BY GUS LEONISKY

This is part one (randomly cut) of the unabridged unedited introduction to my forthcoming book, still in writing, titled “The Age of Deceit”. Hopefully I won’t die before I finish it, although some people may wish it that way.

THE AGE OF DECEIT (2006)

INTRODUCTION (part one)

"""""''This nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation,'' he said, his remarks carried live on television.

Bush read from remarks he had written himself on sheets of white paper. """"""

-----------------

Today, once again, our nations are fairy-dusted by an old foe, an acid test to our own desires of nation building and preservation, from which the mangled constructing roots are quietly kept away from the general public’s view so we, the populace, do not ask the hard questions — while too many of us are thanking god that Dubya is not asleep on the job. He-he-he… Ooomph… Dud.

Strangely, in this day and age of choice, we can vote whomever, but no matter how often we press the button or tick a box, we do not even scratch the veneer of what the powerful have chosen for us. We should be "happy" anyhow that Tweedledee or Tweedledum are leading the charge, because what else can we do?

“Happy” has varied manifestations for each individual but on average happy means being in a state-of-mind, in which we are not under threat, are protected from threats, while enjoying contentment via natural or acquired comfort. This comfort includes “lifestyle”, money, religious beliefs, and entertainment, most of which comes as a reward for our social contributive toiling of work.

Thus, while we are distracted by the tits and bums of celebrities spread eagle in magazines, while we are amused by clowns, are exhaustively excited by sporting activities and while our after-life is taken care of by priests and preachers, "we" (our government and its institutions) find and squash the everlasting plots (external and internal) against us. We are good because “we” foil these plots (most times). We reinforce our resolve to prevail because these battles contribute to our moral rights to lift the drawbridges, feel smug in our castle-comfort while we delegate out mercenaries to go and fight off more threats in someone else's patch... It’s a jungle out there.

To a great extent, three major philosophical thoughts have influenced our twentieth century nation building — philosophical thoughts, some used since Greek and Roman times, which, from the nineteenth century onwards due to the accelerating development of technology, needed variegation in formulations in order to give out enough slack and still maintain enough controls not to appear despotic or totally anarchistic in a "more democratically enlightened" world.

Some nations failed miserably: Nazi Germany within 20 years, but the USSR took more than 60 years to bite the dust, and it’s still sitting on edge. Reconstruction is usually painful and needs to dig deep into these core philosophical understandings.

Strangely so far, the most successful country on earth is the one that lied the most about its construct — the USA.

I will develop this interesting premise of porkie-building later on.

First, I am referring here to the three modern expression of philosophy underpinning most of our present Western societies relationships: Existentialism (Jean Paul Sartre), Structuralism (Claude Levi Strauss) and Neoconservatism (Leo Strauss)... 

These are HUGE topics and in order not to write a 20,000 pages thesis that would still be incomplete, I will have to massively distil their three-dimensional purpose, their influence and their relationships with our esoteric and exoteric processes such as feelings and actions, with just a few words, quotes and annotations —here, in this far too long introduction to "The Age of Deceit".

Each of these expressions of philosophy can make strange bedfellow with the other by combining parts of one with some part of the other, or one can combine with an opposing concept, in a strange symbiotic relationship. I will of course concentrate on the Neoconservatism philosophy since it carries the most seeds of deceit, is embedded in many modern politicians of various persuasion in the USA — for example tainting a Condoleeza Rice to the core, while a Dubya would not have a clue about any essential philosophical thought, except being a dumb kid on the block having fun helping his “red-neck” mates make a load of cash.

Yes — due to the messy nature of things, we philosophically formulate the whatever of our destinies and these formulations create various cultures throughout humanity, although the neocons wish-list contains the subtle eradication of these.

Quite often, the formulations will contradict themselves within the same system in order to marry expenditure with receipt, while not killing each other. Greed and compassion can thus coexist in continually adjusted percentage points in the greater order of whichever system we choose to name as our main political sustenance — usually chosen for us by the powerful.

I will take the plunge here against my own best advice to suggest for example that Buddhism is the symbiotic relationship of existentialism (“selfish”) with compassion (“unselfish”), bound by a protocol of rituals. The rituals are the exoteric activities that link the esoteric thoughts to an exoteric activity. The aim is to achieve enlightenment of the pure self (“selfish”) while maintaining an unlimited compassion (“unselfish”).

Binding existentialism to compassion is not exclusive to Buddhism — but its rituals are its own. I will also suggest here to my detriment that scientology follow a similar combination, using a different binding ritual, with blend of money and success.

Rituals are mostly beautifully staged porkies.

I will suggest here, to the outrage of most people, that Capitalism is only a process not a philosophy. Capitalism is only the value-added exteriorisation of wants using the illusion of need... in whichever philosophical framework we choose.

Explaining the variegations in the various systems:

------------------------

Quoting from the Ludwig von Mises Institute [Liberalism]

"""""" IX.THE ROLE OF IDEAS

2. World View and Ideology

The theories directing action are often imperfect and unsatisfactory. They may be contradictory and unfit to be arranged into a comprehensive and coherent system.

If we look at all the theorems and theories guiding the conduct of certain individuals and groups as a coherent complex and try to arrange them as far as is feasible into a system, i.e., a comprehensive body of knowledge, we may speak of it as a world view. A world view is, as a theory, an interpretation of all things, and as a precept for action, an opinion concerning the best means for removing uneasiness as much as possible.

A world view is thus, on the one hand, an explanation of all phenomena and, on the other hand, a technology, both these terms being taken in their broadest sense. Religion, metaphysics, and philosophy aim at providing a world view. They interpret the universe and they advise men how to act."""""

----------------------------

I would say that Liberalism too, digs deep into the existentialism pocket with a different mix of acceptance of relationships in its practicality to minimise conflict and promote personal wealth.

EXISTENTIALISM defined by Gus Leonisky

Existentialism is the mainstay of Freedom. Pure existentialism is frightening to many people because there are no limits, not even a simple structure to follow. Many people do not have the knowledge, the power or the will to acquire this ultimate freedom — a self, free of structured-comforting illusions such as religion, beliefs or calculated interdependence. Existentialism is the only place where we could find our true fighting self, our ego, our individual. But do we really want to find it? We might not like what we find...

Since our childhood we have been fed on “milk” (food) for our body’s good function — and grand illusions for our "spirit", to fill its "existential angst", with fairies, santas and popes.

Changing/de-structuring this stack of esoteric/exoteric purposes can be a shock to the system (threatening our individual and social mental health[s] usually manifested in depression) unless we are prepared to dip our mind into our natural constructs plus accept a large dose of uncertainty.

Thus, can we be “complete” without the interactions that did and do shape our personal thoughts and ideas, most designed to reduce our cosmic uncertainty by safety in numbers, whether we, as a group, get it right or wrong? How much reactive is our true natural self, to events and external input? Is true existentialist freedom not to be reactive... but deliberately having sublimed above our constructs to bypass reactivity?

Anarchy could be described as jungle-level--opportunism dipped into existentialism. Existentialism and anarchy are not very welcome in our present social constructs, but the existentialist concept of freedom is the great lure that strongly drives our search for greater success, and feeds our positivism "can do anything" yet we temper it with the "moral" limits of our society... Pure existentialism is a lonely place. Existentialism parallels the "hermit" of past times.

Secondary systems of governance, such as Liberalism carry the seed of Existentialism applied to economic activities…

Existentialism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"""""Existentialism is a philosophical movement that is generally considered a study that pursues meaning in existence and seeks value for the existing individual. Existentialism, unlike other fields of philosophy, does not treat the individual as a concept, and values individual subjectivity over objectivity. As a result, questions regarding the meaning of life and subjective experience are seen as being of paramount importance, above all other scientific and philosophical pursuits. Existentialism often is associated with anxiety, dread, awareness of death, and freedom. Famous existentialists include Sartre, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Camus.

Existentialism emphasizes action, freedom, and decision as fundamental to human existence and is fundamentally opposed to the rationalist tradition and to positivism. That is, it argues against definitions of human beings either as primarily rational, knowing beings who relate to reality primarily as an object of knowledge, or for whom action can or ought to be regulated by rational principles, or as beings who can be defined in terms of their behavior as it looks to or is studied by others. More generally it rejects all of the Western rationalist definitions of being in terms of a rational principle or essence or as the most general feature that all existing things share in common. Existentialism tends to view human beings as subjects in an indifferent, objective, often ambiguous, and "absurd" universe in which meaning is not provided by the natural order, but rather can be created, however provisionally and unstably, by human beings' actions and interpretations."""""

Hum…

Back to some reality:

Sartre referred to terrorism as a "terrible weapon but the oppressed poor have no others. 

If fact I would say Sartre was somewhat wrong on this, as terrorism can be a twisted rational of higher class-groups taking a stand in defense of the poor and the oppressed... but terrorism can also be a weapon used by states in order to maintain their power or to influence a regime change in other countries. 

Most states do not like Existentialism as it removes the controlling power over people and can lead quickly to a mild form of anarchy. In fact this is the essence of what Sartre would argue that we are all born free and only the existence of some bastard who want to control us for power can remove this freedom...

I would say the word “freedom” is used by the powerful bastards to conjure an illusion, for us to be mesmerized with, while they tightly control our purpose. So when some pantomime president talks of “freedom”, think of sweet deceit. His package has many fishy restrictions and his hooks are fully baited.

We should have more affinity with a male Chimpanzee who plays with his own turd than with a president who claims to spread “freedom” — left, right and centre — and engages in silly wars that kill hundred of thousands of people… Yes, the chimp is less dangerous... but, strangely, too many people support a president’s heinous action and condemn the chimp for discovering he’s got two ends to his digestive tract.

[ interrupting note: If any publishers of decent books here, feel their ears pricked, please do not hesitate to contact the good patrons of this site for further information]

STRUCTURALISM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"""""""Structuralism is an approach in academic disciplines that explores the relationships between fundamental elements of some kind, upon which some higher mental, linguistic, social, cultural etc "structures" are built, through which then meaning is produced within a particular person, system, or culture.

Structuralism appeared in academic psychology for the first time in...

Sorry folks...

End of Introduction part one....

--------------------------------------

STRUCTURALISM
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Structuralism is an approach in academic disciplines that explores the relationships between fundamental elements of some kind, upon which some higher mental, linguistic, social, cultural etc "structures" are built, through which then meaning is produced within a particular person, system, or culture…. 

Hum… And so on…

Structuralism from Gus Leonisky
Structuralism is a fine theory and works well to navel gaze the constructs of small communities, especially those that have become isolated or those that codify their encounters with other societies in a very specific manner… If my memory serves me right, there were these two tribes in South America that for many centuries used to have wars of a strange kind: they would kill each others in a specific ritualistic number (one of yours one of mine, one of yours one of mine) for just a few days and then stop, until it was agreed to start the hostilities again, after two to three years period of peace basis. They would take some male prisoners for copulation with their women and then kill these men afterwards. Empirically, this weird behavior maintained the gene-pool’s health and controlled the number of individuals so that food supply would stay abundant. 

Applied “structuralism” relies on kinship, tribal spirit, contribution of individuals to the common good, usually not far from basic survival with a bit of ritual thrown in to maintain the continuum of the codification, which in some tribes can be quite complex. 

I would suggest that structuralism has little elasticity when it comes to greater social construct… It defeats itself, becoming cumbersome in its administration and has little defense against dissent but to sideline dissent severely. Also in a changing technological environment, Structuralism has difficulty coping with the new inventions, social and technological, especially those that could change the ritualization of the structure.

Contrary to Existentialism, Structuralism suggest and accept we are born from a system (family, tribe, group, region, country, language, culture) and are fully dependent of that system, in survival, in stylistic expression and in the necessity to contribute. Communism in Russia (a process backed by a philosophy of structuralism) was a prime example of struggling structuralism and it went bad — mainly due to the energy needed to control the structure on such a vast scale,... Communism in China is more of a paternalistic system of governance with a certain amount of flexibility thrown in to include change. The Chinese ethics for work but specially the Western Nations having deliberately cooperated with the regime, have both helped China to survive and prosper away from isolation. 

Communism has also been relatively successful in (smaller) Cuba. First the Neoconic Yanks decided to turn their back on Cuba after a pitiful attempt at invasion — thus reducing the after-threat of discontent forces-within by helping the Cubans focus on defeating the external forces of an after-threat… Second, due to being isolated, Cuba's structure put in place was much closer to Socialism in which everyone (most) knew they had to pull their socks up if they were to survive, and survive well they did — despite being close to the poverty line if one measure success in drooling dollars. Those who did not like the regime “escaped”, and more often than not they were the ones who had been affected (infected?) by drooling greed and Hollywoodian illusions.

Hippies in the 60s had a vague sense of structuralism in their communes, with a penchant for anarchy — with a bit of free-sex thrown in — so that every one would participate in the easy growing of a good weed. It was back to the bare bottom basics, as long as breathing the air remained free. 

Socialism thus is a form of Structuralism, in which there is room for individual to personally enjoy the product of their labor, while being taken care of by the state if they flounder… Major enterprises remain in the hand of the state, such as communications, energy supplies and health… and if developed smartly without departing from a sense of community, this system can fulfil greater needs with a more direct effort, reducing the need for payola hungry ”middle-men”. 

In this system too, entertainment can reach a high degree of sophisticated simplicity in which the cult of stars and heroes is minimal — although some would argue that Castro cultivated his status as such, but I would counter-argue and would propose that the imposition of his persona on the Cuban public was not for personal profit but for the benefit of the group. One of the “disadvantage of structuralism” is that it’s difficult to amass a big loot of some kind without being looked upon by the neighbors and thrown in to the lions of the system that require a reasonably equitable sharing of the common pie. Thus greed is minimized… Some would argue by minimizing greed one destroys incentives and invention, but this like a lot of things here is debatable.

Back to Wikipedia

Structuralism appeared in academic psychology for the first time in the 19th century and then reappeared in the second half of the 20th century, when it grew to become one of the most popular approaches in the academic fields that are concerned with analyzing language, culture, and society. The work of Ferdinand de Saussure concerning linguistics is generally considered to be a starting point of the 20th century structuralism. The term of "structuralism" itself appeared in relation to French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss' works, and gave rise, in France, to the "structuralist movement," which gathered thinkers such as psychoanalyst Lacan, Foucault or Althusser and Poulantzas' structural Marxism. One should note that almost all members of this so-called movement denied that they were part of it. Post-structuralism attempted to distinguish itself from the use of the structural method. It is also worth noting that it has been influential in some part of social sciences particularly in the field of sociology while in the field of economics it is barely mentioned.

Structuralism rejected the concept of human freedom and choice and focused instead on the way that human behavior is determined by various structures. 

LEVI STRAUSS (from wikipedia…)
For Lévi Strauss, the choice was for the demands of the social order. He had no difficulty bringing out the inconsistencies and triviality of individualistic accounts. Malinowski said, for example, that magic beliefs come into being when people need to feel a sense of control over events where the outcome was uncertain. In the Trobriand Islands, he found the proof of this claim in the rites surrounding abortions and weaving skirts. But in the same tribes, there is no magic attached to making clay pots even though it is no more certain a business than weaving. So the explanation is not consistent. Furthermore, these explanations tend to be used in an ad hoc, superficial way – you just postulate a trait of personality when you need it.

But the accepted way of discussing organisational function didn't work either. Different societies might have institutions that were similar in many obvious ways and yet served different functions. Many tribal cultures divide the tribe into two groups and have elaborate rules about how the two groups can interact. But exactly what they can do – trade, intermarry – is different in different tribes; for that matter, so are the criteria for distinguishing the groups.
Nor will it do to say that dividing-in-two is a universal need of organisations, because there are a lot of tribes that thrive without it.

More bits from the Liberalist (Mises Institute, Lew Rockwell et al)
There are psychiatrists who call the Germans who espoused the principles of Nazism lunatics and want to cure them by therapeutic procedures. Here again we are faced with the same problem. The doctrines of Nazism are vicious, but they do not essentially disagree with the ideologies of socialism and nationalism as approved by other peoples' public opinion. What characterized the Nazis was only the consistent application of these ideologies to the special conditions of Germany. Like all other contemporary nations the Nazis desired government control of business and economic self-sufficiency, i.e., autarky, for their own nation. The distinctive mark of their policy was that they refused to acquiesce in the disadvantages which the acceptance of the same system by other nations would impose upon them. They were not prepared to be forever "imprisoned," as they said, within a comparatively overpopulated area in which physical conditions render the productivity of human effort lower than in other countries. They believed that their nation's great population figures, the strategically propitious geographic situation of their country, and the inborn vigor and gallantry of their armed forces provided them with a good chance to remedy by aggression the evils they deplored.

Now, whoever accepts the ideology of nationalism and socialism as true and as the standard of his own nation's policy, is not in a position to refute the conclusions drawn from them by the Nazis. The only way for a refutation of Nazism left for foreign nations which have espoused these two principles was to defeat the Nazis in war. And as long as the ideology of socialism and nationalism is supreme in the world's public opinion, the Germans or other peoples will try again to succeed by aggression and conquest, should the opportunity ever be offered to them. There is no hope of eradication the aggression mentality if one does not explode entirely the ideological fallacies from which it stems. This is not a task for psychiatrists, but for economists.

Man has only one tool to fight error: reason.
-----------------

Gus has a good laugh here… Reason? Reason? Not so for the Neoconservatives… No, the major neoconservative tool is spruiking to sell the error (or the whatever) as a plus! Never admit there's a mistake in the pipeline...

NEOCONSERVATISM
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neoconservatism is a political current and ideology, mainly in the United States, which emerged in the 1960s, coalesced in the 1970s, and has had a significant presence in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. It is today most closely identified with a set of foreign policy positions and goals: a hawkish stance during the Cold War and, more recently, in various conflicts in the Middle East. At times there have been distinct neoconservative positions in domestic policies; in particular, the first generation of neoconservatives were generally less opposed to "big government" and to social spending than other U.S. conservatives of the time, though they also called for significant restructuring of the goals and methods of many social programs. Blah blah blah…

----------------
NEOCONSERVATISM explained by Gus Leonisky

Neoconservatism is an extension of the rule of kings and queens, in which there are subjects and nobility geared to serve at various level of duty, a system itself being an extension of the core belief sprayed onto the masses of the gullible and the weak, since the origin of time — well ingrained in the old Jewish spruiked mantra, that “one is from the “chosen” people…” 

Yes Neoconservatism relies on the good old “god-anointed person to rule”. Of course this is the biggest porkie of them all, but it works superbly because if you can reach the top of this woodpile with such a huge porkie, you deserve to be king anyhow. 

Neoconservatism thus relies on a fine construct of elegant lies and gives itself the right to intervene into other peoples business, especially other country’s affairs, all for the benefit and profit to itself. Now, in a "democracy" one has to realize that the grand ruler is not a dynasty of people but the dynasty of the greater ruler of them all… money — and not just plain old scrooge’s gold coins, but the ascending dynasty of the almighty Dollar.

I know some people will argue here that we really live in a democracy, so how can we be “ruled” in such way when we can elect… blah, blah, blah… You know the answer to this one: no matter who you vote, the system has to continue to grow and grow, no matter how one desires it to stop or change. Only very few twiddles are allowed. The reconstruction from this kingdom’s collapse would be horrendous, although, in my book, necessary if we wish to survive our melting planet. My opinion for what it's worth...

Yes… thus King-Dollar has its grand masters and grand priests, who maintain its kingdom rule, themselves massively benefiting from the general crumbs. Some would call this: “Capitalism” but in my book here, Capitalism is only the process that maintains the Kingdom of the Mighty Dollar… Neoconservatism is the philosophy that underpins the process. 

Yes I know some will say but how come, since Neoconservatism was only devised in the 1960s? 

I will argue the US has been in a state of Neoconservatism since the US’s inception, although most Americans may not acknowledge this fact, because of some variants and errants along the way. But when the first dollar was minted, decorated with its truncated pyramid and the eye set in the triangle of glory, it was not done for fun or artistic desire. It was a deliberately chosen symbol to illustrate a new order of things… in which this new money was going to be king — at any cost. 

New forms of lying were devised.

Yes the beauty is that this Neoconic system taps deeply into our own personal ability to fudge, porkie, lie to our selves, and find at which point principles can be bought out (since everything has a price). The smartest fudgers take the large slice of the cake, — the role of the Dollar Keepers — as long as one is not thrown in prison for being found out fudging. It’s a game of hide and seek for the participants, in which everyone knows something’s crook about someone else but no-one can say anything unless being exposed in turn for thy own crookery…

Thus starts the greatest poker game of all in which Democrats, Republicans and the Corporate powerful can only play, while the general public buys them the little chips to put on the table. Small change really, but the system holds up because no-one can sneeze without creating a small upset, and the original foundations, based in the belief of the Dollar’s powers to rule, cannot be shaken easily. 

Of course from time to time some sacrifice will be performed to the altar of truth to maintain the illusion in the eye of the comfortable masses… Overall the system provides extraordinary well to its people so why should we question its structures? 

For good measure, “moral” questions such as refusing gay marriage and stem cell research are thrown in to give credibility to this totally immoral system… This is why in the USA, the theory of evolution is struggling to take proper roots, as the “praise-the-lord” masses are constantly massaged through well tuned moral gobbledegook ritual analysis of the good book which translate roughly, “give me your souls and your moneys, and you will be saved from eternal hell…” Thus the con of the neocons goes back to Moses and his tablets… "We cannot be monkeys since we are the children of god" but we can be fooled... And Mel Gibson could be right with history to a point where he loses it with his own beliefs… 

By adaptation from the Byzantine theory, for a king to stay in power, he needs at least 67 percent of his subjects to support him. Any less and his kingdom becomes unstable through plots designed to overthrow him, plots that cannot be successfully found out, or wars in which not enough of his fodder wishes to participate in. 

In a true democracy, one needs only 50 per cent of the votes plus one vote to be the ruler of the mob. End of story. 

For Neoconservatism to work, and boy does it works well, one needs only a small troop of well-briefed officers ready to spread the word that : “no worries, why don’t you enjoy the comforts we provide while we take care of your security…” and maintain a neat “structure of lies that often self-fulfil like prophecies to prove the point. Even if there are cock-ups, the train cannot be derailed. More lies, more porkies can be manufactured, including the “proofs” needed, to protect the lies, in a thin coat of truth.

This Neoconic embedded capitalist system works beautifully as the price of fish does not really matter as long as someone is prepared to buy the fish (including petrol and its myths) — and as long as It becomes harder for participants to challenge the system — as comfort sets in at the same time as debt. Thus the majority of us are caught in a well crafted web from the masters of credit, in which we are free to live or die… Some of us are free of this shackle but it is very tempting to participate in the suckling of the rest, while very few can claim true freedom of spirit. 

Back to Wikipedia

The prefix neo- refers to two ways in which neoconservatism was new: many of the movement's founders, originally liberals, Democrats or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism; neoconservatism was also a comparatively recent strain of conservative thought, which derived from a variety of intellectual roots in the decades following World War II. While some (such as Irving Kristol) have described themselves as "neoconservatives", the term is used today more by opponents and critics of this political current than by its adherents, some of whom reject even the claim that neoconservatism is an identifiable current of American political thought.

Within American conservatism, the foreign policy of neoconservatism is particularly contrasted to isolationism, especially as found in paleoconservatism. While the neoconservatives share some of the Christian right critique of a purely secular society, this is not as central to their politics as it is for the Christian right, nor are the neoconservative prescriptions always the same as those of the Christian right.

Neoconservatism is associated with periodicals such as Commentary and The Weekly Standard and some of the foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Neoconservative journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and politicians, often dubbed "neocons" by supporters and critics alike, have been credited with (or blamed for) their influence on U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administrations of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) and George W. Bush (2001-present).

Neoconservative: Definition and views
Usage and general views
The meaning of the term has evolved over time. James Bryce offered it as a neologism in his Modern Democracies (1921). In "The Future of Democratic Values" in Partisan Review, July-August 1943, Dwight MacDonald complained of "the neo-conservatives of our time [who] reject the propositions on materialism, Human Nature, and Progress." He cited as an example Jacques Barzun, who was "attempting to combine progressive values and conservative concepts." The term was prominently used circa 1970 by socialist author and activist Michael Harrington in a manner similar to MacDonald's meaning, that is, to characterize former leftists who had moved significantly to the right – people he derided as "socialists for Nixon." The "neoconservatives" thus described in this original sense tended to remain supporters of the welfare state, but had distinguished themselves from others on the left by allying with the Nixon administration over foreign policy, especially in their anti-communism, their support for the Vietnam War, and strident opposition to the
Soviet Union. This support for the welfare state is not implied by the contemporary use of the term. Critics suggest support for an aggressive worldwide foreign policy, especially one supportive of unilateralism and less concerned with international consensus through organizations such as the United Nations. However, neoconservatives describe their shared view as a belief that national security is best attained by promoting freedom and democracy abroad through the support of pro-democracy movements, foreign aid and in certain cases military intervention. 

This is a departure from the classic conservative tendency to support friendly regimes in matters of trade and anti-communism even at the expense of undermining existing democratic systems. Author Paul Berman in his book Terror and Liberalism describes it as, "Freedom for others means safety for ourselves. Let us be for freedom for others." 

In academia, the term "neoconservative" refers more to journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and institutions affiliated with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and with Commentary and The Weekly Standard than to more traditional conservative policy think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation or periodicals such as Policy Review or National Review.

According to Irving Kristol, former managing editor of Commentary and now a Senior Fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington and the publisher of the hawkish magazine The National Interest, a neoconservative is a "liberal mugged by reality," meaning someone who has become more conservative after seeing the practical impact of liberal foreign and domestic policies.

Some critics argue that the intellectual antecedents of neoconservativism can be traced back to the work of the political philosopher Leo Strauss. Although Strauss rarely stated positions on foreign policy issues, according to some Strauss has influenced the foreign policy of Neo-Conservative governments, most notably the attitude that such governments have taken towards international law in situations where terrorism is alleged.

Strauss on politics
According to Strauss, modern Social Science [probably the study of Structuralism] was flawed. It claimed the ground by which truth could be discovered on an unexamined acceptance of the fact-value distinction. Strauss doubted the fact-value distinction was a fundamental category of the mind and studied the evolution of the concept from its roots in Enlightenment philosophy to Max Weber, a thinker Strauss credited with a “serious and noble mind”. Weber wanted to separate values from science, but according to Strauss was really a derivative thinker, deeply influenced by Nietzsche’s relativism. Therefore, Strauss treated politics not as something that could be studied from afar. A political scientist examining politics with a value-free scientific eye, for Strauss, was impossible, not just a tragic self-delusion. Positivism, the heir to the traditions of both Auguste Comte and Max Weber, in making purportedly value-free judgments, failed the ultimate test of justifying its own existence, which would require a value-judgment.

While modern liberalism had stressed the pursuit of individual liberty as its highest goal, Strauss felt that there should be a greater interest in the problem of human excellence and political virtue. Through his writings, Strauss constantly raised the question of how, and to what extent, freedom and excellence can coexist. Without deciding this issue, Strauss refused to make do with any simplistic or one-sided resolutions of the Socratic question: What is the good for the city and man?

Liberalism and nihilism
Strauss taught that liberalism, strictly speaking, contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards relativism, which in turn led to two types of nihilism. The first was a “brutal” nihilism, expressed in Nazi and Marxist regimes. These ideologies, both descendents of Enlightenment thought, tried to destroy all traditions, history, ethics and moral standards and replace it by force with a supreme authority from which nature and mankind are subjugated and conquered. The second type- the ‘gentle’ nihilism expressed in Western liberal democracies- was a kind of value-free aimlessness and hedonism, which he saw permeating the fabric of contemporary American society. In the belief that 20th century relativism, scientism, historicism, and nihilism were all implicated in the deterioration of modern society and philosophy,

Strauss sought to uncover the philosophical pathways that had led to this state. The resultant study lead him to revive classical political philosophy as a source by which political action could be judged.

Noble lies and deadly truths
Strauss noted that thinkers of the first rank, going back to Plato, had raised the problem of whether good and effective politicians could be completely truthful and still achieve the necessary ends of their society. By implication, Strauss asks his readers to consider whether
"noble lies" have any role at all to play in uniting and guiding the polis. Are "myths" needed to give people meaning and purpose and to ensure a stable society? Or can men and women dedicated to relentlessly examining, in Nietzsche's language, those "deadly truths", flourish freely? Thus, is there a limit to the political, and what can be known absolutely? In The City and Man, Strauss discusses the myths outlined in Plato's Republic that are required for all governments. These include a belief that the state's land belongs to it even though it was likely acquired illegitimately, and that citizenship is rooted in something more than the accidents of birth.

According to Strauss, Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies had mistaken the city-in-speech described in Plato's Republic for a blueprint for regime reform--which it was not. Strauss quotes Cicero, "The Republic does not bring to light the best possible regime but rather the nature of political things- the nature of the city." (History of Political Philosophy, p.68). Strauss himself argued in many publications that the city-in-speech was unnatural, precisely because "it is rendered possible by the abstraction from eros (Strauss' italics). (HPP, p.60). The city-in-speech abstracted from eros, or bodily needs, thus it could never guide politics in the manner Popper claimed. Though very skeptical of "progress," 

Strauss was equally skeptical about political agendas of "return" (which is the term he used in contrast to progress). In fact, he was consistently suspicious of anything claiming to be a solution to an old political or philosophical problem. He spoke of the danger in trying to ever finally resolve the debate between rationalism and traditionalism in politics. In particular, along with many in the pre-World War II German Right, he feared people trying to force a "world state" to come into being in the future, thinking that it would inevitably become a tyranny.

Ancients and Moderns
Strauss constantly stressed the importance of two dichotomies in political philosophy: Athens and Jerusalem (Reason vs. Revelation) and Ancient versus Modern political philosophy. The "Ancients" were the Socratic philosophers and their intellectual heirs, and the "Moderns" start with Niccolo Machiavelli. The contrast between Ancients and Moderns was understood to be related to the public presentation of the possibly unresolvable tension between Reason and Revelation.

The Socratics, reacting to the first Greek philosophers, brought philosophy back to earth, and hence back to the marketplace, making it more political. The Moderns reacted to the dominance of revelation in medieval society by promoting the possibilities of Reason very strongly — which in turn leads to problems in modern politics and society. In particular, Thomas Hobbes, under the influence of Bacon, re-oriented political science to what was most solid, but most low in man, setting a precedent for John Locke, and the later economic approach to political thought, such as initially in David Hume, and Adam Smith.

Not unlike Winston Churchill, William Shakespeare, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Thomas Jefferson, Strauss believed that the vices of a democratic regime must be known (and not left unquestioned) so that its virtues might triumph. However, insofar as his teaching suggested that the argument for the pre-eminence of democracy is not an apodictic principle (i.e. not self evident or beyond contradiction), he has gained the reputation for being an enemy to democracy.

Strauss [Leo] in the Public View
Strauss is a controversial and much caricatured figure in some academic and journalistic circles. (M.F. Burnyeat, "Sphinx Without a Secret," New York Review of Books, May 30, 1985). This has been both for his criticisms of various modern movements and thinkers (including many conservatives), and because some of his students and proteges, such as Allan Bloom, Harry V. Jaffa, Joseph Cropsey, Paul Wolfowitz, and Harvey C. Mansfield, are themselves controversial public figures. Many of these people are now frequently referred to as Straussians.

Yet Shadia Drury of the University of Regina, author of 1999's Leo Strauss and the American Right, claims Strauss' thought itself is dangerous and anti-democratic. She writes that Strauss taught different things to different students, and inculcated an elitist strain in American political leaders which is linked to imperialist militarism and Christian fundamentalism. Drury believes that Strauss taught some of his students to believe "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. ..

The Weimar Republic was his model of liberal democracy for which he had huge contempt." Drury adds, "Liberalism in Weimar, in Strauss's view, led ultimately to the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews." Another well known critic of Strauss is Anne Norton, although she is primarily an antagonist of Straussians rather than Strauss himself.

Paul Wolfowitz was a student of Strauss; Wolfowitz attended two courses which Strauss taught on Plato and Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws. Indeed, James Mann claims that Wolfowitz chose that University because Strauss taught there and believed him to be "a unique figure, an irreplaceable asset," recommended to him by teacher Allan Bloom who taught at Cornell when Wolfowitz was an undergraduate there. Wolfowitz himself has claimed to be more of a student of Albert Wohlstetter.
------------------
Back to Gus, here...

THE JEWRY
When actor Mel Gibson had a volley of insults referring to Jews, to a cop while being arrested for driving while being drunk, he may have been expressing a dizzy frustration that we, gentiles and honest Jews alike, feel at a Jewish “superiority”… Since time back to the dawn of civilization, the Jews have declared themselves the “chosen” people, The "Children of God"...

------------------------------

THE JEWRY
When actor Mel Gibson allegedly sprouted an insult referring to Jews, to a cop, while being arrested for driving while being drunk, he may have expressed “in vino veritas” a dizzy fluff that we, honest gentiles and Jews alike, feel at odd with, when we contemplate the Jewish “superiority” and its full momentum. Though this feeling of "being-the-one" may have been transferred on to him, via his own religious belief under the headline: the only “truth”… his outburst may have been directed at this extraordinary school — well entrenched now in all prominent political circles, driving the USA, the UK to a great extend, profoundly in Australia by alliance — that uses the Jewish Straussian model of neo-conservatism rule, by association or by desires…
Since time going back to the dawn of civilization, Jews have declared themselves the “chosen” people, The Children of God. Although they claim it was God himself who chose them. Why? Who know? It does not make particular sense but it gives us a great reason to exist.

In order not to be left behind, the Christians have also adopted the same label with value-added tourism concept to go and spread the good news to the rest of the world, spreading like manure on a vegie patch of the vegan people. And the Muslims jumped a bit later on the same treadmill. Whatever suits anyone, says Gus… but could “being the chosen people” be the secret mother of all porkies, especially those of the Neoconservative system? A porkie that is underpinning the values of our activities, of our various associations and of our little wars even those before the crusades: Yes, we can be (and are) better than our competitors.

It would be foolish to start Israel history when it was reborn in 1947 with the 1920s’ Zionist movement successful landing, helped by an international community secret desire to elegantly rid themselves of the Jewry (as we know this has been replaced with a reverse effect: the Muslim infiltration of the western world). The layers of time go back to Abraham from whom the three religions of Middle East sprung and are still weirdly “fighting” each other today in many complex and fluxing alliances. All wars of course waged in the name of freedom and justice, but truly in the name of greed: Freedom of Greed, as long as it is Jewish, or that the Jewish gate-keeper takes its cut.

If one looks at a modern map of Israel drawn by Israelis who believe in their rights to exist where they are, one could be amazed but there is no argument: the Palestine, including the Gaza strip, the Sheeba farms and the Golan Heights are firmly included in the state defended borders…
That a concrete wall is being built here and there, that the Gaza strip is “given” back to the Palestinians are mere setbacks in the long history of up and coming Zion. A bit like pulling back to run faster and jump higher so to speak, when the wind is right.
One can see the Palestinians are between a rock and a hard place. The Palestinians could either stop harassing Israel and become, as slowly as the long hour-glass of the days of our lives can take, eventually absorbed by greater Israel since on the maps they already are or they keep on a few extremist attacks that give their frustrations a bit of release. These sand-flies attacks of course are secretly back-fermented by Israel to give itself the high moral ground of retaliation and the “right to defend itself” slowly diminishing the population of Palestinians to a rate of ten to one… Either way the Palestinians are shafted... And in the Arab world Palestinians have very few friends — since the greater stock of greed, Oil, could be upset, thus stop filling the Ali-Baba mega-treasurous caves of little despots.
The march of greater Israel is on, slowly, one little step at a time… Unfortunately, the Sinai had to be given back and the recent spat with Lebanon — that has exposed a small chink in Israel armor — are but broken gossamer threads in the winds of Jewish history… Big threads mind you if you count the money and prestige, but the webs are still being silk-woven in the back rooms by a million newborn spiders.
In these slow and carefully crafted conquests made walking on eggshells with 500 pounds bombs, alliances are made. The Christians and the Jews (the US and Israel), The Christians and the Muslims (the US and the House of Saud) and the Jews and the Muslims (Israel and Turkey). And the Europe also threads some iffy alliances with all to maintain supplies of the good oil… The use of Fundamentalism on all sides provides the fodder necessary to wage wars... Imagine half-hearted soldiers non-committed to perform! They would not die for a flimflam, would they?
Many of these alliances are designed to weaken the Saracens so they never unite again, letting Zion rule on its former empire once again. The empire of course is only that — an empirical and false memory written in the great book of illusions, in which defeats are turned into sins and victories into god’s work. These illusions carefully tendered growing through history to culminate into the superman syndrome that drive big brother, the USA, who can see the great grab at the end of it all. Little things that happen by “accident of the imagination” are rounded up and corralled into masterful purposes. Zarathustra becomes Superman, but to make it palatable and plausible to the masses of poor morons, the fight is disguised as protecting justice and the underdogs, while it is fought for the smart rulers to rule over a greater growing empire… 

Of course the sins of the Luthors of this world have to be demonized, evil-ized so that we have no qualms in defending our patch by waging wars in advance. But the real Luthors and the real Supermen are never black and white — as in the comic books or the legends of history… They bleed of the same blood and dream of the same peace… and may be of their own little patch. 

It was a strange caravan that saw many Arabic chiefs go to the UN and beg Washington to help stop the war Israel was wagging in Lebanon recently (July-August 2006)… The overt alliance between Bush-the-Idiot and Israel-the-warrior was no tom-foolery. Most of these Saracen chiefs rule like dictator, some worse than Saddam, over their Kingdom of oils and they feared their subjects would start waking up to the drum of their brothers in distress, revolting within, to go and fight against Zion, demolishing the carefully constructed alliances and creating unrest in their own Saracen states… These chiefs deal with their own complex problems, their own divisions between Sunnis and Shia, all praying to the same god via different prophets, but, good bless ’em they amass the greatest of all fortunes that even the richest man cannot dream of… Of course, the chiefs have a weapon in their own lies about their buried resources, the proportional output and the tightening of it that can make a president listen (it did work in the early 1970s).

For us, the ordinary folks that toil our virtues daily, all these greater machinations are above our heads. As long as our comforts and securities are maintained, improved, and that we can drive from A to B, from pump to pump, we do not realize we are the pawns of the greater game — the deadly game in which we kill or die for illusions that our masters implant in our brains. We are distracted by singular purposes — the tits and bums of dolly idols — while the march of history passes us by. 

Some fools would like us to believe that the end of the world is nigh… But this deceit suits the greater original porkies of all sins to enforce our fears into tightarse-ing spasms. The spruiks are getting louder and louder, the lies are inflating beyond belief! Will the bubble explode? The theme of Armageddon is implanted in each of us, as our individual lives are finite. The priests of civilization momentum know that and all they have to do is press that button and we bend at the knees to protect the continuum… 

All it takes to push for subtle greater conquest, at this moment of history is a bumbling idiot or an extremely clever man to be in charge of the western civilization… I would suggest we have both. Our front man is out of his depth, brain dead, unable to know a cow from a horse, with flashes of surprising self-deprecating humor… But our Bushie is only the dummy of a puppet master whose dream of history is passed-on from secret Doodah to secret Doodah, using the Jewish grail to transmit their Luthorish ways… A unified peaceful world that they own and control… Leo Strauss was one of their prophets…

A Jew I may be or not, a visionary I hope I am not… I hope I have the wrong visions here… trying to mono-phase the future… It is a difficult task that even historians don’t agree upon. History has many connecting hidden strands, like the strings of a complex puppet the face of which distorts like a soap bubble. The flow and ebb of historic machinations can wait another day… The sun is coming up. China, Europe and Russia are also waking up on the same planet. Some slowly, and there are a few minnows trying to also quack… The US Empire is slowing Europe by not releasing its strange hate-love grip on the UK, and relentlessly trying to break the bond between the French and the Germans. Eventually Albion may be cast adrift by Europe, and the English Sausage can become as full of fat as before… The US has favored China to avoid the greater yellow peril spill but in the process abandoned Mexico. Now the Latin America is awakening to its oil power, making new alliance with Russia and Iran… 

Cuba, by default may have been the only non-greedy place on earth… watch for the swarms of stinging bees flying there, to pinch the sugar of its sweet flowers to turn it into honey-greedy-pot…

Back to the great Neo-con.
By now, one has to realize that Neo-conservatism is a form of greater “structuralism” with porkie-added value to give it that important flexibility that lacks in any system where “equality” rules solid with a stick (whether it does or not, in reality). This noble lie loosen the adherence to the now elastic principles of the system (whatever the system), via a couple of simple devices that encourages the bum rush — competition (greed) and spruiking (all the form of media including advertising and propaganda), the latter used in the case of Neo-conservatism like a carrot to a donkey — to crown the Dollar-King and create a world of scrambling scrooges. But these are only mechanics… The surfaces of the true ideals are kept to a minimum, because the heart of the greater con cannot be spruiked…

For the lowly priests of this adapted “structure”, everything has a price, including principles. Very early on, many people, especially those with no conscience saw great opportunities to make loads of cash, as the system “created itself” with a bit of push and shove from below, exhumed from the long-tried bases of grab-all kings who had the bigger stick, until finally formulated, — but well implemented by then under the guise of a democratic system — by Leo Strauss. Like in most kingdoms, deceitful psychopath can go to the top, but not exclusively.

For the individual person, money-grab becomes the key motivation for anything that is performed, not the benefit of the group — although this can, and often does or should, come as an extra benefit. The beauty here is that everyone can play positive reinforcement than one is “better” than everyone else. The cultivation of hero and role models, like in antiquity, becomes essential but with complex categories, entities from Superman to pop stars being used daily in the sauce of real news (tailored spruik) to keep the masses amused and dazzled.
Hey? Who in their right mind are going to question the system that provides us with our wants and needs, while political democratic meetings can be so boring compared to an easy night on the tele, where the amusing fodder is already pre-munched for our lazy and tired bones… Isn’t it why so-called junk food is so popular too?… Are we Masochists?

Only a few of us can win the true favors of the illusionary dollar-king, while the rest of the ordinary fodder-making slaves burn their guts out at various level on a strong pyramid of growing greed (including people outside the system, whose lands and resources are appropriated by various subterfuges, for basic energy) hoping that one day they will become top dog… and pigs might fly…
Truth, of course, takes a massive battering in the various increments at which people can be enticed to partake of their money to fuel the higher echelons. Spruiking is the essential ingredient to trample the opposition — and war becomes validated by the system’s needs and is used on many occasions. Nothing new here since Plato’s times nor since Bertold Brecht exposed this nature of business in wars with his play “Mother Courage and her Children”, but the scale at which the Neoconservatives use the spruik to control people, like ditty birds following the flock leader or a herd of lemmings, is mind-bogglingly enormous and fantastically growing.
Media proprietors have an exclusive role to play, maintaining the illusions of worship of stars, spreading the government porkies with variants of truths, and cashing in one of the spruiking tools —advertising. Not all advertising is misleading but most use the power of the illusion to induce desire.
Spruiking is also the sweet process of inflating/disclosing/setting the value of whatever, using various techniques from advertising, propaganda and even “poker-face” playing in certain situations. Yes, better than a priest sermon that transforms our cosmic angst into beliefs and fear of god, spruiking modifies, and even creates, nothing into wants then into needs. This fantastic tool, applied to the desire (and the created need) to rule over a greater kingdom base, to increase the value of the top of the pyramid, leads to the justification for pre-emptive wars. The more we have, the more we “need” to protect, the greater the lies. And all’s well in the best of the growing worlds. Inflation and recessions become little levers to keep the money moving, because without movement of money, there is no profit to be made. The structure would collapse...
The “noble lies” are used to create the illusions necessary both to control the masses within the neoconservative system and bash those outside of it.
The pure magic here is beautifully maintained by throwing in some truths and some reality amongst the lies, so it becomes difficult to know if we have a half-truth or a half-porkie or a fully baked con-artistry. We are far from the notions of Existentialism, in which one accepts or rejects one’s own reality. We are far from compassion, as we divide our takings to give crumbs to charity in an effort that gives us the glow that maintains the porkies. We are told that the government is doing fine with a small surplus of cash while the rest of us is hammered with personal debts that could run a small country. This to make sure we can never be truly free. Neo Conservatism hates pure freedom.

Every bit of information is loaded with a purpose to suit the master viewpoint, but not to explore the ultimate truth or its construct. Thus the Minotaurs and the half-goat-half-people truly exist as, even if some of us cannot believe in these, enough of our population fall into the traps, the webs and sticky lines of deceit, listening to an ever-increasing amount of porkies, coming to you via all sorts of media.

This concept “that everything has a price, including principles” let the USA to become the major home for bounty hunters who traipsed the landscape for reward — not principle, nor justice. You scumbags… And nothing much has changed. The price placed on the head of some of “terrorists” have been so huge, (in millions of dollars), that someone’s high Muslim principles somewhere are bound to crack to the shimmering lure and become a traitor to his boss...
The wandering Jews have been a bit like bounty hunter… traipsing the land for rewards —the holy grail of Jewishdom, the chalice of the savior that never comes, the promised land that is now implanted in realdom Palestine…
Yes, many great thinkers and many artists, analysts of where we are and where we want to go — politically, scientifically and stylistically — have been great Jewish minds or fascinated by the Jewry. Einstein, the two Strauss, and many more have proven solid in structuring the modern western world.

History is full of fantasies that are written on stones, in books and revered in relicts for the only purpose of spreading an idea, right or wrong, beyond the present relationships. The facts of history are muddled with interpretations that could shame Hans Christian Handersen for being too literal to the truth.
There, in the back room of a tailor shop in Pittsburgh or Chicago may be, the Grand Doodah of Doodahs presses the buttons of subterranean history… and more porkies surface somewhere in the world:

From another report:
""""Kosovo has been cited publicly by Israeli officials and journalists since the war began. On August 6th, Prime Minister Olmert, responding to European condemnation of the deaths of Lebanese civilians, said, “Where do they get the right to preach to Israel? European countries attacked Kosovo and killed ten thousand civilians. Ten thousand! And none of these countries had to suffer before that from a single rocket. I’m not saying it was wrong to intervene in Kosovo. But please: don’t preach to us about the treatment of civilians.” (Human Rights Watch estimated the number of civilians killed in the NATO bombing to be five hundred; the Yugoslav government put the number between twelve hundred and five thousand.)
The Pentagon consultant told me [not Gus] that intelligence about Hezbollah and Iran is being mishandled by the White House the same way intelligence had been when, in 2002 and early 2003, the Administration was making the case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. “The big complaint now in the intelligence community is that all of the important stuff is being sent directly to the top—at the insistence of the White House—and not being analyzed at all, or scarcely,” he said. “It’s an awful policy and violates all of the N.S.A.’s strictures, and if you complain about it you’re out,” he said. “Cheney had a strong hand in this.”
The long-term Administration goal was to help set up a Sunni Arab coalition — including countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt — that would join the United States and Europe to pressure the ruling Shiite mullahs in Iran. “But the thought behind that plan was that Israel would defeat Hezbollah, not lose to it,” the consultant with close ties to Israel said. Some officials in Cheney’s office and at the N.S.C. had become convinced, on the basis of private talks, that those nations would moderate their public criticism of Israel and blame Hezbollah for creating the crisis that led to war. Although they did so at first, they shifted their position in the wake of public protests in their countries about the Israeli bombing. The White House was clearly disappointed when, late last month, Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, came to Washington and, at a meeting with Bush, called for the President to intervene immediately to end the war. The Washington Post reported that Washington had hoped to enlist moderate Arab states “in an effort to pressure Syria and Iran to rein in Hezbollah, but the Saudi move . . . seemed to cloud that initiative.”
-------------------------------
Yep… Even intelligence gathering has been supercharged with porkies

So, back to the beginnings. Since its fiery origins, the Earth has experienced many Aeons, Periods and Ages such as that of Fishes and that of the Dinosaur... Now, we are advised we live in “the Age of Information”... In fact, we have been marooned in The Age of Deceit for yonks. Corruption and deception are part of nature... but as clever humans, we’ve made a full-blown art form of it… Even our rulers may have lost the thread of purpose, a bit like a cat catching a mouse without the hunger-driven instinct, since it was fed with processed crunchy ersatz that same morning. Just tricked by a vicarious pleasure to do it. But I believe somewhere someone has the key to the ultimate secrets. Relative secrets sure, but secrets do not exist if everyone knows them...

So we’ve been tricked by spider-webs that are so hard to see, our face gets full of sticky stuff when we walk through our garden. It’s a deceptive deadly insect-capture apparatus, part of the survival of the spider. We have expanded on the tricks of nature beyond our own knowledge using unbound imagination… We imagine little vibrating gossamers to explain the world and its possible multi-world of pulsating membranes… All this to conquer uncertainty… while time does not really exist.

Yes, corruption happens in nature at the core of life blocks —even in the smallest of energy blocks that are elusive. 

So-called genetic engineering is gene corruption. Cloning on the other hand goes against the natural survival necessity of incremental uncertain variety.
Well entrenched in nature, corruption and deception are thus also part of human relationship. We have devised inter-systems to control, managed and encoded corruption and deception, since too much is harmful to our comforts. Nowadays, corruption and deception have become very sophisticated — hidden in their role of axle grease that helps the modern human world spin faster and faster. Spruik, man… spruik… But do not bring in morality and religion into it... please.

Yes, we are fodder as we get dazzled by the sparkling illusion of a magic trick and admire the skill, rather than try to understand the reality, hidden in front of our nose... actually inside of our selves.

The following chapters in this book, "The Age Of Deceit", explores the processes, the reasons, the excuses and the accepted forms of deception and corruption, at all levels — including governments that use spin, decrees, secrets and straight lies to win our trust and beliefs in more cases, detailed as much as possible... and may be with porkies included...

As Murray Bookchin said:

"This challenges the traditional image of evolution, of life pitted against the inorganic world, of society pitted against the natural world, including life itself. It's obvious that we can no longer go back to this very simplistic Darwinian notion of life as a struggle for existence in which there are inorganic or otherwise hostile forces that select the 'fittest.' Fit to what? We are not fit to live in the original atmosphere of this planet, which was anaerobic [devoid of oxygen]. All of these things lead to a very important ethical conclusion that symbiosis, not competition, seems to be the main driving force in evolution."
Gus would suggest a bit of both, more peaceful symbiosis, with much less murders included in the competitive element. While our desires and successes become more and more stylistic — as we peel away from survival — the more sympathetic symbiosis and understanding are needed in our invention.

Neo-con artistry in its association with capitalism is perverse and hypocritical and less of a civilizing factor than woven grass-skirts in the most of primitive society… it’s a return to dog eat dog, so dangerous. Unless… Is this a necessarily development due to the size of our cultural burden that we seem to be entering a chaotic phase of deconstructionism? The greatest tool of human is not the stick nor the wheel, but our imagination. Like most invention have a dark side when placed in our hands, the dark side of imagination is the porkie. We excel at it... and cartooning is the porkie closest to the truth.

The questions now are: Can we do better than that? Should we do better than that? How long have we got before we need to do something different.
Our little planet might let us know sooner that we may care.
Thus ends the far too long introduction to “The Age of Deceit” by Gus Leonisky

WRITTEN AND SIGNED OFF BY GUS LEONIKSY AT 21 AUGUST 2006.... How time flies....

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.......

For younger people, it’s hard to understand that the same nuclear Armageddon scenario their grandparents used to worry about is still here.  

By Caitlin Johnstone
CaitlinJohnstone.com

A John Mearsheimer video clip from 2016 is going viral on Twitter right now, as old John Mearsheimer clips tend to do in the year 2022 when his predictions that Western actions would lead to the destruction of Ukraine are coming horrifyingly true.

In response to a question about what the worst U.S. foreign policy disaster has been, Mearsheimer agreed with a fellow panelist that at that moment Iraq looked like the worst, but said he believed U.S. policy on Ukraine would prove much worse in coming years. He spoke of the fact that Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons, and that it’s entirely possible those weapons will be used if Russia feels threatened.

“Because the Cold War is in the distant past, most people, especially younger people, haven’t thought a lot about nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence, and they tend to be quite cavalier in their comments about nuclear weapons, and this makes me very nervous,” Mearsheimer said.

It makes me nervous too. Especially when we’ve got a steadily escalating proxy war which the standoff in Lithuania could easily see spin out into a direct hot war between Russia and NATO powers, and when we hear the U.K.’s top army general telling troops to prepare for World War Three.

Most of what I see in public discourse about escalating aggressions between the U.S. power alliance and Russia reflects the cavalier attitude Mearsheimer spoke of in 2016, as do my own interactions with people online. Most of what I’m seeing in the behavior of NATO powers indicates this cavalier attitude about nuclear weapons as well. People, from the rank-and-file public to the upper echelons of empire management, don’t seem to be thinking very hard about what nuclear war is and what it would mean.

As Mearsheimer said, this does seem to be because we’re so removed now from the days when everyone was acutely aware that the missiles could start flying at any time.

All But Forgotten 

It just doesn’t sit well with people’s understanding of the world that it could all end through the same nuclear Armageddon scenario their grandparents used to worry about. If two men were holding guns to each other’s heads it would be experienced as very dangerous at first, but after a while if nobody pulled the trigger the emotional tension would begin to diminish. If years went by and the men got older it would diminish even further. If they got so old they couldn’t hold the guns anymore and had their children take over for them, and then their children’s children years later, the emotional experience of the standoff would be all but forgotten.

But the guns never got any less deadly. The fact that a war between nuclear powers hasn’t happened yet means only that: that it hasn’t happened yet. Things that have never happened before happen all the time. There didn’t used to be nuclear weapons, now there are. Earth is currently a habitable planet, one day soon it may not be.

We came within a hair’s breadth of wiping ourselves out during the last Cold War, not just once but many times. Any amount of nuclear brinkmanship opens up the possibility of nuclear war erupting in ways that are too hard to anticipate and plan for, because there are too many small moving parts, too many ways a nuke could be detonated as a result of technical malfunction, miscommunication, miscalculation and/or misunderstanding. The further things escalate between the world’s two nuclear superpowers, the greater the likelihood of this happening.

And of course, the powerful have every reason to encourage this way of thinking to continue. If a critical mass of the population really understood that their lives are being threatened with nuclear war for no other reason than the U.S. empire’s willingness to risk everything to secure planetary hegemony, they would immediately become hard to deal with. Empire managers plan on not just engaging in nuclear brinkmanship but also making things much harder on the public financially in their long-term agendas against Russia and China, and the only way everyone plays along with this is if they are kept from understanding what’s being done to them.

This is why the media have been acting so strange in recent years. Agendas are being rolled out which no sane person would consent to if they fully understood them, so their consent needs to be manufactured with massive amounts of propaganda. It’s also why internet censorship has taken high priority during that same period of time: can’t have people using their newfound information-sharing capability to interfere in the narrative manipulations of the empire.

We’re being sedated into a propaganda-induced coma while immensely powerful people play profoundly dangerous games with our lives. It is in our interest to find a way to awaken as soon as possible.

Caitlin Johnstone is a rogue journalist, poet, and utopia prepper who publishes regularly at Medium.  Her work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking her on Facebook, following her antics on Twitter, checking out her podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following her on Steemit, throwing some money into her tip jar onPatreon or Paypal, purchasing some of her sweet merchandise, buying her books Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix, Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone andWoke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.

This article is from CaitlinJohnstone.com and re-published with permission.

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

READ MORE:

https://consortiumnews.com/2022/06/24/caitlin-johnstone-a-nuclear-state-of-denial/

READ FROM TOP.

SEE ALSO:

https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/43171

napoleon retreats….

the USA are 100 per cent responsible.....

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW........................