Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception

[clem_c_rock]

http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/


<snippit>
Many neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz are disciples of a philosopher who believed that the elite should use deception, religious fervor and perpetual war to control the ignorant masses.

What would you do if you wanted to topple Saddam Hussein, but your intelligence agencies couldn't find the evidence to justify a war?

A follower of Leo Strauss may just hire the "right" kind of men to get the job done – people with the intellect, acuity, and, if necessary, the political commitment, polemical skills, and, above all, the imagination to find the evidence that career intelligence officers could not detect.

The "right" man for Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, suggests Seymour Hersh in his recent New Yorker article entitled 'Selective Intelligence,' was Abram Shulsky, director of the Office of Special Plans (OSP) – an agency created specifically to find the evidence of WMDs and/or links with Al Qaeda, piece it together, and clinch the case for the invasion of Iraq.

</snippit>

[aneerkoinos]

1. Strauss

Many jews in Germany shared the fascist philosophy of their oppressors. Strauss' philosophy is fascism, pure and simple (bastardization of Plato's Republic).

This article contains lot's of the usual LaRouche paranoia, but makes also some good points:
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3011profile_strauss.html

[RBHam]

2. Straus was intellectually perverted by the Nazi Persecution...

And decided that it was best to "do unto them before they can do unto you....'

[aneerkoinos]

4. Actually

it seems that Srauss was to the RIGHT of nazi-party, from the beginning:

"German scholar Karl Löwith. This letter is included in an edition of Strauss’ works and letters that has not been translated. Strauss wrote to Löwith in May 1933, five months after Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor and a month after implementation of the first anti-Jewish legislation, that “Just because Germany has turned to the right and has expelled us,” meaning Jews, “it simply does not follow that the principles of the right are therefore to be rejected. To the contrary, only on the basis of principles of the right—fascist, authoritarian, imperial —is it possible in a dignified manner, without the ridiculous and pitiful appeal to ‘the inalienable rights of man’ to protest against the mean nonentity,” the mean nonentity being the Nazi party. In other words, he is attacking the Nazis from the right in this letter. He wrote that he had been reading Caesar’s Commentaries, and valued Virgil’s judgment that, “under imperial rule the subjected are spared and the proud are subdued.” And he concluded, “there is no reason to crawl to the cross, even to the cross of liberalism, as long as anywhere in the world the spark glimmers of Roman thinking. And moreover, better than any cross is the ghetto.”

Two months later, in July 1933, he wrote to Schmitt—he did not realize that Schmitt had joined the Nazi party, or seemed not to fully understand what the regime was about in terms of its anti-Semitism—asking for help in getting entrée to Charles Maurras, the French right-wing Catholic leader of the Action Française. What all of this suggests is that in the 1930s Strauss was not an anti-liberal in the sense in which we commonly mean “anti-liberal” today, but an anti-democrat in a fundamental sense, a true reactionary. Strauss was somebody who wanted to go back to a previous, pre-liberal, pre-bourgeois era of blood and guts, of imperial domination, of authoritarian rule, of pure fascism. Like Schmitt, what Strauss hated about liberalism, among other things, was its inability to make absolute judgments, its inability to take action. And, like Schmitt, he sought a way out in a kind of pre-liberal decisiveness. I would suggest that this description of fascist, authoritarian, imperial principles accurately describes the current imperial project of the United States. Because of this, examining the foundational elements of Strauss’s political theory helps us to see something important about our current situation, independently of any kind of Straussian direct influence, although there is certainly some of that."

http://www.logosjournal.com/xenos.htm

[RBHam]

6. Holy f*%#!!!

To the "Right" of Fascists....

Ay ay ay ay...

[barbaraann]

12. Similar to what happened with Ayn Rand, I guess.

And now the philosophies of these two extremists rule our country. :-(

[LynnTheDem]

3. GET EM, Hersh!!!

As many times as Hersh has written about OSP, I don't think he plans on letting go any time soon. GOOD! Let the bushCartel try to smear Sy Hersh... :D

[delhurgo]

5. Yes, I've read about this before, specifically Ronald Bailey's article in

Reason magazine. These people are a major threat to "freedom and liberty", ironically - because even though they say otherwise, like in inaugural speeches, they really don't believe in it. They believe in power, I guess for powers sake - and for wealth. I often try to guess which conservatives are really religious and which are 'Straussians'. IMO for example, Newt Gingrich is a Straussian - I wouldn't be surprised if he's actually an atheist. Rove is probably one too. Santorum would be an obvious example of someone who is not. But the most interesting question is Bush himself, Straussian or not a Straussian? After four years, I still can't decide - he may be a little of both, if that's possible.

[KlatooBNikto]

11. I can imagine Bush answering a question if he is a Straussian.

Me a Strawsian? Yeah, you bet I am.Every time I go to ma ranch in Crawford, I bale a lot of straw, if you know what I mean.

[jdots]

7. They sure are elite aren't they ?

A hand full of turds that have created this much damage to the world.We sit and watch like fools in front of a T.V. Strauss has nothing to do with religion,his rant is phycotic garbage to rationalize greed.Neocons are no better than some punk who kills the person behind the counter robbing a convience store for 50 bucks.They belong in jail no matter how white thier collars are.

[ladjf]

8. Yes. But, unfortunately, they are the jailers.

The question is how to gain control of the keys?

[izzie]

9. I think he made a better German than American. Or

lets say I wish he had stayed in Germany than had come here to teach.

[izzie]

10. Course no one had to believe what he was teaching.

They just liked it I guess.I read Marx in college but did not believe it would work.

[Tinoire]

13. Strauss. What a horror! Weeping, worshipping & sacrificing for the masses

Glad you posted that. More people need to learn about Strauss and what he believed to understand what's happening around us, by whom and why.

Strauss... If you're interested in Strauss and the Neo-Cons, you'll love an expose by the BBC called "The Power of Nightmares"; it's all about Strauss, Bush, Blair, war, the Neocons. It does a terrific 'job of explaning how Strauss says that the ruler should use myths of religion and national character to control the masses'. You can find many, various format, links to the BBC's stunning 3 part series: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2876040

BBC NEWS: The Power of Nightmares: Baby It's Cold Outside

Should we be worried about the threat from organised terrorism or is it simply a phantom menace being used to stop society from falling apart?

(snip)

In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares.

The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams were not true, neither are these nightmares.

In a new series, the Power of Nightmares explores how the idea that we are threatened by a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion.

At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neo-conservatives and the radical Islamists.

(snip)

They would create a hidden network of evil run by the Soviet Union that only they could see.

(snip)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm
From the same article


Rule One: Deception

...Strauss believed that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior."

This dichotomy requires "perpetual deception" between the rulers and the ruled, according to Drury. Robert Locke, another Strauss analyst says,"The people are told what they need to know and no more." While the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses could not cope. If exposed to the absence of absolute truth, they would quickly fall into nihilism or anarchy, according to Drury, author of 'Leo Strauss and the American Right' (St. Martin's 1999).

Second Principle: Power of Religion

According to Drury, Strauss had a "huge contempt" for secular democracy. Nazism, he believed, was a nihilistic reaction to the irreligious and liberal nature of the Weimar Republic. Among other neoconservatives, Irving Kristol has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the public sphere, even suggesting that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic made a major mistake by insisting on the separation of church and state. And why? Because Strauss viewed religion as absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control.

At the same time, he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers need not be bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths proclaimed by religion were "a pious fraud." As Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine points out, "Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers."
==

Saving America
Leo Strauss and the neoconservatives
By Shadia B. Drury

Shadia Drury gets to the bottom of neoconservatism.

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

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

(snip)

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

(snip)

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

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

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

(snip)

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

(snip)

Shadia Drury is among the world's foremost scholars on the history, philosophy and politics of neoconservatism. She is the author of the acclaimed books Leo Strauss and the American Right (1998) and The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (1988). Her forthcoming book is Terror and Civilization. Professor Drury holds the Canada Research Chair in Social Justice at the University of Regina, in Saskatchewan, Canada. For more information on her books and her work in general, see her website

http://evatt.org.au/publications/papers/112.html

[KlatooBNikto]

14. It is ironic that a man who escaped Nazi persecution because he was a

jew, would come to the U.S. and find that in actuality that he liked the Nazi concept of a strong man more to his liking.Along with his disciple Allan Bloom's dislike for equal rights for the "inferior" races, and the equally obvious contempt of several prominent intellectuals of the University of Chicago towards blacks, the historic circle has closed on the victims of Nazism.