I'm starting this thread for us to gather some good bits of info around the political and philosophical thinking of the psychopathic elitists (I refuse to call these sick loveless losers 'elites').
What and who has influenced them? Where do they get their psychopathic totalitarian dreams from? Let's investigate.
* * *
Starting off with the neocons and Leo Strauss:
Unsurprisingly, this guy got his kicks from Plato's ideas about the necessity for 'noble lies' and 'philosopher kings'.
In the universe of these guys, might is right.
Here's the man himself:
Note that when Strauss speaks of 'illusions of the cave' he alludes to Plato's allegory of the cave; e.g. see here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRNMZEDOBrMLeo Strauss wrote: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.
The second type, the gentlemen, are lovers of honour and glory. They are the most ingratiating toward 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.
A very interesting discussion on Strauss with Shadia Drury, professor of political theory, can be found here:Leo Strauss wrote: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".
Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed... Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united - and they can only be united against other people.
Those who are fit to rule are those who realise there is no morality and that there is only one natural right - the right of the superior to rule over the inferior... The people are told what they need to know and no more.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le5010.htm
And here's an 'Economist' article detailing the influence Strauss (and by extension Plato) has on the neocon elements of the Bush administration:Shadia Drury wrote: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.
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.
The real Platonic solution as understood by Strauss is the covert rule of the wise. This covert rule is facilitated by the overwhelming stupidity of the gentlemen. The more gullible and unperceptive they are, the easier it is for the wise to control and manipulate them.
For Strauss, the rule of the wise is not about classic conservative values like order, stability, justice, or respect for authority. The rule of the wise is intended as an antidote to modernity. Modernity is the age in which the vulgar many have triumphed. It is the age in which they have come closest to having exactly what their hearts desire – wealth, pleasure, and endless entertainment. But in getting just what they desire, they have unwittingly been reduced to beasts.
To be clear, Strauss was not as hostile to democracy as he was to liberalism. This is because he recognises that the vulgar masses have numbers on their side, and the sheer power of numbers cannot be completely ignored. Whatever can be done to bring the masses along is legitimate. If you can use democracy to turn the masses against their own liberty, this is a great triumph. It is the sort of tactic that neo-conservatives use consistently, and in some cases very successfully.
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedst ... id=1859009