involvement in 9/11 was much deeper and more generalized as shown in investigative reporter Christopher Bollyn's book, "Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World". https://www.amazon.com/Solving-9-11-Deception-Changed-World/dp/0985322586/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
15 years later his account is supported in multiple ways from investigations in Florida (they didn't sneak in unseen – they were highly visible and got red carpet treatment with regard to visas etc. and they were completely incapable of flying the 9/11 airliners at the speeds and on the trajectories seen on the day + everyone who had contact with them was visited by the F.B.I. and told to shut up) - Source, a detailed and very interesting investigation by Daniel Hopsicker in "Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta and the 9/11 Cover-Up in Florida. https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
High-rise buildings don't collapse due to fire (reason given by the US government). All high rise fire disasters have been examined in detail, with most of them much more intense than the WTC ones, and no building collapsed - let alone in 7 seconds and three on the same day.
These Arabs didn't fly the jets and it's now clear that the buildings were taken down by placed explosives - the aim being to trick the US into an Iraq and Iran war and possibly launch an "Emergency" Neo-con regime (dictatorship) in the US led by Cheney and enforced by the Patriot Act/ Homeland security.
The other aspect here is that a government (and media) which genuinely represented the American people would give top priority to revealing the truth about the USS Liberty and 9/11 rather than engage in the present obfuscation, blocking, threats, smears and hiding of the truth. , @Alden Re: your first question about the USS Liberty. The media covered it up completely. I was a young adult who read the newspaper every day plus Atlantic. new Republic and sometimes Newsweek.
And I never, never heard about it until 20 years later when I began reading books about ZionismI've read the book written by survivors. They were severely coerced to not say a word about it. I wouldn't be surprised if they were not threatened with death if they talked. They were in the navy remember and subject to the military code of Justice which means no ha rays corpus no access to attorneys until the trial and other nasty things.
I can't have an opinion about 9/11 because there is no way I can discover the truth. Silverstein's insurance payout is just a version of a standard insurance scam. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- SolontoCroesus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 1:24 pm GMT • 100 Words @anonymous One conspiracy theory is that some of the wilder, more incredible notions of what may have taken place are deliberately circulated so as to muddy the waters and discredit those who question the party line. For example, outlandish claims by some that no planes were crashed on 9-11 but were really just holograms are seized upon by supposed debunkers as being representative of all skeptics, overshadowing the more reasonable types who question the narrative. This seems to be quite deliberate.
The mainstream American press is the freest in the world, we've been told endlessly, and at some point I realized that I was reading these accolades to itself in the very same press. Not the most objective source one comes to realize. Now on the internet it seems there are those who appear to fan out everywhere to influence the discussion, spread their slogans and shout down opposing ideas. Paid trolls and others?
Conspiracies exist. Consider the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication which certainly involved many actors and yet the general public was kept in the dark about the real facts. The results need not be rehashed yet again. There's a streak of denial in most people. They don't want to contemplate the idea that FDR may have deliberately allowed American servicemen to die at Pearl Harbor in order to get the war he wanted. Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.
Is this built-in deceit and manipulation unique to American life, or - beyond the usual understandings about human nature - is the systematic or institutionalized "deceit and manipulation" present in all cultures? in western cultures? in some but not all cultures? If the lattermost, in which cultures is "deceit and manipulation" less systematic and institutionalized?
Was "deceit and manipulation" institutionalized into American life from the beginning - by the Founders, or did USA deviate from its intended path at some point? If so, at what point? How did it happen?
Is there the possibility of redemption?
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz It would be worth considering the different contributions to truth telling and also honest scepticism of the Puritan and other Protestant culture, and of the Enlightenment for a start. Some subjects were difficult - like whether there is a God for all Christians and of course the one that must have addled many brains: slavery. , @John Jeremiah SmithIs there the possibility of redemption?Of what is "redemption" constituted? Considering that fewer than 20% of American residents during the Revolution were actually involved in the revolt, with an estimated 40% preferring to retain the colony under monarchy, and considering that the ethical and political awareness of the Average American and the Average Illegal Resident Alien have gone downhill from there, can it honestly be said that there's enough true flavor of human rights and equal access/opportunity to redeem? , @Mulegino1 To my mind, the real point of deviation in the history of the United States is the Spanish American War, and the transformation of America from a tellurocratic to a thallasocratic power. America's traditional role had been that of a vast, continental, land based power, eschewing intervention in the affairs of Europe and the rest of the world outside the Western Hemisphere. (This is largely the reason that the Russian Czar allied with the Union in the American Civil War).Unfortunately, America's traditional tellurocratic role was abandonded - thanks to the likes of Admiral ("Victory through Sea Power") Mahan, John Hay, and the loopy Teddy Roosevelt, inter alia - and the nation went on to embrace the role of international arbiter and busybody, and became insatiable in the pursuit of empire, with catastrophic results for the world. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 1:32 pm GMT @polistra Simplifying one "contradiction":
Our elites have never been primarily anti-Russian or pro-Russian. Since 1946 our elites have been purely GLOBALIST, and their secondary feelings toward Russia strictly follow from this primary goal.
At first Russia was an obstacle to globalism, blocking much of the UN's efforts. Our elites were anti-Russian. After 1962 or so, Russia became the main driver of the UN, so our elites were pro-Russian. Since 1989, Russia has been the guiding star for ANTI-globalist forces, so our elites are FEROCIOUSLY anti-Russian.
I have a problem with the idea of likeminded elites who all move in srep together.
• Replies: @Bill Jones They don't move in lockstep-(I assume you meant) together.
They do however have a series of identical interests:Lower taxes on Capital Gains and Dividends than on Earned Income.
No barriers to entry to low-wage unskilled workers for jobs that need to be performed in the US.
No barriers to goods produced from low-wage countries, no matter what the conditions they are produced in.
Control of the Federal Reserve.
Tax-payer bailouts of failing institutions.
etc, etc.
If you want to get into it, I'm happy to. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- biz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 1:48 pm GMT • 200 Words
Actually, there is no symmetry in conspiracy theories as you imply.
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
So, just to cite one example, all of the 9/11 controlled demolition stuff is a conspiracy theory because at first it had the government and maybe the property owners in on the secret, but then the circle of supposed conspirators was enlarged to include the editors of Popular Mechanics after they did their study. Or take the moon landing, which involved 'only' thousands of NASA people until you point out that the astronauts left mirrors on the surface of the moon in a precise location, for which astronomers around the world use laser ranging to determine the distance to the moon down to the centimeter level. So then the astronomers who claim to do this had to be added to the list of conspirators and liars for this theory to stand. Then of course the more you point out, the more people who have to get added to the conspiracy, which eventually becomes all of the television industry, and even the Soviets!
That is the reason why the so-called alternative explanations for 9/11, the moon landing, the various assassinations, the safety of vaccines, etc, are conspiracy theories, while the mainstream explanations are not.
• Replies: @John Jeremiah SmithThe definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.LOL x 2. I think you're saying that the above is YOUR definition of "conspiracy theory", not to be confused with any real and accurate definition of "conspiracy theory". , @zib but then the circle of supposed conspirators was enlarged to include the editors of Popular Mechanics after they did their studyNice attempt to conflate the planners and executors of the 9/11 attacks with those who run interference for the "official" history of what happened that day. PM editors aren't "conspirators" of the deed, they're just a mouthpiece for NIST.
Here's a link to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth's evisceration of Popular Mechanics hit piece against skeptics of the NIST whitewash:
http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/604-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality-part-1.html
Let's see how you rationalize this one. If you have the cajones, that is. , @Boris
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.This is a fairly useful definition, and certainly highlights some of the pathological reasoning that is associated with conspiracy theories. However, not all conspiracy theories will exhibit this characteristic. Conspiracies like 9/11 that rely on scientific facts are sometimes rationalized this way, but other conspiracies are built on suspect witness testimony or a biased interpretation and don't require an ever-widening conspiracy. , Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:03 pm GMT • 100 Words @SolontoCroesus
Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.Is this built-in deceit and manipulation unique to American life, or -- beyond the usual understandings about human nature -- is the systematic or institutionalized "deceit and manipulation" present in all cultures? in western cultures? in some but not all cultures? If the lattermost, in which cultures is "deceit and manipulation" less systematic and institutionalized?Was "deceit and manipulation" institutionalized into American life from the beginning -- by the Founders, or did USA deviate from its intended path at some point? If so, at what point? How did it happen?
Is there the possibility of redemption?
It would be worth considering the different contributions to truth telling and also honest scepticism of the Puritan and other Protestant culture, and of the Enlightenment for a start. Some subjects were difficult – like whether there is a God for all Christians and of course the one that must have addled many brains: slavery.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:22 pm GMT • 600 Words
Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss.
The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall–and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?–is on Thoughts on Machiavelli . Strauss does so, first and foremost, because conspiracy is a major theme of Machiavelli's and the subject of the two longest chapters of his two most important books ( Prince 19 and Discourses III 6). Strauss further develops the idea that modern philosophy begins as a conspiracy between Machiavelli and (some of) his readers. Strauss simply never said anything like this:
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.
As for his relationship with neoconservatism, you also overstate that considerably. Yes, there are many neoconservative Straussians. But there are also Straussian paleos, tradcons, liberatarians, liberals, and moderates. There are many who are apolitical and interested only in abstract philosophy. There are Straussian religious conservatives, agnostics and atheists. Christians, Jews and Muslim. Catholic, Protestants and Mormons. The neocons just get all the attention–owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration, which everyone today believes without having read, or even being aware of (have/are you?).
If "neocon" has any meaning, it means, first, a former intellectual liberal who has drifted right. Second, a domestic policy scholar who focuses on data-driven social science. And third, a foreign policy hawk.
None of these really apply to Strauss, who spent his who career studying political philosophy, with an intense focus on the Greeks. He voted Dem in every election in which he could vote, until his last, 1972, when he voted for Nixon out of Cold War concerns. You might say that makes him a "hawk" but he never wrote any essays saying so. He simply told a few people privately that McGovern was too naïve about the Soviets. You might also say that is evidence that he "drifted right" but he didn't think so. He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death. As for data-driven social science, he famously attacked it in of the very few of his writings that ever got any attention in mainstream political science ("An Epilogue").
You may well be right about the CIA's role in popularizing the phrase "conspiracy theory." But Leo Strauss had nothing to do with it. Or, if he did, he hid his role exceptionally well, because there is no evidence of such in his writings.
• Replies: @SolontoCroesus C Bradley Thompson was educated/trained as a Straussian neoconservative, then got mugged by reality and started to re-assess his own philosophical orientation.One of the most interesting points Thompson makes in this discussion of his book, Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, occurs in the Q&A segment when he demonstrates that Strauss was, indeed, an acolyte of Nazi philosopher Carl Schmitt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Oh6DmjQaho , @Ron Unz
Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss. The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall–and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?....The neocons just get all the attention–owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration...He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death.I'll candidly admit I haven't read a single one of Strauss's own books, nor even that very influential James Atlas article you dislike so intensely. Instead, I was merely summarizing the extensive arguments of Prof. deHaven-Smith, who, as a prominent political scientist, is presumably quite familiar with Strauss, though I don't doubt that his views might differ considerably from your own.But on your second point, I do remember seeing a very amusing private letter of Strauss that came to light about a decade or so ago. Written shortly after his arrival in America, it was addressed to a fellow ultra-rightwing Jewish exile from Europe, and in it he praised fascism and (I think) Nazism to the skies, arguing that their regrettable deviation into "anti-Semitism" (which had precipitated his own personal exile from Germany) should in no way be considered a refutation of all the other wonderful aspects of those political doctrines. This leads me to wonder if Strauss was truly the "liberal" you suggest, or perhaps was instead engaging in exactly the sort of "ideological crypsis" that seems such an important part of his political philosophy...
It's likely my faulty memory may have garbled important aspects of the letter I mention, and given your expertise on Straussian issues, I'm sure you should be able to locate it and easily correct me. , @Pat Casey Actually I don't think Ron is so far off. And I think, at best, you must be overeducated. Strauss held that authentic philosophy is a conspiracy . From there, certain practical advice about how to carry out the philosophy of the true philosopher follows. Such advice would about seem to be how Ron said it was.
I have not read the essay by Atlas. But for the duration of the Bush Administration I did read the Weekly Standard. I recall in particular one time when the editors recommended what books to bring to the beach, and Bill Kristol said "anything by Leo Strauss." My impression is that the Weekly Standard's brazen propaganda back then was the way certain editors understood themselves to be acting like Strauss's true disciples.
And of course now Krystol is hocking a former spook to run against Trump in Utah. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Connecticut Famer says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:28 pm GMT • 100 Words @Gene Tuttle I've often used the argument myself that conspiracies inevitably have short shelf lives in the US because it was so difficult for Americans to keep secrets. The article makes a useful point in suggesting that secret plots, even after being revealed, may nevertheless remain widely ignored. Ideology, group-think, pack journalism etc. are powerful forces, often subconsciously at work, preventing alternative theories from developing legs.
Though long an admirer of Karl Popper, I hadn't strongly associated him with attacks on conspiracy theories per se. As an American "outsider" living abroad most of my adult life, I've all too often encountered those who assumed my background alone explained an argument of mine that they didn't like. Popper had hit the nail on the head when he wrote about
"a widespread and dangerous fashion of our time...of not taking arguments seriously, and at their face value, at least tentatively, but of seeing in them nothing but a way in which deeper irrational motives and tendencies express themselves." It was "the attitude of looking at once for the unconscious motives and determinants in the social habitat of the thinker, instead of first examining the validity of the argument itself."The powerful nazi and communist ideologies of his day assumed that one's " blood " or " class " precluded "correct" thinking. Those politically incorrect challengers to their own totalitarian weltanschauung were (to put it mildly) persecuted as conspirators. No doubt, as Ron Unz notes, Popper's personal experience "contributed the depth of his feelings" -- I would say skepticism – about conspiracy claims.But the author of the " Open Society " had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously" often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal collective interests.
"But the author of the "Open Society" had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously" often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal collective interests."
Possibly as in the JFK case? I actually watched Lee Harvey Oswald get drilled by the man who was later identified as Jack Ruby (real surname "Rubenstein") live on television. The minute it happened and even at age 16 at the time I smelled a rat. Who was ultimately behind it all is something which I can't answer and care not to speculate upon, but to this day I remain suspicious about the circumstances surrounding Oswald's death and Ruby's subsequent dissembling.
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz I don't dismiss your intuitions as such but you hardly present a great case for affording them much weight. What you immediately felt at age 16 watching a screen? Nope. The fact that Jack Ruby dissembled? , @dahoit I was 12 and had the same feeling. Lanskys mob member shoots down any investigation into just what happened that day. And remember Arlen Spector came up with the magic bullet theory,and was rewarded with Congress. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:39 pm GMT • 100 Words @Pat Casey
I get the sense Ron's building up to something.One can only hope. This time he mentioned 9/11--- so that base is covered; no need to say more about that than that; besides I doubt even he could add to what has already been published and posted on this site re that Big Lie. I would like to see how he weighs all the evidence on RFK's assassination, what he would be willing to call what looks like nothing as much as what MK-Ultra was about.Pearl Harbor (covered in "Day of Deceit") is good starting point. I strongly encourage Mr. Unz to read Robert Stinnet's book next before moving on.
FDR never intended that 2,400 Americans would die there. He just thought that if Japan "struck first", he could justify our entry into WWII to the public. What's really fascinating (and almost wholly unknown) is the sequence of events and headlines from December 8 to December 11, 1941, the date Hitler declared war on the USA.
While Pearl Harbor meant war with Japan, it did not necessarily guarantee war with Nazi Germany. For 72 hours, no one could be sure that Germany would declare war on us. Did FDR manipulate events post-Pearl Harbor to ensure it did happen?
• Replies: @Hibernian "FDR never intended that 2,400 Americans would die there."Did he think our forces at Pearl, lacking needed intelligence, would limit the losses to a lesser number? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- John Jeremiah Smith says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:44 pm GMT • 100 Words @biz Actually, there is no symmetry in conspiracy theories as you imply.
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
So, just to cite one example, all of the 9/11 controlled demolition stuff is a conspiracy theory because at first it had the government and maybe the property owners in on the secret, but then the circle of supposed conspirators was enlarged to include the editors of Popular Mechanics after they did their study. Or take the moon landing, which involved 'only' thousands of NASA people until you point out that the astronauts left mirrors on the surface of the moon in a precise location, for which astronomers around the world use laser ranging to determine the distance to the moon down to the centimeter level. So then the astronomers who claim to do this had to be added to the list of conspirators and liars for this theory to stand. Then of course the more you point out, the more people who have to get added to the conspiracy, which eventually becomes all of the television industry, and even the Soviets!
That is the reason why the so-called alternative explanations for 9/11, the moon landing, the various assassinations, the safety of vaccines, etc, are conspiracy theories, while the mainstream explanations are not.
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
LOL x 2. I think you're saying that the above is YOUR definition of "conspiracy theory", not to be confused with any real and accurate definition of "conspiracy theory".
• Replies: @biz No what I have put is the generally accepted definition used in journalistic and sociological works about conspiracy theory culture, e.g. this book . Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jacques Sheete says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:46 pm GMT • 100 Words
Superb article.
It's good to see that Mr. Beard is getting some well deserved good press. It's also good to have people put on alert about Leo Strauss; his name should be a household word, and that of derision.
I first learned of the fool at LewRockwell.com, and I feel it's worth investigating him as a source of the goofy neocon outlook that the world's been suffering under for decades.
"Strauss, who opposed the idea of individual rights, maintained that neither the ancient world nor the Christian envisioned strict, absolute limits on state power.
Straussian neoconservatism is not conservatism as it has ever been understood in America or anywhere else "
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/09/thomas-woods/the-neocon-godfather/
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Paul Jolliffe says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:53 pm GMT • 100 Words
Mr. Unz,
Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media" in which he addresses – and confirms – your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a figure than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades . . .
http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
• Replies: @Ron UnzHere is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media" in which he addresses – and confirms – your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a figure than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades...Thanks so much for the excellent reference to the Bernstein article, of which I hadn't been aware. I found it fascinating, not least because of all the speculations floating around over the last decade or two that Bernstein's famed collaborator, Bob Woodward, had had an intelligence background, and perhaps Watergate represented a plot by elements of the CIA to remove Nixon from the White House. As for the 25,000 word article itself, I'd suggest that people read it. Since quite a lot of this comment-thread is already filled with debates about the supposed liberalism of Leo Strauss and an alleged Moon Landing Hoax, I might as well provide a few of the provocative extracts:http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
He was very eager, he loved to cooperate." On one occasion, according to several CIA officials, Sulzberger was given a briefing paper by the Agency which ran almost verbatim under the columnist's byline in the Times. "Cycame out and said, 'I'm thinking of doing a piece, can you give me some background?'" a CIA officer said. "We gave it to Cy as a background piece and Cy gave it to the printers and put his name on it." Sulzberger denies that any incident occurred. "A lot of baloney," he said.Stewart Alsop's relationship with the Agency was much more extensive than Sulzberger's. One official who served at the highest levels in the CIA said flatly: "Stew Alsop was a CIA agent." An equally senior official refused to define Alsop's relationship with the Agency except to say it was a formal one. Other sources said that Alsop was particularly helpful to the Agency in discussions with, officials of foreign governments-asking questions to which the CIA was seeking answers, planting misinformation advantageous to American policy, assessing opportunities for CIA recruitment of well‑placed foreigners.The New York Times. The Agency's relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. From 1950 to 1966, about ten CIA employees were provided Times cover under arrangements approved by the newspaper's late publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. The cover arrangements were part of a general Times policy-set by Sulzberger-to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible.When Newsweek waspurchased by the Washington Post Company, publisher Philip L. Graham was informed by Agency officials that the CIA occasionally used the magazine for cover purposes, according to CIA sources. "It was widely known that Phil Graham was somebody you could get help from," said a former deputy director of the Agency. "Frank Wisner dealt with him." Wisner, deputy director of the CIA from 1950 until shortly before his suicide in 1965, was the Agency's premier orchestrator of "black" operations, including many in which journalists were involved. Wisner liked to boast of his "mighty Wurlitzer," a wondrous propaganda instrument he built, and played, with help from the press.) Phil Graham was probably Wisner's closest friend. But Graharn, who committed suicide in 1963, apparently knew little of the specifics of any cover arrangements with Newsweek, CIA sources said.The Agency played an intriguing numbers game with the committee. Those who prepared the material say it was physically impossible to produce all of the Agency's files on the use of journalists. "We gave them a broad, representative picture," said one agency official. "We never pretended it was a total description of the range of activities over 25 years, or of the number of journalists who have done things for us." A relatively small number of the summaries described the activities of foreign journalists-including those working as stringers for American publications. Those officials most knowledgeable about the subject say that a figure of 400 American journalists is on the low side of the actual number who maintained covert relationships and undertook clandestine tasks.From the twenty‑five files he got back, according to Senate sources and CIA officials, an unavoidable conclusion emerged: that to a degree never widely suspected, the CIA in the 1950s, '60s and even early '70s had concentrated its relationships with journalists in the most prominent sectors of the American press corps, including four or five of the largest newspapers in the country, the broadcast networks and the two major newsweekly magazines. Despite the omission of names and affiliations from the twenty‑five detailed files each was between three and eleven inches thick), the information was usually sufficient to tentatively identify either the newsman, his affiliation or both-particularly because so many of them were prominent in the profession., @LondonBob No coincidence that all the CIA agents involved in the JFK assassination are known to be experts in 'black ops' and news media specialists. Jim Angleton, Cord Meyer, David Atlee Phillips and E. Howard Hunt, who confessed his involvement, all made their names in black propaganda or news management. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Clearpoint says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:53 pm GMT • 100 Words
Popper and Strauss. Neoliberal thought unites with neoconservative thought. Explicitly different rationales, but the same goals and the same method of achieving those goals. Sounds like target marketing of the two biggest target markets of American exceptionalism – dumb and dumber. Apparently critical thinkers are a minority that they believe can be easily marginalized.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- John Jeremiah Smith says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:58 pm GMT • 200 Words @JL Perhaps the media tried too hard, were too eager to be complicit, and now they've completely lost the plot. The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media, suggests that a large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects entire media narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking. Not knowing what to do, they double and triple down on the same fail that got them into this mess. Truly interesting times.
Thanks, Mr. Unz, for your "small webzine".
The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media, suggests that a large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects entire media narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking.
Are they? Or, have they simply fired the first few rounds of easily-dispatched, easily-targeted artillery? I do note that this is the most massive full-court press in support of the oligarchy that I have ever seen. But, I sense that political wars have moved from the court of public opinion and perception, into the courtyards of the moneyed elite. Inasmuch as no rich person has ever believed that he or she has enough money and power, the national political conflict is now composed solely of issues that affect the wealth and power of the 0.1%, which is itself segmented into areas of economic focus and varying forms of wealth acquisition. For example, if air transport systems threaten the wealth and power of ocean-based shipping, that competition between oligarchs will morph into politically-expressed contexts.
There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human values, human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo.
• Agree: Jacques Sheete • Replies: @JL I suppose my comment came off somewhat like unbridled, naive optimism. Your points are unquestionably valid, however, and I am disinclined to argue. Of course Trump represents the interests of certain groups of elites and is not merely the essence of a popular movement. I'll be honest, though, I'm having a tough time determining who these groups are, exactly.Just like with Brexit, these events don't happen without powerful manipulation from somewhere within the 0.1%. Still, it's tough for me to imagine what a Trump presidency will even look like. Who will be in his cabinet, from what backgrounds will they come?
There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human values, human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo.Certainly not. What are fundamentally important questions for us are merely means to an end for them. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- John Jeremiah Smith says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 3:05 pm GMT • 100 Words @SolontoCroesus
Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.Is this built-in deceit and manipulation unique to American life, or -- beyond the usual understandings about human nature -- is the systematic or institutionalized "deceit and manipulation" present in all cultures? in western cultures? in some but not all cultures? If the lattermost, in which cultures is "deceit and manipulation" less systematic and institutionalized?Was "deceit and manipulation" institutionalized into American life from the beginning -- by the Founders, or did USA deviate from its intended path at some point? If so, at what point? How did it happen?
Is there the possibility of redemption?
Is there the possibility of redemption?
Of what is "redemption" constituted? Considering that fewer than 20% of American residents during the Revolution were actually involved in the revolt, with an estimated 40% preferring to retain the colony under monarchy, and considering that the ethical and political awareness of the Average American and the Average Illegal Resident Alien have gone downhill from there, can it honestly be said that there's enough true flavor of human rights and equal access/opportunity to redeem?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- biz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 3:10 pm GMT @John Jeremiah Smith
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.LOL x 2. I think you're saying that the above is YOUR definition of "conspiracy theory", not to be confused with any real and accurate definition of "conspiracy theory".No what I have put is the generally accepted definition used in journalistic and sociological works about conspiracy theory culture, e.g. this book .
• Replies: @John Jeremiah SmithNo what I have put is the generally accepted definition used in journalistic and sociological works about conspiracy theory culture, e.g. this book.Journalism? Sociological works? You choose to quote even bigger liars as defining "conspiracy theory"?
"A conspiracy theory is a belief that a secret conspiracy has actually been decisive in producing a political event or evil outcome which the theorists strongly disapprove of. The conspiracy theory typically identifies the conspirators, provides evidence that supposedly links them together with an evil plan to harm the body politic, and may also point to a supposed cover up by authorities or media who should have stopped the conspiracy. The duty of the theorist is to pick from a myriad of facts and assumptions and reassemble them to form a picture of the conspiracy, as in a jigsaw puzzle. A theorist may publicly identify specific conspirators, and if they deny the allegations that is evidence they have been sworn to secrecy and are probably guilty."Similar, agreed, but with noteworthy differences. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 3:22 pm GMT • 200 Words
Good epistemological analysis.
The great flaw in the Western system of "democratic" government is that hardly anyone knows the meaning of the word "epistemology", let alone have any grasp of the underlying challenge of knowing what they know, or rather knowing how little they know beyond what they know from direct personal experience. This is a challenge made vastly more difficult in the modern age when almost everything we know is derived not from personal experience, or from other people of whose character and intellectual competence we have some personal knowledge, but from the arrangement of ink on paper or of pixels on a video screen. To this problem, there is probably no solution, although either a sharp restriction of the franchise to those of some maturity and education, or a division of the franchise according to what each particular individual could be expected to know something about, would be a step in the right direction.
As it is, we will, inevitably, continue to be the target of high powered manipulation by corporate owned media and other powerful interests.
Professor Lance Haven de Smith, whose book you mention is an expert on SCADS, or state crimes against democracy. An article by him on this topic is available here . There is some interesting academic material about SCADs here .
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- nsa says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 3:25 pm GMT • 100 Words
In spook circles, leaving clues is referred to as inoculation .refer to the work of Bill McGuire in the late 50s and early 60s. For example, we here in Langley and Ft. Meade have left intact on the internet the early picture of the 20′ entry hole left by the "757″ in the facade of the pentagon before the explosion and complete collapse of the exterior wall ..inviting the conspiratorial question " where are the wings, the mangled cadavers, the tail?". This is all just too easy
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Alden says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 3:27 pm GMT • 100 Words
Highly reccomend Chris Buckley's book
"Little Green Men" The plot is that the entire UFO thing was set up after WW3 by the DOJ to keep the money flowing. Like all Buckley's books, it's a great read.I stopped believing in anything written in newspapers around 1966 because they were so pro black criminal and anti police
Have fun on Labor Day
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- John Jeremiah Smith says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 3:45 pm GMT • 200 Words @biz No what I have put is the generally accepted definition used in journalistic and sociological works about conspiracy theory culture, e.g. this book .
No what I have put is the generally accepted definition used in journalistic and sociological works about conspiracy theory culture, e.g. this book.
Journalism? Sociological works? You choose to quote even bigger liars as defining "conspiracy theory"?
"A conspiracy theory is a belief that a secret conspiracy has actually been decisive in producing a political event or evil outcome which the theorists strongly disapprove of. The conspiracy theory typically identifies the conspirators, provides evidence that supposedly links them together with an evil plan to harm the body politic, and may also point to a supposed cover up by authorities or media who should have stopped the conspiracy. The duty of the theorist is to pick from a myriad of facts and assumptions and reassemble them to form a picture of the conspiracy, as in a jigsaw puzzle. A theorist may publicly identify specific conspirators, and if they deny the allegations that is evidence they have been sworn to secrecy and are probably guilty."
Similar, agreed, but with noteworthy differences.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- landlubber says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:10 pm GMT
journalistic and sociological works
Pravda.
And like your Pravda brethren, you are too quick to conflate 9/11 and the moon landings.
• Replies: @bizyou are too quick to conflate 9/11 and the moon landingsActually, it was Unz himself who stated a while back that if we admit that one of them is possible, then all are possible, or something more or less to that effect.In an case, the 9/11 controlled demolition / missile / flight 93 is in a hangar in Cleveland stuff is just as implausible as faking the moon landings. Too many people and organizations and countries needing to be in on it, etc. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- SolontoCroesus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:12 pm GMT • 100 Words @Decius Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss.
The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall--and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?--is on Thoughts on Machiavelli . Strauss does so, first and foremost, because conspiracy is a major theme of Machiavelli's and the subject of the two longest chapters of his two most important books ( Prince 19 and Discourses III 6). Strauss further develops the idea that modern philosophy begins as a conspiracy between Machiavelli and (some of) his readers. Strauss simply never said anything like this:
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.As for his relationship with neoconservatism, you also overstate that considerably. Yes, there are many neoconservative Straussians. But there are also Straussian paleos, tradcons, liberatarians, liberals, and moderates. There are many who are apolitical and interested only in abstract philosophy. There are Straussian religious conservatives, agnostics and atheists. Christians, Jews and Muslim. Catholic, Protestants and Mormons. The neocons just get all the attention--owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration, which everyone today believes without having read, or even being aware of (have/are you?).If "neocon" has any meaning, it means, first, a former intellectual liberal who has drifted right. Second, a domestic policy scholar who focuses on data-driven social science. And third, a foreign policy hawk.
None of these really apply to Strauss, who spent his who career studying political philosophy, with an intense focus on the Greeks. He voted Dem in every election in which he could vote, until his last, 1972, when he voted for Nixon out of Cold War concerns. You might say that makes him a "hawk" but he never wrote any essays saying so. He simply told a few people privately that McGovern was too naïve about the Soviets. You might also say that is evidence that he "drifted right" but he didn't think so. He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death. As for data-driven social science, he famously attacked it in of the very few of his writings that ever got any attention in mainstream political science ("An Epilogue").
You may well be right about the CIA's role in popularizing the phrase "conspiracy theory." But Leo Strauss had nothing to do with it. Or, if he did, he hid his role exceptionally well, because there is no evidence of such in his writings.
C Bradley Thompson was educated/trained as a Straussian neoconservative, then got mugged by reality and started to re-assess his own philosophical orientation.
One of the most interesting points Thompson makes in this discussion of his book, Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, occurs in the Q&A segment when he demonstrates that Strauss was, indeed, an acolyte of Nazi philosopher Carl Schmitt
• Replies: @SolontoCroesus @ 12 min, Thompson asserts that "Leo Strauss was the most important influence on Irving Kristol's intellectual development. My book reveals for the first time the importance of Kristol's 1952 review of Strauss's Persecution and the Art of Writing . For me this is the Rosetta Stone . . .for understanding the deepest layer of neoconservative political philosophy."
---
It should also be noted that Irving Kristol was sponsored by- on the payroll of - the CIA while still in Britain. Kristol has acknowledged that CIA support got his movement off the ground. , @Decius No. Strauss and Schmitt were friendly in the 1930s but Strauss was critical of Schmitt's work even then and said so. Schmitt himself said that Strauss had "seen right through" his arguments. Strauss was no acolyte of Schmitt's, he was a greater and deeper thinker and Schmitt--something Schmitt himself acknowledged. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Laurel says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:22 pm GMT
The best strategy is to foster implausible conspiracy theories to create a cloud of disinformation. This technique was used very effectively after 9/11, such that it's very hard to discuss a coverup without being labeled a truther.
• Replies: @Old fogey Thank you for inserting the word "truther" into the conversation. It has always fascinated me that someone searching for the truth about a political issue is now automatically considered a conspiracy theorist. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- SolontoCroesus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:24 pm GMT • 100 Words @SolontoCroesus C Bradley Thompson was educated/trained as a Straussian neoconservative, then got mugged by reality and started to re-assess his own philosophical orientation.
One of the most interesting points Thompson makes in this discussion of his book, Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, occurs in the Q&A segment when he demonstrates that Strauss was, indeed, an acolyte of Nazi philosopher Carl Schmitt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Oh6DmjQaho
@ 12 min, Thompson asserts that "Leo Strauss was the most important influence on Irving Kristol's intellectual development. My book reveals for the first time the importance of Kristol's 1952 review of Strauss's Persecution and the Art of Writing . For me this is the Rosetta Stone . . .for understanding the deepest layer of neoconservative political philosophy."
-
• Replies: @Decius So what? That's one guy. How do we even know Kristol interpreted Strauss correctly? Kristol's concerns--data-driven social science--were not Strauss's. And so on and on.
It should also be noted that Irving Kristol was sponsored by- on the payroll of – the CIA while still in Britain. Kristol has acknowledged that CIA support got his movement off the ground.But all that is a re-frame anyway. The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and Unz can't back it up. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:25 pm GMT • 100 Words @SolontoCroesus C Bradley Thompson was educated/trained as a Straussian neoconservative, then got mugged by reality and started to re-assess his own philosophical orientation.
One of the most interesting points Thompson makes in this discussion of his book, Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, occurs in the Q&A segment when he demonstrates that Strauss was, indeed, an acolyte of Nazi philosopher Carl Schmitt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Oh6DmjQaho
No. Strauss and Schmitt were friendly in the 1930s but Strauss was critical of Schmitt's work even then and said so. Schmitt himself said that Strauss had "seen right through" his arguments. Strauss was no acolyte of Schmitt's, he was a greater and deeper thinker and Schmitt–something Schmitt himself acknowledged.
• Replies: @5371 This is complete nonsense. Schmitt is a powerful and original thinker, Strauss a weak and derivative one whose real sweet spot was academic politics. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:42 pm GMT • 100 Words @SolontoCroesus @ 12 min, Thompson asserts that "Leo Strauss was the most important influence on Irving Kristol's intellectual development. My book reveals for the first time the importance of Kristol's 1952 review of Strauss's Persecution and the Art of Writing . For me this is the Rosetta Stone . . .for understanding the deepest layer of neoconservative political philosophy."
---
It should also be noted that Irving Kristol was sponsored by- on the payroll of - the CIA while still in Britain. Kristol has acknowledged that CIA support got his movement off the ground.So what? That's one guy. How do we even know Kristol interpreted Strauss correctly? Kristol's concerns–data-driven social science–were not Strauss's. And so on and on.
But all that is a re-frame anyway. The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and Unz can't back it up.
• Replies: @SolontoCroesusThe charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and Unz can't back it up.Can't back it up or has not done so, so far?The day is young . . . the moon has not yet appeared in the eastern sky. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- 5371 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:45 pm GMT @Decius No. Strauss and Schmitt were friendly in the 1930s but Strauss was critical of Schmitt's work even then and said so. Schmitt himself said that Strauss had "seen right through" his arguments. Strauss was no acolyte of Schmitt's, he was a greater and deeper thinker and Schmitt--something Schmitt himself acknowledged.
This is complete nonsense. Schmitt is a powerful and original thinker, Strauss a weak and derivative one whose real sweet spot was academic politics.
• Agree: SolontoCroesus • Replies: @Decius Schmitt disagreed with you. , @Decius At any rate it's sort of absurd to watch you people chase your tails. All that you "know" or think you know is that Strauss is bad. But Schmitt is good. But Strauss is derivative of Schmitt. Doesn't that make Strauss good, or Schmitt bad?Schmitt is famous for arguing in favor of the essential particularity of politics--i.e., against alleged neocon universalism. So if Strauss is derivative of Schmitt, how can he be a neocon universalist?
Strauss in fact agrees with Schmitt on the essential particularity of politics and says so, but finds a deeper source, with deeper arguments, in Plato. Schmitt admitted that his own attempt to fortify his particularism was build on the quick-sandy foundation of modern rationalism, which Strauss taught him to see through. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- The Alarmist says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:50 pm GMT @Wizard of Oz Are you presuming that it should be easy to travel over the entire moon surface and easily arrive at a precisely defined point - and that where the flags are is such a point?
I was having a little fun with the fact that a Congress Critter thought the Mars Rover could drive up to an American flag planted by the Astronauts on the Earth's Moon.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:54 pm GMT @5371 This is complete nonsense. Schmitt is a powerful and original thinker, Strauss a weak and derivative one whose real sweet spot was academic politics.
Schmitt disagreed with you.
• Replies: @5371 This way of arguing, too, is redolent of an academic personality cult, not of actual scholarship. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:59 pm GMT • 100 Words @5371 This is complete nonsense. Schmitt is a powerful and original thinker, Strauss a weak and derivative one whose real sweet spot was academic politics.
At any rate it's sort of absurd to watch you people chase your tails. All that you "know" or think you know is that Strauss is bad. But Schmitt is good. But Strauss is derivative of Schmitt. Doesn't that make Strauss good, or Schmitt bad?
Schmitt is famous for arguing in favor of the essential particularity of politics–i.e., against alleged neocon universalism. So if Strauss is derivative of Schmitt, how can he be a neocon universalist?
Strauss in fact agrees with Schmitt on the essential particularity of politics and says so, but finds a deeper source, with deeper arguments, in Plato. Schmitt admitted that his own attempt to fortify his particularism was build on the quick-sandy foundation of modern rationalism, which Strauss taught him to see through.
• Replies: @5371 When you can pin Strauss down to a definite meaning, it is false, banal or both. He is usually too obfuscatory to be pinned down. Schmitt is easy to understand and shows you true things you had not thought of before. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- The Alarmist says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:00 pm GMT @John Jeremiah Smith
This is a good piece which deserved an acceptable level of mental hygiene in the comment section. Unfortunately, two of the first nine comments are from morons spamming their "no lunar landing" drivel.Indeed, and absolute drivel. During the first two moon landings, I was working as an electronic technician, aligning and tuning the radio communications antennas at one of the monitor sites. Unless the physics of the electromagnetic Universe was altered by the conspirators, the origin of radio transmissions from the landing crew could only have come from the Moon. Either that, or space aliens operating a whole 'nuther conspiracy used "seekrut" technology to make it look like signals received at every monitor station were from the Moon. If so, kudos on a boss fake-out scheme."Unless the physics of the electromagnetic Universe was altered by the conspirators, the origin of radio transmissions from the landing crew could only have come from the Moon. "
I suppose NASA could have sent an S-Band repeater to the Moon.
• Replies: @John Jeremiah SmithI suppose NASA could have sent an S-Band repeater to the Moon.There's more than one scenario that can be assembled to explain any one or two conditions that would have to be "covered" in order to carry out a conspiracy of deception regarding the Moon landings. Considering the inferior level of video jiggering available at the time, it seems to me that providing full "evidence" of the low-gravity behavior of objects, and the absolute two-color light/shadow effects in an absence of atmosphere would be the most difficult.The principle of parsimony becomes ascendant at some point in that Hall of Mirrors. It was easier to go to the Moon than it was to fake it.
Not to be arch, but, even with the repeater on the moon, what about the bounce echo from the tight-beam signal coming from Earth carrying the deceptive info? ;-) Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Hibernian says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:02 pm GMT @anonymous Pearl Harbor (covered in "Day of Deceit") is good starting point. I strongly encourage Mr. Unz to read Robert Stinnet's book next before moving on.
FDR never intended that 2,400 Americans would die there. He just thought that if Japan "struck first", he could justify our entry into WWII to the public. What's really fascinating (and almost wholly unknown) is the sequence of events and headlines from December 8 to December 11, 1941, the date Hitler declared war on the USA.
While Pearl Harbor meant war with Japan, it did not necessarily guarantee war with Nazi Germany. For 72 hours, no one could be sure that Germany would declare war on us. Did FDR manipulate events post-Pearl Harbor to ensure it did happen?
"FDR never intended that 2,400 Americans would die there."
Did he think our forces at Pearl, lacking needed intelligence, would limit the losses to a lesser number?
• Replies: @anonymous So it would seem. That critical intelligence on the Japanese was deliberately kept from Admiral Kimmel and General Short by FDR and his closest military officials is indisputable.The question "why?" has never been answered in any meaningful sense.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4742-pearl-harbor-scapegoating-kimmel-and-short Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- SolontoCroesus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:07 pm GMT • 100 Words @Decius So what? That's one guy. How do we even know Kristol interpreted Strauss correctly? Kristol's concerns--data-driven social science--were not Strauss's. And so on and on.
But all that is a re-frame anyway. The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and Unz can't back it up.
The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and Unz can't back it up.
Can't back it up or has not done so, so far?
The day is young . . . the moon has not yet appeared in the eastern sky.
• Replies: @Decius I know Strauss's books. I am guessing that Unz does not because if he did, he would not attribute to Strauss what he did. At any rate, even if Unz does know the books, I fail to see what passages he could cite to support the paragraph that I highlighted.As noted, the claim sounds vaguely derivative of Drury, who hates Strauss (and gets everything wrong) but even she doesn't quite say what Unz says. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:11 pm GMT • 200 Words @Wizard of Oz From my experience of actors, including amateur actors i have no problem believing Pat Casey's old guy talking about aliens was either a scripted gig maybe for a bet, maybe to see if he could get some money for his family or for medical treatment and the "tells" I totally discount though it might merely be evidence that he's been telling the story for yonks and no one bothers to pull him up on the one mentioned.
As to the demeanour of the one astronaut that I have now seen from below your comment it does invite questions but yyou seem to be wrong about it being an occasion for celebration. It seems to be much later when they are probably bored out of their minds and quite pissed off at being required to perform yet again as circus ponies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9Jw0pwTtus
Ok, what about that tell? You should really watch the whole thing here if you haven't:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NlJQJUUqR4
My friend knows the guy that interviewed the man about Eisenhower and area 51. He's supposed to be the steely-eyed vet in a field full of dupes. It's possible he's a charlatan employing an actor, but that's not what it sounds like. The one that I can't decide on is this disinformation agent Richard Doty from the film Mirage Men. That one is worth watching.
My education into the likelihood of extraterrestrials took a quantum leap when I watched The Pyramid Codes on netflix. Mind you that is not an idea the series puts forward-the footage of the Pyramid they don't take tourists to see is enough to know those folks had technology we do not have today.
For the record I believe we landed on the moon. But, the idea that we did not probably comes from the underbelly of our own government.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- KA says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:19 pm GMT • 600 Words
"HANGZHOU, China - The image of a 5-year-old Syrian boy, dazed and bloodied after being rescued from an airstrike on rebel-held Aleppo, reverberated around the world last month, a harrowing reminder that five years after civil war broke out there, Syria remains a charnel house.
But the reaction was more muted in Washington, where Syria has become a distant disaster rather than an urgent crisis. President Obama's policy toward Syria has barely budged in the last year and shows no sign of change for the remainder of his term. The White House has faced little pressure over the issue,
That frustrates many analysts because they believe that a shift in policy will come only when Mr. Obama has left office. "Given the tone of this campaign, I doubt the electorate will be presented with realistic and intelligible options, with respect to Syria," said Frederic C. Hof, a former adviser on Syria in the administration."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/world/middleeast/obama-syria-foreign-policy.html?action=click&contentCollection=Europe&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article&_r=0Spinning by NYT can and will form the base of a conspiracy .
The world we see are not festooned with the morbid pictures and the world has not one echo chamber among its 7 billions that are reverberating with his sad cry .
No American taxpayer is piling pressure on Obama.
Tone of the election doesn't and shouldn't provide option on Syria . Electorates are not asking to know what America should do.
Next president will introduce something that he wont share w and making them known before the voters will destroy his chances.Someone shared and was evisecrated by NYT and other as Putin's Trojan horse .NYT is lying . But this lies can help build the necessarry platform for future wars . Another Sarin gas? Another Harriri death? Another picture of beheadings ? Another story of North Korean supplying nukes ? Wrongful consequences from falsehood will not cost NYT excepting a correction years later somehere in the 5 th page. A conspiracy to hatch is something that has no consequences for the plotters .
If Dulles were hanged for role in all the illegal things he had done in Guatemala and Iran,may be Kennedy would have survived . But his earlier political escapades were also built on something that were way earlier . Conspiracy keeps on coming back begging for one more round ,for one more time .
NYT will be there claiming for the right to crow – how it has prepared the ground.All are done openly . When resistance is mounted, Bernie Sander supporters are sent home with flowers and a reminder to vote for Clinton because in this age all over the world America is the exception that has heard them . With that satisfaction they can go home and vote as expected. They are not allowed to know how the campaign marginalized Sander's chances from the get go.
Neither NYT explains how reckless Trump with nuclear code will start a nuclear war with Putin's Russia despite being his co conspirator .Chalabi s daughter exclaimed in early part of 2004 – We are heroes in mistakes. She won't say it now . Conspirators would love to get the credit and be recognized . It all depends on the success .
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
First Iraq war,if went bad from begining, Lantos wouldn't have been reelected . But again who knows what media can deliver . They delivered Joe Liberman .
- Carlton Meyer says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:20 pm GMT • 200 Words
Some conspiracies are eventually acknowledged. For recent examples, our government finally admitted that our CIA overthrew the government of Iran in the 1950s. The sinking of the Lusitania because it carried tons of munitions and weapons during WW I has been mostly accepted since 1982, after the sunken ship was discovered and searched by divers. For example, Encyclopedia Britannica:
"The Lusitania was carrying a cargo of rifle ammunition and shells (together about 173 tons), and the Germans, who had circulated warnings that the ship would be sunk, felt themselves fully justified in attacking a vessel that was furthering the war aims of their enemy. The German government also felt that, in view of the vulnerability of U-boats while on the surface and the British announcement of intentions to arm merchant ships, prior warning of potential targets was impractical."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lusitania-British-ship
One of the newest has got little attention, the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich, who was a computer guy leaking info to Wikileaks.
If we truly had aggressive news competition in the USA, this story would remain in the headlines, but of course its implications are not acceptable. However, stories about Russian hackers persist with no hard evidence.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- JL says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:27 pm GMT • 100 Words @John Jeremiah Smith
The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media, suggests that a large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects entire media narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking.Are they? Or, have they simply fired the first few rounds of easily-dispatched, easily-targeted artillery? I do note that this is the most massive full-court press in support of the oligarchy that I have ever seen. But, I sense that political wars have moved from the court of public opinion and perception, into the courtyards of the moneyed elite. Inasmuch as no rich person has ever believed that he or she has enough money and power, the national political conflict is now composed solely of issues that affect the wealth and power of the 0.1%, which is itself segmented into areas of economic focus and varying forms of wealth acquisition. For example, if air transport systems threaten the wealth and power of ocean-based shipping, that competition between oligarchs will morph into politically-expressed contexts.There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human values, human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo.
I suppose my comment came off somewhat like unbridled, naive optimism. Your points are unquestionably valid, however, and I am disinclined to argue. Of course Trump represents the interests of certain groups of elites and is not merely the essence of a popular movement. I'll be honest, though, I'm having a tough time determining who these groups are, exactly.
Just like with Brexit, these events don't happen without powerful manipulation from somewhere within the 0.1%. Still, it's tough for me to imagine what a Trump presidency will even look like. Who will be in his cabinet, from what backgrounds will they come?
There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human values, human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo.
Certainly not. What are fundamentally important questions for us are merely means to an end for them.
• Replies: @John Jeremiah SmithOf course Trump represents the interests of certain groups of elites and is not merely the essence of a popular movement. I'll be honest, though, I'm having a tough time determining who these groups are, exactly.Yes, and how many players, each with what orientation and degree of focus? The 0.1% population contains 10,000 - 50,00o potential players, globally.It is my opinion that the extremely-high degree of corruption, within the mighty engine of resource consumption and bribery that is the US government, contributes greatly to the "big picture" of ongoing conflict among the members of the oligarchy. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jeffrey S. says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:31 pm GMT • 100 Words
Beard was an interesting guy, but's let's not forget that his central thesis regarding the founding of this country doesn't hold up to historical scrutiny:
http://www.libertylawsite.org/2014/10/10/charles-beard-living-legend-or-archaic-icon/
Meanwhile, I think it helps to think about conspiracies philosophically - rigorous thought can help clear up sloppy thinking (which is found in many such theories):
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/01/trouble-with-conspiracy-theories.html
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Mulegino1 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:35 pm GMT • 100 Words
With respect to conspiracies, there are two equally absurd extreme views which distract from reality: one is the childish rejection of all conspiracy theories and the other the childish belief that every appreciable newsworthy event with a political, economic or social impact is the result of a nefarious conspiracy. The truth, of course, is to be found in the middle.
Only a child – or its intellectual equivalent, i.e., a low information infotainment consumer – could believe in the official version of 9/11, or the Manichean narrative of the Second World War and the Myth of the 6 Million.
On the other hand, there is Hillary Clinton with her "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" and idiots like Glenn Beck who believe that Vladimir Putin is seeking to conquer the world.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:43 pm GMT • 100 Words @SolontoCroesus
The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and Unz can't back it up.Can't back it up or has not done so, so far?The day is young . . . the moon has not yet appeared in the eastern sky.
I know Strauss's books. I am guessing that Unz does not because if he did, he would not attribute to Strauss what he did. At any rate, even if Unz does know the books, I fail to see what passages he could cite to support the paragraph that I highlighted.
As noted, the claim sounds vaguely derivative of Drury, who hates Strauss (and gets everything wrong) but even she doesn't quite say what Unz says.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Ron Unz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:44 pm GMT • 300 Words NEW! @Decius Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss.
The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall--and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?--is on Thoughts on Machiavelli . Strauss does so, first and foremost, because conspiracy is a major theme of Machiavelli's and the subject of the two longest chapters of his two most important books ( Prince 19 and Discourses III 6). Strauss further develops the idea that modern philosophy begins as a conspiracy between Machiavelli and (some of) his readers. Strauss simply never said anything like this:
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.As for his relationship with neoconservatism, you also overstate that considerably. Yes, there are many neoconservative Straussians. But there are also Straussian paleos, tradcons, liberatarians, liberals, and moderates. There are many who are apolitical and interested only in abstract philosophy. There are Straussian religious conservatives, agnostics and atheists. Christians, Jews and Muslim. Catholic, Protestants and Mormons. The neocons just get all the attention--owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration, which everyone today believes without having read, or even being aware of (have/are you?).If "neocon" has any meaning, it means, first, a former intellectual liberal who has drifted right. Second, a domestic policy scholar who focuses on data-driven social science. And third, a foreign policy hawk.
None of these really apply to Strauss, who spent his who career studying political philosophy, with an intense focus on the Greeks. He voted Dem in every election in which he could vote, until his last, 1972, when he voted for Nixon out of Cold War concerns. You might say that makes him a "hawk" but he never wrote any essays saying so. He simply told a few people privately that McGovern was too naïve about the Soviets. You might also say that is evidence that he "drifted right" but he didn't think so. He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death. As for data-driven social science, he famously attacked it in of the very few of his writings that ever got any attention in mainstream political science ("An Epilogue").
You may well be right about the CIA's role in popularizing the phrase "conspiracy theory." But Leo Strauss had nothing to do with it. Or, if he did, he hid his role exceptionally well, because there is no evidence of such in his writings.
Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss. The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall–and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you? .The neocons just get all the attention–owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death.
I'll candidly admit I haven't read a single one of Strauss's own books, nor even that very influential James Atlas article you dislike so intensely. Instead, I was merely summarizing the extensive arguments of Prof. deHaven-Smith, who, as a prominent political scientist, is presumably quite familiar with Strauss, though I don't doubt that his views might differ considerably from your own.
But on your second point, I do remember seeing a very amusing private letter of Strauss that came to light about a decade or so ago. Written shortly after his arrival in America, it was addressed to a fellow ultra-rightwing Jewish exile from Europe, and in it he praised fascism and (I think) Nazism to the skies, arguing that their regrettable deviation into "anti-Semitism" (which had precipitated his own personal exile from Germany) should in no way be considered a refutation of all the other wonderful aspects of those political doctrines. This leads me to wonder if Strauss was truly the "liberal" you suggest, or perhaps was instead engaging in exactly the sort of "ideological crypsis" that seems such an important part of his political philosophy
It's likely my faulty memory may have garbled important aspects of the letter I mention, and given your expertise on Straussian issues, I'm sure you should be able to locate it and easily correct me.
• Replies: @Decius The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained--not to say serious--attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the work of William Altman. I don't think he even comes close to making his case.The letter can more charitably and reasonably read as a frank acknowledgement of the failure of Weimar liberalism and of liberalism generally precisely to take into account nationalist sentiment but instead to "universalize" all particulars without due attention to differing conditions, circumstances, "matter," and so on. In other words, Strauss is defending the "concept of the political" both from liberal universalism and from the simple-minded identification of particularism (or nationalism) with fascism. Sound familiar? All nationalist sentiment is fascism, Trump is a Nazi, and so on. An "argument" as old as hills and which Strauss saw through immediately.
Once again, though, the tail is chased. How can Strauss be both a universalist neo-con and a particularist-nationalist-fascist at the same time? The only common thread is: Strauss is bad.
In my view, Strauss is good. More to the point, I find stronger intellectual support in Strauss for my own nationalist leanings and pro-Trump_vs_deep_state than I find in any other intellectual source of any depth. I am in the minority among Straussians in thinking so, but I am not alone. Morevoer, I think in open debate, I have a stronger case for Straussian particularism than others can make for Straussian universalism.
And, not incidentally, none of this points to any such views on conspiracy as you put into Strauss's mouth. , @Jacques Sheete While I've read nothing by Prof. deHaven-Smith, from what you've written, he and DiLorenzo would probably agree.
Here's a short but readable eval of Strauss' ideas, and DiLorenzo is one academician whom I somewhat trust.:
Moronic Intellectuals
By Thomas DiLorenzohttps://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/09/thomas-woods/the-neocon-godfather/ Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Mulegino1 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:48 pm GMT • 100 Words @SolontoCroesus
Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.Is this built-in deceit and manipulation unique to American life, or -- beyond the usual understandings about human nature -- is the systematic or institutionalized "deceit and manipulation" present in all cultures? in western cultures? in some but not all cultures? If the lattermost, in which cultures is "deceit and manipulation" less systematic and institutionalized?Was "deceit and manipulation" institutionalized into American life from the beginning -- by the Founders, or did USA deviate from its intended path at some point? If so, at what point? How did it happen?
Is there the possibility of redemption?
To my mind, the real point of deviation in the history of the United States is the Spanish American War, and the transformation of America from a tellurocratic to a thallasocratic power. America's traditional role had been that of a vast, continental, land based power, eschewing intervention in the affairs of Europe and the rest of the world outside the Western Hemisphere. (This is largely the reason that the Russian Czar allied with the Union in the American Civil War).
Unfortunately, America's traditional tellurocratic role was abandonded – thanks to the likes of Admiral ("Victory through Sea Power") Mahan, John Hay, and the loopy Teddy Roosevelt, inter alia – and the nation went on to embrace the role of international arbiter and busybody, and became insatiable in the pursuit of empire, with catastrophic results for the world.
• Agree: SolontoCroesus Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Sam Shama says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:59 pm GMT @5371 This is a good piece which deserved an acceptable level of mental hygiene in the comment section. Unfortunately, two of the first nine comments are from morons spamming their "no lunar landing" drivel. In all probability the "no nuclear weapons" clowns will also be here imminently. Oh well, a delicious sweet dish will attract a fly as much as a gourmet.
[Oh well, a delicious sweet dish will attract a fly as much as a gourmet.]
LOL. I'll compile a mental list of both. Aren't the comments missing someone btw?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:00 pm GMT • 300 Words @Ron Unz
Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss. The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall–and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?....The neocons just get all the attention–owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration...He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death.I'll candidly admit I haven't read a single one of Strauss's own books, nor even that very influential James Atlas article you dislike so intensely. Instead, I was merely summarizing the extensive arguments of Prof. deHaven-Smith, who, as a prominent political scientist, is presumably quite familiar with Strauss, though I don't doubt that his views might differ considerably from your own.But on your second point, I do remember seeing a very amusing private letter of Strauss that came to light about a decade or so ago. Written shortly after his arrival in America, it was addressed to a fellow ultra-rightwing Jewish exile from Europe, and in it he praised fascism and (I think) Nazism to the skies, arguing that their regrettable deviation into "anti-Semitism" (which had precipitated his own personal exile from Germany) should in no way be considered a refutation of all the other wonderful aspects of those political doctrines. This leads me to wonder if Strauss was truly the "liberal" you suggest, or perhaps was instead engaging in exactly the sort of "ideological crypsis" that seems such an important part of his political philosophy...
It's likely my faulty memory may have garbled important aspects of the letter I mention, and given your expertise on Straussian issues, I'm sure you should be able to locate it and easily correct me.
The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained–not to say serious–attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the work of William Altman. I don't think he even comes close to making his case.
The letter can more charitably and reasonably read as a frank acknowledgement of the failure of Weimar liberalism and of liberalism generally precisely to take into account nationalist sentiment but instead to "universalize" all particulars without due attention to differing conditions, circumstances, "matter," and so on. In other words, Strauss is defending the "concept of the political" both from liberal universalism and from the simple-minded identification of particularism (or nationalism) with fascism. Sound familiar? All nationalist sentiment is fascism, Trump is a Nazi, and so on. An "argument" as old as hills and which Strauss saw through immediately.
Once again, though, the tail is chased. How can Strauss be both a universalist neo-con and a particularist-nationalist-fascist at the same time? The only common thread is: Strauss is bad.
In my view, Strauss is good. More to the point, I find stronger intellectual support in Strauss for my own nationalist leanings and pro-Trump_vs_deep_state than I find in any other intellectual source of any depth. I am in the minority among Straussians in thinking so, but I am not alone. Morevoer, I think in open debate, I have a stronger case for Straussian particularism than others can make for Straussian universalism.
And, not incidentally, none of this points to any such views on conspiracy as you put into Strauss's mouth.
• Replies: @Ron UnzThe letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained–not to say serious–attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the work of William Altman.Well, I decided I might as well google up the letter, and found this extended discussion in Harpers by someone who clearly dislikes Strauss and the Neocons, with a link to a full translation of Strauss's controversial missive.http://harpers.org/blog/2008/01/will-the-real-leo-strauss-please-stand-up/
Offhand, it does indeed seem like I misremembered some of the details. Strauss apparently didn't seem to like the Nazis very much, but it certainly sounds like he had positive feelings towards the Fascists. In any event, the following excerpt makes me wonder whether he was actually a "liberal," or merely pretended to be since his income probably depended upon liberal donors and institutions...
And, what concerns this matter: the fact that the new right-wing Germany does not tolerate us says nothing against the principles of the right. To the contrary: only from the principles of the right, that is from fascist, authoritarian and imperial principles, is it possible with seemliness, that is, without resort to the ludicrous and despicable appeal to the droits imprescriptibles de l'homme(5) to protest against the shabby abomination...There is no reason to crawl to the cross, neither to the cross of liberalism, as long as somewhere in the world there is a glimmer of the spark of the Roman thought.Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Robard says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:04 pm GMT
If government doesn't believe in conspiracies, why have secret services in the first place? Either they want to thwart conspiracies or they are creating their own or both.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Lawrence Fitton says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:18 pm GMT • 200 Words
belief in the fantastic is way more entertainment than belief in the mundane. that why the history channel prefers clownish, ancient alien astronaut theorists to phd historians.
still, the unlimited universe of chance & probability assures rare events happen all the time. in other words, improbable events – because there is infinity of them – are bound to happen with regularity.for instance, the author highlights the improbability of a bunch of arabs with box cutters as the perpetrators of 9/11. he's right. taken in isolation, of all the things that might have happened, the occurrence is rare in indeed. but, today, something that's never happened before will happen. and tomorrow too and the day after that. but, because the occurrences may not be as spectacular as 9/11, few will learn about them.
we believe what we want to believe. we can't know everything about anything, so there will always be questions.
9/11, the kennedy assassination, the lunar landing, aliens built the pyramids.
what is real and what is not depends on a point of view.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- •
- Jacques Sheete says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:24 pm GMT @Ron Unz
Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss. The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall–and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?....The neocons just get all the attention–owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration...He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death.I'll candidly admit I haven't read a single one of Strauss's own books, nor even that very influential James Atlas article you dislike so intensely. Instead, I was merely summarizing the extensive arguments of Prof. deHaven-Smith, who, as a prominent political scientist, is presumably quite familiar with Strauss, though I don't doubt that his views might differ considerably from your own.But on your second point, I do remember seeing a very amusing private letter of Strauss that came to light about a decade or so ago. Written shortly after his arrival in America, it was addressed to a fellow ultra-rightwing Jewish exile from Europe, and in it he praised fascism and (I think) Nazism to the skies, arguing that their regrettable deviation into "anti-Semitism" (which had precipitated his own personal exile from Germany) should in no way be considered a refutation of all the other wonderful aspects of those political doctrines. This leads me to wonder if Strauss was truly the "liberal" you suggest, or perhaps was instead engaging in exactly the sort of "ideological crypsis" that seems such an important part of his political philosophy...
It's likely my faulty memory may have garbled important aspects of the letter I mention, and given your expertise on Straussian issues, I'm sure you should be able to locate it and easily correct me.
While I've read nothing by Prof. deHaven-Smith, from what you've written, he and DiLorenzo would probably agree.
Here's a short but readable eval of Strauss' ideas, and DiLorenzo is one academician whom I somewhat trust.:
Moronic Intellectuals
By Thomas DiLorenzohttps://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/09/thomas-woods/the-neocon-godfather/
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- John Jeremiah Smith says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:29 pm GMT • 100 Words @JL I suppose my comment came off somewhat like unbridled, naive optimism. Your points are unquestionably valid, however, and I am disinclined to argue. Of course Trump represents the interests of certain groups of elites and is not merely the essence of a popular movement. I'll be honest, though, I'm having a tough time determining who these groups are, exactly.
Just like with Brexit, these events don't happen without powerful manipulation from somewhere within the 0.1%. Still, it's tough for me to imagine what a Trump presidency will even look like. Who will be in his cabinet, from what backgrounds will they come?
There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human values, human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo.Certainly not. What are fundamentally important questions for us are merely means to an end for them.Of course Trump represents the interests of certain groups of elites and is not merely the essence of a popular movement. I'll be honest, though, I'm having a tough time determining who these groups are, exactly.
Yes, and how many players, each with what orientation and degree of focus? The 0.1% population contains 10,000 – 50,00o potential players, globally.
It is my opinion that the extremely-high degree of corruption, within the mighty engine of resource consumption and bribery that is the US government, contributes greatly to the "big picture" of ongoing conflict among the members of the oligarchy.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- • Replies: @Anonymous
I was a boy watching those transmissions you helped bring us. Thank you, Sir!Sure, it's certainly possible that there's been a conspiracy to promote the notion that the moon landing was a hoax.Apollo is one of the greatest human achievements, my absolute favorite historical event. I consider myself lucky to have been alive and old enough to witness and understand it.
...
And I believe there has been in fact some conspiratorial effort over the years to promote their idiocy, a conspiracy on the part of those who would weaken American pride and reputation.
But it's also true that people with deep emotional attachments to things, especially inculcated in childhood, have trouble considering and questioning certain things. And it's well known that propaganda deliberately tries to inculcate these sort of emotional attachments in order to be more effective. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:31 pm GMT • 100 Words @Decius Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss.
The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall--and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?--is on Thoughts on Machiavelli . Strauss does so, first and foremost, because conspiracy is a major theme of Machiavelli's and the subject of the two longest chapters of his two most important books ( Prince 19 and Discourses III 6). Strauss further develops the idea that modern philosophy begins as a conspiracy between Machiavelli and (some of) his readers. Strauss simply never said anything like this:
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.As for his relationship with neoconservatism, you also overstate that considerably. Yes, there are many neoconservative Straussians. But there are also Straussian paleos, tradcons, liberatarians, liberals, and moderates. There are many who are apolitical and interested only in abstract philosophy. There are Straussian religious conservatives, agnostics and atheists. Christians, Jews and Muslim. Catholic, Protestants and Mormons. The neocons just get all the attention--owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration, which everyone today believes without having read, or even being aware of (have/are you?).If "neocon" has any meaning, it means, first, a former intellectual liberal who has drifted right. Second, a domestic policy scholar who focuses on data-driven social science. And third, a foreign policy hawk.
None of these really apply to Strauss, who spent his who career studying political philosophy, with an intense focus on the Greeks. He voted Dem in every election in which he could vote, until his last, 1972, when he voted for Nixon out of Cold War concerns. You might say that makes him a "hawk" but he never wrote any essays saying so. He simply told a few people privately that McGovern was too naïve about the Soviets. You might also say that is evidence that he "drifted right" but he didn't think so. He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death. As for data-driven social science, he famously attacked it in of the very few of his writings that ever got any attention in mainstream political science ("An Epilogue").
You may well be right about the CIA's role in popularizing the phrase "conspiracy theory." But Leo Strauss had nothing to do with it. Or, if he did, he hid his role exceptionally well, because there is no evidence of such in his writings.
Actually I don't think Ron is so far off. And I think, at best, you must be overeducated. Strauss held that authentic philosophy is a conspiracy . From there, certain practical advice about how to carry out the philosophy of the true philosopher follows. Such advice would about seem to be how Ron said it was.
I have not read the essay by Atlas. But for the duration of the Bush Administration I did read the Weekly Standard. I recall in particular one time when the editors recommended what books to bring to the beach, and Bill Kristol said "anything by Leo Strauss." My impression is that the Weekly Standard's brazen propaganda back then was the way certain editors understood themselves to be acting like Strauss's true disciples.
And of course now Krystol is hocking a former spook to run against Trump in Utah.
• Replies: @Decius The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious. Yes, Bill K loves Strauss. That really doesn't prove much about Strauss either way. I believe, though of course cannot prove since Strauss can't speak, that Strauss would have opposed the Iraq War. He would have seen it as imprudent and prudence is the supreme virtue of the statesman.You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points). Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Ron Unz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:34 pm GMT • 200 Words NEW! @Decius The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained--not to say serious--attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the work of William Altman. I don't think he even comes close to making his case.
The letter can more charitably and reasonably read as a frank acknowledgement of the failure of Weimar liberalism and of liberalism generally precisely to take into account nationalist sentiment but instead to "universalize" all particulars without due attention to differing conditions, circumstances, "matter," and so on. In other words, Strauss is defending the "concept of the political" both from liberal universalism and from the simple-minded identification of particularism (or nationalism) with fascism. Sound familiar? All nationalist sentiment is fascism, Trump is a Nazi, and so on. An "argument" as old as hills and which Strauss saw through immediately.
Once again, though, the tail is chased. How can Strauss be both a universalist neo-con and a particularist-nationalist-fascist at the same time? The only common thread is: Strauss is bad.
In my view, Strauss is good. More to the point, I find stronger intellectual support in Strauss for my own nationalist leanings and pro-Trump_vs_deep_state than I find in any other intellectual source of any depth. I am in the minority among Straussians in thinking so, but I am not alone. Morevoer, I think in open debate, I have a stronger case for Straussian particularism than others can make for Straussian universalism.
And, not incidentally, none of this points to any such views on conspiracy as you put into Strauss's mouth.
The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained–not to say serious–attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the work of William Altman.
Well, I decided I might as well google up the letter, and found this extended discussion in Harpers by someone who clearly dislikes Strauss and the Neocons, with a link to a full translation of Strauss's controversial missive.
http://harpers.org/blog/2008/01/will-the-real-leo-strauss-please-stand-up/
Offhand, it does indeed seem like I misremembered some of the details. Strauss apparently didn't seem to like the Nazis very much, but it certainly sounds like he had positive feelings towards the Fascists. In any event, the following excerpt makes me wonder whether he was actually a "liberal," or merely pretended to be since his income probably depended upon liberal donors and institutions
• Replies: @Decius What is a liberal? That's not a troll question. Strauss was above all a Socratic and Socratic philosophy begins with "what is" questions. One of Strauss's books is entitled Liberalism Ancient and Modern .And, what concerns this matter: the fact that the new right-wing Germany does not tolerate us says nothing against the principles of the right. To the contrary: only from the principles of the right, that is from fascist, authoritarian and imperial principles, is it possible with seemliness, that is, without resort to the ludicrous and despicable appeal to the droits imprescriptibles de l'homme(5) to protest against the shabby abomination There is no reason to crawl to the cross, neither to the cross of liberalism, as long as somewhere in the world there is a glimmer of the spark of the Roman thought.
Strauss was apparently a liberal in the US context in that he mostly voted for Dems. He also wrote one acerbically critical letter to National Review.
However, a mid-20th-century American liberal may have been many things, but unpatriotic or nationalistic they were not. When liberalism turned with McGovern, Strauss looked elsewhere, and then died a year later, so we don't know how his political outlook would, or would not, have changed longer term. But at least in the 40s-60s, he was quite OK with Cold War American liberals. That's perfectly consistent with the nationalist sentiment expressed in the letter to Lowith. Also, Strauss was appalled by the dissoluteness of Weimar--and would become appalled by the dissoluteness of the late 1960s. But America prior was not yet dissolute. And he was appalled by Weimar's weakness. But America pre-Vietnam was not weak. Again, perfectly consistent with the letter.
Strauss supported the Cold War because he thought the USSR was a real threat in the near term and because he feared, on a higher plane, the imposition of "the universal and homogenous state." He was opposed to that, whereas those to his left were for it. So was he conservative?
Strauss transcends all these distinctions. That's not to say that they are meaningless. Indeed, he would be the first to say that they are meaningful. But, like Tocqueville, Strauss aimed to see not differently but further than the parties. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Buzz Mohawk says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:48 pm GMT • 100 Words
By reading Ron's American Pravda series of columns, I am learning things that otherwise I would not have known. I am developing a clearer understanding of the real truth . This is an important contribution to my understanding of of reality!
And I trust this because of the quality and earnestness of the source.
This is all very much appreciated.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:50 pm GMT • 300 Words @Ron Unz
The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained–not to say serious–attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the work of William Altman.Well, I decided I might as well google up the letter, and found this extended discussion in Harpers by someone who clearly dislikes Strauss and the Neocons, with a link to a full translation of Strauss's controversial missive.http://harpers.org/blog/2008/01/will-the-real-leo-strauss-please-stand-up/
Offhand, it does indeed seem like I misremembered some of the details. Strauss apparently didn't seem to like the Nazis very much, but it certainly sounds like he had positive feelings towards the Fascists. In any event, the following excerpt makes me wonder whether he was actually a "liberal," or merely pretended to be since his income probably depended upon liberal donors and institutions...
And, what concerns this matter: the fact that the new right-wing Germany does not tolerate us says nothing against the principles of the right. To the contrary: only from the principles of the right, that is from fascist, authoritarian and imperial principles, is it possible with seemliness, that is, without resort to the ludicrous and despicable appeal to the droits imprescriptibles de l'homme(5) to protest against the shabby abomination...There is no reason to crawl to the cross, neither to the cross of liberalism, as long as somewhere in the world there is a glimmer of the spark of the Roman thought.What is a liberal? That's not a troll question. Strauss was above all a Socratic and Socratic philosophy begins with "what is" questions. One of Strauss's books is entitled Liberalism Ancient and Modern .
Strauss was apparently a liberal in the US context in that he mostly voted for Dems. He also wrote one acerbically critical letter to National Review.
However, a mid-20th-century American liberal may have been many things, but unpatriotic or nationalistic they were not. When liberalism turned with McGovern, Strauss looked elsewhere, and then died a year later, so we don't know how his political outlook would, or would not, have changed longer term. But at least in the 40s-60s, he was quite OK with Cold War American liberals. That's perfectly consistent with the nationalist sentiment expressed in the letter to Lowith. Also, Strauss was appalled by the dissoluteness of Weimar–and would become appalled by the dissoluteness of the late 1960s. But America prior was not yet dissolute. And he was appalled by Weimar's weakness. But America pre-Vietnam was not weak. Again, perfectly consistent with the letter.
Strauss supported the Cold War because he thought the USSR was a real threat in the near term and because he feared, on a higher plane, the imposition of "the universal and homogenous state." He was opposed to that, whereas those to his left were for it. So was he conservative?
Strauss transcends all these distinctions. That's not to say that they are meaningless. Indeed, he would be the first to say that they are meaningful. But, like Tocqueville, Strauss aimed to see not differently but further than the parties.
• Replies: @dahoit Liberals used to say,I might not agree with what you say,but I'll defend you right to say it.
Today they want to implant Citizenchips.
Moon landings a hoax?I doubt that,but does it matter to today's terrible times other than a sign of American dominance in space race propaganda?
Today we send up zionist satellites(when they don't explode) and fund their citizens efforts in militarization of space that threatens all,including US.
Unbelievable but true. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:50 pm GMT @Hibernian "FDR never intended that 2,400 Americans would die there."
Did he think our forces at Pearl, lacking needed intelligence, would limit the losses to a lesser number?
So it would seem. That critical intelligence on the Japanese was deliberately kept from Admiral Kimmel and General Short by FDR and his closest military officials is indisputable.
The question "why?" has never been answered in any meaningful sense.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4742-pearl-harbor-scapegoating-kimmel-and-short
• Replies: @Darin Yes, why?If you want to start a war, would you want to start with great defeat and loss of your fleet?
In the thirties, there were three cases of false flag attacks created to justify a war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukden_Incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_MainilaIn none of these cases the attacker actually killed thousands of his own soldiers, what would be the point? , @anonymous Here is Admiral Kimmel himself telling us that the FDR administration in Washington deliberately withheld vital intelligence from him, intelligence that would have saved countless lives:
https://youtu.be/Bo00IcRj_4Y Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:54 pm GMT • 100 Words @Pat Casey Actually I don't think Ron is so far off. And I think, at best, you must be overeducated. Strauss held that authentic philosophy is a conspiracy . From there, certain practical advice about how to carry out the philosophy of the true philosopher follows. Such advice would about seem to be how Ron said it was.
I have not read the essay by Atlas. But for the duration of the Bush Administration I did read the Weekly Standard. I recall in particular one time when the editors recommended what books to bring to the beach, and Bill Kristol said "anything by Leo Strauss." My impression is that the Weekly Standard's brazen propaganda back then was the way certain editors understood themselves to be acting like Strauss's true disciples.
And of course now Krystol is hocking a former spook to run against Trump in Utah.
The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious. Yes, Bill K loves Strauss. That really doesn't prove much about Strauss either way. I believe, though of course cannot prove since Strauss can't speak, that Strauss would have opposed the Iraq War. He would have seen it as imprudent and prudence is the supreme virtue of the statesman.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).
• Replies: @utu Unless you give some evidence that Strauss was a Reptilian or at least that he was a skeptic about the Moon landing there is no need for further discussion on Strauss here. , @Pat CaseyThe reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious.That's not what I did. Don't do that. You seemed to be saying the neo-cons do not hail from the school of Strauss as this Atlas fellow said they did. I was saying they do, according to them.It was pretty obvious back then that the weekly standard was acting as an organ of the bush administration more than a member of the media. I remember there was even a tepid discussion about how we as journalist should feel about these fellas with one foot in the media and one foot in the politics. Does that have anything to do with the style Strauss bespoke? My understanding is that Strauss addressed his philosophy not to Princes but certain among the reading public. That turns out to first of all mean political journalists who will sacrifice the integrity of their profession for the sake of a particular kind of proud story about the USA polity and its villains. Yes I do think people like Bill Krystol and Michael Ledeen saw themselves in terms as dramatic as that.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).You mean I was right about Strauss having a conspiracy theory of philosophy. I didn't say anything about the second half. I read Paul Gottfried and I agree Strauss was a ridiculous scholar. Of course I believe you when you say in so many words that Strauss did not like philosophies that license mass movements of true believers. Full stop right there. Now we can count back from all them and make this an exercise in splitting hairs. What audience to be precise did Strauss exactly have in mind? Actually I don't think he deserves that much credit; I don't think he really knew who he was writing for. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:59 pm GMT • 100 Words
So as a means of damage control, the CIA distributed a secret memo to all its field offices requesting that they enlist their media assets in efforts to ridicule and attack such critics as irrational supporters of "conspiracy theories."
And what do you know, the term "conspiracy theories" was non-existent in books before JFK's assassination but took off right after, according to Google's Ngram Viewer: https://is.gd/GYioQZ
• Replies: @Peripatetic commenter I see that someone has updated a document about that:https://infogalactic.com/info/Conspiracy_theory#Pejorative_meaning Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- • Replies: @Mr. Anon "Oleynik is Ukrainian."
The Ukrainians were, you know, part of the same Soviet Union which failed to put a man on the Moon.
"At any rate, attacking his ethnic background is just a cheap ad hominem argument."
No, it is pointing out what might be real motive for him to do what he is doing.
"Soros and his foundations funded, and still do presumably, scholarships and education grants in Eastern Europe following the Soviet collapse."
And what do you think of Soros? Do you think he is a manipulator of peoples, movements, entire governments? If so, what does it say that this guy was once on his payroll? Or do you simply temporarily suspend one part of your world-view when it becomes inconvenient for another part of it?
In any event, his purported photgraphic analysis is crap. He's talking about parallax exhibited in pairs of images taken from different bearings - but the pictures themselves were not even taken at the same locations, as can easily be seen from the details in the foreground. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Darin says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 7:30 pm GMT • 100 Words @anonymous So it would seem. That critical intelligence on the Japanese was deliberately kept from Admiral Kimmel and General Short by FDR and his closest military officials is indisputable.
The question "why?" has never been answered in any meaningful sense.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4742-pearl-harbor-scapegoating-kimmel-and-short
Yes, why?
If you want to start a war, would you want to start with great defeat and loss of your fleet?
In the thirties, there were three cases of false flag attacks created to justify a war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukden_Incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_MainilaIn none of these cases the attacker actually killed thousands of his own soldiers, what would be the point?
• Replies: @exiled off mainstreet I didn't notice Gleiwitz was mentioned in another posting before I mentioned it. I tend go along with you and suspect incompetence rather than purpose was the cause of the Pearl Harbor disaster, though the incompetence may have included failure to adequately warn those on the ground at Pearl Harbor. Personally, I don't back the "truther" version of the twin towers because that would have required a broader conspiracy than I think could have succeeded. My guess is that the neighboring building was destroyed as part of the cleanup effort. I do think, however, that the authorities knew something was up, didn't believe it could ever succeed and used it as a sort of Reichstag Fire incident to brush aside constitutional democracy in the US. I also suspect that the Mossad knew more than they let on. My guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power that history would have been far different. I suspect that the anthrax thing was more likely started by the yankee regime as a home-grown conspiracy. , @HippopotamusdromeThe fleet wasn't lost. The carriers were out at sea and not sunk. Eight battleships, three cruisers and three destroyers were damaged. Battleships were obsolete by that time in the face of aircraft. Battleships were mainly used as AA platforms to protect carriers and to bombard airfields. , @Jonathan Revusky
If you want to start a war, would you want to start with great defeat and loss of your fleet?
In none of these cases the attacker actually killed thousands of his own soldiers, what would be the point?Well, the answer should be obvious, no? You have an existing situation in which eat least 80% of the U.S. population is opposed to the war and you want to mobilize them. If you play chess, there are all these openings called "gambits" where you sacrifice a pawn or two to more rapidly mobilize your forces.3000 people is really just peanuts on a national level. If the result is that you get all this outrage and suddenly the majority of the population is screaming for war, well that could be well worth it. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Miro23 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 7:35 pm GMT • 700 Words @Wizard of Oz I accept that your explanation of the attack on USS Liberty is relatively plausible but another which runs it close is that Israel had to ensure that there was no proof left of the true order of events which were not in accordance with the Israeli official version. So I ask what are your sources?
Likewise, if you are saying that suicidal hijackers flew planes into buildings on 9/11 but that it was organised by Mossad or other Israelis your story needs a lot of filling out and evidence to be credible. Or are you merely saying the Israelis knew what was going to
happen and let it go ahead because it could be turned to their advantage?[Sorry, long reply]
The basic fact about the USS Liberty is that an American navy ship was attacked with the aim of sinking it, which is an Act of War since the ship was clearly marked.
In contrast, the attacking Israeli jets and torpedo boats were unmarked (i.e. they wanted to hide their identity), so a question is why were they unmarked if this was a standard military interception?
Whether the Israelis wanted to trigger a US attack on Egypt or hide their communications with regard to their attack on Syria is a secondary question. The main concern of the United States surely had to be to rescue their seamen and respond to the aggression.
And, this is where the story turns really nasty.
At least two rescue attempts were launched from US aircraft carriers nearby, but after the (obligatory) communication to Washington, both rescue flights were cancelled within minutes on direct orders of Secretary of Defence, Robert McNamara (source: 6th Fleet Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis speaking in confidence to the senior Liberty survivor, Naval Security Group officer, Lieutenant Commander David Lewis in a meeting requested by Geis).
Surviving personnel all received strict orders not say anything to anyone about the attack.
Eyewitness accounts say that 4 nuclear armed aircraft were simultaneously launched from the aircraft carrier America on the instructions of President Johnson only to be recalled when, presumably, the information came through that the Israelis had not succeeded in sinking the Liberty. Nuclear weapons were not needed to defend the Liberty.
Also there was an oral history report from the American Embassy in Cairo, (now in the LBJ Library), which notes that the Embassy received an urgent message from Washington warning that Cairo was about to be bombed by US forces.
An investigation led by Thomas Moorer, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff held the opinion that the Israeli motive was to draw the US into war against Egypt , through a false subterfuge of the same type as their King David Hotel bombing and Lavon Affair operations.
Any rational person has to conclude that Johnson was virtually following Israeli orders, which raises the question of why? Maybe they were blackmailing him with regard to something else that was more important to him than the destruction of Cairo?
9/11 had some of the same features as other Israeli False Flag attacks against Britain and the US, such as Israelis dressed as Arabs (framed Arabs) motivated towards tricking these countries into military action against Arab states. In fact the Israeli involvement in 9/11 was much deeper and more generalized as shown in investigative reporter Christopher Bollyn's book, "Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World". https://www.amazon.com/Solving-9-11-Deception-Changed-World/dp/0985322586/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
15 years later his account is supported in multiple ways from investigations in Florida (they didn't sneak in unseen – they were highly visible and got red carpet treatment with regard to visas etc. and they were completely incapable of flying the 9/11 airliners at the speeds and on the trajectories seen on the day + everyone who had contact with them was visited by the F.B.I. and told to shut up) – Source, a detailed and very interesting investigation by Daniel Hopsicker in "Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta and the 9/11 Cover-Up in Florida. https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
High-rise buildings don't collapse due to fire (reason given by the US government). All high rise fire disasters have been examined in detail, with most of them much more intense than the WTC ones, and no building collapsed – let alone in 7 seconds and three on the same day.
These Arabs didn't fly the jets and it's now clear that the buildings were taken down by placed explosives – the aim being to trick the US into an Iraq and Iran war and possibly launch an "Emergency" Neo-con regime (dictatorship) in the US led by Cheney and enforced by the Patriot Act/ Homeland security.
The other aspect here is that a government (and media) which genuinely represented the American people would give top priority to revealing the truth about the USS Liberty and 9/11 rather than engage in the present obfuscation, blocking, threats, smears and hiding of the truth.
• Replies: @nsa We here in Ft. Meade and Langley, using our vast media assets, have successfully inoculated the public against these deviant 911 ideas. Game over....we have achieved full spectrum dominance and total information awareness throughout 99% of the planet. , @Wizard of Oz Thanks. I wonder what will happen to Israel's support if and when serious money and research and publicity is put into telling the whole Liberty story and making sure it is drummed in.Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling the planes. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 7:38 pm GMT @anonymous So it would seem. That critical intelligence on the Japanese was deliberately kept from Admiral Kimmel and General Short by FDR and his closest military officials is indisputable.
The question "why?" has never been answered in any meaningful sense.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4742-pearl-harbor-scapegoating-kimmel-and-short
Here is Admiral Kimmel himself telling us that the FDR administration in Washington deliberately withheld vital intelligence from him, intelligence that would have saved countless lives:
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- utu says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 7:38 pm GMT @Decius The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious. Yes, Bill K loves Strauss. That really doesn't prove much about Strauss either way. I believe, though of course cannot prove since Strauss can't speak, that Strauss would have opposed the Iraq War. He would have seen it as imprudent and prudence is the supreme virtue of the statesman.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).
Unless you give some evidence that Strauss was a Reptilian or at least that he was a skeptic about the Moon landing there is no need for further discussion on Strauss here.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Erik Sieven says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 7:40 pm GMT @Kirt Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement by more than one person to do something evil and then the pursuit of that plan. Secrecy may be needed for the success of a conspiracy, but it is not essential to the definition. Were it essential to the definition, you could never prove the existence of a conspiracy. Either secrecy would be maintained and there would be little or no evidence or secrecy would not be maintained and the plan would become known and by definition not be a conspiracy.
"Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement by more than one person to do something evil and then the pursuit of that plan." but probably everything think that what he does is good, not evil
• Replies: @Kirt "probably everything think that what he does is good, not evil"Yeah, that's true. I think that it was Saint Thomas Aquinas who said that evil is always done under an aspect of good. Hence no one will consider himself a conspirator other than perhaps in a legal sense if he is aware that what he is doing is illegal. Apart from that the charge of conspiracy will always come from opponents; e.g. Hilly's charge of "a vast right-wing conspiracy". Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Darin says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 7:47 pm GMT • 100 Words
Another question to all conspirologists out there: what you think about Trump plant theory?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_plant_theory
https://www.facebook.com/ClintonTrumpConspiracy
Is Donald Trump paid by Clintons to let Hillary win? This need no big conspiracy, only Donald, Bill, Hill and few of their closest advisors would be on the plot, and it fits the character and modus operandi of the plotters. Any thoughts?
• Replies: @RobinG For a while I've wondered if Hillary funded Martin O'Malley, and also Lincoln Chaffee, just to give the illusion that there was some competition, and to give her an excuse to get media exposure in the primaries.(Hat-tip to a friend who posits that Virginia Independent Greens are a creation of Va. Repubs. for the same reasons.) Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Dave37 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 8:01 pm GMT
Maybe the CIA used conspiracy theory but ordinary perverse humans invented it. If moon lander deniers (and other conspiracies) were proven wrong the rest of us would be happy to see them in public stocks and a ready supply of tomatoes.
• Replies: @Bill Jones So no freedom of speech in your little world then. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Conspiracy Theories Are True - PaulCraigRoberts.org says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 8:09 pm GMT • 100 Words
[ ] I described how the CIA flummoxed insouciant Americans. Ron Unz gives you the intellectual history behind of how two foreign intellectuals, Karl Popper and Leo Strauss, shoved aside the truth-telling American intellectual, Charles Beard, who, like our founding fathers, had his finger on government's propensity to deceive the people with conspiracies. Popper said that conspiracies couldn't happen, and Strauss said they were necessary so that the government could pursue its agendas despite the public's opposition. http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-the-cia-invented-conspiracy-theories/ [ ]
- art guerrilla says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 8:10 pm GMT • 100 Words @Chief Seattle So, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention. The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in the media, overnight.
Maybe it's true, maybe not, but if the roles had been reversed, the media would be telling its proponents to take off their tin foil hats.
ahhh, but 'Russkie!/squirrel!' worked, didn't it ? ? ?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
virtually NOTHING about the actual content of the emails
what was hysterical, was a followup not too long afterwards, where pelosi 'warned' that there might be a whole raft of other emails which said bad stuff and stuff, and, um, they were -like- probably, um, all, uh, fake and stuff
it really is a funny tragi-comedy, isn't it ? ? ?
then why am i crying inside
- Alden says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 8:17 pm GMT • 100 Words @Wizard of Oz I accept that your explanation of the attack on USS Liberty is relatively plausible but another which runs it close is that Israel had to ensure that there was no proof left of the true order of events which were not in accordance with the Israeli official version. So I ask what are your sources?
Likewise, if you are saying that suicidal hijackers flew planes into buildings on 9/11 but that it was organised by Mossad or other Israelis your story needs a lot of filling out and evidence to be credible. Or are you merely saying the Israelis knew what was going to
happen and let it go ahead because it could be turned to their advantage?Re: your first question about the USS Liberty. The media covered it up completely. I was a young adult who read the newspaper every day plus Atlantic. new Republic and sometimes Newsweek.
And I never, never heard about it until 20 years later when I began reading books about ZionismI've read the book written by survivors. They were severely coerced to not say a word about it. I wouldn't be surprised if they were not threatened with death if they talked. They were in the navy remember and subject to the military code of Justice which means no ha rays corpus no access to attorneys until the trial and other nasty things.
I can't have an opinion about 9/11 because there is no way I can discover the truth. Silverstein's insurance payout is just a version of a standard insurance scam.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- nsa says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 8:22 pm GMT @Miro23 [Sorry, long reply]
The basic fact about the USS Liberty is that an American navy ship was attacked with the aim of sinking it, which is an Act of War since the ship was clearly marked.
In contrast, the attacking Israeli jets and torpedo boats were unmarked (i.e. they wanted to hide their identity), so a question is why were they unmarked if this was a standard military interception?
Whether the Israelis wanted to trigger a US attack on Egypt or hide their communications with regard to their attack on Syria is a secondary question. The main concern of the United States surely had to be to rescue their seamen and respond to the aggression.
And, this is where the story turns really nasty.
At least two rescue attempts were launched from US aircraft carriers nearby, but after the (obligatory) communication to Washington, both rescue flights were cancelled within minutes on direct orders of Secretary of Defence, Robert McNamara (source: 6th Fleet Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis speaking in confidence to the senior Liberty survivor, Naval Security Group officer, Lieutenant Commander David Lewis in a meeting requested by Geis).
Surviving personnel all received strict orders not say anything to anyone about the attack.
Eyewitness accounts say that 4 nuclear armed aircraft were simultaneously launched from the aircraft carrier America on the instructions of President Johnson only to be recalled when, presumably, the information came through that the Israelis had not succeeded in sinking the Liberty. Nuclear weapons were not needed to defend the Liberty.
Also there was an oral history report from the American Embassy in Cairo, (now in the LBJ Library), which notes that the Embassy received an urgent message from Washington warning that Cairo was about to be bombed by US forces.
An investigation led by Thomas Moorer, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff held the opinion that the Israeli motive was to draw the US into war against Egypt , through a false subterfuge of the same type as their King David Hotel bombing and Lavon Affair operations.
Any rational person has to conclude that Johnson was virtually following Israeli orders, which raises the question of why? Maybe they were blackmailing him with regard to something else that was more important to him than the destruction of Cairo?
9/11 had some of the same features as other Israeli False Flag attacks against Britain and the US, such as Israelis dressed as Arabs (framed Arabs) motivated towards tricking these countries into military action against Arab states. In fact the Israeli involvement in 9/11 was much deeper and more generalized as shown in investigative reporter Christopher Bollyn's book, "Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World". https://www.amazon.com/Solving-9-11-Deception-Changed-World/dp/0985322586/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
15 years later his account is supported in multiple ways from investigations in Florida (they didn't sneak in unseen – they were highly visible and got red carpet treatment with regard to visas etc. and they were completely incapable of flying the 9/11 airliners at the speeds and on the trajectories seen on the day + everyone who had contact with them was visited by the F.B.I. and told to shut up) - Source, a detailed and very interesting investigation by Daniel Hopsicker in "Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta and the 9/11 Cover-Up in Florida. https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
High-rise buildings don't collapse due to fire (reason given by the US government). All high rise fire disasters have been examined in detail, with most of them much more intense than the WTC ones, and no building collapsed - let alone in 7 seconds and three on the same day.
These Arabs didn't fly the jets and it's now clear that the buildings were taken down by placed explosives - the aim being to trick the US into an Iraq and Iran war and possibly launch an "Emergency" Neo-con regime (dictatorship) in the US led by Cheney and enforced by the Patriot Act/ Homeland security.
The other aspect here is that a government (and media) which genuinely represented the American people would give top priority to revealing the truth about the USS Liberty and 9/11 rather than engage in the present obfuscation, blocking, threats, smears and hiding of the truth.
We here in Ft. Meade and Langley, using our vast media assets, have successfully inoculated the public against these deviant 911 ideas. Game over .we have achieved full spectrum dominance and total information awareness throughout 99% of the planet.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 8:35 pm GMT • 300 Words @Decius The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious. Yes, Bill K loves Strauss. That really doesn't prove much about Strauss either way. I believe, though of course cannot prove since Strauss can't speak, that Strauss would have opposed the Iraq War. He would have seen it as imprudent and prudence is the supreme virtue of the statesman.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).
The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious.
That's not what I did. Don't do that. You seemed to be saying the neo-cons do not hail from the school of Strauss as this Atlas fellow said they did. I was saying they do, according to them.
It was pretty obvious back then that the weekly standard was acting as an organ of the bush administration more than a member of the media. I remember there was even a tepid discussion about how we as journalist should feel about these fellas with one foot in the media and one foot in the politics. Does that have anything to do with the style Strauss bespoke? My understanding is that Strauss addressed his philosophy not to Princes but certain among the reading public. That turns out to first of all mean political journalists who will sacrifice the integrity of their profession for the sake of a particular kind of proud story about the USA polity and its villains. Yes I do think people like Bill Krystol and Michael Ledeen saw themselves in terms as dramatic as that.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).
You mean I was right about Strauss having a conspiracy theory of philosophy. I didn't say anything about the second half. I read Paul Gottfried and I agree Strauss was a ridiculous scholar. Of course I believe you when you say in so many words that Strauss did not like philosophies that license mass movements of true believers. Full stop right there. Now we can count back from all them and make this an exercise in splitting hairs. What audience to be precise did Strauss exactly have in mind? Actually I don't think he deserves that much credit; I don't think he really knew who he was writing for.
• Replies: @Jacques SheeteI don't think he really knew who he was writing for.Love it.My theory is that they basically wrote anything that came to mind so long as no one could pin 'em down to specifics, allowed them to keep paying the bills , afforded them a chance to sound "profound," and to be somebody.
Pretty much all of the type are frauds and only fools (especially the pompous quasi-scientific, pseudo intellectual, ones) take 'em seriously. I agree that the ancients were much more honest but even they were recognized as BSers of high degree by the likes of Aristophanes and Lucian of Samosata to name only two. (I named them because they make particularly entertaining reading.)
I think the 20th century should be known as the Age of Pathetic Charlatans and I'm glad it's over. May it and the endless gaggle of cheap morons it spawned never return. , @Decius Kristol is a Straussian because he got a PhD in PolPhil from Harvard under Mansfield, who is a Straussian. There is no necessary connection between Strauss's thought any of the main tenets of Neo-conservatism. I've said, and you've all ignored, that Strauss attacked data-driven social science, which is the original hallmark of neo-conservatism. A later hallmark (which emerged after Strauss's death) was foreign policy hawkism. Unless you want to say that Strauss's opposition to the USSR makes him a neo-con, in which case every Cold War liberal going back to Truman was a neo-con. At which point the term has no meaning.
Strauss addresses scholars and potential philosophers. He has almost nothing to say about the transient issues of his age. Based on his comments on what other thinkers had to say about war (Thucydides above all) I believe we can infer that Strauss was generally in favor of preparedness and wariness but otherwise anti-war in the general sense. If we may analogize the Iraq War to the Sicilian Expedition we may say that Strauss probably would have opposed the former as imprudent, just as he tacitly endorses T's judgement that the latter was imprudent.
Strauss openly characterizes Machiavelli's approach to philosophy as a conspiracy, using that word, but does not say it about any other thinker. However, his teaching that philosophy is an inherently elite and very small enterprise may be fairly characterized as a "conspiracy." however, before modernity, the nature of the conspiracy was to protect the conspirators and the philosophic life, not a reform campaign. that's what it becomes under modernity, which Strauss opposes. One of Strauss's aims in writing was to revive the ancient idea of philosophy, its proper scope, and its proper relationship to society, which he believed modernity had corrupted.
It is unfortunate that Strauss became a bogey-man to so many who have no idea what he said or why. It happened rather recently and based on some very thin scholarship. Most of the thing people try to pin on him are things that I and my friends oppose too. We just know they don't trace to Strauss. In fact, the opposite is often true. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Mr. Anon says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 9:19 pm GMT
"Only a child – or its intellectual equivalent, i.e., a low information infotainment consumer – could believe in the official version of 9/11."
That is clearly false, as plenty of people who are smart – smarter than you actually – do in fact believe just that.
• Replies: @Miro23 Being smart has nothing to do with it.For example the government says that WTC7 completely collapsed in 7 seconds due to fire. You don't need to be smart to see something is wrong here (hint: most of the structural pillars were untouched by fire). , @Miro23 Or maybe a lot of smart people pretend to believe the official 9/11 story because that's where their interest lies. MSM journalists know for sure that articles that deviate from the official line on 9/11 are career ending moves .
In simple terms, MSM owners have decided that 9/11 is a taboo subject (same as USS Liberty) and they decide what gets published. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Jacques Sheete says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 9:43 pm GMT • 100 Words @Pat Casey
The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious.That's not what I did. Don't do that. You seemed to be saying the neo-cons do not hail from the school of Strauss as this Atlas fellow said they did. I was saying they do, according to them.It was pretty obvious back then that the weekly standard was acting as an organ of the bush administration more than a member of the media. I remember there was even a tepid discussion about how we as journalist should feel about these fellas with one foot in the media and one foot in the politics. Does that have anything to do with the style Strauss bespoke? My understanding is that Strauss addressed his philosophy not to Princes but certain among the reading public. That turns out to first of all mean political journalists who will sacrifice the integrity of their profession for the sake of a particular kind of proud story about the USA polity and its villains. Yes I do think people like Bill Krystol and Michael Ledeen saw themselves in terms as dramatic as that.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).You mean I was right about Strauss having a conspiracy theory of philosophy. I didn't say anything about the second half. I read Paul Gottfried and I agree Strauss was a ridiculous scholar. Of course I believe you when you say in so many words that Strauss did not like philosophies that license mass movements of true believers. Full stop right there. Now we can count back from all them and make this an exercise in splitting hairs. What audience to be precise did Strauss exactly have in mind? Actually I don't think he deserves that much credit; I don't think he really knew who he was writing for.I don't think he really knew who he was writing for.
Love it.
My theory is that they basically wrote anything that came to mind so long as no one could pin 'em down to specifics, allowed them to keep paying the bills , afforded them a chance to sound "profound," and to be somebody.
Pretty much all of the type are frauds and only fools (especially the pompous quasi-scientific, pseudo intellectual, ones) take 'em seriously. I agree that the ancients were much more honest but even they were recognized as BSers of high degree by the likes of Aristophanes and Lucian of Samosata to name only two. (I named them because they make particularly entertaining reading.)
I think the 20th century should be known as the Age of Pathetic Charlatans and I'm glad it's over. May it and the endless gaggle of cheap morons it spawned never return.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Miro23 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 9:54 pm GMT @Mr. Anon "Only a child – or its intellectual equivalent, i.e., a low information infotainment consumer – could believe in the official version of 9/11."
That is clearly false, as plenty of people who are smart - smarter than you actually - do in fact believe just that.
Being smart has nothing to do with it.
For example the government says that WTC7 completely collapsed in 7 seconds due to fire. You don't need to be smart to see something is wrong here (hint: most of the structural pillars were untouched by fire).
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz I see the biggest problem about a conspiratorial explanation for the WTC 7 collapse is motive. How does it make sense for those who wanted the big splash that hitting buildings 1 and 2 would give? The other major difficulty is the video footage of fires burning all day which had to have heated the steel and therefore potentially weakened it to a critical point. Where's the mystery? , @Mr. Anon "Being smart has nothing to do with it."Being smart usually has everything to do with everything. But to people like you, ignorance opens up a world of possibilities, no matter how false or ludicrous they may be. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:12 pm GMT • 400 Words @Pat Casey
The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious.That's not what I did. Don't do that. You seemed to be saying the neo-cons do not hail from the school of Strauss as this Atlas fellow said they did. I was saying they do, according to them.It was pretty obvious back then that the weekly standard was acting as an organ of the bush administration more than a member of the media. I remember there was even a tepid discussion about how we as journalist should feel about these fellas with one foot in the media and one foot in the politics. Does that have anything to do with the style Strauss bespoke? My understanding is that Strauss addressed his philosophy not to Princes but certain among the reading public. That turns out to first of all mean political journalists who will sacrifice the integrity of their profession for the sake of a particular kind of proud story about the USA polity and its villains. Yes I do think people like Bill Krystol and Michael Ledeen saw themselves in terms as dramatic as that.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).You mean I was right about Strauss having a conspiracy theory of philosophy. I didn't say anything about the second half. I read Paul Gottfried and I agree Strauss was a ridiculous scholar. Of course I believe you when you say in so many words that Strauss did not like philosophies that license mass movements of true believers. Full stop right there. Now we can count back from all them and make this an exercise in splitting hairs. What audience to be precise did Strauss exactly have in mind? Actually I don't think he deserves that much credit; I don't think he really knew who he was writing for.Kristol is a Straussian because he got a PhD in PolPhil from Harvard under Mansfield, who is a Straussian. There is no necessary connection between Strauss's thought any of the main tenets of Neo-conservatism. I've said, and you've all ignored, that Strauss attacked data-driven social science, which is the original hallmark of neo-conservatism. A later hallmark (which emerged after Strauss's death) was foreign policy hawkism. Unless you want to say that Strauss's opposition to the USSR makes him a neo-con, in which case every Cold War liberal going back to Truman was a neo-con. At which point the term has no meaning.
Strauss addresses scholars and potential philosophers. He has almost nothing to say about the transient issues of his age. Based on his comments on what other thinkers had to say about war (Thucydides above all) I believe we can infer that Strauss was generally in favor of preparedness and wariness but otherwise anti-war in the general sense. If we may analogize the Iraq War to the Sicilian Expedition we may say that Strauss probably would have opposed the former as imprudent, just as he tacitly endorses T's judgement that the latter was imprudent.
Strauss openly characterizes Machiavelli's approach to philosophy as a conspiracy, using that word, but does not say it about any other thinker. However, his teaching that philosophy is an inherently elite and very small enterprise may be fairly characterized as a "conspiracy." however, before modernity, the nature of the conspiracy was to protect the conspirators and the philosophic life, not a reform campaign. that's what it becomes under modernity, which Strauss opposes. One of Strauss's aims in writing was to revive the ancient idea of philosophy, its proper scope, and its proper relationship to society, which he believed modernity had corrupted.
It is unfortunate that Strauss became a bogey-man to so many who have no idea what he said or why. It happened rather recently and based on some very thin scholarship. Most of the thing people try to pin on him are things that I and my friends oppose too. We just know they don't trace to Strauss. In fact, the opposite is often true.
• Replies: @Pat Casey Thanks for that response, gave me a better perspective of the man. I guess he did know who he was writing for. And I do think the way to write for history is to write history by disregarding topical preoccupations, except to damn them with faint praise. I have a master like that I always go back to on the topic I care about most.And actually the one work of Strauss's I have picked up, years ago, is his Machiavelli; it's one of the thousands of books I've read--- not though one of the few I finished. Brushing up just now by way of wikipedia, it doesn't look like Strauss staked his claim strong enough, if an original reading is what he was writing.
By the way, I know the Irishman John Toland was the first to publish on the esoteric-exoteric distinction, and coined the term pantheist on a related occasion when he named what new beast Spinoza had born. That was when an esoteric mode of writing was really needed, and you will hear The Ethics called esoteric or cryptic, but I know the work well, and it is no more esoteric than any work of genius that teaches you to read closely right at the start.
Is The Prince an esoteric work? Did it entertain a conspiracy with special readers? I suppose only if Machiavelli had individuals in mind who might wonder were they all the while in mind when he was writing about how to dispose of them. The point is, there's nothing profound about observing that, it's almost common sense if you take into account the first thing about Machiavelli's circumstance.
I won't be glib and write Strauss's method off as typically paranoid; it's creative, but bound to be too creative by half. I think it might lead readers to have more fun than's good for learning. , @Wizard of Oz Fascinating. A reminder that one should five lives lived to 120 so one can lots of stories right.... , @5371 You are right that Strauss's culpability for the neocons has been vastly exaggerated. You are wrong that he is worth reading. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Miro23 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:15 pm GMT • 100 Words @Mr. Anon "Only a child – or its intellectual equivalent, i.e., a low information infotainment consumer – could believe in the official version of 9/11."
That is clearly false, as plenty of people who are smart - smarter than you actually - do in fact believe just that.
Or maybe a lot of smart people pretend to believe the official 9/11 story because that's where their interest lies. MSM journalists know for sure that articles that deviate from the official line on 9/11 are career ending moves .
In simple terms, MSM owners have decided that 9/11 is a taboo subject (same as USS Liberty) and they decide what gets published.
• Replies: @Ron UnzOr maybe a lot of smart people pretend to believe the official 9/11 story because that's where their interest lies. MSM journalists know for sure that articles that deviate from the official line on 9/11 are career ending moves .Well, I haven't read through all of this enormously long discussion-thread, but I happened to notice this particular comment. Not having been an MSM journalist myself, I can't say whether or not it's true, but a couple of interesting, possibly coincidental, examples come to mind...In simple terms, MSM owners have decided that 9/11 is a taboo subject (same as USS Liberty) and they decide what gets published.
In late July 2010, longtime Canadian journalist Eric Margolis was told his column would be dropped, and just a few weeks later he published a double-length piece expressing strong doubts about 9/11, the first time he'd articulated that position:
http://www.unz.com/article/911-the-mother-of-all-coincidences/
In 2007, the parent company of The Chicago Tribune announced it had accepted a leveraged-buyout takeover bid by investor Sam Zell, who planned a massive wave cost-cutting layoffs, which eventually wrecked the company. In late 2007, the Chicago Tribune suddenly ran a very long piece regarding the Liberty Attack, about the only time I've ever seen it discussed in the MSM.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-liberty_tuesoct02-story.html Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Konga says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:17 pm GMT @Miro23 The British and Americans have been the victims of conspiracies (False Flag operations) for years.
For example:
The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government of Palestine) in which Zionist activists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with explosives against the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44. Israeli prime Minister Netanyahu, attended a celebration to commemorate the event.
Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed British and American cinemas, libraries and educational centers in Egypt to destabilize the country and keep British troops committed to the Middle East.
Or June 8, 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats. 34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following over nine hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all lives lost on the Egyptians and draw the US into the war.
Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the most recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with Israelis once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that seems to carry a lot of kudos with old Israeli ex-terrorist Likudniks. Israeli agents were sent to film the historic day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations including photos of themselves with a background of the burning towers where thousands of Americans were being incinerated.
Iraq was destroyed as a result of 9/11 but unfortunately for the conspirators, the momentum wasn't sufficient for a general war including Iran. Also the general war would have included the nuclear angle and justified the activation of a neo-con led Emergency Regime (dictatorship) in the US enforced with the newly printed Patriot Act and Homeland Security troops - or maybe that's just another Conspiracy Theory?
So true!
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
But you forgot the two missiles shot from a NATO naval and HQ base in Spain towards Damascus, shot down by the Russians (two weeks before the "agreement" on chemical weapons, remember?) and then attributed to Israel's drills turned wrong
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:17 pm GMT
A good book, BTW, is Robert Howse's Leo Strauss: Man of Peace . Howse is liberal, FWIW.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- ten miles says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:20 pm GMT
One resents (first), and eventually hates whom they have to lie to. In what regard would our elites, in our electoral democracy, hold us voters in (by now)?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Kinda answers itself doesn't it?
- nsa says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:32 pm GMT
How could the godfather of neocon jooies have written so many great waltzes .like the angelic Blue Danube? You see how easy disinfo is for us here in Ft. Meade and Langley?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Konga says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:35 pm GMT @Darin If moon landings were fake, why hadn't USSR or China revealed it? This would discredit USA before the whole world and won the Cold War in one stroke.
If USSR was also part of the plot, then whole Cold War was fake - and in this case there would be no need for the small Apollo fake.
Sometimes, stupid conspiracy theories are just stupid conspiracy theories - or smart fakes, designed to discredit conspirational thinking and distract them from the real conspiracies. Take your pick.
"Take your pick". I take your prick.
Do you think anyone would care/accept/believe if USSR did "reveal" the fakery? On the contrary, it would be a point in favour of the "reality" of the landing.
Sometimes "stupid conspiracy theories" deniers are just that: stupid deniers.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- RobinG says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:45 pm GMT • 100 Words @Darin Another question to all conspirologists out there: what you think about Trump plant theory?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_plant_theory
https://www.facebook.com/ClintonTrumpConspiracy
Is Donald Trump paid by Clintons to let Hillary win? This need no big conspiracy, only Donald, Bill, Hill and few of their closest advisors would be on the plot, and it fits the character and modus operandi of the plotters. Any thoughts?
For a while I've wondered if Hillary funded Martin O'Malley, and also Lincoln Chaffee, just to give the illusion that there was some competition, and to give her an excuse to get media exposure in the primaries.
(Hat-tip to a friend who posits that Virginia Independent Greens are a creation of Va. Repubs. for the same reasons.)
• Replies: @iffen just to give the illusion that there was some competitionI think she funded Bernie as well. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- map says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 11:03 pm GMT • 100 Words
Popper's point about conspiracy theories really makes no sense. This is the assumption that a conspiracy is like a start-up, one that requires lots of transparency to work because of the need to recruit members for the conspiracy. As soon as one member disagrees, the conspiracy falls apart.
The problem is that a conspiracy is not like a start-up. The purpose of the start-up is the start-up itself. The purpose of the conspiracy is not the conspiracy itself. Conspiracies are simply vehicles by which like minded people actually find each other. The secrecy is built-in because they are like-minded.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Kirt says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 11:15 pm GMT • 100 Words @Erik Sieven "Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement by more than one person to do something evil and then the pursuit of that plan." but probably everything think that what he does is good, not evil
"probably everything think that what he does is good, not evil"
Yeah, that's true. I think that it was Saint Thomas Aquinas who said that evil is always done under an aspect of good. Hence no one will consider himself a conspirator other than perhaps in a legal sense if he is aware that what he is doing is illegal. Apart from that the charge of conspiracy will always come from opponents; e.g. Hilly's charge of "a vast right-wing conspiracy".
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Chuck says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 11:20 pm GMT @Darin If moon landings were fake, why hadn't USSR or China revealed it? This would discredit USA before the whole world and won the Cold War in one stroke.
If USSR was also part of the plot, then whole Cold War was fake - and in this case there would be no need for the small Apollo fake.
Sometimes, stupid conspiracy theories are just stupid conspiracy theories - or smart fakes, designed to discredit conspirational thinking and distract them from the real conspiracies. Take your pick.
Why did the USSR stop at the 38th parallel upon American request?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Ron Unz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 11:27 pm GMT • 800 Words NEW! @Paul Jolliffe Mr. Unz,
Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media" in which he addresses - and confirms - your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a figure than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades . . .
http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media" in which he addresses – and confirms – your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a figure than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades
Thanks so much for the excellent reference to the Bernstein article, of which I hadn't been aware. I found it fascinating, not least because of all the speculations floating around over the last decade or two that Bernstein's famed collaborator, Bob Woodward, had had an intelligence background, and perhaps Watergate represented a plot by elements of the CIA to remove Nixon from the White House. As for the 25,000 word article itself, I'd suggest that people read it. Since quite a lot of this comment-thread is already filled with debates about the supposed liberalism of Leo Strauss and an alleged Moon Landing Hoax, I might as well provide a few of the provocative extracts:
http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
He was very eager, he loved to cooperate." On one occasion, according to several CIA officials, Sulzberger was given a briefing paper by the Agency which ran almost verbatim under the columnist's byline in the Times. "Cycame out and said, 'I'm thinking of doing a piece, can you give me some background?'" a CIA officer said. "We gave it to Cy as a background piece and Cy gave it to the printers and put his name on it." Sulzberger denies that any incident occurred. "A lot of baloney," he said.
[MORE]
Stewart Alsop's relationship with the Agency was much more extensive than Sulzberger's. One official who served at the highest levels in the CIA said flatly: "Stew Alsop was a CIA agent." An equally senior official refused to define Alsop's relationship with the Agency except to say it was a formal one. Other sources said that Alsop was particularly helpful to the Agency in discussions with, officials of foreign governments-asking questions to which the CIA was seeking answers, planting misinformation advantageous to American policy, assessing opportunities for CIA recruitment of well‑placed foreigners.
The New York Times. The Agency's relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. From 1950 to 1966, about ten CIA employees were provided Times cover under arrangements approved by the newspaper's late publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. The cover arrangements were part of a general Times policy-set by Sulzberger-to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible.
When Newsweek waspurchased by the Washington Post Company, publisher Philip L. Graham was informed by Agency officials that the CIA occasionally used the magazine for cover purposes, according to CIA sources. "It was widely known that Phil Graham was somebody you could get help from," said a former deputy director of the Agency. "Frank Wisner dealt with him." Wisner, deputy director of the CIA from 1950 until shortly before his suicide in 1965, was the Agency's premier orchestrator of "black" operations, including many in which journalists were involved. Wisner liked to boast of his "mighty Wurlitzer," a wondrous propaganda instrument he built, and played, with help from the press.) Phil Graham was probably Wisner's closest friend. But Graharn, who committed suicide in 1963, apparently knew little of the specifics of any cover arrangements with Newsweek, CIA sources said.
The Agency played an intriguing numbers game with the committee. Those who prepared the material say it was physically impossible to produce all of the Agency's files on the use of journalists. "We gave them a broad, representative picture," said one agency official. "We never pretended it was a total description of the range of activities over 25 years, or of the number of journalists who have done things for us." A relatively small number of the summaries described the activities of foreign journalists-including those working as stringers for American publications. Those officials most knowledgeable about the subject say that a figure of 400 American journalists is on the low side of the actual number who maintained covert relationships and undertook clandestine tasks.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All CommentsFrom the twenty‑five files he got back, according to Senate sources and CIA officials, an unavoidable conclusion emerged: that to a degree never widely suspected, the CIA in the 1950s, '60s and even early '70s had concentrated its relationships with journalists in the most prominent sectors of the American press corps, including four or five of the largest newspapers in the country, the broadcast networks and the two major newsweekly magazines. Despite the omission of names and affiliations from the twenty‑five detailed files each was between three and eleven inches thick), the information was usually sufficient to tentatively identify either the newsman, his affiliation or both-particularly because so many of them were prominent in the profession.
- iffen says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 11:29 pm GMT @RobinG For a while I've wondered if Hillary funded Martin O'Malley, and also Lincoln Chaffee, just to give the illusion that there was some competition, and to give her an excuse to get media exposure in the primaries.
(Hat-tip to a friend who posits that Virginia Independent Greens are a creation of Va. Repubs. for the same reasons.)
just to give the illusion that there was some competition
I think she funded Bernie as well.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- The Alarmist says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 11:36 pm GMT • 200 Words @John Jeremiah Smith
I suppose NASA could have sent an S-Band repeater to the Moon.There's more than one scenario that can be assembled to explain any one or two conditions that would have to be "covered" in order to carry out a conspiracy of deception regarding the Moon landings. Considering the inferior level of video jiggering available at the time, it seems to me that providing full "evidence" of the low-gravity behavior of objects, and the absolute two-color light/shadow effects in an absence of atmosphere would be the most difficult.The principle of parsimony becomes ascendant at some point in that Hall of Mirrors. It was easier to go to the Moon than it was to fake it.
Not to be arch, but, even with the repeater on the moon, what about the bounce echo from the tight-beam signal coming from Earth carrying the deceptive info? ;-)
I personally think they did land on the moon, but am paying devil's advocate here .
"Not to be arch, but, even with the repeater on the moon, what about the bounce echo from the tight-beam signal coming from Earth carrying the deceptive info? "
First, you could transvert from one range to another, so an interested party would have know where to look for the reflection. You could uplink in another range of S-Band, or go lower to L-band if you don't mind a little faraday rotation. Your link-budget would be just sufficient to get a signal from the lunar repeater to Earth, but that would most likely not be enough enough for a full round-trip of the terrestrial signal. Most of your tight beam would still pass fairly wide abeam the moon, and that which was reflected back to Earth would be further degraded by libration fading.
How do you get Astronauts bouncing and hammers falling in Slo-Mo? Film at 60fps, replay at 30. Ah, but you have to have a really good clean-room to keep dust off the film. Maybe that is why videotape technology took off in the early seventies
• Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
How do you get Astronauts bouncing and hammers falling in Slo-Mo?Yeah, the gravity effects are a BIG job. Just slo-mo-ing won't do it, because you have different curvature of falling profile, and acceleration of gravity is different because moon-mass is less (and non-linear ref 30fps v. 60fps.)There would also be additive propagation delay in the radio signals. Pure delay, too -- no compensation would fix that in 1969. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 11:48 pm GMT • 300 Words @Decius Kristol is a Straussian because he got a PhD in PolPhil from Harvard under Mansfield, who is a Straussian. There is no necessary connection between Strauss's thought any of the main tenets of Neo-conservatism. I've said, and you've all ignored, that Strauss attacked data-driven social science, which is the original hallmark of neo-conservatism. A later hallmark (which emerged after Strauss's death) was foreign policy hawkism. Unless you want to say that Strauss's opposition to the USSR makes him a neo-con, in which case every Cold War liberal going back to Truman was a neo-con. At which point the term has no meaning.
Strauss addresses scholars and potential philosophers. He has almost nothing to say about the transient issues of his age. Based on his comments on what other thinkers had to say about war (Thucydides above all) I believe we can infer that Strauss was generally in favor of preparedness and wariness but otherwise anti-war in the general sense. If we may analogize the Iraq War to the Sicilian Expedition we may say that Strauss probably would have opposed the former as imprudent, just as he tacitly endorses T's judgement that the latter was imprudent.
Strauss openly characterizes Machiavelli's approach to philosophy as a conspiracy, using that word, but does not say it about any other thinker. However, his teaching that philosophy is an inherently elite and very small enterprise may be fairly characterized as a "conspiracy." however, before modernity, the nature of the conspiracy was to protect the conspirators and the philosophic life, not a reform campaign. that's what it becomes under modernity, which Strauss opposes. One of Strauss's aims in writing was to revive the ancient idea of philosophy, its proper scope, and its proper relationship to society, which he believed modernity had corrupted.
It is unfortunate that Strauss became a bogey-man to so many who have no idea what he said or why. It happened rather recently and based on some very thin scholarship. Most of the thing people try to pin on him are things that I and my friends oppose too. We just know they don't trace to Strauss. In fact, the opposite is often true.
Thanks for that response, gave me a better perspective of the man. I guess he did know who he was writing for. And I do think the way to write for history is to write history by disregarding topical preoccupations, except to damn them with faint praise. I have a master like that I always go back to on the topic I care about most.
And actually the one work of Strauss's I have picked up, years ago, is his Machiavelli; it's one of the thousands of books I've read- not though one of the few I finished. Brushing up just now by way of wikipedia, it doesn't look like Strauss staked his claim strong enough, if an original reading is what he was writing.
By the way, I know the Irishman John Toland was the first to publish on the esoteric-exoteric distinction, and coined the term pantheist on a related occasion when he named what new beast Spinoza had born. That was when an esoteric mode of writing was really needed, and you will hear The Ethics called esoteric or cryptic, but I know the work well, and it is no more esoteric than any work of genius that teaches you to read closely right at the start.
Is The Prince an esoteric work? Did it entertain a conspiracy with special readers? I suppose only if Machiavelli had individuals in mind who might wonder were they all the while in mind when he was writing about how to dispose of them. The point is, there's nothing profound about observing that, it's almost common sense if you take into account the first thing about Machiavelli's circumstance.
I won't be glib and write Strauss's method off as typically paranoid; it's creative, but bound to be too creative by half. I think it might lead readers to have more fun than's good for learning.
• Replies: @Decius First, if you are at all interested in esotericism, I cannot recommend highly enough Philosophy Between the Lines by Meltzer. The only thing critical I can say about this book is that, if one is really an expert in one of the thinkers that Meltzer treats, one will read the passages on that thinker that Meltzer cites and say "So what? I've known that for years. He's shed no new light." Which is true. But irrelevant to what he's trying to do. The book presents an unassailable case that philosophy has been esoteric since Plato. Esotericism long predates Spinoza and has been discussed since ancient times. Strauss simply revived a concept that had been forgotten. Toland (who I am not that familiar with) wrote before esotericism as it were "lapsed." Strauss says that Goethe and Lessing were the last to write this way. When Strauss revived knowledge of esotericism in the late 1930s with the first Xenophon article, he was considered nuts.Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore him.
I would recommend in addition Strauss's book on Spinoza and especially the much later preface that he wrote when he felt he finally understood Spinoza's esotericism.
Yes, the Prince (and the Discourses , and Art of War , and Florentine Histories ) are esoteric. It's too complex to argue in a comment thread. Suffice it to say for now that the outrageous "kill that dude" teachings serve and exoteric purpose. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 12:11 am GMT • 100 Words @Miro23 [Sorry, long reply]
The basic fact about the USS Liberty is that an American navy ship was attacked with the aim of sinking it, which is an Act of War since the ship was clearly marked.
In contrast, the attacking Israeli jets and torpedo boats were unmarked (i.e. they wanted to hide their identity), so a question is why were they unmarked if this was a standard military interception?
Whether the Israelis wanted to trigger a US attack on Egypt or hide their communications with regard to their attack on Syria is a secondary question. The main concern of the United States surely had to be to rescue their seamen and respond to the aggression.
And, this is where the story turns really nasty.
At least two rescue attempts were launched from US aircraft carriers nearby, but after the (obligatory) communication to Washington, both rescue flights were cancelled within minutes on direct orders of Secretary of Defence, Robert McNamara (source: 6th Fleet Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis speaking in confidence to the senior Liberty survivor, Naval Security Group officer, Lieutenant Commander David Lewis in a meeting requested by Geis).
Surviving personnel all received strict orders not say anything to anyone about the attack.
Eyewitness accounts say that 4 nuclear armed aircraft were simultaneously launched from the aircraft carrier America on the instructions of President Johnson only to be recalled when, presumably, the information came through that the Israelis had not succeeded in sinking the Liberty. Nuclear weapons were not needed to defend the Liberty.
Also there was an oral history report from the American Embassy in Cairo, (now in the LBJ Library), which notes that the Embassy received an urgent message from Washington warning that Cairo was about to be bombed by US forces.
An investigation led by Thomas Moorer, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff held the opinion that the Israeli motive was to draw the US into war against Egypt , through a false subterfuge of the same type as their King David Hotel bombing and Lavon Affair operations.
Any rational person has to conclude that Johnson was virtually following Israeli orders, which raises the question of why? Maybe they were blackmailing him with regard to something else that was more important to him than the destruction of Cairo?
9/11 had some of the same features as other Israeli False Flag attacks against Britain and the US, such as Israelis dressed as Arabs (framed Arabs) motivated towards tricking these countries into military action against Arab states. In fact the Israeli involvement in 9/11 was much deeper and more generalized as shown in investigative reporter Christopher Bollyn's book, "Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World". https://www.amazon.com/Solving-9-11-Deception-Changed-World/dp/0985322586/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
15 years later his account is supported in multiple ways from investigations in Florida (they didn't sneak in unseen – they were highly visible and got red carpet treatment with regard to visas etc. and they were completely incapable of flying the 9/11 airliners at the speeds and on the trajectories seen on the day + everyone who had contact with them was visited by the F.B.I. and told to shut up) - Source, a detailed and very interesting investigation by Daniel Hopsicker in "Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta and the 9/11 Cover-Up in Florida. https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
High-rise buildings don't collapse due to fire (reason given by the US government). All high rise fire disasters have been examined in detail, with most of them much more intense than the WTC ones, and no building collapsed - let alone in 7 seconds and three on the same day.
These Arabs didn't fly the jets and it's now clear that the buildings were taken down by placed explosives - the aim being to trick the US into an Iraq and Iran war and possibly launch an "Emergency" Neo-con regime (dictatorship) in the US led by Cheney and enforced by the Patriot Act/ Homeland security.
The other aspect here is that a government (and media) which genuinely represented the American people would give top priority to revealing the truth about the USS Liberty and 9/11 rather than engage in the present obfuscation, blocking, threats, smears and hiding of the truth.
Thanks. I wonder what will happen to Israel's support if and when serious money and research and publicity is put into telling the whole Liberty story and making sure it is drummed in.
Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling the planes.
• Replies: @CalDre Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling the planes.Controlling, yes; but on-board, no. "Coincidentally", all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely (and in the case of 9/11, since everything was known in advance, the entire flight pattern could have been pre-programmed into a module and uploaded in to the aircrafts' computers).
If you look into it you will find reports of a a "mystery" large white jet flying over Washington on the morning of 9/11. Some have identified it as a E-4B (a Boeing E-4 Advanced Airborne Command Post), a strategic command and control military aircraft operated by the United States Air Force. We know neither Bush nor Cheney was on that plane.
While perhaps not necessary, the cockpit could have been filled with a tranquilizing gas to incapacitate all the pilots and (stooge) hijackers so that they would not interfere with the remote-controlled operation of the planes.
Remember that these "deeply religious" Muslim "hijackers" went out drinking at a strip club the night of 9/10. Both are deep sins in Islam, not something someone is going to do when they are about to meet their Maker. Most likely they thought they were participating in a drill (since, in fact on the date of 9/11, a drill was taking place, having to do with - wait for it - airplanes being hijacked and flown into buildings).
The precision and extreme competence of the flying maneuvers is readily explained by the auto-pilot feature. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 12:15 am GMT @Decius Kristol is a Straussian because he got a PhD in PolPhil from Harvard under Mansfield, who is a Straussian. There is no necessary connection between Strauss's thought any of the main tenets of Neo-conservatism. I've said, and you've all ignored, that Strauss attacked data-driven social science, which is the original hallmark of neo-conservatism. A later hallmark (which emerged after Strauss's death) was foreign policy hawkism. Unless you want to say that Strauss's opposition to the USSR makes him a neo-con, in which case every Cold War liberal going back to Truman was a neo-con. At which point the term has no meaning.
Strauss addresses scholars and potential philosophers. He has almost nothing to say about the transient issues of his age. Based on his comments on what other thinkers had to say about war (Thucydides above all) I believe we can infer that Strauss was generally in favor of preparedness and wariness but otherwise anti-war in the general sense. If we may analogize the Iraq War to the Sicilian Expedition we may say that Strauss probably would have opposed the former as imprudent, just as he tacitly endorses T's judgement that the latter was imprudent.
Strauss openly characterizes Machiavelli's approach to philosophy as a conspiracy, using that word, but does not say it about any other thinker. However, his teaching that philosophy is an inherently elite and very small enterprise may be fairly characterized as a "conspiracy." however, before modernity, the nature of the conspiracy was to protect the conspirators and the philosophic life, not a reform campaign. that's what it becomes under modernity, which Strauss opposes. One of Strauss's aims in writing was to revive the ancient idea of philosophy, its proper scope, and its proper relationship to society, which he believed modernity had corrupted.
It is unfortunate that Strauss became a bogey-man to so many who have no idea what he said or why. It happened rather recently and based on some very thin scholarship. Most of the thing people try to pin on him are things that I and my friends oppose too. We just know they don't trace to Strauss. In fact, the opposite is often true.
Fascinating. A reminder that one should five lives lived to 120 so one can lots of stories right .
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz Oops! Sorry but I'm sure the typis were obvious. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- whorefinder says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 12:50 am GMT • 200 Words
No Oswald Hypothesis Denier has ever presented a falsifiable alternative hypothesis to Kennedy's murder.
The Oswald Hypothesis-as subtly admitted by Oliver Stone-passed the who, what, when, where, why, and how test. It answered all the questions and was plausible according to physics, motive, means, and opportunity. The Deniers try things like "the pristine bullet" and "magic bullet" nonsense, but those criticisms don't stand up to criticism (for example, the bullet was not pristine at all, and the bullet's tragectory was not magic at all, but followed a predictable downward path through the elevated Kennedy to Connolly).
But more tellingly-no alternative plausible falsifiable hypothesis has been offered. No who, what, when, where , why, and how. Lots of speculation and casting aspersions (LBJ! CIA! ), but no one offers a concrete hypothesis that could be tested or researched to see as plausible.
If you have a falsifiable alternative theory to the Oswald Hypothesis that satisfies the five w's and h, please offer it here. Until you do so, the only plausible hypothesis is that Oswald acted alone.
It's been more than 50 years people. Give us something besides that some people disliked Kennedy (all politicians have enemies) and "eye witnesses" who keep changing their stories.
*Oh, and the KGB worked to spread Kennedy Conspiracy theories because they undermined faith in the U.S. government and took the heat off communists for the killing. They funded some of the conspiracy theorists and promoted them.
• Replies: @CanSpeccy Hey Whorefinder, are you one of Cass Sunstein's boys , by any chance. , @Wizard of Oz I ask only because you may have the JFK assassination stuff well organised in your head and up to date. What do you make of the update by Colin McLaren on the humanly plausible conspiracy theory that the bullet which killed Kennedy was fired accidentally by a Secret Service man standing in the car behind? Are there any knock down arguments against it? Or big holes? , @Robbie Oswald never fired a shot! A hidden witness for over 35 years had proof positive that Oswald was never on the sixth floor, and therefore couldn't be a shooter. Barry Ernest has found Victoria Adams, a witness to Kennedy's murder, on the fourth floor back staircase of the TSBD. She testified to the Warren Commission that she and her co-worker, Sandra Styles saw nobody come down the stairs, after she heard the final shots. Also with them was her supervisor, Dorothy Garner, making three witnesses (or non-witnesses in this case) that totally destroy the lone nut idea that Oswald was doing any shooting there. Adams was badgered and she felt threatened by the Warren Commission and fearing for her life, vanished for decades until Barry Ernest found her.So, that ends and totally disproves for all time the formerly plausible hypothesis (theory) that Oswald killed Kennedy.
The Girl on the Stairs: The Search for a Missing Witness to the JFK Assassination by Barry Ernest (hardcover) April 2, 2013
https://www.amazon.com/Girl-Stairs-Missing-Witness-Assassination/dp/1455617830http://garyrevel.com/jfk/girlonstairs.html
"The Bob Wilson Interview with Author Barry Ernest 'The Girl on the Stairs: The Search for a Missing Witness to the JFK Assassination' "
Feb. 18, 2014 (New York, NY)#7
"There is no evidence that definitively places Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom as the shots were being fired. If you believe what Oswald is quoted as telling police during his interrogation sessions (12 hours that went unrecorded and without a stenographer being present), he was eating his lunch in the first-floor domino room when the shots occurred, and then went to the second floor to purchase a drink. This is perhaps why Vicki Adams did not see him on the stairs, why he was so calm during the lunchroom confrontation, and why [Officer Marrion] Baker first described Oswald as entering the lunchroom from a direction other than the back staircase. Certainly Vicki Adams saying she was on the stairs during this critical period presented an obvious problem to the Warren Commission's scenario, which might explain why she was the only person excluded from time tests regarding Oswald's escape, and why corroborating witnesses to her story were ignored."
#13"Lee Harvey Oswald was labeled as a loner, and malcontent. From what you have learned of him, can you describe a bit about who he seems to have actually been?
He was definitely an odd fellow. But he was also smart, capable, for instance, of beating others more advanced than he was at chess and, if you believe the official record, able to teach himself Russian, one of the most challenging languages to learn, especially on your own. He liked the opera and was a vociferous reader, knowledgeable in a lot of subjects. His actions in both his military and civilian lives seem consistent with someone having a far deeper complexity than what we have been told. Oh, and he was also a rather poor shot!"
As for the pejorative term conspiracy theory , that was conjured up by the CIA in 1964, to counter the growing threat to the insiders' desire to promote the sole assassin idea, discredit doubters, and shut off debate. https://projectunspeakable.com/conspiracy-theory-invention-of-cia and http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0292757697"In 2013 Professor Lance Dehaven-Smith in a peer-reviewed book published by the University of Texas Press showed that the term "conspiracy theory" was developed by the CIA as a means of undercutting critics of the Warren Commission's report that President Kennedy was killed by Oswald. The use of this term was heavily promoted in the media by the CIA
It is ironic that the American left is a major enforcer of the CIA's strategy to shut up skeptics by branding them conspiracy theorists."
The public has never believed the official story that Oswald acted alone ever since the first Gallup Poll was taken in early Dec. 1963, and continuing to this very day.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
"Majority in U.S. Still Believe JFK Killed in a Conspiracy" by Art Swift (Nov. 15, 2013)Dec. 1963: 52% Conspiracy, 29% One man
1976: 81% Conspiracy, 11% One man
1983: 74% Conspiracy, 11% One man
1992: 77% Conspiracy, 10% One man
2001: 81% Conspiracy, 13% One man
2003: 75% Conspiracy, 19% One man
2013: 61% Conspiracy, 30% One man
http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-marksman-sharpshooter
"...According to his Marine score card (Commission Exhibit 239), Oswald was tested twice:
In December 1956, after "a very intensive 3 weeks' training period" (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.11, p.302), Oswald scored 212: two marks above the minimum for a 'sharpshooter'.
In May 1959, he scored 191: one mark above the minimum for a 'marksman'.
"...Colonel Allison Folsom interpreted the results for the Warren Commission:
"The Marine Corps consider that any reasonable application of the instructions given to Marines should permit them to become qualified at least as a marksman. To become qualified as a sharpshooter, the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified. Consequently, a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor "shot" and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good "shot".(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, pp.17f)Folsom agreed with his (not her) questioner that Oswald "was not a particularly outstanding shot" (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.8, p.311)."
Phlilip F. Nelson's hardcover 2011 book, a fascinating insight into LBJ's warped and sociopathic (also suffering from bi-polar disorder) personality hidden from the public, 1960-2011,LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination
https://www.amazon.com/LBJ-Mastermind-Assassination-Phillip-Nelson/dp/1616083778His 2013 paperback update:
https://www.amazon.com/LBJ-Mastermind-Assassination-Phillip-Nelson/dp/1620876108 Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Bill Jones says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 1:04 am GMT @Gene Tuttle I've often used the argument myself that conspiracies inevitably have short shelf lives in the US because it was so difficult for Americans to keep secrets. The article makes a useful point in suggesting that secret plots, even after being revealed, may nevertheless remain widely ignored. Ideology, group-think, pack journalism etc. are powerful forces, often subconsciously at work, preventing alternative theories from developing legs.
Though long an admirer of Karl Popper, I hadn't strongly associated him with attacks on conspiracy theories per se. As an American "outsider" living abroad most of my adult life, I've all too often encountered those who assumed my background alone explained an argument of mine that they didn't like. Popper had hit the nail on the head when he wrote about
"a widespread and dangerous fashion of our time...of not taking arguments seriously, and at their face value, at least tentatively, but of seeing in them nothing but a way in which deeper irrational motives and tendencies express themselves." It was "the attitude of looking at once for the unconscious motives and determinants in the social habitat of the thinker, instead of first examining the validity of the argument itself."The powerful nazi and communist ideologies of his day assumed that one's " blood " or " class " precluded "correct" thinking. Those politically incorrect challengers to their own totalitarian weltanschauung were (to put it mildly) persecuted as conspirators. No doubt, as Ron Unz notes, Popper's personal experience "contributed the depth of his feelings" -- I would say skepticism – about conspiracy claims.But the author of the " Open Society " had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously" often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal collective interests.
Nice try.
The Manhattan Project was successfully kept secret despite its scope and the fact that it consumed 17% of the electricity production of the entire US.
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz So, there is a counter example - an exception???Actually not such a good case. It was wartime in a pre Internet era and keeping their mouths shut was emphasised as a patriotic duty for everyone. The work was carried out at remote locations with vast resources behind it. The work was so new and esoteric that the best outsiders might have managed was that something was going on that they didn't understand. And of course it wasn't kept secret from our Soviet allies thanks to their spies. , @Gene Tuttle I did not say it was impossible for Americans to keep secrets, just "difficult."
The Manhattan Project was in a bygone era -- one in which near total war prevailed. Yet even in that case, the Soviets knew early on what was going on. And stories appeared in the US press early on posing prying questions about Los Alamos, a "forbidden city" where there were reports of "ordnance and explosives" being developed and "tremendous explosions have been heard."
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/1944-Cleveland-Press-Forbidden-City.pdfMain point however, is that even when conspiracies become obvious they are often largely ignored. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- exiled off mainstreet says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 1:14 am GMT @Miro23 The British and Americans have been the victims of conspiracies (False Flag operations) for years.
For example:
The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government of Palestine) in which Zionist activists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with explosives against the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44. Israeli prime Minister Netanyahu, attended a celebration to commemorate the event.
Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed British and American cinemas, libraries and educational centers in Egypt to destabilize the country and keep British troops committed to the Middle East.
Or June 8, 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats. 34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following over nine hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all lives lost on the Egyptians and draw the US into the war.
Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the most recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with Israelis once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that seems to carry a lot of kudos with old Israeli ex-terrorist Likudniks. Israeli agents were sent to film the historic day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations including photos of themselves with a background of the burning towers where thousands of Americans were being incinerated.
Iraq was destroyed as a result of 9/11 but unfortunately for the conspirators, the momentum wasn't sufficient for a general war including Iran. Also the general war would have included the nuclear angle and justified the activation of a neo-con led Emergency Regime (dictatorship) in the US enforced with the newly printed Patriot Act and Homeland Security troops - or maybe that's just another Conspiracy Theory?
The Israelis learned their false flag lesson from the Nazis, who used concentration camp inmates dressed as Polish soldiers as part of a phony attack on the frontier radio station "Sender Gleiwitz" a day or so before they invaded Poland.
• Replies: @anonymous If Nazis didn't exist zionists would have to invent them -- or maybe they did. Nuland's use of Nazis in Ukraine is sure making it look more and more likely that Hitler was an Osama bin-Laden like creation of Jews and/or the Roosevelt admin.1. The British were past masters of all sorts of dirty tricks. Moshe Dayan learned about house demolitions from the British when they were in charge of Mandate Palestine -- pre-1939. http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.657167
2. Jews in Poland were active participants in killing fellow Poles; from the late 1920s into the mid-1930s Jews in Soviet participated in serious numbers in Stalin's slaughter of several million Russians, Ukrainians, Poles. Some of the killed were Jewish. They didn't need Germans to teach them how to kill on a mass scale, Trotsky, Lenin & Stalin were able tutors.
3. By early in 1938 The Haganeh had created Mossad al Aliyeh-bet -- zionists planted in Germany and other European cities to shepherd Jews out of their home countries and into Palestine. Francis Nicosia writes about it in Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany , @LondonBob Not forgetting the Manchurian Incident, staging events to justify a war is nothing new. , @Hippopotamusdrome There is a conspiracy theory that it was really Poles. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Bill Jones says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 1:15 am GMT @Dave37 Maybe the CIA used conspiracy theory but ordinary perverse humans invented it. If moon lander deniers (and other conspiracies) were proven wrong the rest of us would be happy to see them in public stocks and a ready supply of tomatoes.
So no freedom of speech in your little world then.
• Replies: @Dave37 Sure, if I can have some revenge for annoying AHs. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- exiled off mainstreet says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 1:44 am GMT • 200 Words @Darin Yes, why?
If you want to start a war, would you want to start with great defeat and loss of your fleet?
In the thirties, there were three cases of false flag attacks created to justify a war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukden_Incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_MainilaIn none of these cases the attacker actually killed thousands of his own soldiers, what would be the point?
I didn't notice Gleiwitz was mentioned in another posting before I mentioned it. I tend go along with you and suspect incompetence rather than purpose was the cause of the Pearl Harbor disaster, though the incompetence may have included failure to adequately warn those on the ground at Pearl Harbor. Personally, I don't back the "truther" version of the twin towers because that would have required a broader conspiracy than I think could have succeeded. My guess is that the neighboring building was destroyed as part of the cleanup effort. I do think, however, that the authorities knew something was up, didn't believe it could ever succeed and used it as a sort of Reichstag Fire incident to brush aside constitutional democracy in the US. I also suspect that the Mossad knew more than they let on. My guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power that history would have been far different. I suspect that the anthrax thing was more likely started by the yankee regime as a home-grown conspiracy.
• Replies: @anonymousMy guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power that history would have been far different.Joe Lieberman was Gore's running mate.
Lieberman had the Patriot Act on a shelf waiting for an opportunity ---While holding the chair of the "Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs," Lieberman introduced on October 11, 2001, Senate Bill 1534, to establish the US Department of Homeland Security., @dahoit Gore chose a likudnik as VP.Anyone thinks the response to 9-11 would have significantly different under those 2 needs further education.Anticipating the bill's certain passage, Lieberman gave himself automatic chairmanship after he changed the name of his committee to, "The Senate Committee of Homeland Security and Government Affairs."
Since then, Lieberman has been the main force behind legislation such as:
-1- The USA Patriot Act
-2- Protect America Act
-3- National Emergency Centers Establishment Act
-4- The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation Act
-5- The Terrorist Expatriation Act, and the proposed
-6- Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act.
I notice the Wiz always deflects Israeli involvement.Of course they were aware,the dancing Israelis knew it was a terror attack by dancing before the 2nd plane hit.
And what govt has been the only beneficiary of 9-11?
If one can't see that answer,they have been ziocained and lobotomized. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- biz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 1:48 am GMT • 100 Words @landlubber
journalistic and sociological worksPravda.And like your Pravda brethren, you are too quick to conflate 9/11 and the moon landings.
you are too quick to conflate 9/11 and the moon landings
Actually, it was Unz himself who stated a while back that if we admit that one of them is possible, then all are possible, or something more or less to that effect.
In an case, the 9/11 controlled demolition / missile / flight 93 is in a hangar in Cleveland stuff is just as implausible as faking the moon landings. Too many people and organizations and countries needing to be in on it, etc.
• Replies: @CanSpeccy biz, you obviously missed it. Bill Jones, above , debunked your argument even before you made it. , @AnonCrimethink2016 Conflating the two is indeed absurd. Regarding 9/11, the government's own conspiracy theory, that the twin towers were demolished by office fires started by the two planes (not to mention Building 7, which fell without being struck by a plane later that day) does not hold up under any real scrutiny; any child with a decent high school education in chemistry and physics can see that those buildings did not and could not have collapsed due to the official explanation, but rather, they fell due to a prepared demolition. While it is not, and may never be clear exactly who was behind the event, the fact that key aspects of the government's narrative are demonstrably false, and many others unsupported by independent evidence, should give any thinking person considerable pause for thought about the events of that day, and all that has inexorably followed in U.S. foreign policy to this very day. It is a technique of distraction frequently used by supporters of the official conspiracy theory to raise all kinds of broad questions about "How could such a vast conspiracy ever be kept?" etc. (Well, look at the Manhattan Project for starters...) rather than engaging in the particulars of physical evidence and reliable eye witness accounts that attest to the utter nonsense of the lie we've been sold lo these many years. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 1:51 am GMT • 300 Words @Pat Casey Thanks for that response, gave me a better perspective of the man. I guess he did know who he was writing for. And I do think the way to write for history is to write history by disregarding topical preoccupations, except to damn them with faint praise. I have a master like that I always go back to on the topic I care about most.
And actually the one work of Strauss's I have picked up, years ago, is his Machiavelli; it's one of the thousands of books I've read--- not though one of the few I finished. Brushing up just now by way of wikipedia, it doesn't look like Strauss staked his claim strong enough, if an original reading is what he was writing.
By the way, I know the Irishman John Toland was the first to publish on the esoteric-exoteric distinction, and coined the term pantheist on a related occasion when he named what new beast Spinoza had born. That was when an esoteric mode of writing was really needed, and you will hear The Ethics called esoteric or cryptic, but I know the work well, and it is no more esoteric than any work of genius that teaches you to read closely right at the start.
Is The Prince an esoteric work? Did it entertain a conspiracy with special readers? I suppose only if Machiavelli had individuals in mind who might wonder were they all the while in mind when he was writing about how to dispose of them. The point is, there's nothing profound about observing that, it's almost common sense if you take into account the first thing about Machiavelli's circumstance.
I won't be glib and write Strauss's method off as typically paranoid; it's creative, but bound to be too creative by half. I think it might lead readers to have more fun than's good for learning.
First, if you are at all interested in esotericism, I cannot recommend highly enough Philosophy Between the Lines by Meltzer. The only thing critical I can say about this book is that, if one is really an expert in one of the thinkers that Meltzer treats, one will read the passages on that thinker that Meltzer cites and say "So what? I've known that for years. He's shed no new light." Which is true. But irrelevant to what he's trying to do. The book presents an unassailable case that philosophy has been esoteric since Plato. Esotericism long predates Spinoza and has been discussed since ancient times. Strauss simply revived a concept that had been forgotten. Toland (who I am not that familiar with) wrote before esotericism as it were "lapsed." Strauss says that Goethe and Lessing were the last to write this way. When Strauss revived knowledge of esotericism in the late 1930s with the first Xenophon article, he was considered nuts.
Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore him.
I would recommend in addition Strauss's book on Spinoza and especially the much later preface that he wrote when he felt he finally understood Spinoza's esotericism.
Yes, the Prince (and the Discourses , and Art of War , and Florentine Histories ) are esoteric. It's too complex to argue in a comment thread. Suffice it to say for now that the outrageous "kill that dude" teachings serve and exoteric purpose.
• Replies: @SolontoCroesusStrauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore him.Nonsense.Maurizio Viroli has dedicated his life to scholarship on Machiavelli. He reads and understands The Prince (and Machiavelli's other works and life) in the context in which they were written, taking account of the finest details of Machiavelli's human, psychological, and spiritual evolution in the course of career and writing. Viroli walks in Niccolo's footsteps; like Machiavelli, he "puts on the garments" of 15th century Florence, and Rome, and the French and Germanic cities where Machiavelli traveled to represent Florence.
Strauss may satisfy those inclined to engage in exercise in Talmudic argument, but Machiavelli was Italian, Florentine, and Roman; Dante was his constant companion; he was also conversant in Old and New Testament literature and, less extensively, with the relatively newly rediscovered Greek philosophers.
Strauss does not understand Machiavelli's thoughts on religion because he fails to separate Niccolo's Christian, Danteian spirituality from his disgust with the corruption of the Roman Catholic papacy and institutional church.
If you want intellectual showmanship and hair-splitting, Strauss on Machiavelli's your man. If you want to understand the soul of Niccolo Machiavelli and the complexities of political life in the Florence, Italy he lived in and loved, you can't do better than Maurizio Viroli.
Machiavelli and Republicanism
http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/history-ideas-and-intellectual-history/machiavelli-and-republicanism?format=PBRedeeming the Prince
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/681223For Love of Country: An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198293585.001.0001/acprof-9780198293583(Strauss twists Machiavelli's love of country into an evil act because it is not universal. Yet, as one reviewer noted of Strauss, "I would make the case that the best defense of Strauss lies in an understanding of Aristotle and Israel." https://www.amazon.com/German-Stranger-Strauss-National-Socialism/dp/0739147382 ) , @Pat Casey Steve weighed in on this a while back and made the point that what we have, what has been handed down to us, that probably is the esoteric stuff. I don't think he even mentioned in the piece how interesting it is that what we have of Aristotle seem to be lecture notes. I suspect that is just because: Aristotle taught Alexander---the teacher knew no felt need to live on as a writer like Plato did. One thing we can say about those lecture notes, we can pretty well imagine they were not written in his prime, hence we're still learning how much good stuff is there; if you know your stuff, you know as late as the late Richard Taylor that the philosopher was yet outdoing us moderns in a point he makes like an afterthought but could not matter more. But so anyways, what we have is the distilled Aristotle probably from his golden years; if we also had it in any other form, it might read comparatively mercilessly for being too esoteric. As we know him it is impossible to imagine Aristotle writing dialogues, debating other voices ; one need not name rivals when one has none and he was the King's philosopher. What you can't say is no he was being disorganized on purpose to be esoteric, right?
But take Plato. I assume if you could read ancient Greek as well as Plato could, you would find many a double meaning at crucial turns but I really have no idea save the gut instinct that the man was an inspired writer when he wrote which is to say a poet. And what a poet does is let the muse speak and summon such nice lines as "The Beauty is not the Madness/ Though my errors and wrecks lie about me/and I am not a demigod, I cannot make it cohere." The errors that lie about him strewn about him as it were, they lie about how good he was when he was at his best. A tongue like a double-bladed sword says the Bible. I imagine some of Ezra Pound's radio rants need a second listen with less tense nerves; they say the Italians suspected he was transmitting code. Anyways. Imagine how much can be said for the stories we tell ourselves....how many former selves does any one wind up with? you have to ask your self.
Scholasticism, well you could almost say that's all about no secret handshake shit. Make sure them key words get nailed down and no tricks or to the tower you got cause to go.
Spinoza, oh we know exactly where his mystery lies. Edwin Curley said:
"In responding to this objection, I think I had best begin by confessing candidly that in spite of many years of study, I still do not feel that I understand this part of the Ethics at all adequately. I feel the freedom to confess that, of course, because I also believe that no one else understands it adequately either"What objection? The one that says, nothing of the mind should remain eternal after the body has been destroyed if there is only one substance! We could have gone to grad school on this paper is what the man said, but first pay respects to what that meant to him personally, cause he probably escaped with his life when he did, but he knew his disciples would keep his mind alive. But seriously I should touch this up and send it somewhere:It must be said that the elegance of this deduction is striking. God's idea of the human body corresponds with the mind's idea of the human body. The crucial move that turns the correspondence into a startling claim is that God's idea expresses the essence of the body, while the mind's idea expresses the essence of the mind. Through the initial correspondence, God's eternal essence expressed as an idea of the body adopts the essence of the mind. Thus, when the body dies, something of the essence of the mind remains eternal. With that, Spinoza culminates his masterpiece." Since what is conceived, with a certain eternal necessity, through God's essence itself, is nevertheless something, this something that pertains to the essence of the mind will necessarily be eternal." Besides being an Eternalist, Spinoza is also an Idealist. It fits then that he should leave something of the mind remaining eternally, rather than what a strict Eternalist would leave, that is, something of the mind and body. But recall that Spinoza's something that pertains to the essence of the mind is the idea of the body . In the final analysis, his system coheres.That's terribly poignant too, because it shows he went back to his roots in the end: "The soul will blame the body for its actions."Anyways I've spent myself and who wants to talk about Nietzsche, really. That guy was an antenna for a frequency that was broadcasting Noh drama directly into his soul while he wrote his Zarathustra, and I don't believe he ever came back from that---he had all the inside jokes he could tell to himself in perpetuity. But I gotta say, one time I ran into this guys blog who had let Nietzsche drive him insane, and he had comprehensively worked out to an absolute end the thesis his whole philosophy was to understand that a formal Matriarchy was what's good and here's why that's the necessity. If that is true its too hysterical to ever argue with no hint of mania. So I felt bad for the guy.
But what the other guy said rings truest to me. And I'd just add that Paul Gottfried's observation that Strauss winds up treating a text a lot like the Deconstructions do does not entirely fail Strauss for me. The fundamental truth to them is something every one of us around can understand: these words we type, the ain't alive on quick lips, which is what gets some of us into more trouble than others.
I definitely check out the book, but one must be cautious when resurrecting phantoms. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- anon says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:10 am GMT • 300 Words
deHaven Smith is not that impressive on several counts.
one example: book opens:
"Although most Americans today reject the official (lone gunman) account of the Kennedy assassination, they also have doubts about conspiracy theories and those who believe them.
This means the CIA program was successful, for its aim was not to sell the Warren Commission, but to sow uncertainty about the commission's critics. Today, people are not only uncertain, they have given up ever learning the truth. "At least one high-profile person and an entire community that supports him does not have doubts, has not given up.
Cyril Wecht blasted holes in Arlen Specter's "one bullet" theory in 1965. He's still at it. In 2013, the fiftieth anniversary of JFK's assassination,
"about 500 people gathered at Duquesne University for a JFK symposium sponsored by the university's Institute of Forensic Science and Law, which is named for Wecht. Appearances by Stone and a doctor who tended to Kennedy brought national attention.
People sneered when they mentioned Specter's name or the single-bullet theory.
Across the state, the Single Bullet exhibit opened on Oct. 21. It's the first exhibition in Philadelphia University's Arlen Specter Center for Public Policy. Willens, the former Kennedy aide, delivered a speech.
The center's coordinator, Karen Albert, said he was looking forward to defending his conclusion on the 50th anniversary. " http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/5017529-74/wecht-commission-specter
Smith did not even mention Wecht or Specter and the single-bullet theory in his book. The omission is important insofar as its inclusion would have demonstrated that for many years the populace has been aware of the dishonesty of the US government and some have been raising their voices against and continue to do so.
That knowledge should give encouragement to activists such as those who demand accountability for Israel's attack on the USS Liberty and the deliberate killing of 34 US sailors and other personnel.
(Specter has been useful to the deep state in other ways: he protected Zalman Shapiro, former head of NUMEC, from prosecution for his part in smuggling uranium to Israel. http://israellobby.org/numec/ 0
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:18 am GMT • 100 Words @exiled off mainstreet I didn't notice Gleiwitz was mentioned in another posting before I mentioned it. I tend go along with you and suspect incompetence rather than purpose was the cause of the Pearl Harbor disaster, though the incompetence may have included failure to adequately warn those on the ground at Pearl Harbor. Personally, I don't back the "truther" version of the twin towers because that would have required a broader conspiracy than I think could have succeeded. My guess is that the neighboring building was destroyed as part of the cleanup effort. I do think, however, that the authorities knew something was up, didn't believe it could ever succeed and used it as a sort of Reichstag Fire incident to brush aside constitutional democracy in the US. I also suspect that the Mossad knew more than they let on. My guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power that history would have been far different. I suspect that the anthrax thing was more likely started by the yankee regime as a home-grown conspiracy.
My guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power that history would have been far different.
Joe Lieberman was Gore's running mate.
Lieberman had the Patriot Act on a shelf waiting for an opportunity -• Agree: Bill Jones Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All CommentsWhile holding the chair of the "Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs," Lieberman introduced on October 11, 2001, Senate Bill 1534, to establish the US Department of Homeland Security.
Anticipating the bill's certain passage, Lieberman gave himself automatic chairmanship after he changed the name of his committee to, "The Senate Committee of Homeland Security and Government Affairs."
Since then, Lieberman has been the main force behind legislation such as:
-1- The USA Patriot Act
-2- Protect America Act
-3- National Emergency Centers Establishment Act
-4- The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation Act
-5- The Terrorist Expatriation Act, and the proposed
-6- Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act.
- Bill Jones says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:40 am GMT • 100 Words @Wizard of Oz I have a problem with the idea of likeminded elites who all move in srep together.
They don't move in lockstep-(I assume you meant) together.
They do however have a series of identical interests:Lower taxes on Capital Gains and Dividends than on Earned Income.
No barriers to entry to low-wage unskilled workers for jobs that need to be performed in the US.
No barriers to goods produced from low-wage countries, no matter what the conditions they are produced in.
Control of the Federal Reserve.
Tax-payer bailouts of failing institutions.
etc, etc.
If you want to get into it, I'm happy to.
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz I think that is a more illuminating approach than talking about elites. As Lenin very likely said "Who? What?". The devil is indeed in the details and in details you see priorities and trade offs. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Rurik says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:40 am GMT • 400 Words
Thank you Mr. Unz, for this excellent- and circumspect and salient- article.
His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.
I'll just add that from what I've glimmered, (I'm definitely no expert on Leo Strauss), Strauss' philosophy contained more than just a careful consideration of 'conspiracy theories' and how they should be handled, but that what he advocated was a small group of highly motivated elite zealots (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, et al) who would not just use power to control the narrative vis-a-vis conspiracy theories, but more to the point, would be the men who would conspire to alter the realities that required a mocking of "conspiracy theories" in the first place.
From what I understand, one of his motivating themes was that his acolytes would come to understand that they shouldn't be guided by trite, pedestrian notions of morality when being the agents of change in the world. And that rather, they should use his teachings as a way to see the world as exceptional men, who would boldly do things others might shrink from, out of hackneyed notions of probity.
Perhaps the best quote I know of to describe Straussianism (as I understand it) was made by a man who wasn't one of his actual students, but who certainly would have been well acquainted and worked closely with others who were; Karl Rove, when speaking to an aid:
"That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality-judiciously, as you will-we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."that quote for me, describes Straussianism to a T. And if so, certainty dovetails with what happened during the reign of Bush-the lesser. Especially with something as audacious as 911.
That at least, is how I've seen it
As for the control of the media, I think most of your readers are certainly aware of that particular conundrum and its consequences. It is literally impossible to be too cynical as regards our media and government and CIA and other shenanigans, IMHO.
Thanks again sir.
• Replies: @Pat Casey Nice job. You roped the quote that ran across my mind--- I swear these things are in the air. How do you say, the ghost of Leo Strauss was moving men to do what you can't pin on his memory? Well you said it and that settles it. Thank goodness. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:43 am GMT @whorefinder No Oswald Hypothesis Denier has ever presented a falsifiable alternative hypothesis to Kennedy's murder.
The Oswald Hypothesis---as subtly admitted by Oliver Stone---passed the who, what, when, where, why, and how test. It answered all the questions and was plausible according to physics, motive, means, and opportunity. The Deniers try things like "the pristine bullet" and "magic bullet" nonsense, but those criticisms don't stand up to criticism (for example, the bullet was not pristine at all, and the bullet's tragectory was not magic at all, but followed a predictable downward path through the elevated Kennedy to Connolly).
But more tellingly---no alternative plausible falsifiable hypothesis has been offered. No who, what, when, where , why, and how. Lots of speculation and casting aspersions (LBJ! CIA! ), but no one offers a concrete hypothesis that could be tested or researched to see as plausible.
If you have a falsifiable alternative theory to the Oswald Hypothesis that satisfies the five w's and h, please offer it here. Until you do so, the only plausible hypothesis is that Oswald acted alone.
It's been more than 50 years people. Give us something besides that some people disliked Kennedy (all politicians have enemies) and "eye witnesses" who keep changing their stories.
*Oh, and the KGB worked to spread Kennedy Conspiracy theories because they undermined faith in the U.S. government and took the heat off communists for the killing. They funded some of the conspiracy theorists and promoted them.
Hey Whorefinder, are you one of Cass Sunstein's boys , by any chance.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- John Jeremiah Smith says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:43 am GMT • 100 Words @The Alarmist I personally think they did land on the moon, but am paying devil's advocate here ....
"Not to be arch, but, even with the repeater on the moon, what about the bounce echo from the tight-beam signal coming from Earth carrying the deceptive info? "First, you could transvert from one range to another, so an interested party would have know where to look for the reflection. You could uplink in another range of S-Band, or go lower to L-band if you don't mind a little faraday rotation. Your link-budget would be just sufficient to get a signal from the lunar repeater to Earth, but that would most likely not be enough enough for a full round-trip of the terrestrial signal. Most of your tight beam would still pass fairly wide abeam the moon, and that which was reflected back to Earth would be further degraded by libration fading.How do you get Astronauts bouncing and hammers falling in Slo-Mo? Film at 60fps, replay at 30. Ah, but you have to have a really good clean-room to keep dust off the film. Maybe that is why videotape technology took off in the early seventies ;)
How do you get Astronauts bouncing and hammers falling in Slo-Mo?
Yeah, the gravity effects are a BIG job. Just slo-mo-ing won't do it, because you have different curvature of falling profile, and acceleration of gravity is different because moon-mass is less (and non-linear ref 30fps v. 60fps.)
There would also be additive propagation delay in the radio signals. Pure delay, too - no compensation would fix that in 1969.
• Replies: @Anonymous https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- SolontoCroesus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:50 am GMT • 300 Words @Decius First, if you are at all interested in esotericism, I cannot recommend highly enough Philosophy Between the Lines by Meltzer. The only thing critical I can say about this book is that, if one is really an expert in one of the thinkers that Meltzer treats, one will read the passages on that thinker that Meltzer cites and say "So what? I've known that for years. He's shed no new light." Which is true. But irrelevant to what he's trying to do. The book presents an unassailable case that philosophy has been esoteric since Plato. Esotericism long predates Spinoza and has been discussed since ancient times. Strauss simply revived a concept that had been forgotten. Toland (who I am not that familiar with) wrote before esotericism as it were "lapsed." Strauss says that Goethe and Lessing were the last to write this way. When Strauss revived knowledge of esotericism in the late 1930s with the first Xenophon article, he was considered nuts.
Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore him.
I would recommend in addition Strauss's book on Spinoza and especially the much later preface that he wrote when he felt he finally understood Spinoza's esotericism.
Yes, the Prince (and the Discourses , and Art of War , and Florentine Histories ) are esoteric. It's too complex to argue in a comment thread. Suffice it to say for now that the outrageous "kill that dude" teachings serve and exoteric purpose.
Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore him.
Nonsense.
Maurizio Viroli has dedicated his life to scholarship on Machiavelli. He reads and understands The Prince (and Machiavelli's other works and life) in the context in which they were written, taking account of the finest details of Machiavelli's human, psychological, and spiritual evolution in the course of career and writing. Viroli walks in Niccolo's footsteps; like Machiavelli, he "puts on the garments" of 15th century Florence, and Rome, and the French and Germanic cities where Machiavelli traveled to represent Florence.
Strauss may satisfy those inclined to engage in exercise in Talmudic argument, but Machiavelli was Italian, Florentine, and Roman; Dante was his constant companion; he was also conversant in Old and New Testament literature and, less extensively, with the relatively newly rediscovered Greek philosophers.
Strauss does not understand Machiavelli's thoughts on religion because he fails to separate Niccolo's Christian, Danteian spirituality from his disgust with the corruption of the Roman Catholic papacy and institutional church.
If you want intellectual showmanship and hair-splitting, Strauss on Machiavelli's your man. If you want to understand the soul of Niccolo Machiavelli and the complexities of political life in the Florence, Italy he lived in and loved, you can't do better than Maurizio Viroli.
Machiavelli and Republicanism
http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/history-ideas-and-intellectual-history/machiavelli-and-republicanism?format=PBRedeeming the Prince
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/681223For Love of Country: An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198293585.001.0001/acprof-9780198293583(Strauss twists Machiavelli's love of country into an evil act because it is not universal. Yet, as one reviewer noted of Strauss, "I would make the case that the best defense of Strauss lies in an understanding of Aristotle and Israel." https://www.amazon.com/German-Stranger-Strauss-National-Socialism/dp/0739147382 )
• Replies: @Decius First, you are wrong that Strauss thinks Machiavelli's patriotism is in itself evil. Strauss says the exact opposite at several points. But he also says that recourse to patriotism does not in itself excuse Machiavelli's recommendations to do evil. Strauss himself comes up with the most persuasive justifications (which are higher than excuses) for Machiavelli's evil sayings. But to understand Strauss's arguments, you would have to read the book and spend a lot of time with it because it is hard.Viroli is a scholar I respect for a lot of reasons, but not for philosophic depth. The argument about "context" diminishes Machiavelli (and all great thinkers) by presupposing that their thought is time-bound or that they could not think past the horizon of their time. The greatest minds transcend their times and even create new times. There aren't very many such, but Nick was one. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:50 am GMT @biz
you are too quick to conflate 9/11 and the moon landingsActually, it was Unz himself who stated a while back that if we admit that one of them is possible, then all are possible, or something more or less to that effect.In an case, the 9/11 controlled demolition / missile / flight 93 is in a hangar in Cleveland stuff is just as implausible as faking the moon landings. Too many people and organizations and countries needing to be in on it, etc.
biz, you obviously missed it. Bill Jones, above , debunked your argument even before you made it.
• Replies: @biz lol, "The Mahattan Project was kept a secret."No it wasn't. Stalin knew about the Manhattan project before Truman did. Learn some history. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 3:31 am GMT • 100 Words @Rurik Thank you Mr. Unz, for this excellent- and circumspect and salient- article.
His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.I'll just add that from what I've glimmered, (I'm definitely no expert on Leo Strauss), Strauss' philosophy contained more than just a careful consideration of 'conspiracy theories' and how they should be handled, but that what he advocated was a small group of highly motivated elite zealots (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, et al) who would not just use power to control the narrative vis-a-vis conspiracy theories, but more to the point, would be the men who would conspire to alter the realities that required a mocking of "conspiracy theories" in the first place.From what I understand, one of his motivating themes was that his acolytes would come to understand that they shouldn't be guided by trite, pedestrian notions of morality when being the agents of change in the world. And that rather, they should use his teachings as a way to see the world as exceptional men, who would boldly do things others might shrink from, out of hackneyed notions of probity.
Perhaps the best quote I know of to describe Straussianism (as I understand it) was made by a man who wasn't one of his actual students, but who certainly would have been well acquainted and worked closely with others who were; Karl Rove, when speaking to an aid:
"That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality-judiciously, as you will-we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."that quote for me, describes Straussianism to a T. And if so, certainty dovetails with what happened during the reign of Bush-the lesser. Especially with something as audacious as 911.
That at least, is how I've seen it...
As for the control of the media, I think most of your readers are certainly aware of that particular conundrum and its consequences. It is literally impossible to be too cynical as regards our media and government and CIA and other shenanigans, IMHO.
Thanks again sir.
Nice job. You roped the quote that ran across my mind- I swear these things are in the air. How do you say, the ghost of Leo Strauss was moving men to do what you can't pin on his memory? Well you said it and that settles it. Thank goodness.
• Replies: @Decius Wait, a quote from Rove that doesn't even mention Strauss explains everything about Strauss? Are you serious?I gather you just need a boogeyman and Strauss is the one you've selected. Or, more accurately, have allowed others to select for you. , @Rurik now this..
Now, however, Europhysics Magazine, the respected publication of the European physics community, has published a report by four experts who say "the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition."
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/911-conspiracy-gets-support-from-physicists-study/.
.Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.
~ Buddha
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Astuteobservor II says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 3:32 am GMT
after snowden, every conspiracy theory got a 99% boost in credibility. he confirmed the big bad boogeymen watching and spying on us all.
nothing else is impossible, nothing. every theory is now possible, everything.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 3:55 am GMT @Pat Casey Nice job. You roped the quote that ran across my mind--- I swear these things are in the air. How do you say, the ghost of Leo Strauss was moving men to do what you can't pin on his memory? Well you said it and that settles it. Thank goodness.
Wait, a quote from Rove that doesn't even mention Strauss explains everything about Strauss? Are you serious?
I gather you just need a boogeyman and Strauss is the one you've selected. Or, more accurately, have allowed others to select for you.
• Replies: @Pat Casey Don't miss my longer reply, in the cue, plus this one, but put the boogeyman business to bed and put your defenses down.... I can't say it any other way: I think the spirit of Leo Strauss may well have moved men to move mountains and mountains otherwise called federal bureaucracies and divisions of armies. It might explain not "everything" about Strauss but indeed whats essential about Strauss, which is that you are right, I suspect he was special. Step back for a second and forget that those Bush bastards were bastards and just estimate the nerve it takes to pull off 9/11 and then go into Afghanistan and Iraq. We can all at least agree, that's somthin. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 4:03 am GMT • 100 Words @SolontoCroesus
Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore him.Nonsense.Maurizio Viroli has dedicated his life to scholarship on Machiavelli. He reads and understands The Prince (and Machiavelli's other works and life) in the context in which they were written, taking account of the finest details of Machiavelli's human, psychological, and spiritual evolution in the course of career and writing. Viroli walks in Niccolo's footsteps; like Machiavelli, he "puts on the garments" of 15th century Florence, and Rome, and the French and Germanic cities where Machiavelli traveled to represent Florence.
Strauss may satisfy those inclined to engage in exercise in Talmudic argument, but Machiavelli was Italian, Florentine, and Roman; Dante was his constant companion; he was also conversant in Old and New Testament literature and, less extensively, with the relatively newly rediscovered Greek philosophers.
Strauss does not understand Machiavelli's thoughts on religion because he fails to separate Niccolo's Christian, Danteian spirituality from his disgust with the corruption of the Roman Catholic papacy and institutional church.
If you want intellectual showmanship and hair-splitting, Strauss on Machiavelli's your man. If you want to understand the soul of Niccolo Machiavelli and the complexities of political life in the Florence, Italy he lived in and loved, you can't do better than Maurizio Viroli.
Machiavelli and Republicanism
http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/history-ideas-and-intellectual-history/machiavelli-and-republicanism?format=PBRedeeming the Prince
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/681223For Love of Country: An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198293585.001.0001/acprof-9780198293583(Strauss twists Machiavelli's love of country into an evil act because it is not universal. Yet, as one reviewer noted of Strauss, "I would make the case that the best defense of Strauss lies in an understanding of Aristotle and Israel." https://www.amazon.com/German-Stranger-Strauss-National-Socialism/dp/0739147382 )
First, you are wrong that Strauss thinks Machiavelli's patriotism is in itself evil. Strauss says the exact opposite at several points. But he also says that recourse to patriotism does not in itself excuse Machiavelli's recommendations to do evil. Strauss himself comes up with the most persuasive justifications (which are higher than excuses) for Machiavelli's evil sayings. But to understand Strauss's arguments, you would have to read the book and spend a lot of time with it because it is hard.
Viroli is a scholar I respect for a lot of reasons, but not for philosophic depth. The argument about "context" diminishes Machiavelli (and all great thinkers) by presupposing that their thought is time-bound or that they could not think past the horizon of their time. The greatest minds transcend their times and even create new times. There aren't very many such, but Nick was one.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 4:07 am GMT • 200 Words @exiled off mainstreet The Israelis learned their false flag lesson from the Nazis, who used concentration camp inmates dressed as Polish soldiers as part of a phony attack on the frontier radio station "Sender Gleiwitz" a day or so before they invaded Poland.
If Nazis didn't exist zionists would have to invent them - or maybe they did. Nuland's use of Nazis in Ukraine is sure making it look more and more likely that Hitler was an Osama bin-Laden like creation of Jews and/or the Roosevelt admin.
1. The British were past masters of all sorts of dirty tricks. Moshe Dayan learned about house demolitions from the British when they were in charge of Mandate Palestine - pre-1939. http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.657167
2. Jews in Poland were active participants in killing fellow Poles; from the late 1920s into the mid-1930s Jews in Soviet participated in serious numbers in Stalin's slaughter of several million Russians, Ukrainians, Poles. Some of the killed were Jewish. They didn't need Germans to teach them how to kill on a mass scale, Trotsky, Lenin & Stalin were able tutors.
3. By early in 1938 The Haganeh had created Mossad al Aliyeh-bet - zionists planted in Germany and other European cities to shepherd Jews out of their home countries and into Palestine. Francis Nicosia writes about it in Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- pyrrhus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 5:37 am GMT
The CIA's Project Mockingbird had all the network news anchors using the words "conspiracy theory" like the brainless parrots that they were. And Americans remain well brainwashed, although it's actually hard to get anything significant done without a "conspiracy."
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 5:37 am GMT • 1,000 Words @Decius First, if you are at all interested in esotericism, I cannot recommend highly enough Philosophy Between the Lines by Meltzer. The only thing critical I can say about this book is that, if one is really an expert in one of the thinkers that Meltzer treats, one will read the passages on that thinker that Meltzer cites and say "So what? I've known that for years. He's shed no new light." Which is true. But irrelevant to what he's trying to do. The book presents an unassailable case that philosophy has been esoteric since Plato. Esotericism long predates Spinoza and has been discussed since ancient times. Strauss simply revived a concept that had been forgotten. Toland (who I am not that familiar with) wrote before esotericism as it were "lapsed." Strauss says that Goethe and Lessing were the last to write this way. When Strauss revived knowledge of esotericism in the late 1930s with the first Xenophon article, he was considered nuts.
Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore him.
I would recommend in addition Strauss's book on Spinoza and especially the much later preface that he wrote when he felt he finally understood Spinoza's esotericism.
Yes, the Prince (and the Discourses , and Art of War , and Florentine Histories ) are esoteric. It's too complex to argue in a comment thread. Suffice it to say for now that the outrageous "kill that dude" teachings serve and exoteric purpose.
Steve weighed in on this a while back and made the point that what we have, what has been handed down to us, that probably is the esoteric stuff. I don't think he even mentioned in the piece how interesting it is that what we have of Aristotle seem to be lecture notes. I suspect that is just because: Aristotle taught Alexander-the teacher knew no felt need to live on as a writer like Plato did. One thing we can say about those lecture notes, we can pretty well imagine they were not written in his prime, hence we're still learning how much good stuff is there; if you know your stuff, you know as late as the late Richard Taylor that the philosopher was yet outdoing us moderns in a point he makes like an afterthought but could not matter more. But so anyways, what we have is the distilled Aristotle probably from his golden years; if we also had it in any other form, it might read comparatively mercilessly for being too esoteric. As we know him it is impossible to imagine Aristotle writing dialogues, debating other voices ; one need not name rivals when one has none and he was the King's philosopher. What you can't say is no he was being disorganized on purpose to be esoteric, right?
But take Plato. I assume if you could read ancient Greek as well as Plato could, you would find many a double meaning at crucial turns but I really have no idea save the gut instinct that the man was an inspired writer when he wrote which is to say a poet. And what a poet does is let the muse speak and summon such nice lines as "The Beauty is not the Madness/ Though my errors and wrecks lie about me/and I am not a demigod, I cannot make it cohere." The errors that lie about him strewn about him as it were, they lie about how good he was when he was at his best. A tongue like a double-bladed sword says the Bible. I imagine some of Ezra Pound's radio rants need a second listen with less tense nerves; they say the Italians suspected he was transmitting code. Anyways. Imagine how much can be said for the stories we tell ourselves .how many former selves does any one wind up with? you have to ask your self.
Scholasticism, well you could almost say that's all about no secret handshake shit. Make sure them key words get nailed down and no tricks or to the tower you got cause to go.
Spinoza, oh we know exactly where his mystery lies. Edwin Curley said:
"In responding to this objection, I think I had best begin by confessing candidly that in spite of many years of study, I still do not feel that I understand this part of the Ethics at all adequately. I feel the freedom to confess that, of course, because I also believe that no one else understands it adequately either"
What objection? The one that says, nothing of the mind should remain eternal after the body has been destroyed if there is only one substance! We could have gone to grad school on this paper is what the man said, but first pay respects to what that meant to him personally, cause he probably escaped with his life when he did, but he knew his disciples would keep his mind alive. But seriously I should touch this up and send it somewhere:
It must be said that the elegance of this deduction is striking. God's idea of the human body corresponds with the mind's idea of the human body. The crucial move that turns the correspondence into a startling claim is that God's idea expresses the essence of the body, while the mind's idea expresses the essence of the mind. Through the initial correspondence, God's eternal essence expressed as an idea of the body adopts the essence of the mind. Thus, when the body dies, something of the essence of the mind remains eternal. With that, Spinoza culminates his masterpiece.
" Since what is conceived, with a certain eternal necessity, through God's essence itself, is nevertheless something, this something that pertains to the essence of the mind will necessarily be eternal." Besides being an Eternalist, Spinoza is also an Idealist. It fits then that he should leave something of the mind remaining eternally, rather than what a strict Eternalist would leave, that is, something of the mind and body. But recall that Spinoza's something that pertains to the essence of the mind is the idea of the body . In the final analysis, his system coheres.
That's terribly poignant too, because it shows he went back to his roots in the end: "The soul will blame the body for its actions."
Anyways I've spent myself and who wants to talk about Nietzsche, really. That guy was an antenna for a frequency that was broadcasting Noh drama directly into his soul while he wrote his Zarathustra, and I don't believe he ever came back from that-he had all the inside jokes he could tell to himself in perpetuity. But I gotta say, one time I ran into this guys blog who had let Nietzsche drive him insane, and he had comprehensively worked out to an absolute end the thesis his whole philosophy was to understand that a formal Matriarchy was what's good and here's why that's the necessity. If that is true its too hysterical to ever argue with no hint of mania. So I felt bad for the guy.
But what the other guy said rings truest to me. And I'd just add that Paul Gottfried's observation that Strauss winds up treating a text a lot like the Deconstructions do does not entirely fail Strauss for me. The fundamental truth to them is something every one of us around can understand: these words we type, the ain't alive on quick lips, which is what gets some of us into more trouble than others.
I definitely check out the book, but one must be cautious when resurrecting phantoms.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 6:18 am GMT • 100 Words @Decius Wait, a quote from Rove that doesn't even mention Strauss explains everything about Strauss? Are you serious?
I gather you just need a boogeyman and Strauss is the one you've selected. Or, more accurately, have allowed others to select for you.
Don't miss my longer reply, in the cue, plus this one, but put the boogeyman business to bed and put your defenses down . I can't say it any other way: I think the spirit of Leo Strauss may well have moved men to move mountains and mountains otherwise called federal bureaucracies and divisions of armies. It might explain not "everything" about Strauss but indeed whats essential about Strauss, which is that you are right, I suspect he was special. Step back for a second and forget that those Bush bastards were bastards and just estimate the nerve it takes to pull off 9/11 and then go into Afghanistan and Iraq. We can all at least agree, that's somthin.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- 5371 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 6:20 am GMT @Decius At any rate it's sort of absurd to watch you people chase your tails. All that you "know" or think you know is that Strauss is bad. But Schmitt is good. But Strauss is derivative of Schmitt. Doesn't that make Strauss good, or Schmitt bad?
Schmitt is famous for arguing in favor of the essential particularity of politics--i.e., against alleged neocon universalism. So if Strauss is derivative of Schmitt, how can he be a neocon universalist?
Strauss in fact agrees with Schmitt on the essential particularity of politics and says so, but finds a deeper source, with deeper arguments, in Plato. Schmitt admitted that his own attempt to fortify his particularism was build on the quick-sandy foundation of modern rationalism, which Strauss taught him to see through.
When you can pin Strauss down to a definite meaning, it is false, banal or both. He is usually too obfuscatory to be pinned down. Schmitt is easy to understand and shows you true things you had not thought of before.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- dismasdolben says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 6:23 am GMT • 200 Words
My favourite historical conspiracy is the so-called "Gunpowder Plot," which is still, despite all of the evidence that has been discovered in more modern times, represented in history books, as being exclusively the work of disgruntled Catholic noblemen and their Jesuit confessors. It was actually a government projection of the Cecil ministry, completely riddled with moles who nurtured it along, right up until the point when it could be revealed to the public for maximum political effect, and to the King, so that he would become more terrorified, and, thus, more dependent upon the Cecils and their "constitutionalist" Puritan proteges. The "evidence" has, indeed, always been in plain sight, and it has been dealt with in numerous books, such as The Gunpowder Plot, Faith and Treason , by Antonia Fraser, and another book, entitled "God's Secret Agents,' but, still, to this day, the myth of conspiring priests is still propagated in atavistic anti-Catholic British history.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- 5371 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 6:31 am GMT @Decius Schmitt disagreed with you.
This way of arguing, too, is redolent of an academic personality cult, not of actual scholarship.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 7:19 am GMT @Wizard of Oz Fascinating. A reminder that one should five lives lived to 120 so one can lots of stories right....
Oops! Sorry but I'm sure the typis were obvious.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 7:27 am GMT • 100 Words @whorefinder No Oswald Hypothesis Denier has ever presented a falsifiable alternative hypothesis to Kennedy's murder.
The Oswald Hypothesis---as subtly admitted by Oliver Stone---passed the who, what, when, where, why, and how test. It answered all the questions and was plausible according to physics, motive, means, and opportunity. The Deniers try things like "the pristine bullet" and "magic bullet" nonsense, but those criticisms don't stand up to criticism (for example, the bullet was not pristine at all, and the bullet's tragectory was not magic at all, but followed a predictable downward path through the elevated Kennedy to Connolly).
But more tellingly---no alternative plausible falsifiable hypothesis has been offered. No who, what, when, where , why, and how. Lots of speculation and casting aspersions (LBJ! CIA! ), but no one offers a concrete hypothesis that could be tested or researched to see as plausible.
If you have a falsifiable alternative theory to the Oswald Hypothesis that satisfies the five w's and h, please offer it here. Until you do so, the only plausible hypothesis is that Oswald acted alone.
It's been more than 50 years people. Give us something besides that some people disliked Kennedy (all politicians have enemies) and "eye witnesses" who keep changing their stories.
*Oh, and the KGB worked to spread Kennedy Conspiracy theories because they undermined faith in the U.S. government and took the heat off communists for the killing. They funded some of the conspiracy theorists and promoted them.
I ask only because you may have the JFK assassination stuff well organised in your head and up to date. What do you make of the update by Colin McLaren on the humanly plausible conspiracy theory that the bullet which killed Kennedy was fired accidentally by a Secret Service man standing in the car behind? Are there any knock down arguments against it? Or big holes?
• Replies: @whorefinder The argument has surface plausibility merit, and would seem to resolve a lot of the problems Oswald Deniers have with Kennedy's head movement. However, I haven't heard the physics argument about it, or any other evidence. So I'm neutral.That said, it isn't a popular theory because it offers nothing nefarious---just the SS screwing up big time. So even if it were true---and I'm open to it being true---the Oswald Deniers are far too invested in making this a deliberate mass-government coverup to listen. , @CanSpeccy I love the idea that JFK was killed by a stray bullet accidentally fired by a secret service agent. It's so obvious once the truth has been pointed out.
Probably the same sort of balls-up explains 9/11. You know, missiles intended to shoot down simulated highjacked planes in a drill on 9/11 accidentally wamming into the Pentagon and Twin Towers.
Then Norad had to make up that stuff about 19 hijackers and Bin Laden to cover their arse. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 7:42 am GMT • 100 Words @Miro23 Being smart has nothing to do with it.
For example the government says that WTC7 completely collapsed in 7 seconds due to fire. You don't need to be smart to see something is wrong here (hint: most of the structural pillars were untouched by fire).
I see the biggest problem about a conspiratorial explanation for the WTC 7 collapse is motive. How does it make sense for those who wanted the big splash that hitting buildings 1 and 2 would give? The other major difficulty is the video footage of fires burning all day which had to have heated the steel and therefore potentially weakened it to a critical point. Where's the mystery?
• Replies: @CanSpeccy There must be hundreds of millions of words accessible on the Internet discussing the collapse of WTC Building 7. Why then foul up this discussion with the reiteration of arguments that anyone with an interest in the specifics of 9/11 will already know or can find out elsewhere? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- moneta says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 7:44 am GMT • 200 Words
The biggest conpiracy, which most fail understand, is that the reason that there is all of economic termoil and wars, is due to one reason and one reason only. There is no money and what we use for transactions is the invertion of money, created by an entry of a computer. Its main purpose is to make the issuers rich and everyone else in debt to them..Countries who don't want to go into their debt become enemies and are villified. This illusion is reinforced by films, media. Tax authorities. the government.
• Replies: @AnotherLover Agree.
THIS IS THE BIGGEST CONSPIRACY on which all of the others are constructed. Including the socialist satanist society built upon it. To make it work markets have to be manipulated, which they all are.
Get rid of money and you get rid of god. liberty, personal property and everything else of value because all values are based on nominal debt and this debt is not repayable because it has to be borrowed to be repayed and the method of repayment doesnt exist. Fereral reserve notes are counterfieted to create debt.Take that weird moderation quirk! Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 7:51 am GMT @Connecticut Famer "But the author of the "Open Society" had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously" often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal collective interests."
Possibly as in the JFK case? I actually watched Lee Harvey Oswald get drilled by the man who was later identified as Jack Ruby (real surname "Rubenstein") live on television. The minute it happened and even at age 16 at the time I smelled a rat. Who was ultimately behind it all is something which I can't answer and care not to speculate upon, but to this day I remain suspicious about the circumstances surrounding Oswald's death and Ruby's subsequent dissembling.
I don't dismiss your intuitions as such but you hardly present a great case for affording them much weight. What you immediately felt at age 16 watching a screen? Nope. The fact that Jack Ruby dissembled?
• Replies: @AnotherLover I think dismissing intuition is for suckers. What successful businessman would offer such advice? Intuition assembles all the information available to the organism, and it is rarely wrong in my experience. I appreciate when people are willing to offer their gut reaction to an event, especially knowing they are doing so in a society which trains its members to pounce on them that would have the temerity to do so.Present company excluded, of course... Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 7:59 am GMT • 100 Words @Bill Jones Nice try.
The Manhattan Project was successfully kept secret despite its scope and the fact that it consumed 17% of the electricity production of the entire US.
So, there is a counter example – an exception???
Actually not such a good case. It was wartime in a pre Internet era and keeping their mouths shut was emphasised as a patriotic duty for everyone. The work was carried out at remote locations with vast resources behind it. The work was so new and esoteric that the best outsiders might have managed was that something was going on that they didn't understand. And of course it wasn't kept secret from our Soviet allies thanks to their spies.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:20 am GMT @Bill Jones They don't move in lockstep-(I assume you meant) together.
They do however have a series of identical interests:Lower taxes on Capital Gains and Dividends than on Earned Income.
No barriers to entry to low-wage unskilled workers for jobs that need to be performed in the US.
No barriers to goods produced from low-wage countries, no matter what the conditions they are produced in.
Control of the Federal Reserve.
Tax-payer bailouts of failing institutions.
etc, etc.
If you want to get into it, I'm happy to.
I think that is a more illuminating approach than talking about elites. As Lenin very likely said "Who? What?". The devil is indeed in the details and in details you see priorities and trade offs.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Robbie says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:22 am GMT • 900 Words @whorefinder No Oswald Hypothesis Denier has ever presented a falsifiable alternative hypothesis to Kennedy's murder.
The Oswald Hypothesis---as subtly admitted by Oliver Stone---passed the who, what, when, where, why, and how test. It answered all the questions and was plausible according to physics, motive, means, and opportunity. The Deniers try things like "the pristine bullet" and "magic bullet" nonsense, but those criticisms don't stand up to criticism (for example, the bullet was not pristine at all, and the bullet's tragectory was not magic at all, but followed a predictable downward path through the elevated Kennedy to Connolly).
But more tellingly---no alternative plausible falsifiable hypothesis has been offered. No who, what, when, where , why, and how. Lots of speculation and casting aspersions (LBJ! CIA! ), but no one offers a concrete hypothesis that could be tested or researched to see as plausible.
If you have a falsifiable alternative theory to the Oswald Hypothesis that satisfies the five w's and h, please offer it here. Until you do so, the only plausible hypothesis is that Oswald acted alone.
It's been more than 50 years people. Give us something besides that some people disliked Kennedy (all politicians have enemies) and "eye witnesses" who keep changing their stories.
*Oh, and the KGB worked to spread Kennedy Conspiracy theories because they undermined faith in the U.S. government and took the heat off communists for the killing. They funded some of the conspiracy theorists and promoted them.
Oswald never fired a shot! A hidden witness for over 35 years had proof positive that Oswald was never on the sixth floor, and therefore couldn't be a shooter. Barry Ernest has found Victoria Adams, a witness to Kennedy's murder, on the fourth floor back staircase of the TSBD. She testified to the Warren Commission that she and her co-worker, Sandra Styles saw nobody come down the stairs, after she heard the final shots. Also with them was her supervisor, Dorothy Garner, making three witnesses (or non-witnesses in this case) that totally destroy the lone nut idea that Oswald was doing any shooting there. Adams was badgered and she felt threatened by the Warren Commission and fearing for her life, vanished for decades until Barry Ernest found her.
So, that ends and totally disproves for all time the formerly plausible hypothesis (theory) that Oswald killed Kennedy.
The Girl on the Stairs: The Search for a Missing Witness to the JFK Assassination by Barry Ernest (hardcover) April 2, 2013
https://www.amazon.com/Girl-Stairs-Missing-Witness-Assassination/dp/1455617830http://garyrevel.com/jfk/girlonstairs.html
"The Bob Wilson Interview with Author Barry Ernest 'The Girl on the Stairs: The Search for a Missing Witness to the JFK Assassination' "
Feb. 18, 2014 (New York, NY)#7
"There is no evidence that definitively places Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom as the shots were being fired. If you believe what Oswald is quoted as telling police during his interrogation sessions (12 hours that went unrecorded and without a stenographer being present), he was eating his lunch in the first-floor domino room when the shots occurred, and then went to the second floor to purchase a drink. This is perhaps why Vicki Adams did not see him on the stairs, why he was so calm during the lunchroom confrontation, and why [Officer Marrion] Baker first described Oswald as entering the lunchroom from a direction other than the back staircase. Certainly Vicki Adams saying she was on the stairs during this critical period presented an obvious problem to the Warren Commission's scenario, which might explain why she was the only person excluded from time tests regarding Oswald's escape, and why corroborating witnesses to her story were ignored."
#13
"Lee Harvey Oswald was labeled as a loner, and malcontent. From what you have learned of him, can you describe a bit about who he seems to have actually been?
He was definitely an odd fellow. But he was also smart, capable, for instance, of beating others more advanced than he was at chess and, if you believe the official record, able to teach himself Russian, one of the most challenging languages to learn, especially on your own. He liked the opera and was a vociferous reader, knowledgeable in a lot of subjects. His actions in both his military and civilian lives seem consistent with someone having a far deeper complexity than what we have been told. Oh, and he was also a rather poor shot!"
As for the pejorative term conspiracy theory , that was conjured up by the CIA in 1964, to counter the growing threat to the insiders' desire to promote the sole assassin idea, discredit doubters, and shut off debate. https://projectunspeakable.com/conspiracy-theory-invention-of-cia and http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0292757697
"In 2013 Professor Lance Dehaven-Smith in a peer-reviewed book published by the University of Texas Press showed that the term "conspiracy theory" was developed by the CIA as a means of undercutting critics of the Warren Commission's report that President Kennedy was killed by Oswald. The use of this term was heavily promoted in the media by the CIA
It is ironic that the American left is a major enforcer of the CIA's strategy to shut up skeptics by branding them conspiracy theorists."
The public has never believed the official story that Oswald acted alone ever since the first Gallup Poll was taken in early Dec. 1963, and continuing to this very day.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
"Majority in U.S. Still Believe JFK Killed in a Conspiracy" by Art Swift (Nov. 15, 2013)Dec. 1963: 52% Conspiracy, 29% One man
1976: 81% Conspiracy, 11% One man
1983: 74% Conspiracy, 11% One man
1992: 77% Conspiracy, 10% One man
2001: 81% Conspiracy, 13% One man
2003: 75% Conspiracy, 19% One man
2013: 61% Conspiracy, 30% One manhttp://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-marksman-sharpshooter
" According to his Marine score card (Commission Exhibit 239), Oswald was tested twice:
In December 1956, after "a very intensive 3 weeks' training period" (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.11, p.302), Oswald scored 212: two marks above the minimum for a 'sharpshooter'.
In May 1959, he scored 191: one mark above the minimum for a 'marksman'.
" Colonel Allison Folsom interpreted the results for the Warren Commission:
"The Marine Corps consider that any reasonable application of the instructions given to Marines should permit them to become qualified at least as a marksman. To become qualified as a sharpshooter, the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified. Consequently, a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor "shot" and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good "shot".(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, pp.17f)Folsom agreed with his (not her) questioner that Oswald "was not a particularly outstanding shot" (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.8, p.311)."
Phlilip F. Nelson's hardcover 2011 book, a fascinating insight into LBJ's warped and sociopathic (also suffering from bi-polar disorder) personality hidden from the public, 1960-2011,
LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination
https://www.amazon.com/LBJ-Mastermind-Assassination-Phillip-Nelson/dp/1616083778His 2013 paperback update:
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
https://www.amazon.com/LBJ-Mastermind-Assassination-Phillip-Nelson/dp/1620876108
- Old fogey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:28 am GMT @Laurel The best strategy is to foster implausible conspiracy theories to create a cloud of disinformation. This technique was used very effectively after 9/11, such that it's very hard to discuss a coverup without being labeled a truther.
Thank you for inserting the word "truther" into the conversation. It has always fascinated me that someone searching for the truth about a political issue is now automatically considered a conspiracy theorist.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Gene Tuttle says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 9:29 am GMT • 100 Words @Bill Jones Nice try.
The Manhattan Project was successfully kept secret despite its scope and the fact that it consumed 17% of the electricity production of the entire US.
I did not say it was impossible for Americans to keep secrets, just "difficult."
The Manhattan Project was in a bygone era - one in which near total war prevailed. Yet even in that case, the Soviets knew early on what was going on. And stories appeared in the US press early on posing prying questions about Los Alamos, a "forbidden city" where there were reports of "ordnance and explosives" being developed and "tremendous explosions have been heard."
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/1944-Cleveland-Press-Forbidden-City.pdfMain point however, is that even when conspiracies become obvious they are often largely ignored.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- biz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 12:11 pm GMT @CanSpeccy biz, you obviously missed it. Bill Jones, above , debunked your argument even before you made it.
lol, "The Mahattan Project was kept a secret."
No it wasn't. Stalin knew about the Manhattan project before Truman did. Learn some history.
• Replies: @CanSpeccylol, "The Mahattan Project was kept a secret."Your point misses the point. Putin probably knows as much or more about the mechanics of 9/11 than Stalin knew about the mechanics of the atom bomb and the Manhattan Project. But the issue is public knowledge, not what some individuals may know or have known. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All CommentsNo it wasn't. Stalin knew about the Manhattan project before Truman did. Learn some history.
- Moi says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 1:07 pm GMT • 100 Words @Rehmat There are more so-called "conspiracy theories" claimed by the US government, CIA, and organized Jewry than the Jews may have been killed by the Nazis. The "conspiracy theorists" like the "terrorists" are chosen by the Zionist-controlled mainstream media.
Like the September 11, 2001 attacks, the lie that Iran's president Ahmadinejad called, WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP, is still kept alive by the Organized Jewry even though Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor admitted that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never said Iran wanted to "wipe Israel off the face of the map" in an interview with Al Jazeera in April 2012.
American investigative writer and author, Robert Parry, claimed on September 19, 2009 that Ahmadinejad never denied Holocaust. He just challenged Israel and the western powers to allow an open debate to find the truth behind the Zionist Holy Cow, "Six Million Died".
In reality, the only country that has been 'wiped off the map' is the 5,000-year-old Palestine by Europe's unwanted Jews.
Iran's current president Dr. Hassan Rouhani like Dr. Ahmadinejad, is also blamed for denying the Zionist Holy Holocaust as parroted by Wiesel, which he never did, saying it's up to historians to decide who's lying.
https://rehmat1.com/2013/09/28/holocaust-the-word-rouhani-never-uttered/
If the Zionists can lie so much about Israeli history (e.g. The Arabs encouraged Palestinians to flee, that the Arabs were about to attack Israel in 1967, land without a people for a people without a land, etc.), one can only wonder about the official holocaust narrative of 6M dead, gas chambers, etc.).
I've not read Elie Weisel's book Night, but I understand that no where does he mention gas chambers in Auschwitz .
• Replies: @Rehmat Without GAS CHAMBERS the SIX MILLION DIED Holy COW becomes a HOUSE OF CARDS.On June 29, 2016, Boston-based publishing company Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH) announced that it will publish Adolf Hitler's 'antisemite' book Mein Kampf to fund needy Jewish survivors of Nazi era.
"The proceeds from sale of Mein Kampf will be donated to Jewish Family & Children's Service of Greater Boston," said Andrew Russell, the publisher's director of corporate social responsibility.
The publisher had been donating money to organizations that combat anti-Semitism since 2000. Since publication of Mein Kampf is banned in France, the job was given to HMH. The publication of the book was opposed by several Jewish groups as result of company's recent announcement that in the future, it will provide funds to some non-Jewish NGOs. HMH caved-in to Jewish pressure and decided to bribe them by donating proceeds from the book to the 'evergreen' Holocaust Industry.
In September 2001, the company filed a law suit in a New York court against Jews for Jesus, accusing the pro-Israel Evangelical group of infringing the company's copyright on its popular children's storybook character, Curious George, which the company had been publishing for 70 years.
Interestingly, HMH is a subsidiary of Vivendi Universal, a multinational mass media company in Paris, whose CEO is Arnaud de Puyfontaine (Jewish).
By now, hundreds of millions people around the world including some honest Jews know that Holocaust has become a tool of the Organized Jewry to rob western nations and individuals to nurse Israel's military machine. Germans and the 65 million American Evangelists are the biggest suckers of this Zionist Mafia. Organized Jewry has sucked over $93 billion from German taxpayers since the 1960s.
https://rehmat1.com/2016/07/02/hitlers-mein-kampf-to-fund-holocaust-industry/ Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Alfred1860 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 1:51 pm GMT • 100 Words
I find it quite amusing how, in an article supporting of the existence of conspiracy theories, so many comments consist of hurling insults at people making skeptical comments about what are obviously very sacred cows.
People need to remember than by definition, the ratio of what you don't know to what you do know is infinity to one. Be more open minded.
• Replies: @NosytheDuke "They shall find it difficult, they who have taken authority as truth rather than truth for authority".Gerald Massey Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Some Important Historical Events Had Hidden Causes | We Seek the Truth! says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:41 pm GMT
[ ] Read the Whole Article [ ]
- dahoit says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 3:13 pm GMT • 100 Words @Rehmat There are more so-called "conspiracy theories" claimed by the US government, CIA, and organized Jewry than the Jews may have been killed by the Nazis. The "conspiracy theorists" like the "terrorists" are chosen by the Zionist-controlled mainstream media.
Like the September 11, 2001 attacks, the lie that Iran's president Ahmadinejad called, WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP, is still kept alive by the Organized Jewry even though Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor admitted that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never said Iran wanted to "wipe Israel off the face of the map" in an interview with Al Jazeera in April 2012.
American investigative writer and author, Robert Parry, claimed on September 19, 2009 that Ahmadinejad never denied Holocaust. He just challenged Israel and the western powers to allow an open debate to find the truth behind the Zionist Holy Cow, "Six Million Died".
In reality, the only country that has been 'wiped off the map' is the 5,000-year-old Palestine by Europe's unwanted Jews.
Iran's current president Dr. Hassan Rouhani like Dr. Ahmadinejad, is also blamed for denying the Zionist Holy Holocaust as parroted by Wiesel, which he never did, saying it's up to historians to decide who's lying.
https://rehmat1.com/2013/09/28/holocaust-the-word-rouhani-never-uttered/
The only conspiracy with legs is the 70 year old Zionist one,and the only one that matters today.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
And only fellow travelers or their duped concern trolls disagree on that obvious truth.
Today's lying times says latent racism by the Danes is behind their resistance to their nation being inundated by the refugees of the zionists war of terror.
Coming from the malevolent racist scum in history,it sure wreaks of total hypocrisy,and another nail in divide and conquer.
Can one point out one synagogue or rabbinical statement condemning the 70 years of CCs and the imprisonment of Gaza?
The only Jewish opponents(outside of a few dissidents),the ultra Orthodox are considered self haters,as are the dissidents.
- dahoit says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 3:21 pm GMT @Connecticut Famer "But the author of the "Open Society" had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously" often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal collective interests."
Possibly as in the JFK case? I actually watched Lee Harvey Oswald get drilled by the man who was later identified as Jack Ruby (real surname "Rubenstein") live on television. The minute it happened and even at age 16 at the time I smelled a rat. Who was ultimately behind it all is something which I can't answer and care not to speculate upon, but to this day I remain suspicious about the circumstances surrounding Oswald's death and Ruby's subsequent dissembling.
I was 12 and had the same feeling.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Lanskys mob member shoots down any investigation into just what happened that day.
And remember Arlen Spector came up with the magic bullet theory,and was rewarded with Congress.
- CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 3:22 pm GMT @Wizard of Oz I see the biggest problem about a conspiratorial explanation for the WTC 7 collapse is motive. How does it make sense for those who wanted the big splash that hitting buildings 1 and 2 would give? The other major difficulty is the video footage of fires burning all day which had to have heated the steel and therefore potentially weakened it to a critical point. Where's the mystery?
There must be hundreds of millions of words accessible on the Internet discussing the collapse of WTC Building 7. Why then foul up this discussion with the reiteration of arguments that anyone with an interest in the specifics of 9/11 will already know or can find out elsewhere?
• Replies: @CanSpeccy But if you really want a short, clear, definitive, irrefutable and conclusive debunking of 9/11 Truther theories here it is :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98 , @Wizard of Oz And why doesn't that apply precisely to just about everything you have posted and how come you can't see it - or think you can get away with others not noticing?
And where have you complained about the constant reiteration of the symmetrical fall alleged impossibility, the particles of thermite, the steel couldn't have been melted nonsense (it wasn't melting that was the point), the forewarning to the BBC and, not least, the failure to account for the videos of the fires burning all day in WTC 7 and what that could have resulted in.
My particular analysis of motive I have neither seen emphasised by anyone else nor answered on UR at all. Have you? Or seen it dealt with elsewhere as you imply?
As it happens there is now an exception. Just about the first UR commenter to doubt something like the official 9/11 story that has not only a respectably functioning intellect but has deployed it on the issue. See posts by CalDre on this thread and my conversation with him.
Acttually there is indeed a question of motive on WTC 7 (if it was demolished by explosives) left well unanswered by anything but the supposition that there was something within that needed to be destroyed of which there were no copies. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 3:29 pm GMT • 100 Words @biz lol, "The Mahattan Project was kept a secret."
No it wasn't. Stalin knew about the Manhattan project before Truman did. Learn some history.
lol, "The Mahattan Project was kept a secret."
No it wasn't. Stalin knew about the Manhattan project before Truman did. Learn some history.
Your point misses the point. Putin probably knows as much or more about the mechanics of 9/11 than Stalin knew about the mechanics of the atom bomb and the Manhattan Project. But the issue is public knowledge, not what some individuals may know or have known.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- dahoit says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 4:05 pm GMT • 100 Words @Decius What is a liberal? That's not a troll question. Strauss was above all a Socratic and Socratic philosophy begins with "what is" questions. One of Strauss's books is entitled Liberalism Ancient and Modern .
Strauss was apparently a liberal in the US context in that he mostly voted for Dems. He also wrote one acerbically critical letter to National Review.
However, a mid-20th-century American liberal may have been many things, but unpatriotic or nationalistic they were not. When liberalism turned with McGovern, Strauss looked elsewhere, and then died a year later, so we don't know how his political outlook would, or would not, have changed longer term. But at least in the 40s-60s, he was quite OK with Cold War American liberals. That's perfectly consistent with the nationalist sentiment expressed in the letter to Lowith. Also, Strauss was appalled by the dissoluteness of Weimar--and would become appalled by the dissoluteness of the late 1960s. But America prior was not yet dissolute. And he was appalled by Weimar's weakness. But America pre-Vietnam was not weak. Again, perfectly consistent with the letter.
Strauss supported the Cold War because he thought the USSR was a real threat in the near term and because he feared, on a higher plane, the imposition of "the universal and homogenous state." He was opposed to that, whereas those to his left were for it. So was he conservative?
Strauss transcends all these distinctions. That's not to say that they are meaningless. Indeed, he would be the first to say that they are meaningful. But, like Tocqueville, Strauss aimed to see not differently but further than the parties.
Liberals used to say,I might not agree with what you say,but I'll defend you right to say it.
• Replies: @utu "Today we send up zionist satellites(when they don't explode) and fund their citizens efforts in militarization of space that threatens all,including US." - Few days before that failed launch Zuckerberg on NPR was talking much about FB in Africa and providing internet. I was wondering what else was on this payload? How many satellites Israel already has? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Today they want to implant Citizenchips.
Moon landings a hoax?I doubt that,but does it matter to today's terrible times other than a sign of American dominance in space race propaganda?
Today we send up zionist satellites(when they don't explode) and fund their citizens efforts in militarization of space that threatens all,including US.
Unbelievable but true.
- whorefinder says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 4:45 pm GMT • 100 Words @Wizard of Oz I ask only because you may have the JFK assassination stuff well organised in your head and up to date. What do you make of the update by Colin McLaren on the humanly plausible conspiracy theory that the bullet which killed Kennedy was fired accidentally by a Secret Service man standing in the car behind? Are there any knock down arguments against it? Or big holes?
The argument has surface plausibility merit, and would seem to resolve a lot of the problems Oswald Deniers have with Kennedy's head movement. However, I haven't heard the physics argument about it, or any other evidence. So I'm neutral.
That said, it isn't a popular theory because it offers nothing nefarious-just the SS screwing up big time. So even if it were true-and I'm open to it being true-the Oswald Deniers are far too invested in making this a deliberate mass-government coverup to listen.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Rurik says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 4:51 pm GMT • 100 Words @Pat Casey Nice job. You roped the quote that ran across my mind--- I swear these things are in the air. How do you say, the ghost of Leo Strauss was moving men to do what you can't pin on his memory? Well you said it and that settles it. Thank goodness.
now this..
Now, however, Europhysics Magazine, the respected publication of the European physics community, has published a report by four experts who say "the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition."
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/911-conspiracy-gets-support-from-physicists-study/
.
.Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.
~ Buddha
• Replies: @El Dato Pretty weird that 28 pages have had to be sat on. Maybe someone DIDN'T tell the Saudis that they didn't need to go all Allah Uakbar (as they were planning to since the lat 80s actually) as we were ready to blow shit up anyway? I dunno. Missing of memos can occur. , @CanSpeccyThree things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.That was before the mainstream media Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments~ Buddha
- dahoit says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 4:52 pm GMT • 100 Words @exiled off mainstreet I didn't notice Gleiwitz was mentioned in another posting before I mentioned it. I tend go along with you and suspect incompetence rather than purpose was the cause of the Pearl Harbor disaster, though the incompetence may have included failure to adequately warn those on the ground at Pearl Harbor. Personally, I don't back the "truther" version of the twin towers because that would have required a broader conspiracy than I think could have succeeded. My guess is that the neighboring building was destroyed as part of the cleanup effort. I do think, however, that the authorities knew something was up, didn't believe it could ever succeed and used it as a sort of Reichstag Fire incident to brush aside constitutional democracy in the US. I also suspect that the Mossad knew more than they let on. My guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power that history would have been far different. I suspect that the anthrax thing was more likely started by the yankee regime as a home-grown conspiracy.
Gore chose a likudnik as VP.Anyone thinks the response to 9-11 would have significantly different under those 2 needs further education.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
I notice the Wiz always deflects Israeli involvement.Of course they were aware,the dancing Israelis knew it was a terror attack by dancing before the 2nd plane hit.
And what govt has been the only beneficiary of 9-11?
If one can't see that answer,they have been ziocained and lobotomized.
- CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 5:32 pm GMT @CanSpeccy There must be hundreds of millions of words accessible on the Internet discussing the collapse of WTC Building 7. Why then foul up this discussion with the reiteration of arguments that anyone with an interest in the specifics of 9/11 will already know or can find out elsewhere?
But if you really want a short, clear, definitive, irrefutable and conclusive debunking of 9/11 Truther theories here it is :
• Replies: @Astuteobservor II wow, that video should be mandatory for every american. , @Wizard of Oz I love it! , @I. MALLIKARJUNA SHARMA What do you mean by debunking. It is in fact concisely and clearly explaining 9/11 Truth theories castigated as conspiracy theories by the criminal rulers. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- utu says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 5:35 pm GMT • 100 Words @dahoit Liberals used to say,I might not agree with what you say,but I'll defend you right to say it.
Today they want to implant Citizenchips.
Moon landings a hoax?I doubt that,but does it matter to today's terrible times other than a sign of American dominance in space race propaganda?
Today we send up zionist satellites(when they don't explode) and fund their citizens efforts in militarization of space that threatens all,including US.
Unbelievable but true."Today we send up zionist satellites(when they don't explode) and fund their citizens efforts in militarization of space that threatens all,including US." – Few days before that failed launch Zuckerberg on NPR was talking much about FB in Africa and providing internet. I was wondering what else was on this payload? How many satellites Israel already has?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- LondonBob says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 5:39 pm GMT @Paul Jolliffe Mr. Unz,
Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media" in which he addresses - and confirms - your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a figure than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades . . .
http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
No coincidence that all the CIA agents involved in the JFK assassination are known to be experts in 'black ops' and news media specialists. Jim Angleton, Cord Meyer, David Atlee Phillips and E. Howard Hunt, who confessed his involvement, all made their names in black propaganda or news management.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- LondonBob says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 5:51 pm GMT @exiled off mainstreet The Israelis learned their false flag lesson from the Nazis, who used concentration camp inmates dressed as Polish soldiers as part of a phony attack on the frontier radio station "Sender Gleiwitz" a day or so before they invaded Poland.
Not forgetting the Manchurian Incident, staging events to justify a war is nothing new.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Abraham says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 6:28 pm GMT • 100 Words @Lot Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most of them will be crazy.
Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret because they already are in control. For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson.
The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered, such as Watergate and Iran Contra.
Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most of them will be crazy.
A statement that appears straight out of the CIA's playbook.
Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret because they already are in control.
Such control does not imply they have nothing to hide, particularly when exposure of the deed would have damaging repercussions for them.
For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson.
It didn't reflect that of Israel's elites.
After JFK's assassination, American foreign policy vis a vis Israel was completely reversed under Johnson, who hung the crew of the USS Liberty out to dry.
The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered, such as Watergate and Iran Contra.
How is this a problem?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Astuteobservor II says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 6:37 pm GMT @CanSpeccy But if you really want a short, clear, definitive, irrefutable and conclusive debunking of 9/11 Truther theories here it is :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98
wow, that video should be mandatory for every american.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- zib says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 7:34 pm GMT • 100 Words @biz Actually, there is no symmetry in conspiracy theories as you imply.
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
So, just to cite one example, all of the 9/11 controlled demolition stuff is a conspiracy theory because at first it had the government and maybe the property owners in on the secret, but then the circle of supposed conspirators was enlarged to include the editors of Popular Mechanics after they did their study. Or take the moon landing, which involved 'only' thousands of NASA people until you point out that the astronauts left mirrors on the surface of the moon in a precise location, for which astronomers around the world use laser ranging to determine the distance to the moon down to the centimeter level. So then the astronomers who claim to do this had to be added to the list of conspirators and liars for this theory to stand. Then of course the more you point out, the more people who have to get added to the conspiracy, which eventually becomes all of the television industry, and even the Soviets!
That is the reason why the so-called alternative explanations for 9/11, the moon landing, the various assassinations, the safety of vaccines, etc, are conspiracy theories, while the mainstream explanations are not.
but then the circle of supposed conspirators was enlarged to include the editors of Popular Mechanics after they did their study
Nice attempt to conflate the planners and executors of the 9/11 attacks with those who run interference for the "official" history of what happened that day. PM editors aren't "conspirators" of the deed, they're just a mouthpiece for NIST.
Here's a link to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth's evisceration of Popular Mechanics hit piece against skeptics of the NIST whitewash:
Let's see how you rationalize this one. If you have the cajones, that is.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- A
- El Dato says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:13 pm GMT • 100 Words @Rurik now this..
Now, however, Europhysics Magazine, the respected publication of the European physics community, has published a report by four experts who say "the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition."
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/911-conspiracy-gets-support-from-physicists-study/.
.Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.
~ Buddha
Pretty weird that 28 pages have had to be sat on. Maybe someone DIDN'T tell the Saudis that they didn't need to go all Allah Uakbar (as they were planning to since the lat 80s actually) as we were ready to blow shit up anyway? I dunno. Missing of memos can occur.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- 5371 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:29 pm GMT @Decius Kristol is a Straussian because he got a PhD in PolPhil from Harvard under Mansfield, who is a Straussian. There is no necessary connection between Strauss's thought any of the main tenets of Neo-conservatism. I've said, and you've all ignored, that Strauss attacked data-driven social science, which is the original hallmark of neo-conservatism. A later hallmark (which emerged after Strauss's death) was foreign policy hawkism. Unless you want to say that Strauss's opposition to the USSR makes him a neo-con, in which case every Cold War liberal going back to Truman was a neo-con. At which point the term has no meaning.
Strauss addresses scholars and potential philosophers. He has almost nothing to say about the transient issues of his age. Based on his comments on what other thinkers had to say about war (Thucydides above all) I believe we can infer that Strauss was generally in favor of preparedness and wariness but otherwise anti-war in the general sense. If we may analogize the Iraq War to the Sicilian Expedition we may say that Strauss probably would have opposed the former as imprudent, just as he tacitly endorses T's judgement that the latter was imprudent.
Strauss openly characterizes Machiavelli's approach to philosophy as a conspiracy, using that word, but does not say it about any other thinker. However, his teaching that philosophy is an inherently elite and very small enterprise may be fairly characterized as a "conspiracy." however, before modernity, the nature of the conspiracy was to protect the conspirators and the philosophic life, not a reform campaign. that's what it becomes under modernity, which Strauss opposes. One of Strauss's aims in writing was to revive the ancient idea of philosophy, its proper scope, and its proper relationship to society, which he believed modernity had corrupted.
It is unfortunate that Strauss became a bogey-man to so many who have no idea what he said or why. It happened rather recently and based on some very thin scholarship. Most of the thing people try to pin on him are things that I and my friends oppose too. We just know they don't trace to Strauss. In fact, the opposite is often true.
You are right that Strauss's culpability for the neocons has been vastly exaggerated. You are wrong that he is worth reading.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Ron Unz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:33 pm GMT • 200 Words NEW! @Miro23 Or maybe a lot of smart people pretend to believe the official 9/11 story because that's where their interest lies. MSM journalists know for sure that articles that deviate from the official line on 9/11 are career ending moves .
In simple terms, MSM owners have decided that 9/11 is a taboo subject (same as USS Liberty) and they decide what gets published.
Or maybe a lot of smart people pretend to believe the official 9/11 story because that's where their interest lies. MSM journalists know for sure that articles that deviate from the official line on 9/11 are career ending moves .
In simple terms, MSM owners have decided that 9/11 is a taboo subject (same as USS Liberty) and they decide what gets published.
Well, I haven't read through all of this enormously long discussion-thread, but I happened to notice this particular comment. Not having been an MSM journalist myself, I can't say whether or not it's true, but a couple of interesting, possibly coincidental, examples come to mind
In late July 2010, longtime Canadian journalist Eric Margolis was told his column would be dropped, and just a few weeks later he published a double-length piece expressing strong doubts about 9/11, the first time he'd articulated that position:
http://www.unz.com/article/911-the-mother-of-all-coincidences/
In 2007, the parent company of The Chicago Tribune announced it had accepted a leveraged-buyout takeover bid by investor Sam Zell, who planned a massive wave cost-cutting layoffs, which eventually wrecked the company. In late 2007, the Chicago Tribune suddenly ran a very long piece regarding the Liberty Attack, about the only time I've ever seen it discussed in the MSM.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-liberty_tuesoct02-story.html
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:47 pm GMT @Rurik now this..
Now, however, Europhysics Magazine, the respected publication of the European physics community, has published a report by four experts who say "the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition."
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/911-conspiracy-gets-support-from-physicists-study/.
.Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.
~ Buddha
Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.
~ Buddha
That was before the mainstream media
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- SolontoCroesus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:49 pm GMT • 700 Words
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJx1dVX45s
Jeff Gates, author Guilt by Association
(former legal counsel to US Senate finance committee)conspiracies Gates dabbled in: Who Killed Huey Long? (Long's death made FDR's presidency inevitable)
8 min: "I'm not comfortable calling it zionism; I'm trained as a lawyer; I call it a multigenerational criminal gang. . . conspiracies do not hold together, neither do
12 min: "Israelis planned the 1967 war and deliberately terrorized their own people . . . 'it was a put-up job . . . there was no attack on Israel; the Israelis took out the Egyptian air force."
14 min: "The war is being waged against the American public, they are the great victims . . . what you do is put your people in that 'in between space;' . . . if you have a democracy based on facts and the rule of law, then it's essential that you have access to facts in order to have informed consent . . . this criminal gang dominates media, an 'in between' domain; pop culture, politics, think tanks, education, to induce people to embrace a narrative that they themselves can't really penetrate because it's the frame through which they see their world."
17 min: "Narratives are pre-staged thru pop culture - music & entertainment/movies/TV. . ."
24 min: "Assets are people who have been profiled to sufficient depth so that if you put them into a time, place and circumstances over which you have enormous control, . . . then you know within an acceptable range of probabilities that they will perform consistent with their profile." Monica Lewisnky added to Bill Clinton - the outcome was predictable . . .
"Obama was identified & groomed by Betty Lou Saltzman, the dau of the UN ambassador, Pletnik . . . [related to Danielle Pletnik??] . . . I think initially he was an asset; I think he woke up & recognized that he was being used - I hope he woke up . . . it's a terrific challenge to confront those who are using you . . ."
28 min –> JFK and the Council of Jewish Presidents . . . if JFK had succeeded in his demands on Ben Gurion, we would live in a different world today; the USA & entire region would be different."
35 min: "When the 1967 war broke out [which gave rise to Israel attacking USS Liberty & killing 34 American servicemen] Matilda Krim was in the White House servicing our president. Is Wolf Blitzer going to report that? How many American know that? None."
Gates: "A lot of the support we've gotten for this book has been from the broader Jewish community who say Thank You for exposing this . . .Perhaps we can indict, prosecute, imprison or execute those criminals . . .and allowing us the avenue to be ourselves . . . "
Moderator: "Well, perhaps those people who feel that way and belong to the group should be more outspoken. I know a few but basically I can count them on one hand, from Gilad Atzmon to Israel Shamir and a couple of others. But if this is in their interest and they feel that their name is being misused, isn't that something which should be coming from this group, right?"
[Gates weasels a bit, then] "You have to come up with a definition of What is it to be Jewish? Likewise, this term zionism - what sort of notion is it we're fighting? ? In this book we try to show how the repetitive behavior patterns and the criminal templates by which this works: you displace facts with manipulated beliefs - that's a classic . . . But it's a challenge to break through that: people say, Well, I'm part of this community and I have a law practice, an accounting practice, and I have to be careful . . ."
38: MOD: "We have to define it: Is it an evolutionary survival strategy? Simply the expansion for Israel . . . If it's money and power alone . . . So it has to be defined by what is sought by the group, right?
usw
• Replies: @utu Thank you for the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJx1dVX45s to Jeff Gates interview.He is really very good.
He has a book https://www.amazon.com/Guilt-Association-Deception-Self-Deceit-America/product-reviews/098213150X/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_btm?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=recent Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:57 pm GMT • 100 Words @Wizard of Oz I ask only because you may have the JFK assassination stuff well organised in your head and up to date. What do you make of the update by Colin McLaren on the humanly plausible conspiracy theory that the bullet which killed Kennedy was fired accidentally by a Secret Service man standing in the car behind? Are there any knock down arguments against it? Or big holes?
I love the idea that JFK was killed by a stray bullet accidentally fired by a secret service agent. It's so obvious once the truth has been pointed out.
Probably the same sort of balls-up explains 9/11. You know, missiles intended to shoot down simulated highjacked planes in a drill on 9/11 accidentally wamming into the Pentagon and Twin Towers.
Then Norad had to make up that stuff about 19 hijackers and Bin Laden to cover their arse.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- WorkingClass says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 9:12 pm GMT
The CIA is the presidents private secret army. Nothing it does is legal.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Ron Unz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 9:53 pm GMT NEW!
For those without convenient access to a copy of the deHaven-Smith book, I've discovered there are some lengthy extracts available on the web:
https://off-guardian.org/2016/09/04/are-you-a-mind-controlled-cia-stooge/
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz RonYou may be aware that Daniel Pipes made a study of conspiracy theories and has written books on the subject - which I haven't read. I have however sampled his long list of articles which can be found here:
http://www.daniel.pipes.org/topics/4/conspiracy-theories , @Wizard of Oz International Pravda. My phone has just received from The Economist an article or editorial variously headed "Pepe and the Stormtroopers" and "The Normalisation of the Alt-Right". What is remarkable is the near unanimity of the hundreds of Comments in condemning TE for its condescending anti-Trump rant, even by those who won't vote for him. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 10:04 pm GMT • 200 Words
Such unfiltered speculation must surely be a source of considerable irritation and worry to government officials who have long relied upon the complicity of their tame media organs to allow their serious misdeeds to pass unnoticed and unpunished.
I doubt it. I would think the sheer volume of conspiracy theories would actually help to conceal actual conspiracies. For instance, InfoWars could do a brilliant series on some anti-Russian conspiracy–with impeccable reasoning and unassailable evidence. But no one in the mainstream would ever take it seriously because of all the obvious junk they publish about 9/11 and Jade Helm and Sandy Hook. The signal to noise ration is astonishingly small.
While, certainly, journalistic laziness or malfeasance could conceivably aid in concealing an actual conspiracy, the fact of the matter is that almost all "conspiracy theories" that I would identify as such are plagued by fairly obvious pathological reasoning. (9/11 truthers, for example proclaim that "burning jet fuel can't melt steel beams!" yet this mantra is irrelevant to the actual arguments being made by people who explain the mainstream theories.) Most conspiracies are ignored on that level. In other words, it's not that some particular conspiracy couldn't be true, it's that the conspiracy theory as argued by its believers is illogical or factually incorrect on its very face.
• Replies: @SolontoCroesus"burning jet fuel can't melt steel beams!"The bad news is that the Liberty Bridge will be closed to all traffic for at least the next week as a result of fire damage Friday to a steel beam critical to the bridge's stability.Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All CommentsThe good news is that the vital, 55,000-vehicle-a-day bridge spanning the Monongahela River didn't collapse Friday. That catastrophe may have been minutes away from occurring if the fire had not been quickly extinguished to prevent further damage, PennDOT officials said at a news conference Sunday.
"I can't tell you for sure [when a collapse might have occurred], I just know it was very tight," said PennDOT district bridge engineer Lou Ruzzi. "I can't tell you if it was 10 minutes, 15 minutes ... definitely less than 30 minutes."
He said temperatures exceeded 1,200 degrees from the fire that occurred early Friday afternoon. He said it was due to errant sparks from a welder's torch that ignited plastic piping, which then lit afire a tarp draping the bridge during its two-year, $80 million renovation project.
It took firefighters a half-hour or less to extinguish the blaze, but it already had severely damaged a 30-foot-long steel beam - a compression chord of the deck truss that is essential for the 88-year-old bridge's support. The fire shortened the beam and put it 6 inches out of place, putting added pressure on all of the other chords supporting the bridge, Mr. Ruzzi said.
"It buckled and moved over" in an S shape instead of straight, he said. "The effect of that is when you don't have a steel member like that that's straight, the forces [stabilizing the bridge] don't go through that member correctly the way it was designed, so [they] ended up going through other parts of the bridge. ... The worst-case scenario was the whole section could fall."
When asked how much would fall, Mr. Ruzzi responded, "Most of the bridge," maybe 2,000 feet of the 2,600-foot span. http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2016/09/04/Liberty-Bridge-to-be-closed-for-next-week-due-to-fire-damage/stories/201609050058
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 10:35 pm GMT • 100 Words
During the mid-1960s there had been increasing public skepticism about the Warren Commission findings that a lone gunman
The problem with this theory is that the term "conspiracy theory" had been increasing in popularity since 1957. I'm not sure why, but Google Ngram search shows the term skyrocketing before 1964 and actually leveling out (at a high level) in 1965.
The result was a huge spike in the pejorative use of the phrase, which spread throughout the American media, with the residual impact continueing right down to the present day.
I'm not sure what the evidence is for this, but even if true, the phrase in general was already surging in popularity. I have no doubt the CIA was trying to use the term for some end, but blaming the CIA for its pejorative use seems unfounded unless there is some other evidence.
• Replies: @utu The term "ground zero" was originally reserved for the center of nuclear explosion. After 9/11 it has changed. Dimitri Khalezow, the proponent of the nuclear demolition of WTC theoryhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUnjbCxhXh4
claimed that dictionary entries for "ground zero" were changed after 9/11 (some changes were done retroactively to earlier editions) to obscure the fact that term was reserved solely for the nuclear explosion. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- SolontoCroesus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 10:43 pm GMT • 300 Words @Boris
Such unfiltered speculation must surely be a source of considerable irritation and worry to government officials who have long relied upon the complicity of their tame media organs to allow their serious misdeeds to pass unnoticed and unpunished.I doubt it. I would think the sheer volume of conspiracy theories would actually help to conceal actual conspiracies. For instance, InfoWars could do a brilliant series on some anti-Russian conspiracy--with impeccable reasoning and unassailable evidence. But no one in the mainstream would ever take it seriously because of all the obvious junk they publish about 9/11 and Jade Helm and Sandy Hook. The signal to noise ration is astonishingly small.While, certainly, journalistic laziness or malfeasance could conceivably aid in concealing an actual conspiracy, the fact of the matter is that almost all "conspiracy theories" that I would identify as such are plagued by fairly obvious pathological reasoning. (9/11 truthers, for example proclaim that "burning jet fuel can't melt steel beams!" yet this mantra is irrelevant to the actual arguments being made by people who explain the mainstream theories.) Most conspiracies are ignored on that level. In other words, it's not that some particular conspiracy couldn't be true, it's that the conspiracy theory as argued by its believers is illogical or factually incorrect on its very face.
"burning jet fuel can't melt steel beams!"
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All CommentsThe bad news is that the Liberty Bridge will be closed to all traffic for at least the next week as a result of fire damage Friday to a steel beam critical to the bridge's stability.
The good news is that the vital, 55,000-vehicle-a-day bridge spanning the Monongahela River didn't collapse Friday. That catastrophe may have been minutes away from occurring if the fire had not been quickly extinguished to prevent further damage, PennDOT officials said at a news conference Sunday.
"I can't tell you for sure [when a collapse might have occurred], I just know it was very tight," said PennDOT district bridge engineer Lou Ruzzi. "I can't tell you if it was 10 minutes, 15 minutes definitely less than 30 minutes."
He said temperatures exceeded 1,200 degrees from the fire that occurred early Friday afternoon. He said it was due to errant sparks from a welder's torch that ignited plastic piping, which then lit afire a tarp draping the bridge during its two-year, $80 million renovation project.
It took firefighters a half-hour or less to extinguish the blaze, but it already had severely damaged a 30-foot-long steel beam - a compression chord of the deck truss that is essential for the 88-year-old bridge's support. The fire shortened the beam and put it 6 inches out of place, putting added pressure on all of the other chords supporting the bridge, Mr. Ruzzi said.
"It buckled and moved over" in an S shape instead of straight, he said. "The effect of that is when you don't have a steel member like that that's straight, the forces [stabilizing the bridge] don't go through that member correctly the way it was designed, so [they] ended up going through other parts of the bridge. The worst-case scenario was the whole section could fall."
When asked how much would fall, Mr. Ruzzi responded, "Most of the bridge," maybe 2,000 feet of the 2,600-foot span. http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2016/09/04/Liberty-Bridge-to-be-closed-for-next-week-due-to-fire-damage/stories/201609050058
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 10:48 pm GMT • 100 Words @biz Actually, there is no symmetry in conspiracy theories as you imply.
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
So, just to cite one example, all of the 9/11 controlled demolition stuff is a conspiracy theory because at first it had the government and maybe the property owners in on the secret, but then the circle of supposed conspirators was enlarged to include the editors of Popular Mechanics after they did their study. Or take the moon landing, which involved 'only' thousands of NASA people until you point out that the astronauts left mirrors on the surface of the moon in a precise location, for which astronomers around the world use laser ranging to determine the distance to the moon down to the centimeter level. So then the astronomers who claim to do this had to be added to the list of conspirators and liars for this theory to stand. Then of course the more you point out, the more people who have to get added to the conspiracy, which eventually becomes all of the television industry, and even the Soviets!
That is the reason why the so-called alternative explanations for 9/11, the moon landing, the various assassinations, the safety of vaccines, etc, are conspiracy theories, while the mainstream explanations are not.
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
This is a fairly useful definition, and certainly highlights some of the pathological reasoning that is associated with conspiracy theories. However, not all conspiracy theories will exhibit this characteristic. Conspiracies like 9/11 that rely on scientific facts are sometimes rationalized this way, but other conspiracies are built on suspect witness testimony or a biased interpretation and don't require an ever-widening conspiracy.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Olorin says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 11:07 pm GMT • 200 Words @Anonymous The moon landings were likely faked. The Apollo footage was done through front screen projection. See Oleg Oleynik's work on this:
"A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images"
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
That's so 1990s.
Everybody knows that it's the MOON that's faked.
There isn't any. It's just a transverse parallax asynchronous stereoscopic projection onto the upper atmosphere by the Illuminati.
So-called lunar eclipses are their way of letting each other know there's going to be a pig roast on Jekyll Island.
Those so-called "stars" are just bits of light coming out of terrestrial volcanoes, shining off the troposphere.
We see more of them today because there are also lasers added. People realized something was up when some stars disappeared after Krakatoa blew up, so the powers that be had to work on an invention to replace the stars. They keep coming up with more and more of them–viz. Hubble Space Telescope. But in fact there is nothing but a void up there, and the earth is the center of it.
"Meteor showers" are just a clever animation. It's all just a ruse to hide the fact that there are underground polar military encampments.
There's also not really any such thing as penguins. They were genetically engineered to serve as diversions from the other stuff happening at the poles, because, for instance, people will watch cute penguin GIFs for an hour while the Illuminati move people and materiel in the polar background in plain view. But the "penguins" are an instrument of mind control that block perception.
http://imgur.com/gallery/Ebevb
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- utu says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 12:08 am GMT • 100 Words @Boris
During the mid-1960s there had been increasing public skepticism about the Warren Commission findings that a lone gunmanThe problem with this theory is that the term "conspiracy theory" had been increasing in popularity since 1957. I'm not sure why, but Google Ngram search shows the term skyrocketing before 1964 and actually leveling out (at a high level) in 1965.https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22conspiracy+theory%22&year_start=1940&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%22%20conspiracy%20theory%20%22%3B%2Cc0
The result was a huge spike in the pejorative use of the phrase, which spread throughout the American media, with the residual impact continueing right down to the present day.I'm not sure what the evidence is for this, but even if true, the phrase in general was already surging in popularity. I have no doubt the CIA was trying to use the term for some end, but blaming the CIA for its pejorative use seems unfounded unless there is some other evidence.The term "ground zero" was originally reserved for the center of nuclear explosion. After 9/11 it has changed. Dimitri Khalezow, the proponent of the nuclear demolition of WTC theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUnjbCxhXh4
claimed that dictionary entries for "ground zero" were changed after 9/11 (some changes were done retroactively to earlier editions) to obscure the fact that term was reserved solely for the nuclear explosion.
• Replies: @Boris That is a good example of an aspect of a conspiracy theory that is totally wrong on its face. The phrase "Ground zero" was used metaphorically way before September 11th, 2001. Anyone who spent 10 minutes researching this could find prominent examples:1997 book GROUND ZERO The Gender Wars in the Military By Linda Bird Francke
1996 book VIRUS GROUND ZERO Stalking the Killer Viruses With the Centers for Disease Control. By Ed Regis. 244 pp. New York: Pocket Books.
TERROR IN OKLAHOMA: AT GROUND ZERO : A series of articles from the New York Times about the OKC bombing.
"Ground Zero" 1997 NYT book review: "James Meredith's forced admission was a milestone in upending the old order in America's most segregated state, a kind of race relations ground zero."
These come from the first few pages of results when I searched the Times. The claim that the term "ground zero" was "reserved solely for the nuclear explosion." is obviously wring. Even if it weren't wrong, it's silly to suggest that it couldn't have been used figuratively for the first time after 9/11 or that its use signifies that a nuclear blast must have occurred at the WTC. , @Mr. Anon So, the world trade centers were brought down with nuclear weapons? Were the particle beams fired from orbiting battle stations down for routine maintenance that day? There seems to be no idea so stupid that a (so-called) "truther" won't entertain it. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 12:23 am GMT @John Jeremiah Smith
How do you get Astronauts bouncing and hammers falling in Slo-Mo?Yeah, the gravity effects are a BIG job. Just slo-mo-ing won't do it, because you have different curvature of falling profile, and acceleration of gravity is different because moon-mass is less (and non-linear ref 30fps v. 60fps.)There would also be additive propagation delay in the radio signals. Pure delay, too -- no compensation would fix that in 1969.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
• Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith@John Jeremiah SmithShucks, that isn't even good conspiracy theory evidence. The video showing the "fake" is just normal characteristics of a CCTV camera of 1969. They didn't handle spikes well, and their light-bandwidth range was small. The "wires" that rather funny "expert" points out are retrace flares from reflection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUEFrankly, I've never seen ANY good "moon landing hoax" conspiracy theory, I suppose, for people who believe electronic devices work by magic, you can convince them of a lot of stuff. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- utu says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 12:38 am GMT @SolontoCroesus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJx1dVX45s
Jeff Gates, author Guilt by Association
(former legal counsel to US Senate finance committee)conspiracies Gates dabbled in: Who Killed Huey Long? (Long's death made FDR's presidency inevitable)
8 min: "I'm not comfortable calling it zionism; I'm trained as a lawyer; I call it a multigenerational criminal gang. . . conspiracies do not hold together, neither do
12 min: "Israelis planned the 1967 war and deliberately terrorized their own people . . . 'it was a put-up job . . . there was no attack on Israel; the Israelis took out the Egyptian air force."
14 min: "The war is being waged against the American public, they are the great victims . . . what you do is put your people in that 'in between space;' . . . if you have a democracy based on facts and the rule of law, then it's essential that you have access to facts in order to have informed consent . . . this criminal gang dominates media, an 'in between' domain; pop culture, politics, think tanks, education, to induce people to embrace a narrative that they themselves can't really penetrate because it's the frame through which they see their world."
17 min: "Narratives are pre-staged thru pop culture -- music & entertainment/movies/TV. . ."
24 min: "Assets are people who have been profiled to sufficient depth so that if you put them into a time, place and circumstances over which you have enormous control, . . . then you know within an acceptable range of probabilities that they will perform consistent with their profile." Monica Lewisnky added to Bill Clinton -- the outcome was predictable . . .
"Obama was identified & groomed by Betty Lou Saltzman, the dau of the UN ambassador, Pletnik . . . [related to Danielle Pletnik??] . . . I think initially he was an asset; I think he woke up & recognized that he was being used -- I hope he woke up . . . it's a terrific challenge to confront those who are using you . . ."
28 min --> JFK and the Council of Jewish Presidents . . . if JFK had succeeded in his demands on Ben Gurion, we would live in a different world today; the USA & entire region would be different."
35 min: "When the 1967 war broke out [which gave rise to Israel attacking USS Liberty & killing 34 American servicemen] Matilda Krim was in the White House servicing our president. Is Wolf Blitzer going to report that? How many American know that? None."
Gates: "A lot of the support we've gotten for this book has been from the broader Jewish community who say Thank You for exposing this . . .Perhaps we can indict, prosecute, imprison or execute those criminals . . .and allowing us the avenue to be ourselves . . . "
Moderator: "Well, perhaps those people who feel that way and belong to the group should be more outspoken. I know a few but basically I can count them on one hand, from Gilad Atzmon to Israel Shamir and a couple of others. But if this is in their interest and they feel that their name is being misused, isn't that something which should be coming from this group, right?"
[Gates weasels a bit, then] "You have to come up with a definition of What is it to be Jewish? Likewise, this term zionism -- what sort of notion is it we're fighting? ? In this book we try to show how the repetitive behavior patterns and the criminal templates by which this works: you displace facts with manipulated beliefs -- that's a classic . . . But it's a challenge to break through that: people say, Well, I'm part of this community and I have a law practice, an accounting practice, and I have to be careful . . ."
38: MOD: "We have to define it: Is it an evolutionary survival strategy? Simply the expansion for Israel . . . If it's money and power alone . . . So it has to be defined by what is sought by the group, right?
usw
Thank you for the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJx1dVX45s to Jeff Gates interview.
He is really very good.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- anti_republocrat says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 1:48 am GMT • 100 Words @Chief Seattle So, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention. The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in the media, overnight.
Maybe it's true, maybe not, but if the roles had been reversed, the media would be telling its proponents to take off their tin foil hats.
Note also that the allegations immediately become "fact" because they were reported by someone else. As Business Insider reported, "Amid mounting evidence of Russia's involvement in the hack of the Democratic National Committee ," without any specificity whatsoever as to what that "mounting evidence" was (most likely multiple reports in other media) never mind that the article goes on to quote James Clapper, " we are not quite ready yet to make a call on attribution." WTF! Here, read it yourself: http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-dnc-hack-black-propaganda-2016-7
Totally mindless. So not only is Russia hacking, but we know it's intention is to influence US elections!!! And now their hacking voter DBs and will likely hack our vote tabulating machines. You can't make this s ** t up.
• Agree: John Jeremiah Smith Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 2:33 am GMT • 200 Words @utu The term "ground zero" was originally reserved for the center of nuclear explosion. After 9/11 it has changed. Dimitri Khalezow, the proponent of the nuclear demolition of WTC theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUnjbCxhXh4
claimed that dictionary entries for "ground zero" were changed after 9/11 (some changes were done retroactively to earlier editions) to obscure the fact that term was reserved solely for the nuclear explosion.
That is a good example of an aspect of a conspiracy theory that is totally wrong on its face. The phrase "Ground zero" was used metaphorically way before September 11th, 2001. Anyone who spent 10 minutes researching this could find prominent examples:
1997 book GROUND ZERO The Gender Wars in the Military By Linda Bird Francke
1996 book VIRUS GROUND ZERO Stalking the Killer Viruses With the Centers for Disease Control. By Ed Regis. 244 pp. New York: Pocket Books.
TERROR IN OKLAHOMA: AT GROUND ZERO : A series of articles from the New York Times about the OKC bombing.
"Ground Zero" 1997 NYT book review: "James Meredith's forced admission was a milestone in upending the old order in America's most segregated state, a kind of race relations ground zero."
These come from the first few pages of results when I searched the Times. The claim that the term "ground zero" was "reserved solely for the nuclear explosion." is obviously wring. Even if it weren't wrong, it's silly to suggest that it couldn't have been used figuratively for the first time after 9/11 or that its use signifies that a nuclear blast must have occurred at the WTC.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- CalDre says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 3:16 am GMT • 200 Words @Wizard of Oz Thanks. I wonder what will happen to Israel's support if and when serious money and research and publicity is put into telling the whole Liberty story and making sure it is drummed in.
Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling the planes.
Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling the planes.
Controlling, yes; but on-board, no. "Coincidentally", all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely (and in the case of 9/11, since everything was known in advance, the entire flight pattern could have been pre-programmed into a module and uploaded in to the aircrafts' computers).
If you look into it you will find reports of a a "mystery" large white jet flying over Washington on the morning of 9/11. Some have identified it as a E-4B (a Boeing E-4 Advanced Airborne Command Post), a strategic command and control military aircraft operated by the United States Air Force. We know neither Bush nor Cheney was on that plane.
While perhaps not necessary, the cockpit could have been filled with a tranquilizing gas to incapacitate all the pilots and (stooge) hijackers so that they would not interfere with the remote-controlled operation of the planes.
Remember that these "deeply religious" Muslim "hijackers" went out drinking at a strip club the night of 9/10. Both are deep sins in Islam, not something someone is going to do when they are about to meet their Maker. Most likely they thought they were participating in a drill (since, in fact on the date of 9/11, a drill was taking place, having to do with – wait for it – airplanes being hijacked and flown into buildings).
The precision and extreme competence of the flying maneuvers is readily explained by the auto-pilot feature.
• Replies: @Miro23 [all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely]It was also very fast and accurate flying on difficult trajectories + the trainee Arab pilots down in Florida had problems with basic flying skills (see Daniel Hopsicker's book, https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=cm_cr-mr-title to get a close up look at their feeble flying abilities).
This book also has an interesting account taken from the Longboat Observer, 9/26/2001 that a group of Arab looking men posing as journalists and claiming to have an interview appointment with George Bush tried to gain access to him on the morning of 9/11 at the Colony Beach and Tennis Resort. , @Wizard of Oz A nice change to receive a reply which is so coherent and precise. I'm glad I chose the word "controlling" in anticipation of the point you make. Now, with my limited time and interest, I look for the easy quibble and I might have said that there were plenty of reasons why one aircraft type was chosen..... but..... I Googled appropriately and came across the kind of problem that the very assertive sceptics/truthers throw up. Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave physical reasons why the WTC planes couldn't have been 767s. But a reliable seeming site said they were 767s but the other two were 757s.
I have no reason to doubt that remote control could have achieved the WTC impacts and I like the imagination which has gone into suggesting that the 19 were duped into thinking they were only rehearsing or reconnoitring, although that seems hard to reconcile with what is known about UA 175. I can't see why the undoubtedly suicidal Arabs shouldn't have knowingly acted as backup against either passenger or pilot interference and as partly trained pilots if the technology didn't work satisfactorily. I don't know enough about Islam or its institutions to have any reason to believe or deny that they would have lived it up in sinful ways on the eve of martyrdom which would deliver them to paradise. Do you?
I'm afraid this is leading me to Ockham's Razor which says that partly trained Arab pilots would do nicely as four planes flown by Al Qaeda connected jihadis would serve the plotters purposes adequately. Of course it doesn't tell us who the plotters were. The reasoning applies to false flag plotters who wanted a war in the ME though I don't accept that they would have been so sure of making the connection to Saddam Hussein that they would have plotted 911 to achieve a war against Iraq.If the plotters were Mossad or American it would have been vital to minimise risk of exposure and therefore failure - actually worse than failure - so it is absurd to suppose that they would take the risk of packing any buildings with explosives - let alone WTC 7! - or risk remnants being found in the debris. Why four planes if you are going to demolish the Twin Towers with the certainty of controlled demolitions?
Without the unexpected total destruction of the WTC towers it made sense to plan four spectacular but limited outrages.So we are back with just one question at most. Who plotted and planned the events of 9/11? , @Jett Rucker I seem to recall that two of the planes were B-757s and the two in New York were B-767s.
I believe that leaves your point about the planes' being remote-controllable quite intact, and it is a proposition I myself find very persuasive, though I'm by no means entirely persuaded that the vehicles at the scenes were commercial aircraft at all.
I believe the missing planes' controls were used to fly the aircraft out into the Atlantic (into Hurricane Erin) and carefully ditch them there in such fashion (and there IS such a fashion) as to leave no evidence on the surface whatsoever. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Mr. Anon says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 4:03 am GMT @Miro23 Being smart has nothing to do with it.
For example the government says that WTC7 completely collapsed in 7 seconds due to fire. You don't need to be smart to see something is wrong here (hint: most of the structural pillars were untouched by fire).
"Being smart has nothing to do with it."
Being smart usually has everything to do with everything. But to people like you, ignorance opens up a world of possibilities, no matter how false or ludicrous they may be.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Mr. Anon says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 4:07 am GMT @utu The term "ground zero" was originally reserved for the center of nuclear explosion. After 9/11 it has changed. Dimitri Khalezow, the proponent of the nuclear demolition of WTC theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUnjbCxhXh4
claimed that dictionary entries for "ground zero" were changed after 9/11 (some changes were done retroactively to earlier editions) to obscure the fact that term was reserved solely for the nuclear explosion.
So, the world trade centers were brought down with nuclear weapons? Were the particle beams fired from orbiting battle stations down for routine maintenance that day? There seems to be no idea so stupid that a (so-called) "truther" won't entertain it.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Nathan Hale says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 4:12 am GMT • 100 Words @Jason Liu Kinda hinges on how people define conspiracy, doesn't it? Does a group of powerful people scheming constitute a conspiracy, or does it need to be lizard people in the White House?
The former assuredly happens all the time. And those conspiracies are likely quite boring.
Correct. Of course conspiracies are real.
Among the more famous ones include:
The Watergate break-in and the coverup.
Operation Valkyrie and other plots against Hitler.
The overthrow of the Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954.
In the corporate world, it often seems that upper management spends a bulk of their time conspiring against one another or entering into secret talks to sell the company to a rival, unbeknownst to the employees or shareholders.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- NosytheDuke says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 4:32 am GMT @Alfred1860 I find it quite amusing how, in an article supporting of the existence of conspiracy theories, so many comments consist of hurling insults at people making skeptical comments about what are obviously very sacred cows.
People need to remember than by definition, the ratio of what you don't know to what you do know is infinity to one. Be more open minded.
"They shall find it difficult, they who have taken authority as truth rather than truth for authority".
Gerald Massey
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Miro23 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 5:49 am GMT • 100 Words @CalDre Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling the planes.
Controlling, yes; but on-board, no. "Coincidentally", all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely (and in the case of 9/11, since everything was known in advance, the entire flight pattern could have been pre-programmed into a module and uploaded in to the aircrafts' computers).
If you look into it you will find reports of a a "mystery" large white jet flying over Washington on the morning of 9/11. Some have identified it as a E-4B (a Boeing E-4 Advanced Airborne Command Post), a strategic command and control military aircraft operated by the United States Air Force. We know neither Bush nor Cheney was on that plane.
While perhaps not necessary, the cockpit could have been filled with a tranquilizing gas to incapacitate all the pilots and (stooge) hijackers so that they would not interfere with the remote-controlled operation of the planes.
Remember that these "deeply religious" Muslim "hijackers" went out drinking at a strip club the night of 9/10. Both are deep sins in Islam, not something someone is going to do when they are about to meet their Maker. Most likely they thought they were participating in a drill (since, in fact on the date of 9/11, a drill was taking place, having to do with - wait for it - airplanes being hijacked and flown into buildings).
The precision and extreme competence of the flying maneuvers is readily explained by the auto-pilot feature.
[all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely]
It was also very fast and accurate flying on difficult trajectories + the trainee Arab pilots down in Florida had problems with basic flying skills (see Daniel Hopsicker's book, https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=cm_cr-mr-title to get a close up look at their feeble flying abilities).
This book also has an interesting account taken from the Longboat Observer, 9/26/2001 that a group of Arab looking men posing as journalists and claiming to have an interview appointment with George Bush tried to gain access to him on the morning of 9/11 at the Colony Beach and Tennis Resort.
• Replies: @John Jeremiah SmithIt was also very fast and accurate flying on difficult trajectories + the trainee Arab pilots down in Florida had problems with basic flying skillsLOL. No, it wasn't. It was pure VFR on a clear day, with no FAA restrictions being observed by the Arab pilots. A 12-year old Boy Scout could hit a tomato can with a 767 under those conditions. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 10:59 am GMT • 400 Words @CalDre Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling the planes.
Controlling, yes; but on-board, no. "Coincidentally", all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely (and in the case of 9/11, since everything was known in advance, the entire flight pattern could have been pre-programmed into a module and uploaded in to the aircrafts' computers).
If you look into it you will find reports of a a "mystery" large white jet flying over Washington on the morning of 9/11. Some have identified it as a E-4B (a Boeing E-4 Advanced Airborne Command Post), a strategic command and control military aircraft operated by the United States Air Force. We know neither Bush nor Cheney was on that plane.
While perhaps not necessary, the cockpit could have been filled with a tranquilizing gas to incapacitate all the pilots and (stooge) hijackers so that they would not interfere with the remote-controlled operation of the planes.
Remember that these "deeply religious" Muslim "hijackers" went out drinking at a strip club the night of 9/10. Both are deep sins in Islam, not something someone is going to do when they are about to meet their Maker. Most likely they thought they were participating in a drill (since, in fact on the date of 9/11, a drill was taking place, having to do with - wait for it - airplanes being hijacked and flown into buildings).
The precision and extreme competence of the flying maneuvers is readily explained by the auto-pilot feature.
A nice change to receive a reply which is so coherent and precise. I'm glad I chose the word "controlling" in anticipation of the point you make. Now, with my limited time and interest, I look for the easy quibble and I might have said that there were plenty of reasons why one aircraft type was chosen .. but .. I Googled appropriately and came across the kind of problem that the very assertive sceptics/truthers throw up. Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave physical reasons why the WTC planes couldn't have been 767s. But a reliable seeming site said they were 767s but the other two were 757s.
I have no reason to doubt that remote control could have achieved the WTC impacts and I like the imagination which has gone into suggesting that the 19 were duped into thinking they were only rehearsing or reconnoitring, although that seems hard to reconcile with what is known about UA 175. I can't see why the undoubtedly suicidal Arabs shouldn't have knowingly acted as backup against either passenger or pilot interference and as partly trained pilots if the technology didn't work satisfactorily. I don't know enough about Islam or its institutions to have any reason to believe or deny that they would have lived it up in sinful ways on the eve of martyrdom which would deliver them to paradise. Do you?
I'm afraid this is leading me to Ockham's Razor which says that partly trained Arab pilots would do nicely as four planes flown by Al Qaeda connected jihadis would serve the plotters purposes adequately. Of course it doesn't tell us who the plotters were. The reasoning applies to false flag plotters who wanted a war in the ME though I don't accept that they would have been so sure of making the connection to Saddam Hussein that they would have plotted 911 to achieve a war against Iraq.
If the plotters were Mossad or American it would have been vital to minimise risk of exposure and therefore failure – actually worse than failure – so it is absurd to suppose that they would take the risk of packing any buildings with explosives – let alone WTC 7! – or risk remnants being found in the debris. Why four planes if you are going to demolish the Twin Towers with the certainty of controlled demolitions?
Without the unexpected total destruction of the WTC towers it made sense to plan four spectacular but limited outrages.So we are back with just one question at most. Who plotted and planned the events of 9/11?
• Replies: @CalDre Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave physical reasons why the WTC planes couldn't have been 767s. Their conclusion on this point has been disputed (e.g., see "Debunked: Pilots for 9/11 Truth WTC Speeds"). I don't know what planes were involved exactly but the official story says it was 767s and I have not yet been convinced otherwise. Regardless, a 757 is just as easily remote controlled.that seems hard to reconcile with what is known about UA 175 . And what is that? The supposed call from Amy Sweeney and Betty Ong to American Airlines on an Airfone? This could be easily faked. Bear in mind that, aside from the 19 cavedwellers, the other suspect is a CIA/Mossad joint op, meaning, the most sophisticated intelligence and black ops outfits in history. Thus, when exploring alternative explanations, you need to account for the capabilities of these agencies, not that of the proverbial Joe Shmoe.
I can't see why the undoubtedly suicidal Arabs shouldn't have knowingly acted as backup against either passenger or pilot interference and as partly trained pilots if the technology didn't work satisfactorily. It's certainly possible they engaged in a suicide attack, but IMO unlikely given their behavior leading up to their mission.
I don't know enough about Islam or its institutions to have any reason to believe or deny that they would have lived it up in sinful ways on the eve of martyrdom which would deliver them to paradise. Do you? There is a useful article entitled "The Concept of Martyrdom in Islam" on the al-Islam website. The idea of martyrdom involes complete submission and devotion to God. Engaging in major sins immediately before dieing for God is absolutely non-sensical. Both strip clubs and alcohol are strictly forbidden in Islam.
I'm afraid this is leading me to Ockham's Razor . Ockham's Razos is a somewhat useful tiebreaker in scientific theories; it is wholly inapplicable to solving crimes.
partly trained Arab pilots would do nicely as four planes flown by Al Qaeda connected jihadis would serve the plotters purposes adequately. This may be true in theory, but in practice, when one looks at the maneovers the planes underwent, it is questionable if even the most sophisticated pilots could have flown the planes as the official story requires. It is impossible that untrained civilians could have done so (and, of course, even if one were to apply Ockham's Razor, impossibile or exceedingly improbable theories are ruled out, the tiebreaker applies to multiple theories which equally explain the same phenomenon).
Of course it doesn't tell us who the plotters were. The reasoning applies to false flag plotters who wanted a war in the ME though I don't accept that they would have been so sure of making the connection to Saddam Hussein that they would have plotted 911 to achieve a war against Iraq. There was no connection to Saddam Hussein, it was entirely fabricated (and in a quite sophisticated manner). But if you read the PNAC (neo-cons) treatise "Rebuilding America's Defenses", they do make reference to a "Pearl-Harbor like attack" which would allow them to implement their agenda, which includes re-shaping the Middle East (for the benefit of Israel). These same PNAC authors, who wrote this treatise, were in power at the time of 9/11.
If the plotters were Mossad or American it would have been vital to minimise risk of exposure and therefore failure – actually worse than failure – so it is absurd to suppose that they would take the risk of packing any buildings with explosives – let alone WTC 7! – or risk remnants being found in the debris. I think it was important to their objective that the buildings collapse so that there was a large number of casualties as well as the desired "shock and awe" effect. And also I do not think pre-wiring the buildings was that risky: if they were caught (which they had no reason to believe, as they would have been responsible for the investigation, which they effectively managed to prevent - note that Cheney was one of the PNAC plotters/authors), they most likely have a backup story that the buildings were wired after the 1995 WTC bombing attack so that, if the building were at risk of collapse, they could bring it down safely, rather than risk the domino effect of having a large chunk of downtown Manhattan collapse.
So we are back with just one question at most. Who plotted and planned the events of 9/11? Clearly Israel and the Zionist neo-cons who took power 8 months before the event. Note also that control of the WTC was handed over to Zionist Jew Silverstein from the New York Port Authority only a few months before the event. During that time, there was a lot of nighttime work in the "elevator shafts" - IMO, Mossad agents planting the explosives (there is of course substantial evidence for this) - and Silverstein ended up making out like a bandit with his insurance proceeds. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- John Jeremiah Smith says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 12:51 pm GMT • 100 Words @Anonymous https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
Shucks, that isn't even good conspiracy theory evidence. The video showing the "fake" is just normal characteristics of a CCTV camera of 1969. They didn't handle spikes well, and their light-bandwidth range was small. The "wires" that rather funny "expert" points out are retrace flares from reflection.
Frankly, I've never seen ANY good "moon landing hoax" conspiracy theory, I suppose, for people who believe electronic devices work by magic, you can convince them of a lot of stuff.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- John Jeremiah Smith says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 12:57 pm GMT • 100 Words @Miro23 [all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely]
It was also very fast and accurate flying on difficult trajectories + the trainee Arab pilots down in Florida had problems with basic flying skills (see Daniel Hopsicker's book, https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=cm_cr-mr-title to get a close up look at their feeble flying abilities).
This book also has an interesting account taken from the Longboat Observer, 9/26/2001 that a group of Arab looking men posing as journalists and claiming to have an interview appointment with George Bush tried to gain access to him on the morning of 9/11 at the Colony Beach and Tennis Resort.
It was also very fast and accurate flying on difficult trajectories + the trainee Arab pilots down in Florida had problems with basic flying skills
LOL. No, it wasn't. It was pure VFR on a clear day, with no FAA restrictions being observed by the Arab pilots. A 12-year old Boy Scout could hit a tomato can with a 767 under those conditions.
• Replies: @Miro23 There are always going to be differences of opinion on a thing like this, but Capt. Russ Wittenberg actually flew two of these aircraft doesn't have any doubts about it:"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower.
I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding - pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's.
And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it." , @CalDre A 12-year old Boy Scout could hit a tomato can with a 767 under those conditions.You are severely misinformed. Even though one could make arguments about the second WTC impact (there was a super tight turn leading into the impact zone), the obvious flying miracle was the Pentagon strike.
First it is worth making some context for the Pentagon. The Pentagon has 5 sides. One side had been heavily reinforced and was largely empty, except for a small group of auditors who were searching for the missing $2 trillion from the Pentagon budget that Rumsfeld had mentioned on 9/10/01. Thus, if you wanted to do damage to the Pentagon, this was the worst place to hit in terms of inflicting damage (though a perfect place to hit to minimize damage but coverup the missing trillions).
Second, this side of the Pentagon was on the south side, whilst the plane was coming from the north. Moreover, this side was down an embankment from the road above. Thus, it was by far the most difficult part of the Pentagon to hit.
So, to recap: the side that was struck was the most protected, the least valuable, and the hardest to hit.
What the plane did in its approach was an absolute miracle. Without slowing down to landing speed, the plane came from the north, made a tight 180 degree turn, came down low over the road above the Pentagon at 500 mph (so low that it clipped the light posts), stayed low to the ground along the embankment, cruised exactly parallel to the ground once getting to the bottom of the embankment (this is known from the 5 frames of video released by the Pentagon about a year after 9/11, from the lack of any damage to the grass prior to the point of impact, and from the fact the impact point was only a few feet above the ground).
Experienced pilots who have many years flying military aircraft and a decade of flying Boeings have tried to simulate a flight path as this and were unsuccessful. Indeed some of the maneuvers exceed the flight parameters of the Boeing involved. Imagine flying a massive, slowly responsive plane at 500 mph down through an obstacle course and hitting an exact bullseye (pretty much akin to painting a line on a tarmac and, at full speed (NOT landing speed), landing the plane so the rear wheels first touch the ground on the line). For these alleged terrorists, who didn't even practice landing a Cessna (and had never even been in a Boeing 757 or 767 cockpit), it is entirely impossible . Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Buzz Cauldron says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 4:07 pm GMT • 300 Words
Almost all of our fake world has the truth hidden in a way that keeps everyone arguing over one of two lies. Did we go to the moon? Yes, of course, and other places too. Just not with the technology and probably even the people we were deceived into thinking we did. The folks that did go were not Japanese tourists, capturing nearly every possible moment in film. They were in the most extreme life threatening situation of anyone in history, they weren't there to take pictures. So they faked a few, ok nearly all. It is obvious. A grade school student can see that. The simple use of stereo parallax proves this quite easily with nearly all the common moon photos.
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
The government had no desire to show the Russians how we were getting there, or what we were doing there, nor did they want to show the public what could have and probably did turn into a horror story for many of the real astronauts. The secret space program was born, and it pretty quickly found that the moon is not what we think it is and has more in common with a star wars death star than a natural satellite. It was parked there, within human history. We suspected that all along. They were told to leave it alone, so they went to Mars. They can't even pretend to tell you or show you what is going on there, it would rip the foundational pillars out of from under all of human history and belief.We debate everything in this world with THIS or THAT, when the illusion is a cover for a horrifying truth, that even the few (people who the world doesn't even know are alive) who know the truth behind the curtain, truly, truly don't understand entirely. So what would you have them say?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Neil Sutherland says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 4:18 pm GMT • 100 Words
The American tradition of 'conspiracy theory', goes all the way back to America's founding, when the founding fathers wrote the Alien and Sedition Act, for fear of 'Jacobins' [jefferson and franklin would know, as they were in paris during and participants in the french revolution]. Jacobins were Masonic, or 'lluminati', and their continuous activities led to the 'Anti-Masonic' party. During Andrew Jackson's time, the Rothschild bankers continued to try to re-establish a 'central bank', and their non-stop conspiring eventually led to the Federal Reserve Act.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Jett Rucker says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 4:51 pm GMT
The mother of all conspiracy theories is the Gas Chamber Libel against the German People.
Vastly outdoes the Blood Libel against the Jews, and is literally a crime to express disbelief in in 19 countries today.
• Replies: @Rurikand is literally a crime to express disbelief in in 19 countries today.not just disbelief, but simply skepticism about any single tenet of that religions doctrinesome of which, are well known and universally repudiated lies; like the soap and lampshades blood libels. Today all scholars of that time know those were fabrications, and are not true, but if you say in Germany what everyone knows, that there were no human skin lampshades, they'll still send you to prison. They've already determined that "the truth is no defense"
even if you don't doubt any single tenet of the holy doctrine, but only fail to give it sufficient sacred status in your own heart- as being of great personal significance to you, and you say that 'to me, it's only a detail of history', why that's illegal too and you'll be punished and fined, at the very least.
it's as if they have a lot to lose if people stop genuflecting to the Jews every time someone say "Holocaust". So much so that they're willing to demand on pain of prison that you believe it all, or else!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/11/14/nazi-grandma/75773774/ Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Jett Rucker says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 4:59 pm GMT • 100 Words @CalDre Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling the planes.
Controlling, yes; but on-board, no. "Coincidentally", all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely (and in the case of 9/11, since everything was known in advance, the entire flight pattern could have been pre-programmed into a module and uploaded in to the aircrafts' computers).
If you look into it you will find reports of a a "mystery" large white jet flying over Washington on the morning of 9/11. Some have identified it as a E-4B (a Boeing E-4 Advanced Airborne Command Post), a strategic command and control military aircraft operated by the United States Air Force. We know neither Bush nor Cheney was on that plane.
While perhaps not necessary, the cockpit could have been filled with a tranquilizing gas to incapacitate all the pilots and (stooge) hijackers so that they would not interfere with the remote-controlled operation of the planes.
Remember that these "deeply religious" Muslim "hijackers" went out drinking at a strip club the night of 9/10. Both are deep sins in Islam, not something someone is going to do when they are about to meet their Maker. Most likely they thought they were participating in a drill (since, in fact on the date of 9/11, a drill was taking place, having to do with - wait for it - airplanes being hijacked and flown into buildings).
The precision and extreme competence of the flying maneuvers is readily explained by the auto-pilot feature.
I seem to recall that two of the planes were B-757s and the two in New York were B-767s.
I believe that leaves your point about the planes' being remote-controllable quite intact, and it is a proposition I myself find very persuasive, though I'm by no means entirely persuaded that the vehicles at the scenes were commercial aircraft at all.
I believe the missing planes' controls were used to fly the aircraft out into the Atlantic (into Hurricane Erin) and carefully ditch them there in such fashion (and there IS such a fashion) as to leave no evidence on the surface whatsoever.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Miro23 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 5:10 pm GMT • 200 Words @John Jeremiah Smith
It was also very fast and accurate flying on difficult trajectories + the trainee Arab pilots down in Florida had problems with basic flying skillsLOL. No, it wasn't. It was pure VFR on a clear day, with no FAA restrictions being observed by the Arab pilots. A 12-year old Boy Scout could hit a tomato can with a 767 under those conditions.There are always going to be differences of opinion on a thing like this, but Capt. Russ Wittenberg actually flew two of these aircraft doesn't have any doubts about it:
"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding - pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's.
And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."
- CalDre says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 5:19 pm GMT • 400 Words @John Jeremiah Smith
It was also very fast and accurate flying on difficult trajectories + the trainee Arab pilots down in Florida had problems with basic flying skillsLOL. No, it wasn't. It was pure VFR on a clear day, with no FAA restrictions being observed by the Arab pilots. A 12-year old Boy Scout could hit a tomato can with a 767 under those conditions.A 12-year old Boy Scout could hit a tomato can with a 767 under those conditions.
You are severely misinformed. Even though one could make arguments about the second WTC impact (there was a super tight turn leading into the impact zone), the obvious flying miracle was the Pentagon strike.
First it is worth making some context for the Pentagon. The Pentagon has 5 sides. One side had been heavily reinforced and was largely empty, except for a small group of auditors who were searching for the missing $2 trillion from the Pentagon budget that Rumsfeld had mentioned on 9/10/01. Thus, if you wanted to do damage to the Pentagon, this was the worst place to hit in terms of inflicting damage (though a perfect place to hit to minimize damage but coverup the missing trillions).
Second, this side of the Pentagon was on the south side, whilst the plane was coming from the north. Moreover, this side was down an embankment from the road above. Thus, it was by far the most difficult part of the Pentagon to hit.
So, to recap: the side that was struck was the most protected, the least valuable, and the hardest to hit.
What the plane did in its approach was an absolute miracle. Without slowing down to landing speed, the plane came from the north, made a tight 180 degree turn, came down low over the road above the Pentagon at 500 mph (so low that it clipped the light posts), stayed low to the ground along the embankment, cruised exactly parallel to the ground once getting to the bottom of the embankment (this is known from the 5 frames of video released by the Pentagon about a year after 9/11, from the lack of any damage to the grass prior to the point of impact, and from the fact the impact point was only a few feet above the ground).
Experienced pilots who have many years flying military aircraft and a decade of flying Boeings have tried to simulate a flight path as this and were unsuccessful. Indeed some of the maneuvers exceed the flight parameters of the Boeing involved. Imagine flying a massive, slowly responsive plane at 500 mph down through an obstacle course and hitting an exact bullseye (pretty much akin to painting a line on a tarmac and, at full speed (NOT landing speed), landing the plane so the rear wheels first touch the ground on the line). For these alleged terrorists, who didn't even practice landing a Cessna (and had never even been in a Boeing 757 or 767 cockpit), it is entirely impossible .
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- CalDre says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 6:05 pm GMT • 800 Words @Wizard of Oz A nice change to receive a reply which is so coherent and precise. I'm glad I chose the word "controlling" in anticipation of the point you make. Now, with my limited time and interest, I look for the easy quibble and I might have said that there were plenty of reasons why one aircraft type was chosen..... but..... I Googled appropriately and came across the kind of problem that the very assertive sceptics/truthers throw up. Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave physical reasons why the WTC planes couldn't have been 767s. But a reliable seeming site said they were 767s but the other two were 757s.
I have no reason to doubt that remote control could have achieved the WTC impacts and I like the imagination which has gone into suggesting that the 19 were duped into thinking they were only rehearsing or reconnoitring, although that seems hard to reconcile with what is known about UA 175. I can't see why the undoubtedly suicidal Arabs shouldn't have knowingly acted as backup against either passenger or pilot interference and as partly trained pilots if the technology didn't work satisfactorily. I don't know enough about Islam or its institutions to have any reason to believe or deny that they would have lived it up in sinful ways on the eve of martyrdom which would deliver them to paradise. Do you?
I'm afraid this is leading me to Ockham's Razor which says that partly trained Arab pilots would do nicely as four planes flown by Al Qaeda connected jihadis would serve the plotters purposes adequately. Of course it doesn't tell us who the plotters were. The reasoning applies to false flag plotters who wanted a war in the ME though I don't accept that they would have been so sure of making the connection to Saddam Hussein that they would have plotted 911 to achieve a war against Iraq.If the plotters were Mossad or American it would have been vital to minimise risk of exposure and therefore failure - actually worse than failure - so it is absurd to suppose that they would take the risk of packing any buildings with explosives - let alone WTC 7! - or risk remnants being found in the debris. Why four planes if you are going to demolish the Twin Towers with the certainty of controlled demolitions?
Without the unexpected total destruction of the WTC towers it made sense to plan four spectacular but limited outrages.So we are back with just one question at most. Who plotted and planned the events of 9/11?
Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave physical reasons why the WTC planes couldn't have been 767s. Their conclusion on this point has been disputed (e.g., see "Debunked: Pilots for 9/11 Truth WTC Speeds"). I don't know what planes were involved exactly but the official story says it was 767s and I have not yet been convinced otherwise. Regardless, a 757 is just as easily remote controlled.
that seems hard to reconcile with what is known about UA 175 . And what is that? The supposed call from Amy Sweeney and Betty Ong to American Airlines on an Airfone? This could be easily faked. Bear in mind that, aside from the 19 cavedwellers, the other suspect is a CIA/Mossad joint op, meaning, the most sophisticated intelligence and black ops outfits in history. Thus, when exploring alternative explanations, you need to account for the capabilities of these agencies, not that of the proverbial Joe Shmoe.
I can't see why the undoubtedly suicidal Arabs shouldn't have knowingly acted as backup against either passenger or pilot interference and as partly trained pilots if the technology didn't work satisfactorily. It's certainly possible they engaged in a suicide attack, but IMO unlikely given their behavior leading up to their mission.
I don't know enough about Islam or its institutions to have any reason to believe or deny that they would have lived it up in sinful ways on the eve of martyrdom which would deliver them to paradise. Do you? There is a useful article entitled "The Concept of Martyrdom in Islam" on the al-Islam website. The idea of martyrdom involes complete submission and devotion to God. Engaging in major sins immediately before dieing for God is absolutely non-sensical. Both strip clubs and alcohol are strictly forbidden in Islam.
I'm afraid this is leading me to Ockham's Razor . Ockham's Razos is a somewhat useful tiebreaker in scientific theories; it is wholly inapplicable to solving crimes.
partly trained Arab pilots would do nicely as four planes flown by Al Qaeda connected jihadis would serve the plotters purposes adequately. This may be true in theory, but in practice, when one looks at the maneovers the planes underwent, it is questionable if even the most sophisticated pilots could have flown the planes as the official story requires. It is impossible that untrained civilians could have done so (and, of course, even if one were to apply Ockham's Razor, impossibile or exceedingly improbable theories are ruled out, the tiebreaker applies to multiple theories which equally explain the same phenomenon).
Of course it doesn't tell us who the plotters were. The reasoning applies to false flag plotters who wanted a war in the ME though I don't accept that they would have been so sure of making the connection to Saddam Hussein that they would have plotted 911 to achieve a war against Iraq. There was no connection to Saddam Hussein, it was entirely fabricated (and in a quite sophisticated manner). But if you read the PNAC (neo-cons) treatise "Rebuilding America's Defenses", they do make reference to a "Pearl-Harbor like attack" which would allow them to implement their agenda, which includes re-shaping the Middle East (for the benefit of Israel). These same PNAC authors, who wrote this treatise, were in power at the time of 9/11.
If the plotters were Mossad or American it would have been vital to minimise risk of exposure and therefore failure – actually worse than failure – so it is absurd to suppose that they would take the risk of packing any buildings with explosives – let alone WTC 7! – or risk remnants being found in the debris. I think it was important to their objective that the buildings collapse so that there was a large number of casualties as well as the desired "shock and awe" effect. And also I do not think pre-wiring the buildings was that risky: if they were caught (which they had no reason to believe, as they would have been responsible for the investigation, which they effectively managed to prevent – note that Cheney was one of the PNAC plotters/authors), they most likely have a backup story that the buildings were wired after the 1995 WTC bombing attack so that, if the building were at risk of collapse, they could bring it down safely, rather than risk the domino effect of having a large chunk of downtown Manhattan collapse.
So we are back with just one question at most. Who plotted and planned the events of 9/11? Clearly Israel and the Zionist neo-cons who took power 8 months before the event. Note also that control of the WTC was handed over to Zionist Jew Silverstein from the New York Port Authority only a few months before the event. During that time, there was a lot of nighttime work in the "elevator shafts" – IMO, Mossad agents planting the explosives (there is of course substantial evidence for this) – and Silverstein ended up making out like a bandit with his insurance proceeds.
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz I am amazed. I can't immediately see any obvious flaws and BS! That's a first.Where does WTC 7 fit into that. Just a chance bonus? , @Wizard of Oz I was back on UA 175 difficulties and reflecting on the fakeability of a lot of calls (said by some to have been technically impossible I recall) when I saw how the most plausible version of your version must work out.
UA 175 was always meant to crash somewhere after a real or apparent fight with the terrorists. (But how do you get up that fight to cover the diversion?) It's exactly the kind of distraction I would have planned into that op. Maybe the devout Islamists on that flight - or just one or two of them - knew that they were going to die (check night club CCTV:-) ) and maybe even knew that UA175 was a diversion in a bigger plan.
Wow I think I have a new career for my next lifetime. Would you care to buy some shares in my FakeMarsLanding Inc float? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Rehmat says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 6:15 pm GMT • 300 Words @Moi If the Zionists can lie so much about Israeli history (e.g. The Arabs encouraged Palestinians to flee, that the Arabs were about to attack Israel in 1967, land without a people for a people without a land, etc.), one can only wonder about the official holocaust narrative of 6M dead, gas chambers, etc.).
I've not read Elie Weisel's book Night, but I understand that no where does he mention gas chambers in Auschwitz....
Without GAS CHAMBERS the SIX MILLION DIED Holy COW becomes a HOUSE OF CARDS.
On June 29, 2016, Boston-based publishing company Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH) announced that it will publish Adolf Hitler's 'antisemite' book Mein Kampf to fund needy Jewish survivors of Nazi era.
"The proceeds from sale of Mein Kampf will be donated to Jewish Family & Children's Service of Greater Boston," said Andrew Russell, the publisher's director of corporate social responsibility.
The publisher had been donating money to organizations that combat anti-Semitism since 2000. Since publication of Mein Kampf is banned in France, the job was given to HMH. The publication of the book was opposed by several Jewish groups as result of company's recent announcement that in the future, it will provide funds to some non-Jewish NGOs. HMH caved-in to Jewish pressure and decided to bribe them by donating proceeds from the book to the 'evergreen' Holocaust Industry.
In September 2001, the company filed a law suit in a New York court against Jews for Jesus, accusing the pro-Israel Evangelical group of infringing the company's copyright on its popular children's storybook character, Curious George, which the company had been publishing for 70 years.
Interestingly, HMH is a subsidiary of Vivendi Universal, a multinational mass media company in Paris, whose CEO is Arnaud de Puyfontaine (Jewish).
By now, hundreds of millions people around the world including some honest Jews know that Holocaust has become a tool of the Organized Jewry to rob western nations and individuals to nurse Israel's military machine. Germans and the 65 million American Evangelists are the biggest suckers of this Zionist Mafia. Organized Jewry has sucked over $93 billion from German taxpayers since the 1960s.
https://rehmat1.com/2016/07/02/hitlers-mein-kampf-to-fund-holocaust-industry/
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- AnotherLover says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 6:56 pm GMT • 200 Words @Pat Casey
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."You can read the context of that quote according to the person who claims to be its original source here:--William Casey, CIA Director, from a first staff meeting in 1981
https://www.quora.com/Did-William-Casey-CIA-Director-really-say-Well-know-our-disinformation-program-is-complete-when-everything-the-American-public-believes-is-false
I think it's worth pointing out what I've never seen explained about that quote, a quote with as much currency in the conspiracy theory fever swamps as any single quote has ever had. The point of the disinformation campaign was not to manipulate the public but to manipulate the soviets. Because our CIA analysts spent so much time unriddling the soviet media, we figured their CIA analysts were doing the same thing with ours.
People dismiss obviousness and redundancy, yet often both are necessary to fully paint the picture. Where you wrote:
"The point of the disinformation campaign was not to manipulate the public but to manipulate the soviets"
you could have been more accurate by continuing:
"by manipulating the public."
Ah, redundant and obvious to be sure, but more complete, no? Should it pacify the average prole to know that not even their acquiescence is desired of them, but that they are useful as a disinformation tool? Have things changed since then? Is less intelligence publicly available today? Or more? And what lessons did the CIA learn in manipulating public opinion by domestic propaganda operations in the meantime?
Sure, the context of the quote adds the realism it's clearly lacking as it floats by itself surrounded by quotation marks, yet the takeaway is the same, is it not? A massive intelligence operation designed to confuse the public with the media is what we've got on the table. Let that sink in good and hard.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- AnotherLover says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 7:08 pm GMT @moneta The biggest conpiracy, which most fail understand, is that the reason that there is all of economic termoil and wars, is due to one reason and one reason only. There is no money and what we use for transactions is the invertion of money, created by an entry of a computer. Its main purpose is to make the issuers rich and everyone else in debt to them..Countries who don't want to go into their debt become enemies and are villified. This illusion is reinforced by films, media. Tax authorities. the government.
THIS IS THE BIGGEST CONSPIRACY on which all of the others are constructed. Including the socialist satanist society built upon it. To make it work markets have to be manipulated, which they all are.
Get rid of money and you get rid of god. liberty, personal property and everything else of value because all values are based on nominal debt and this debt is not repayable because it has to be borrowed to be repayed and the method of repayment doesnt exist. Fereral reserve notes are counterfieted to create debt.Agree.
Take that weird moderation quirk!
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- AnotherLover says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 7:15 pm GMT • 100 Words @Wizard of Oz I don't dismiss your intuitions as such but you hardly present a great case for affording them much weight. What you immediately felt at age 16 watching a screen? Nope. The fact that Jack Ruby dissembled?
I think dismissing intuition is for suckers. What successful businessman would offer such advice? Intuition assembles all the information available to the organism, and it is rarely wrong in my experience. I appreciate when people are willing to offer their gut reaction to an event, especially knowing they are doing so in a society which trains its members to pounce on them that would have the temerity to do so.
Present company excluded, of course
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Rurik says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 7:23 pm GMT • 200 Words @Jett Rucker The mother of all conspiracy theories is the Gas Chamber Libel against the German People.
Vastly outdoes the Blood Libel against the Jews, and is literally a crime to express disbelief in in 19 countries today.
and is literally a crime to express disbelief in in 19 countries today.
not just disbelief, but simply skepticism about any single tenet of that religions doctrine
some of which, are well known and universally repudiated lies; like the soap and lampshades blood libels. Today all scholars of that time know those were fabrications, and are not true, but if you say in Germany what everyone knows, that there were no human skin lampshades, they'll still send you to prison. They've already determined that "the truth is no defense"
even if you don't doubt any single tenet of the holy doctrine, but only fail to give it sufficient sacred status in your own heart- as being of great personal significance to you, and you say that 'to me, it's only a detail of history', why that's illegal too and you'll be punished and fined, at the very least.
it's as if they have a lot to lose if people stop genuflecting to the Jews every time someone say "Holocaust". So much so that they're willing to demand on pain of prison that you believe it all, or else!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/11/14/nazi-grandma/75773774/
• Agree: Bill Jones Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Ed Rankin says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 8:42 pm GMT • 300 Words
In Dispatch 1035-960 mailed to station chiefs on April 1, 1967, the CIA laid out a series of "talking points" in its memo addressing the "conspiracy theorists" who were questioning the Warren Commission's findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. They include the following:
Claim that it "would be impossible to conceal" such a large-scale conspiracy.
Claim that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition.
Claim that "no significant new evidence has emerged"
Accuse theorists of falling in love with their theories.
Claimed conspiracy theorists are wedded to their theories before the evidence was in.
Accuse theorists of being politically motivated.
Accuse theorists of being financially motivated.
I have found numerous examples of these exact points being made in televised news segments, newspapers, magazines and even some academic articles and scholarly books.
Additionally, some of the most influential and frequently-cited authors who are the most critical of "conspiracy theorists", both academic and lay people, have very direct ties to government, foundations and other institutions of authority.
While we can't know if the CIA was primarily responsible for the cre
