The Coup D'etat of America in 2001

[David Guyatt]

I'm pasting below a copy of an essay written by William R Polk that discusses how a coup d'etat occurred in the USA on 9/11. Polk is very cautious and dry in the use of his language but there is really no escaping that a coup by the Neoconservatives did occur on that date when he concludes in his final paragraph:

"Supported by this multiplicity of organizations and tightly bound ideologically, by friendship and even by marriage ties, the Neoconservatives have made use of the opportunities given them by the September 11 attacks, to achieve what former Under Secretary of State David Newsom has termed "a largely peaceful coup d'état." By "wrapping the group's members in the flag" he went on, it has "created an atmosphere of
intimidation on the basis of patriotism with the aim of muting criticism and contrary views."

The Inspiration and Outreach of the Neoconservatives
By
William R. Polk
So rapidly did the Neoconservatives achieve power in the American government,
almost overnight after the September 11 terrorist attacks, that they were virtually
unknown. Consequently, they have left few clues about their inspiration; only now is the
record becoming clear. Their very success makes it possible to trace their evolution and
to lay out the ways in which they are organized. Moreover, despite individual
differences, they form such a tightly knit group that it is possible to deal with them as a
whole.
The record shows four sources of inspiration: first, in their youth, many were
influenced by the Trotskyite Communist movement. As they got older, they jumped
completely across the political spectrum from the radical left to the radical right. In the
jump, they retained a commitment to a version of one of Leon Trotsky's guiding ideas,
that world politics could be shaped and controlled by "permanent revolution." His
opponents, Trotsky thought, would never be able to mount effective opposition because
they would be overwhelmed by an avalanche of insurrection.
American Neoconservatives adapted Trotsky's permanent revolution to their
radically rightwing ideology in the guise of "permanent war." As one member of the
group, former CIA director James Woolsey, put it, "This fourth world war, I think, will
last considerably longer than either World Wars I or II did for us. Hopefully, not the full
four-plus decades of the Cold War."i
Continuous war has been embraced as the key element of the Neoconservatives'
ideal American policy. Under the threat it poses and the actual destruction it entails, they
believe, foreign opponents would be cowed or destroyed while domestic opponents
would be unbalanced, carried along in a tide of events and silenced by the imperatives of
patriotisim. War would thus give them what Trotsky thought revolution would give
Communism: irresistible force.
The second influence on Neoconservatives came from the work of a little-known
professor of political science at the University of Chicago where Wolfowitz and
Khalilzad studied. Leo Strauss, a German émigré, excited (and flattered) his protégés by
his belief that he had found hidden meanings in Greek philosophy that could be
understood only by a small elite -- namely them.ii
He also justified "the natural right of
the stronger" which the neoconservatives later used to justify America's right to suppress
any state that could challenge it. That is, preëmptive war.
It followed that, if war is requisite to a successful American policy, attempts at
arms control would only weaken America. This conclusion came from the University of
Chicago and RAND Corporation Cold War Neoconservative strategist, Albert
Wohlstetter. A determined believer in the threat of force, Wohlstetter is credited with
coining the chilling phrase for his brand of foreign policy, "the delicate balance of
terror." He is also said to have been one of the models for the character "Dr.
Strangelove."
In addition to the commitment to permanent war and belief that they formed a
small esoteric elite directing a policy of unilateral force, the Neoconservatives are
motivated by an affinity bordering on patriotism to Israel. And not just to Israel or to
Zionism in general, they identify with the "hard right" of the Zionist movement. In this,
they were inspired by the radical Zionist leader, Vladimir Jabotinsky, who in the 1930s
advocated employing "muscular Zionism" to win at any cost all of "Eretz Israel." Picked
up by the Likud party, Israel's extreme rightwing movement that grew out of the terrorist
organizations Irgun and Stern, muscular Zionism is now personified by Israeli Prime
Ariel Sharon. It is to him and his ideas that the American Neoconservatives identify
themselves.
Closely bound by these beliefs, the Neo-conservatives have established an
interlocking series of memberships in well-financed, politically-engaged, pro-Israeli
"think tanks." While the half dozen or so of these institutions are legally separate, their
boards of directors, benefactors and appointees overlap. They are perhaps the supreme
example of what in American business schools has come to be called "networking."
Thus, a "scholar" of one may be a director or fellow of another, and individuals are often
directors of two or more. This tight organization and outreach enables Neoconservatives
to be mutually reinforcing.
The largest of the group is the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington
which in 2000 was said to work on a budget of $24.5 million.iii
Richard Perle, Michael
Ledeen, Joshua Muravchik, Michael Rubin and other neoconservatives are listed as
"resident fellows" or "resident scholars" and active in it have been or currently are Vice
President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) is somewhat smaller. In
2000, it received tax-deductable grants of $4.1 million. Its founding director was Martin
Indyk who previously had been the research director of the leading pro-Israeli lobby, the
American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In 1993, hurriedly made an
American citizen, Indyk became special assistant to President Clinton and "senior
director" for the Middle East at the National Security Council. Later, he was made
ambassador to Israel and assistant secretary of state for the Near East and South Asia.
WINEP is now directed by Dennis Ross who had served as President Clinton's
coordinator for the Middle East peace process. Among the fellows and staff it shares
with other Neoconservative institutes are Robert Satloff (director of policy), Patrick
Clawson (director of research), Michael Rubin and Martin Kramer.
The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which was founded in
1976, runs on an annual budget of about $1.5 million. Virtually amalgamated with
another group, the Center for Security Policy (CSP), it has an impressive board of
directors including Vice President Dick Cheney and Neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz,
Richard Perle, Under Secretary of State John Bolton, Under Secretary of Defense
Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, Former UN ambassador Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick, Stephen
Bryen, Joshua Muravchik, Eugene Rostow, former CIA director James Woolsey plus a
number of retired generals and admirals.
Perhaps no other group has so relentlessly campaigned for "regime change" in the
Middle East, against arms control and in favor of the so-called "Star Wars" program as
JINSA/CSP. Not surprisingly, it gets most of its funding from defense contractors,
conservative foundations and far-right individuals. It has placed nearly two dozen staff,
fellows, directors and advisers in senior Bush administration positions.
The Hudson Institute was founded in 1961 by Herman Kahn who was then the
leading advocate of nuclear war with the Soviet Union.iv It maintains an active program
on the Middle East under the leadership of Meyrav Wurmser, whose husband David is
the senior adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney. Richard Perle is one of its trustees.
The Middle East Forum, the smallest of the group, is also the most strident. It
uses tax-deductable donations of about $1.5 million yearly to carry on a vigorous
campaign in favor of the Likud government of Israel. The key members of its staff are
also associated with the AEI and/or with WINEP.
The Forum's director, Daniel Pipes, whom President Bush recently named to the
Board of the United States Institute of Peace, organized a program known as "Campus
Watch." The purpose of Campus Watch is to expose and attack American university
professors who have been critical of Israel or American policy in the Middle East. His
colleague, Martin Kramer (former director of the Moshe Dayan Center at Tel Aviv
University), has broadened the attack to include the Department of State much as the old
China Lobby attacked China specialists in the McCarthy era.
Supported by this multiplicity of organizations and tightly bound ideologically, by
friendship and even by marriage ties, the Neoconservatives have made use of the
opportunities given them by the September 11 attacks, to achieve what former Under
Secretary of State David Newsom has termed "a largely peaceful coup d'état." By
"wrapping the group's members in the flag" he went on, it has "created an atmosphere of
intimidation on the basis of patriotism with the aim of muting criticism and contrary
views."
© William R. Polk, November 18, 2003.

i
In a speech to UCLA students on April 2, 2003 as reported by CNN
ii
a similar belief was ascribed to the Greek philosopher Pythagoras to
communicate "secret doctrines" to his favored disciples. Secret doctrines are
known in what is called "Esoteric Buddhism," Shi'a Islam and in Cabalistic
Judaism.

iii
This and subsequent figures, the latest publicly available, are drawn from
brian.Whitaker@guardian.co.uk 2003. iv
His book, On Thermonuclear War (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961)
attempted to make the case that America could "afford" nuclear war because,
although scores of millions of people would be killed and perhaps a quarter of
the country would be destroyed, the survivors could reconstitute the American economy

Link

For those who haven't seen Peter Dale Scott's interview on COG I highly recommend watching the following:



I also urge readers to watch this very short clip where in 1987 the late Congressman, Jack Brooks, tries to question Oliver North on COG plans, but is foiled by the doorkeeper chairman of the committee, Congressman Daniel Inouye to present his question



And any doubting that that these extraordinary measures are continuing need only read the following from USA Today, where it is revealed that President Obama, on 9th September, 2014, renewed a "perpetual state of emergency" that was enacted by president George Bush on 14th September 2011 - three days after 9/11 - has been renewed 6 times by Obama. The article doesn't say that Bush renewed it every two years since 2001 which he must have done for it to be perpetual (the first time it happened was 1979 under President Jimmy Carter).

Does anyone doubt that the reason cited by Obama last year to continue the state of emergency, namely because of "widespread violence and atrocities in the Democratic State of the Congo" is a genuine reason to continue to govern the US under extraordinary measures that suspend or supercede the Constitution?

From The Civil Rights Movement:

9/11: Obama Extends U.S. National State Of Emergency One More Year

by David Badash on September 9, 2011
in Civil Rights,News,Politics


President Obama today notified Congress that he is extending the U.S. national state of emergency for one more year, in accordance with his duties as chief executive. President George W. Bush placed the United States in a state of emergency on September 14, 2001, three days after the September 11 attacks. A national state of emergency cannot continue for more than two years without being renewed by the President.
This action is not apparently related to the current credible terrorist threats announced last night against New York City and Washington, D.C., rather, is a statement on the overall threat level.
Today, President Obama notified Congress via two separate notices:

The terrorist threat that led to the declaration on
September 14, 2001, of a national emergency continues. For this
reason, I have determined that it is necessary to continue in
effect after September 14, 2011, the national emergency with
respect to the terrorist threat.
and
Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies
Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), I am continuing for 1 year the national
emergency previously declared on September 14, 2001, in
Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of
further attacks on the United States.
Because the terrorist threat continues, the national
emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and
authorities adopted to deal with that emergency must continue in
effect beyond September 14, 2011. Therefore, I am continuing in
effect for an additional year the national emergency that was
declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist
threat.
Many are unaware that during a national state of emergency, some civil rights are curtailed.
Via Wikipedia:

The United States has been in a state of national emergency continuously since September 14, 2001, when the Bush administration invoked it premised on the September 11 attacks. In September 2010, President Barack Obama informed Congress that the State of National Emergency in effect since September 14, 2001, will be extended another year. The National Emergencies Act grants various powers to the president during times of emergency, and was intended to prevent a president from declaring a state of emergency of indefinite duration.
At least two constitutional rights are subject to revocation during a state of emergency:

• The right of habeas corpus, under Article 1, Section 9;
  
• The right to a grand jury for members of the National Guard when in actual service, under Fifth Amendment.
  

In addition, many provisions of statutory law are contingent on a state of national emergency, as many as 500 by one count.

And

From USA Today:

WASHINGTON The United States is in a perpetual state of national emergency.
Thirty separate emergencies, in fact.
An emergency declared by President Jimmy Carteron the 10th day of the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 remains in effect almost 35 years later.
A post-9/11 state of national emergency declared byPresident George W. Bush and renewed six times by President Obama forms the legal basis for much of the war on terror.
Tuesday, President Obama informed Congress he was extending another Bush-era emergency for another year, saying "widespread violence and atrocities" in theDemocratic Republic of Congo "pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States."
Those emergencies, declared by the president by proclamation or executive order, give the president extraordinary powers to seize property, call up the National Guard and hire and fire military officers at will.
"What the National Emergencies Act does is like a toggle switch, and when the president flips it, he gets new powers. It's like a magic wand. and there are very few constraints about how he turns it on," said Kim Lane Scheppele, a professor atPrinceton University.
If invoked during a public health emergency, a presidential emergency declaration could allow hospitals more flexibility to treat Ebola cases. The Obama administrationhas said declaring a national emergency for Ebola is unnecessary.
In his six years in office, President Obama has declared nine emergencies, allowed one to expire and extended 22 emergencies enacted by his predecessors.
Since 1976, when Congress passed the National Emergencies Act, presidents have declared at least 53 states of emergency not counting disaster declarations for events such as tornadoes and floods, according to a USA TODAY review of presidential documents. Most of those emergencies remain in effect.
Even as Congress has delegated emergency powers to the president, it has provided almost no oversight. The 1976 law requires each house of Congress to meet within six months of an emergency to vote it up or down. That's never happened.

Be sure to read the papers around 9th September 2016, to watch as the state of emergency is renewed yet again.

To close this post as it began, another essay on the Neoconservatives written by Shadia B Drury, regarded as one of the foremost academics on Neoconservatism.

From Information Clearing House:

Saving America: Leo Strauss And The Neoconservatives

Shadia Drury gets to the bottom of neoconservatism.

[B]By Shadia B. Drury

11 September 2003 "Evatt Foundation" -- There is a growing awareness that a reclusive German émigré philosopher is the inspiration behind the reigning neoconservative ideology of the Republican Party. Leo Strauss has long been a cult figure within the North American academy. And even though he had a profound antipathy to both liberalism and democracy, his disciples have gone to great lengths to conceal the fact. And for the most part they have succeeded -- as the article by James Atlas in The New York Times and the article by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker indicate. This picture of Strauss as the great American patriot, who was a lover of freedom and democracy is pure fabrication. Nothing could be further from the truth.

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.

It should however be pointed out that being a critic of liberalism or democracy or both does not make one automatically an enemy of America. On the contrary, freedom and democracy can only be strengthened by intellectually confronting their critics. Strauss has no special antipathy for America. He is the enemy of liberty in general. It was for love of America that he wished to save her from her disastrous love affair with liberty, as I will explain.

Strauss's preoccupation with secrecy was no doubt connected to the fact that he did not feel at home in America. He realised how much his ideas were at odds with America's liberal modernity. He felt that in America, everything that does not fit the mould, everything that does not conform to public opinion, was ostracised. In a letter to a friend, Strauss complained that the academic atmosphere in America was oppressive, and that it was very difficult to publish. As a man forced to emigrate from his native Germany, learn a new language by watching television, and forced to conduct his scholarly life in this newly acquired language, Strauss must be the subject of our sympathy. But Strauss's American disciples continue to complain that they are oppressed, beleaguered, and ostracised by the liberal academy, and the equally liberal media. But surely, these are crocodile tears.

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?

Strauss is not as obscure or as esoteric as his admirers pretend. There are certain incontestable themes in his work. The most fundamental theme is the distinction between the ancients and the moderns - a distinction that informs all his work. According to Strauss, ancient philosophers (such as Plato) were wise and wily, but modern philosophers (such as Locke and other liberals) were foolish and vulgar. The wise ancients thought that the unwashed masses were not fit for either truth or liberty; and giving them these sublime treasures was like throwing pearls before swine. Accordingly, they believed that society needs an elite of philosophers or intellectuals to manufacture "noble lies" for the consumption of the masses. Not surprisingly, the ancients had no use for democracy. Plato balked at the democratic idea that any Donald, Dick, or George was equally fit to rule.

In contrast to the ancients, the moderns were the foolish lovers of truth and liberty; they believed in the natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They believed that human beings were born free and could be legitimately ruled only by their own consent.

The ancients denied that there is any natural right to liberty. Human beings are born neither free nor equal. The natural human condition is not one of freedom, but of subordination. And in Strauss's estimation, they were right in thinking 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. As to the pursuit of happiness - what could the vulgar do with happiness except drink, gamble, and fornicate?

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.

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.

Irving Kristol, a devoted follower of Strauss and father of neoconservatism, was delighted with the popularity of the film Rambo. He thought it was an indication that the people still love war; and that means that it will not be too difficult to lure them away from the animalistic pleasures that liberal society offers. There is a strong asceticism at the heart of the atheistic philosophy of Leo Strauss that explains why those with religious inclinations are attracted to it.

Strauss loved America enough to try to save her from the errors and terrors of Europe. He was convinced that the liberal democracy of the Weimar Republic led to the rise of the Nazis. That is a debatable matter. But Strauss did not openly debate this issue or provide arguments for his position in his writings. I am inclined to think that it is Strauss's ideas, and not liberal ideas, that invite the kinds of abuses he wished to avoid. It behoves us to remember that Hitler had the utmost contempt for parliamentary democracy. He was impatient with debate and dispute, on the grounds that they were a waste of time for the great genius who knew instinctively the right choices and policies that the people need. Hitler had a profound contempt for the masses - the same contempt that is readily observed in Strauss and his cohorts. But when force of circumstances made it necessary to appeal to the masses, Hitler advocated lies, myths, and illusions as necessary pabulum to placate the people and make them comply with the will of the Fürer. Strauss's political philosophy advocates the same solution to the problem of the recalcitrant masses. Anyone who wants to avoid the horrors of the Nazi past is well advised not to accept Strauss's version of ancient wisdom uncritically. But this is exactly what Strauss encouraged his students to do.

Strauss's students have left the academy in quest of political power. They complain that they are persecuted in the academy because they are illiberal. But in truth, it is not because they are illiberal that they are held in contempt; it is because they are ill-equipped to handle philosophical debate. Strauss's secretive or esoteric style of writing is inimical to philosophical dispute within the academy. He was convinced that there can be no disagreement among the wise. They instinctively recognise the truth. And those who deny it are unfit for the company of the wise. This explains why his students are a cultish clique, which is comfortable only when preaching to the converted and consorting with the like-minded. All the while they fool themselves into thinking that they are the exclusive few who see the unadulterated truth, which is concealed from the eyes of the uninitiated. Not surprisingly, they are not well regarded within the academy. But it is not entirely their fault. They are poorly trained, because Strauss's philosophy is ill-suited for academic life. It aspires to action. Its goal is not to understand the world, but to change it. And now that they are closely allied with the powerful neoconservatives in Washington, they have a chance to make their vision a reality.

So, what is neoconservatism? And how does it propose to change the world in accordance with Straussian political philosophy? 'Neo' comes from the Greek neos, which means new. And, what's neo about neoconservatism? Well, for one thing, the old conservatism relied on tradition and history; it was cautious, slow and moderate; it went with the flow. But under the influence of Leo Strauss, the new conservatism is intoxicated with nature. The new conservatism is not slow or cautious, but active, aggressive, and reactionary in the literal sense of the term. Inspired by Strauss's hatred for liberal modernity, its goal is to turn back the clock on the liberal revolution and its achievements.

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.

So, what is to be done? How can America be saved from her dangerous fascination with liberty? Irving Kristol came up with the solution that has become the cornerstone of neoconservative policies: use democracy to defeat liberty. Turn the people against their own liberty. Convince them that liberty is licentiousness - that liberty undermines piety, leads to crime, drugs, rampant homosexuality, children out of wedlock, and family breakdown. And worse of all, liberalism is soft on communism or terrorism - whatever happens to be the enemy of the moment. And if you can convince the people that liberty undermines their security, then, you will not have to take away their liberty; they will gladly renounce it.

In an essay entitled "Populism Not to Worry," Irving Kristol argued that Americans should embrace populism, or the rule of the majority, despite the reservations of the Founding Fathers. The latter feared the tyranny of the majority, and institutionalised safeguards to protect the liberty of individuals and minorities. But Kristol and the neoconservatives want to dismantle these very safeguards against majority rule. Kristol tells us not to worry. Why not? Apparently because the neoconservatives believe that America has been ruled by an unwise liberal elite for over two hundred years, and they are willing to gamble that the people will be wiser, which is to say, more likely to endorse conservative policies. Inspired by the same ideology, the Alliance party in Canada is willing to take the same gamble. But, luckily for Canada, it is sagging badly in the polls.

With the neoconservatives in power in the US, it will be difficult to conceal the real nature of neoconservative policies. The "stealth campaigns" are not likely to be as effective. The policies are by now very clear: no gay rights, no liberated women, no uppity blacks, lots of prayer in the schools, a strong commitment to the death penalty, and the re-criminalisation of abortion. The latter is particularly important. Of course it will keep the women at home and out of the way so that world can be ruled by men in the proper manly fashion; but that's not all. More importantly, it will keep women busy having babies - lots of babies. In this way, women will become useful once again; they will return to their vocation as factories for soldiers - and we need lots of soldiers, for we will have plenty of wars to fight, if the neoconservatives have their way. And it seems they have.

The neoconservative goal is reactionary in the classic sense of the term. It is nothing short of turning the clock back on the liberal revolution. And it will use democracy to accomplish its task. After all, Strauss had no objections to democracy as long as a wise elite, inspired by the profound truths of the ancients, was able to shape, invent, or create the will of the people. In his interpretation of Plato's myth of the cave, Strauss maintained that the philosophers who return to the cave should not bring in truth; instead, the philosophers should seek to manipulate the images in the cave, so that the people will remain in the stupor to which they are supremely fit.

It is ironic that American neoconservatives have decided to conquer the world in the name of liberty and democracy, when they have so little regard for either.

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 . E-mail: shadia.drury@uregina.ca© 2001-2002 The Evatt Foundation

University of New South Wales
Sydney NSW Australia 2052
Tel: (02) 9385 2966 Fax: (02) 9385 2967
[/B]

One last thing. I've been trying to see if a similar thing happened in the UK following the 7/7 bombings. It looks to me that Blair tried it with a raft of new anti-terrorism laws and his statement that "the rules of the game have changed" reported in the Guardian newspaper and also this one too. However, despite many changes to the terrorism laws it looks as though Parliament generally resisted Blair's attempt at duplicating his American neocon chums. The next step is to see how things turned out in France following the Charlie Hedbo attack. Meanwhile, can it be pure accident that these three nations, the US, UK and France are the troika that are engaged in the war in Syria?