PDA

View Full Version : Harper, Bush Share Roots in Controversial Philosophy



FORD
01-23-2006, 11:49 PM
This article's a couple months old, but it gives you an idea of what our neighbors to the North have just done to themselves.

Harper is just another PNAC tool :(

From TheTyee.ca
Harper, Bush Share Roots in Controversial Philosophy
Link Address: http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2005/11/29/HarperBush
Published: 2005-11-29 21:32:00
By Donald Gutstein
TheTyee.ca
Close advisors schooled in 'the noble lie' and 'regime change'.

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2005/11/29/harperbush_4.png

What do close advisors to Stephen Harper and George W. Bush have in common? They reflect the disturbing teachings of Leo Strauss, the German-Jewish émigré who spawned the neoconservative movement.

Strauss, who died in 1973, believed in the inherent inequality of humanity. Most people, he famously taught, are too stupid to make informed decisions about their political affairs. Elite philosophers must decide on affairs of state for us.

In Washington, Straussians exert powerful influence from within the inner circle of the White House. In Canada, they roost, for now, in the so-called Calgary School, guiding Harper in framing his election strategies. What preoccupies Straussians in both places is the question of "regime change."

Strauss defined a regime as a set of governing ideas, institutions and traditions. The neoconservatives in the Bush administration, who secretly conspired to make the invasion of Iraq a certainty, had a precise plan for regime change. They weren't out to merely replace Saddam with an American puppet. They planned to make the system more like the U.S., with an electoral process that can be manipulated by the elites, corporate control over the levers of power and socially conservative values.

Usually regime change is imposed on a country from outside through violent means, such as invasion. On occasion, it occurs within a country through civil war. After the American Civil War, a new regime was imposed on the Deep South by the North, although the old regime was never entirely replaced.

Is regime change possible through the electoral process? It's happening in the U.S., where the neocons are succeeding in transforming the American state from a liberal democracy into a corporatist, theocratic regime. As Canada readies for a federal election, the question must be asked: Are we next?

The 'noble lie'

Strauss believed that allowing citizens to govern themselves will lead, inevitably, to terror and tyranny, as the Weimar Republic succumbed to the Nazis in the 1930s. A ruling elite of political philosophers must make those decisions because it is the only group smart enough. It must resort to deception -- Strauss's "noble lie" -- to protect citizens from themselves. The elite must hide the truth from the public by writing in code. "Using metaphors and cryptic language," philosophers communicated one message for the elite, and another message for "the unsophisticated general population," philosopher Jeet Heer recently wrote in the Globe and Mail. "For Strauss, the art of concealment and secrecy was among the greatest legacies of antiquity."

The recent outing of star New York Times reporter Judith Miller reveals how today's neocons use the media to conceal the truth from the public. For Straussians, telling Americans that Saddam didn't have WMD's and had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, but that we needed to take him out for geopolitical and ideological reasons you can't comprehend, was a non-starter. The people wouldn't get it. Time for a whopper.

Miller was responsible for pushing into the Times the key neocon lie that Saddam was busy stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. This deception helped build support among Americans for the invasion of Iraq. Miller was no independent journalist seeking the truth nor a victim of neocon duplicity, as she claimed. She worked closely with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff and responsible for coordinating Iraq intelligence and communication strategy. Libby is a Straussian who studied under Paul Wolfowitz, now head of the World Bank, and before that, deputy secretary of defense, where he led the 'Invade Iraq" lobby. Wolfowitz studied under Strauss and Allan Bloom, Strauss's most famous student.

Miller cultivated close links to the neocons in the administration and at the American Enterprise Institute, the leading Washington-based neocon think tank. AEI played the key role outside government in fabricating intelligence to make the case for invading Iraq. Straussian Richard Perle, who chaired the Defence Policy Board Advisory Committee until he was kicked off because of a conflict of interest, is a senior fellow at AEI and coordinated its efforts. Miller co-wrote a book on the Middle East with an AEI scholar. Rather than being a victim of government manipulation, Miller was a conduit between the neocons and the American public. As a result of her reporting, many Americans came to believe that Saddam had the weapons. War and regime change followed.

'Regime change' in Canada

As in the U.S., regime change became a Canadian media darling. Before 9-11, the phrase appeared in Canadian newspapers less than ten times a year. It usually referred to changes in leadership of a political party or as part of the phrase "regulatory regime change." Less than a week after 9-11, the phrase began to be used in its Straussian sense, as if a scenario was being choreographed.

From 19 mentions in Canadian newspapers in 2001, regime change soared to 790 mentions in 2002 and 1334 mentions in 2003. With the Iraq invasion accomplished that year, usage tailed off in 2004 (291 mentions) and in 2005 (208 mentions to November 10).

There's one big difference between American and Canadian Straussians. The Americans assumed positions of power and influence in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The Canadians have not had much opportunity to show (or is that hide?) their stuff. That may change with a Harper victory.

Paul Wolfowitz's teacher, Allan Bloom, and another Straussian, Walter Berns, taught at the University of Toronto during the 1970s. They left their teaching posts at Cornell University because they couldn't stomach the student radicalism of the '60s. At Toronto, they influenced an entire generation of political scientists, who fanned out to universities across the country.

Two of their students, Ted Morton and Rainer Knopff, went to the University of Calgary where they specialize in attacking the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They claim the charter is the result of a conspiracy foisted on the Canadian people by "special interests." These nasty people are feminists, gays and lesbians, the poor, prisoners and refugee-rights groups who are advancing their own interests through the courts at the expense of the general public, these Straussians allege.

The problem with their analysis is that the special interest which makes more use of the courts to advance its interests than all these other groups combined -- business -- receives not a mention. Deception by omission is a common Straussian technique. The weak are targeted while the real culprits disappear.

Harper's mentors

Harper studied under the neocons at the University of Calgary and worked with them to craft policies for the fledgling Reform Party in the late 1980s. Together with Preston Manning, they created an oxymoron, a populist party backed by business.

Ted Morton has turned his attention to provincial politics. He's an elected MLA and a candidate to succeed Premier Ralph Klein. But he did influence the direction of right-wing politics at the federal level as the Canadian Alliance director of research under Stockwell Day.

When Harper threw his hat in the ring for the leadership of the Alliance, Tom Flanagan, the Calgary School's informal leader, became his closest adviser. Harper and Flanagan, whose scholarship focuses on attacking aboriginal rights, entered a four-year writing partnership and together studied the works of government-hater Friedrich Hayek. Flanagan ran the 2004 Conservative election campaign and is pulling the strings as the country readies for the election.

Political philosopher Shadia Drury is an expert on Strauss, though not a follower. She was a member of Calgary's political science department for more than two decades, frequently locking horns with her conservative colleagues before leaving in 2003 for the University of Regina.

Strauss recommended harnessing the simplistic platitudes of populism to galvanize mass support for measures that would, in fact, restrict rights. Does the Calgary School resort to such deceitful tactics? Drury believes so. Such thinking represents "a huge contempt for democracy," she told the Globe and Mail's John Ibbotson. The 2004 federal election campaign run by Flanagan was "the greatest stealth campaign we have ever seen," she said, "run by radical populists hiding behind the cloak of rhetorical moderation."

Straus and 'Western alienation'

The Calgary School has successfully hidden its program beneath the complaint of western alienation. "If we've done anything, we've provided legitimacy for what was the Western view of the country," Calgary Schooler Barry Cooper told journalist Marci McDonald in her important Walrus article. "We've given intelligibility and coherence to a way of looking at it that's outside the St. Lawrence Valley mentality." This is sheer Straussian deception. On the surface, it's easy to understand Cooper's complaint and the Calgary School's mission. But the message says something very different to those in the know. For 'St. Lawrence Valley mentality,' they read 'the Ottawa-based modern liberal state,' with all the negative baggage it carries for Straussians. And for 'Western view,' they read 'the right-wing attack on democracy.' We've provided legitimacy for the radical-right attack on the Canadian democratic state, Cooper is really saying.

A network is already in place to assist Harper in foisting his radical agenda on the Canadian people.

In 2003, he delivered an important address to a group called Civitas. This secretive organization, which has no web site and leaves little paper or electronic trail, is a network of Canadian neoconservative and libertarian academics, politicians, journalists and think tank propagandists.

Harper's adviser Tom Flanagan is an active member. Conservative MP Jason Kenney is a member, as are Brian Lee Crowley, head of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies and Michel Kelly-Gagnon of the Montreal Economic Institute, the second and third most important right-wing think tanks after the Fraser Institute.

Civitas is top-heavy with journalists to promote the cause. Lorne Gunter of the National Post is president. Members include Janet Jackson (Calgary Sun) and Danielle Smith (Calgary Herald). Journalists Colby Cosh, William Watson and Andrew Coyne (all National Post) have made presentations to Civitas.

The Globe and Mail's Marcus Gee is not mentioned in relation to Civitas but might as well be a member, if his recent column titled "George Bush is not a liar," is any evidence. In it, Gee repeats the lies the Bush neocons are furiously disseminating to persuade the people that Bush is not a liar.

Neo-con to Theo-con

The speech Harper gave to Civitas was the source of the charge made by the Liberals during the 2004 election -- sure to be revived in the next election -- that Harper has a scary, secret agenda. Harper urged a return to social conservatism and social values, to change gears from neocon to theocon, in The Report's Ted Byfield's apt but worrisome phrase, echoing visions of a future not unlike that painted in Margaret Atwood's dystopian work, A Handmaid's Tale.

The state should take a more activist role in policing social norms and values, Harper told the assembled conservatives. To achieve this goal, social and economic conservatives must reunite as they have in the U.S., where evangelical Christians and business rule in an unholy alliance. Red Tories must be jettisoned from the party, he said, and alliances forged with ethnic and immigrant communities who currently vote Liberal but espouse traditional family values. This was the successful strategy counselled by the neocons under Ronald Reagan to pull conservative Democrats into the Republican tent.

Movement towards the goal must be "incremental," he said, so the public won't be spooked.

Regime change, one step at a time.

Donald Gutstein, a senior lecturer in the School of Communication at Simon Fraser University, writes a regular media column for The Tyee.

diamondD
01-24-2006, 09:22 AM
[i]Originally posted by FORD

Strauss, who died in 1973, believed in the inherent inequality of humanity. Most people, he famously taught, are too stupid to make informed decisions about their political affairs. Elite philosophers must decide on affairs of state for us.





I'd be careful posting stuff like this. This guy sounds like he's talking about you.

FORD
01-24-2006, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by diamondD
I'd be careful posting stuff like this. This guy sounds like he's talking about you.

To the contrary. Strauss would be pissed that I even knew his name, and what he was all about.

He would have loved the corporate whore media though.

WACF
01-24-2006, 11:20 AM
That article is nonsense.

FORD
01-24-2006, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by WACF
That article is nonsense.

How so?

WACF
01-24-2006, 12:38 PM
This group is hidden first off.

The Reform party believed in corporate tax cuts in order to enable companies to remain competitive...thus expanding and employing people.

The Liberals were media darlings...believe me...if the media was involved we would of found out about this stuff.
With all the negative campaigning and fear mongering if this was more fact than fiction the Liberals would of used it.
The Liberals brought up abortion as a fear tactic...and it may of worked in Toronto.
It was a non issue.

Believe me...if Harper moved as far right as Bush his term would be his last term.

Do not take this the wrong way...and I apologize to those I may offend.

The Canadian public would not put up with as much as you guys do.

The minute the right touches workers rights or changes labour laws(more a provincial jurisdiction anyways) the party will pay the price.

If Harper moves to far the right he will be tossed out...I guarantee it.

Angel
01-24-2006, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by WACF
Believe me...if Harper moved as far right as Bush his term would be his last term.

Do not take this the wrong way...and I apologize to those I may offend.

The Canadian public would not put up with as much as you guys do.

The minute the right touches workers rights or changes labour laws(more a provincial jurisdiction anyways) the party will pay the price.

If Harper moves to far the right he will be tossed out...I guarantee it.

Add the above points that the same will happen the minute they try to make changes to the Charter of Rights & Freedoms.

What has happened is a good thing. This will get rid of the remnants that remain from Chretien's days, and allow the Liberal party time to rebuild. At the same time, the Con's minority is so small that they cannot risk a vote of non-confidence bringing down the house if they do attempt to move to far to the right.

I figure 2 years, 3 at most and we'll be back at the poles. Either Frank McKenna or Belinda Stronach will be leading the Liberal's and they will win a huge majority and spend their first term back in cleaning up all the messes that Harper has created.

WACF
01-24-2006, 01:15 PM
Thing is it takes 6 to 7 years to see what changes have taken effect in the economy...I think this will be a very moderate term with nothing changing.
The Conservatuve budget will never pass as their platform sits.
The NDP will see to it...they will never vote for a corporate tax cut.
That is why NDP governments at a provincial level never stimulate growth...look at my province. We are booming but no one is moving in.

Harper will have to make alliances in order to make his changes.
For example harder sentences.

I am intersted in seeing what happens with free votes...I think this is something we need to see among all parties.

4moreyears
01-24-2006, 01:45 PM
WOW, Ford you are taking being a whacko to a new level.

Angel
01-24-2006, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by WACF
The Conservatuve budget will never pass as their platform sits.


I've wondered about that myself. I don't think we'll get anything accomplished for the next couple of years, and then we'll be back at it again.

RuzDNailz
01-25-2006, 01:24 AM
Look, at least the Conservatives plan to lower the fucking GST. Who isn't sick of it? Did anyone catch the Marijuana Party signs? I wish I could have seen them for fun. There were others too that didn't really go anywhere.

I want to point out that Conservative Prime Ministers were always close with the United States president. Think about it. Brian Mulroney always had Ronald Reagan and George Bush on speed dial whereas the Liberal Prime Ministers where completely opposite of the American Presidents. The bonds between the borders were stronger and they will be that way again. It may take a bit of time, though.

diamondD
01-25-2006, 08:33 AM
Ssshhhhhhh. You're disrupting FORD's delusions by throwing reality in the mix. ;)

Angel
01-25-2006, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by RuzDNailz
Look, at least the Conservatives plan to lower the fucking GST. The bonds between the borders were stronger and they will be that way again. It may take a bit of time, though.

Yup, the rich are going to really benefit from the lowering of GST. Us middle class will barely notice it. Especially when they increase our personal taxes, and go back to the days of "hidden" manufacturing taxes. How much are the GST rebate cheques for the low-income people going to be reduced?

I hope to hell that we don't forget the lessons learned from Softwood lumber and BSE. We rely too heavily on our trade with the USA, and we need to diversify. The BSE crisis would not have had such a heavy affect on our cattle ranchers if we still had our own processing plants.

If we rely too heavily on our trade with the US, what happens when they say they aren't buying anymore because they simply don't have the funds anymore? We're screwed, and scrambling for trading partners.

I say, continue to diversify trade, especially among China and India. Yes, there are human rights issues in both countries, but don't you think you can make more of an impact from inside?

scamper
01-25-2006, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by WACF


The Canadian public would not put up with as much as you guys do.



The only reason Bush is in office right now is because of the us against them mentality of the voters right now.

FORD
01-25-2006, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by scamper
The only reason Bush is in office right now is because of

....a corrupt Supreme Court, a presstitute media, and electro-fraud voting machines.

diamondD
01-25-2006, 01:19 PM
And a majority of the Electoral College. Don't forget that.

WACF
01-25-2006, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by diamondD
And a majority of the Electoral College. Don't forget that.


Is that the popular vote or something else?

UGS
01-25-2006, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by WACF
This group is hidden first off.

The Reform party believed in corporate tax cuts in order to enable companies to remain competitive...thus expanding and employing people.

The Liberals were media darlings...believe me...if the media was involved we would of found out about this stuff.
With all the negative campaigning and fear mongering if this was more fact than fiction the Liberals would of used it.
The Liberals brought up abortion as a fear tactic...and it may of worked in Toronto.
It was a non issue.

Believe me...if Harper moved as far right as Bush his term would be his last term.

Do not take this the wrong way...and I apologize to those I may offend.

The Canadian public would not put up with as much as you guys do.

The minute the right touches workers rights or changes labour laws(more a provincial jurisdiction anyways) the party will pay the price.

If Harper moves to far the right he will be tossed out...I guarantee it.

I'd have to agree for the most part. The Supreme Court is EXTREMELY left wing. . .I can't see them standing for any change that is too radical. I'd bet that gay marriage and abortion rights are safe, regardless of what Harper says. Unfortunately, they have little influence on Harper's foreign policy.

FORD
01-25-2006, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by WACF
Is that the popular vote or something else?

No, the electoral college is a useless relic of our colonial days, back when our so called "founding fathers" decided that the common man was really "unqualified" to actually vote for President, and that we needed a group of elitists to do so on our behalf.

The number of electoral votes is equal to a State's number of Congressional representatives, both the House and the Senate. Every state has two Senators, but some of the least populated states only have one congressman, so those states would have only 3 electoral votes. On the other hand, California, the most populated state, has 54 electoral votes, (meaning they have 52 congressional districts)

Since the "electors" are supposed to vote according to the will of the people, the electoral college is usually a formality. However, in the year 2000, the electors from the state of Florida were forced to use Katherine Harris' deliberately innacurate early "certified" numbers, as a complete count of the votes was stopped by the Supreme Court.

There was another exception back in the 1870's which was also the result of some similar partisan bullshit.

The electoral college might have made some sense back in the days when results of a national election couldn't possibly have been known at the end of the day, due to limits in the ability in communications technology. But now, it is completely worthless, and should be abolished.

WACF
01-25-2006, 03:05 PM
Thanks...it took a couple reads to figure that out.

I see what you mean with it not being needed today.

diamondD
01-25-2006, 05:14 PM
Don't worry. You'll get plenty of chances to read it again...

scamper
01-26-2006, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by FORD
No, the electoral college is a useless relic of our colonial days,

so is the two party system, they're fucking us

Full Bug
01-26-2006, 04:13 PM
Interesting post FORD, a shame its a bunch of crap though.....

Angel
01-26-2006, 06:11 PM
True. How could we return to "social conservatism and social values" when Canada has NEVER been that way to start with?

Our former Conservative parties & governments were always PC (Progressive Conservative).

And Bug, look out, by next election, I may be the one running in Edmonton Centre. ;)

Full Bug
01-28-2006, 06:11 AM
Originally posted by Angel

And Bug, look out, by next election, I may be the one running in Edmonton Centre. ;)
Hey, if anyone could do it you could, if you get in I expect a job in the civil service where I get paid to do nothing all day....;) :D