Leo strauss and the The moronic American public

My sympathy towards my fellow americans is running thin. Honestly anyone who signs up for the millitary now, imo deserves no gratitude, everyone at this point knows the deal. It seems like they fit right into the category of Gentleman (Ironic name). Most consider my position too harsh, but it is merited. This is the information age, the same information is availiable to the 400 million people connected to the internet. Even in cyberspace this country has managed to piss me off. my Chinese friends have to build socks chains and go through proxy servers to get banned pages. My saudi friends must work harder. Yet somehow we still manage to be the most ill informed population in history if you look at it from the perspective of how much information is availiable/Ease of obtaining both (or multiple)sides of the information/ legality of getting information/

Maybe during vietnam people had an excuse. But now its just willful ignorance. And how utterly straussian it is.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5010.htm


----------------------------Snip--------------------------------
Danny Postel: In the Straussian scheme of things, there are the wise few and the vulgar many. But there is also a third group – the gentlemen. Would you explain how they figure?

Shadia Drury: There are indeed three types of men: the wise, the gentlemen, and the vulgar. The wise are the lovers of the harsh, unadulterated truth. They are capable of looking into the abyss without fear and trembling. They recognise neither God nor moral imperatives. They are devoted above all else to their own pursuit of the “higher” pleasures, which amount to consorting with their “puppies” or young initiates.

The second type, the gentlemen, are lovers of honour and glory. They are the most ingratiating towards the conventions of their society – that is, the illusions of the cave. They are true believers in God, honour, and moral imperatives. They are ready and willing to embark on acts of great courage and self-sacrifice at a moment’s notice.

The third type, the vulgar many, are lovers of wealth and pleasure. They are selfish, slothful, and indolent. They can be inspired to rise above their brutish existence only by fear of impending death or catastrophe.

Like Plato, Strauss believed that the supreme political ideal is the rule of the wise. But the rule of the wise is unattainable in the real world. Now, according to the conventional wisdom, Plato realised this, and settled for the rule of law. But Strauss did not endorse this solution entirely. Nor did he think that it was Plato’s real solution – Strauss pointed to the “nocturnal council” in Plato’s Laws to illustrate his point.













Danny Postel: The neo-conservative vision is commonly taken to be about spreading democracy and liberal values globally. And when Strauss is mentioned in the press, he is typically described as a great defender of liberal democracy against totalitarian tyranny. You’ve written, however, that Strauss had a “profound antipathy to both liberalism and democracy.”

Shadia Drury: The idea that Strauss was a great defender of liberal democracy is laughable. I suppose that Strauss’s disciples consider it a noble lie. Yet many in the media have been gullible enough to believe it.

How could an admirer of Plato and Nietzsche be a liberal democrat? The ancient philosophers whom Strauss most cherished believed that the unwashed masses were not fit for either truth or liberty, and that giving them these sublime treasures would be like throwing pearls before swine. In contrast to modern political thinkers, the ancients denied that there is any natural right to liberty. Human beings are born neither free nor equal. The natural human condition, they held, is not one of freedom, but of subordination – and in Strauss’s estimation they were right in thinking so.

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



The people will not be happy to learn that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior, the master over the slave, the husband over the wife, and the wise few over the vulgar many. In On Tyranny, Strauss refers to this natural right as the “tyrannical teaching” of his beloved ancients. It is tyrannical in the classic sense of rule above rule or in the absence of law (p. 70).

Now, the ancients were determined to keep this tyrannical teaching secret because the people are not likely to tolerate the fact that they are intended for subordination; indeed, they may very well turn their resentment against the superior few. Lies are thus necessary to protect the superior few from the persecution of the vulgar many.

In this country the first type is leading the third type. Just listen to El Drugbo and Hannity. They are there lower level "Priests" of people like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Perle. Basically they are appealing to peoples Reptilian instincts while they are out stealing money and playing with peoples lives.

Did they consider what happens when the second type do not agree with the first type? Is the second type easily fooled as the third type? What about digital cameras (sorry had to throw that one in)?

Really these people aren't as intelligent as you might think. Remember when Wolfie boy was asked the number of combat deaths in Iraq? No they are pseudo-intellectuals.

I don't believe any of this crap, in reality people are probably a mixture of all three types. Not to say some people couldn't be put in one of those three classes. Ruling withoug morality to me is simply unacceptable. Not that anyone is without sin, but I draw the line at playing with the lives of human beings.

My favorite part of the Straussian doctrine is that it is
okay to lie to the people, the people are too stupid to
know better. Also, he makes a point that they're supposed
to use religion to keep the people in line.

Isn't it interesting to see haw many PNAC'ers are Straussians? Hmmm

and the intellectual white hope of the world.

If the American experiment showed anything, it showed that the real wisdom has always lain with the people, that great movements have always started at the bottom and worked their way up until the smug "elites" have been unable to ignore them any more.

Strauss also made the mistake of equating availability of information to quality of information. The dumbing down of the schools which has been going on steadily since the end of the Depression pretty much correlates with the dumbing down of the population amd their willingness to accept the Big Lie. They don't know any better because the schools have been programmed not to teach them any better.

The Atlantic has a great article on Strauss and his elitist hogwash and its effect on right wing stink tanks this month. I've only just started the article, but I've known about Leo Strauss and his evil for a long time.

May he rot in the hell he wishes for the rest of us.

That they are taken seriously in political circles in this
country tells you all you need to know about our "leadership".

I used to read Leo Strauss's essays and books about political philosophy back when I was a student, because I didn't know how to write papers or think about philosophy. I kept reading him because he consistently saw things I never caught myself while reading the original texts.

Never did I once read any elitist musings or theories about how the people had to be deceived. There was plenty of that in the original texts, especially the ancient philosophers who talked about what kind of man makes the best ruler or how can the city be governed to promote virtue in the people. None of these accusations even mention the actual theory Strauss was most known for. In his translation of Maimonides, he struck upon the theory that there was some kind of hidden code or message running through the Great Books of Western Civilization, like the Bible Code or something. It was for this that he was considered a bit of a nut, not for indoctrinating future right-wing extremists like Wolfowitz.

It's just weird that when Strauss is being discussed in a non-academic way by laypeople (which is a first as far as I know), it's in a context that stresses the war in Iraq and elitist conspiracies. It's just strange.

that amounts to "it is okay to lie to the people, the people are too stupid to know better."

Assuming that he did say such a thing, it is not hard to understand why people are denouncing Strauss (not "smearing" because that implies false allegations).

The problem with Strauss' idea of a "hidden code or message running through the Great Books of Western Civilization", is that he and the likes of him claim to be the only ones capable of understanding that message. Part of that is Strauss' special interpretation of Plato, which comes down to this:

"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".

"Perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them."

Small surprise people don't like Strauss' neoconesque ideas.

Is he a neoconservative godfather? An enemy of American democracy?

Remember, Socrates was executed by the City because he was perceived asa threat to the normatives social order. I guess it's a good thing Strauss was already dead for over 15 years when this book came out attacking him as being a threat to the state.