We call RMA----ROYAL MILITARY ASSETS
August 11 ·
Second part of the thrilling display by Top Secret Drum Corps from Basel Switzerland on opening night of The Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo 2018 at Edinburgh Castle. Mi Edinburgh Edinburgh International Festival
Revolution in Military Affairs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
The military concept of Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) is a military-theoretical hypothesis, about the future of warfare, often connected to technological and organizational recommendations for change in the militaries of the United States and other countries. Broadly stated, RMA claims that in certain periods of the history of humankind, there were new military doctrines, strategies, tactics and technologies which led to an irrevocable change in the conduct of warfare. Furthermore, those changes compel an accelerated adaptation of novel doctrines and strategies.
Especially tied to modern information technology, telecommunication, and space technology, RMA is often linked to current discussions under the label of Transformation and total systems integration in the U.S. military.
1.1 Soviet Union Views of RMA
1.2 Renewed interest
2 Areas of focus
2.1 Precision attack
4 See also
6 Further reading
7 External links
The original theorizing was done by the Soviet Armed Forces in the 1970s and 1980s, particularly by Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov. The United States initially became interested in it through Andrew Marshall, the head of the Office of Net Assessment, a Department of Defense think tank. It slowly gained credence within official military circles, and other nations began exploring similar shifts in organization and technology.
Interest in RMA and the structure of future U.S. armed forces is strong within China's People's Liberation Army and it has been incorporated into China's strategic military doctrine. Many other militaries have also researched and considered RMA as an organizational concept—e.g., those of Canada, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Singapore, Republic of China (Taiwan), India, Russia, and Germany—but not all militaries have adopted RMA, due to its significant infrastructure and investment costs.
We wanted to look in detail at THE NOISE OF TIME and what global banking 1% freemason LITERARY STAR had as a goal with his historical FICTION of Shostakovich. Lady MacBeth among other things is victim of RAPE by yet another ladder climber as in RED AND BLACK. RAPE in cultural arts often depicts what we call sacking and looting of civil societies. It also creates the pretense for civil unrest/civil war. This revival of Shostakovich and Lady Macbeth is timed with MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE global banking 1% taking our US sovereignty -----making the US a colonial entity.
Because Shostakovich is being painted by BARNES and national media as ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT fighter of STALIN-----we are to believe this is a 99% populist revolutionary production------when it is actually THE OPPOSITE. So, A ROMAN SALUTE to pre-Christian NERO/CATO/SENECA from a RUSSIAN COMPOSER having been protected by Stalin while other writers and composers disappeared. Makes one wonder who actually wrote these Shostakovich pieces.
Below we see PARIS-----but this LADY MACBETH opera is mainstream made into film, stage, opera all pretending to be POPULIST REVOLUTIONARY----
The good news---we do not see any FAT LADIES SINGING so all is not lost.
Hmmmm, global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS OXFORD
So, lots of references to WAR-----REALLY BIG WAR-------while playing lots of BIG GOD music.
Florence Pugh - IMDb
Florence Pugh, Actress: The Falling. Florence Pugh was born on January 3, 1996 in Oxford, Oxfordshire, England. She is an actress, known for The Falling (2014), Marcella (2016) and Lady Macbeth (2016)'.
Lady macbeth of mtsensk
Opera Dmitri Chostakovitch
Sales open on 06 November 2018
See performances Subscribe
Opéra Bastille - from 02 to 25 April 2019
3h25 with 1 interval
Language : Russian
Surtitle : French / English
Pre-Opening : 2 April 2019
Opening night : 6 April 2019
Under 40 ans : 16 April 2019
In few words:
Of Shostakovich’s initial undertaking – a trilogy on the tragic destinies of Russian women through the ages – only one opera was ever written: the hard-hitting Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk. Although one of the mainsprings of the work, the Shakespearean parallel is here bitterly ironic: unlike Lady Macbeth, Katerina Ismaïlova who, in the remote reaches of rural 19th century Russia, falls in love with one of her husband’s employees and is finally forced to commit suicide, is less a manipulator than a victim of a violent and patriarchal society. Krzysztof Warlikowski liberates all the subversive power of this scorching and scandalous work, which marked the early years of the Opéra Bastille.
The second part of the novel THE NOISE OF TIME as we said was one less representing TRUTH through IRONY-----and more resignation by the hero of trying to survive by labeling himself UNWORTHY. His LADY MACBETH was a MUDDLE ------a blending of Western Roman classical OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS-----with a global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS Stalinist MARXISM. A muddle is a blending/mixing......bringing the Shakespeare MACBETH to modern blending of LIBERTARIAN----extreme wealth extreme poverty as Brazil is doing with its new far-right wing global banking 1% player -----and MARXISM----Western Europe and the Americas were just sacked and looted by global banking 1% LIBERTARIANISM-----USSR represents that global banking 1% MARXISM
MUDDLING IS MIXING AND BLENDING TO CREATE THE OUTCOME ONE WANTS.
So, while calling himself WORM and UNWORTHY, Shostakovich was made prince of musicology and that global banking 1% freemason STAR.
Angelina Ballerina Classic - Midnight Muddle
WATCH A NEW ANGELINA BALLERINA VIDEO EVERY FRIDAY RIGHT HERE ON THE OFFICIAL YOUTUBE CHANNEL. For more fun with Angelina Ballerina and…
We brought LEO STRAUSS and his neo-liberal economics into a discussion of THE NOISE OF TIME Western vs Eastern Europe this past century because this political philosophy took our Western nations away from an Aristotle/Socrates model of DEMOCRATIC PUBLIC SPACE-----and embraced a PLATO wrapped more to a FEW WISE MEN know best. Today's US 99% WE THE PEOPLE have the problem of having politicians in our US government working for a foreign sovereignty of MALTA and the same global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS who do indeed think they are gods and goddesses ---you know, all that 1000BC DARK AGES. It's OK to LIE when the GODS know the TRUTH.
'Gods have full knowledge of the truth, but because mortals lack this, mortals recognize the necessary pharmaceutical and prophylactic uses of stories in the political arena to benefit the city in its life-and-death struggles: “falsehood is no use to the gods and only useful to men as a kind of medicine… it will be for the rulers of our city, then, if anyone, to use falsehood in dealing with citizen or enemy for the good of the State; no one else must do so.” Examples would include the classification of national security secrets and threat information that would unnecessarily panic the populace'.
We shared an article this week discussing this NOBLE LIE and how LEO STRAUSS and the global neo-liberal economics comes nowhere close to a PLATO NOBLE LIE-----these global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA are simply what LEO STRAUSS terms VULGAR----those 5% freemason/Greeks living for today with BLIND AMBITION.
This is how we know those dastardly global banking 5% freemason/Greek players black, white, and brown are going under the bus---those global 1% who think themselves gods-----find all that ROBBER BARON PLAYING ----a bit VULGAR.
The entire mid-life of Shostokovich in the novel became one justification by the composer for his telling THE TRUTH----while lying and hiding....he still hadn't lost his SOUL.
The Truth about Plato’s “Noble Lie”
The phrase “noble lie” does not even occur in the text of Plato’s Republic. So how have scholars come to misunderstand what Plato means in his discussion of the city’s need for a doctrine to guide its politics?What did Plato actually teach in the Republic about the so-called “noble lie?” For convenience, I shall refer to it by designating it as “The Plato Doctrine.” Let me begin by asserting what I think the Plato Doctrine is not. It is not the advocacy of a “noble lie.”
The phrase “noble lie” does not even occur in the text of Plato’s Republic. The over-translated Greek phrase is gennaion ti hen, “some one noble [thing]”. The tendentious over-translation assumes that a neuter singular nominative case noun is to be understood in agreement with the adjective gennaion: gennaion [pseudos], “noble [lie].” Moreover, this conventional mistranslation omits the crucial two qualifying nominative singular adjectives ti and hen that are in grammatical agreement with gennaion. Hence, when translated as “noble lie,” the Plato Doctrine is corrupted in two ways.
First, the subject of this Doctrine is assumed, without the textual basis of any noun, to be referring to a lie: “noble [lie].” Second, because the phrase “noble lie” is such a vivid oxymoron, the two other adjectives qualifying the adjective “noble” are habitually excised from the quoted text and omitted from discussion of Plato’s Doctrine (no doubt because they make the tendentious oxymoron less vivid). But at the very least, even if we assume that the implicit noun is pseudos, the phrase would be “some one noble [lie].”
Because the mistranslated phrase is habitually abbreviated as “noble lie,” scores of commentators feel justified in perverting the Plato Doctrine and misunderstanding it as, not just the countenancing of a “noble lie” (singular), but as the countenancing of “noble lies” (plural) as the necessary daily acts of government. But the text only refers to “some one noble” thing.
Perhaps you hesitate to accept my debunking of this widely held rumour about Plato’s Doctrine—the alleged “noble lie”—simply because the bunk version is so widely held. Why has no scholar before now noted this gross mistranslation of Plato? In fact, I am not alone. In his admirable Penguin translation, Desmond Lee notes,
the phrase here translated as ‘magnificent myth’…has been conventionally mistranslated ‘noble lie’; and this has been used to support the charge that Plato countenances manipulation by propaganda. But the myth is accepted by all three classes, Guardians included. It is meant to replace the national traditions which any community has, which are intended to express the kind of community it is, or wishes to be, its ideals, rather than to state matters of fact. And one of Plato’s own criticisms of democracy was that its politicians constantly mislead it, governing by propaganda rather than reason.
Lee’s translation of the phrase (as “magnificent myth”) is certainly a step in the right direction. But it still supplies a noun (“myth”) where there is none in the text, and it excises the other two qualifying adjectives (“some” and “one”). Moreover, “myth” has a pejorative connotation in English, and thus is not adequate for the rehabilitation of the Plato Doctrine. A translation more suitable for advancing Lee’s keen observations would be “some one noble [story],” with the more neutral “story” for the pejorative “myth.”
Further, Lee’s “magnificent” (no doubt intended to preempt any pejorative connotation in “myth”) is not quite right, because the sense of gennaion is not just “noble” (literally, “well-born”), but also “traditional” (in the sense of “precedented”, i.e. of a genos). Therefore, with these observations having been made, I propose my own preferred translation: “some one noble [doctrine].” “Doctrine” is more august than “story,” and it connotes, moreover, the ring of truth that would accompany a noble, traditional story that is passed on in order to preserve the political insights of preceding generations, reformulated in the current generation. The Plato Doctrine, in other words, is not about a clever politician’s “noble lie.” The Plato Doctrine is about doctrine; namely, a nation’s political doctrine concerning its national tradition. It is a political teaching, to be affirmed at all levels of the citizenry, aiming at the preservation of national tradition.
The Republic’s context of the phrase “some one noble [doctrine]” supports my argument. Socrates is discussing the need for “some one noble [doctrine] to persuade those being told stories: especially, on the one hand, the rulers themselves; if not, on the other hand, the rest of the city”. In other words, the promulgation of the national doctrine is not only the responsibility of the rulers, but they, first and foremost having been persuaded by it, will be the most sincere believers in that doctrine and the most unwavering advocates and guardians of it.
The main difficulty in this passage of the Republic is how to understand pseudomenous, the accusative masculine plural present tense participle. Because it comes right after gennaion ti hen, it has wrongly been taken in translations as the “lie” which the adjective gennaion introduces. Grammatically, this makes no sense; gennaion is singular, and pseudomenous is plural. The people in the accusative plural who are being persuaded by “some one noble [thing]” (i.e., a national doctrine) are “being told stories;” they are not “being lied to” (a bad translation), because of the Republic’s surrounding context in which Socrates is searching for a noble doctrine (i.e., a more truthful doctrine), in contrast to the lying stories of others.
Socrates is proposing state laws against the lies about the gods told by poets like Homer. The first regulation, in contrast with such lying Homeric stories, is that “God is the cause, not of all things, but only of good things;” the second regulation, that “consequently there is nothing for the sake of which God would lie”: God, being wholly benevolent, does not tell lies and does not need to. In contrast, how do humans behave and, on that basis, what kind of national stories does Socrates advocate for propagation by human leaders? Let us call them “lies,” if we must translate the Greek pseudos with only one English word. But Socrates’ point is that these stories are not insidious, deliberate lies. Rather, they are approximations of truth, since stories are the best approximations possible when the full truth is not manifest to mere mortals.
Socrates distinguishes between two kinds of lies: the outright lie, and the storytelling approximation to truth. Plato’s text thus contrasts “the lie in being” (the sort of outright lie which both gods and men detest) and “the lie in words” (which takes political traditions and makes the best possible fit of such stories with the truth). The first is simply a lie. But the second is a “lie”—i.e., a lie in scare quotes:
And in the telling of the tales we were just now speaking about, because we don’t know the truth about the past, but likening the ‘lie’ to the truth as best we can, don’t we also make it useful?
I would prefer to translate these two phrases (which contrast the two types of pseudê) as “lie” and “doctrine”: i.e., to take “lie” as translating to tô onti pseudos, the outright lie, “the lie in being;” and to take “doctrine” as translating to en tois logois pseudos, which is the storytelling “lie” that aims at incorporating the wisdom of tradition in order to best reach an approximation of the truth.
Gods have full knowledge of the truth, but because mortals lack this, mortals recognize the necessary pharmaceutical and prophylactic uses of stories in the political arena to benefit the city in its life-and-death struggles: “falsehood is no use to the gods and only useful to men as a kind of medicine… it will be for the rulers of our city, then, if anyone, to use falsehood in dealing with citizen or enemy for the good of the State; no one else must do so.” Examples would include the classification of national security secrets and threat information that would unnecessarily panic the populace.
In short, for self-preservation, and especially in the fog of war, the national polity needs a doctrine to guide its action, because (for mere mortals) political deliberation can never be theoretically certain. Instead, a practical doctrine—“some one noble [thing]”—is the best that can be hoped for in mortals’ political approximation of truth when it comes to discerning their best regime.
It is not an untruth. Instead, it is a tradition that all the citizens have come to see, on the basis of their shared experience, as best approximating the hard-to-discern fullness of truth about their place in the world.
Throughout THE NOISE OF TIME was the development of the idea of NOBLE LIE used by the 99% of USSR citizens required to call STALIN ----POWER ---the TRUTH. There's no doubting STALIN because he is POWER----everything he says must be TRUTH.
Hmmmm, very HITLER/STALIN/MAO
6) “The Rule Of The Wise” is unquestionable, absolute, authoritarian, undemocratic and covert
PLATO was quite the pre-Roman OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS guy-----he loved as did LEO STRAUSS the idea of CASTE ----a few GOOD GUYS---WISE MEN knowing all of what is happening while keeping we mere mortal 99% WE THE PEOPLE in the dark.
HOW 3000BC----HOW 100BC----HOW 1000AD DARK AGES IS THAT?
The novel as too RED AND BLACK by Stendahl is more a guide to making people believe if they are 5% freemason/Greek players they will escape the brutality of far-right wing, authoritarian, militaristic, extreme wealth extreme poverty LIBERTARIAN MARXISM.
REMEMBER GLOBAL BANKING 5% PLAYERS ---THESE 'GODS' REALLY THINK YOU ARE VULGAR AND NEED TO GO.
What is The Noble Lie?
Published on Jan 26, 2015 YOU TUBE
Twenty Two Characteristics Of Straussism
1) The Few Must Rule The Many
John Locke and the American founding fathers held “the natural law tradition” which holds that man possesses natural rights to life, liberty, and property and that the state is always and everywhere the greatest threat to these God-given rights. To the founders, this meant that government should be "bound by the chains" of the Constitution, to paraphrase Jefferson. If men were angels, there would be no need for government, Madison wrote in defense of the Constitution. But men are not angels, Madison continued, which is why government power must always be limited.
Leo Strauss rejected this view of natural rights in favor of Plato’s “philosopher-king” model of government; the “philosopher kings” exercise the “rule of the wise”
Straussians assign dignity to the few.
The superiority of the “ruling philosophers” is an intellectual superiority and not a moral one.
2) Virtue Is Defined By The Elite:
It Is That Which Is “For The Public Good”
The elite few are to have unlimited state power who use it to pursue “virtue” with virtue being, their own vision of "the public good."
Moral virtue had no application to the really intelligent man, the philosopher. Moral virtue only existed in popular opinion, where it served the purpose of controlling the unintelligent majority.
3) The Strong Must Rule The Weak
Strauss taught: “The strong must rule the weak”; this was presented quite well in Jim Lobe's article 'The Strong Must Rule The Weak' http://tinyurl.com/qtlnn
4) Only One Natural Right: The Right To Rule Over The Vulgar Many
Those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior.
The people will not be happy to learn that there is only one natural right—the right of the superior to rule over the inferior, the master over the slave, the husband over the wife, and the wise few over the vulgar many.
For the Straussian, the people of the United States are the “vulgar many,” chumps, dupes, and ciphers to be manipulated, poked, and prodded in the direction of the “Long War,” a new Hundred Years’ War, as spelled out by Rumsfeld’s latest Quadrennial Defense Review. “A policy of perpetual war against a threatening enemy is the best way to ward off political decay. And if the enemy cannot be found, then it must be invented.”
Human beings are born neither free nor equal. The natural human condition, is not one of freedom, but of subordination.
Strauss divided the history of political thought into two camps: the ancients (like Plato) are wise and wily, whereas the moderns (like Locke and other liberals) are vulgar and foolish.
5) Justice Is Merely The Interest Of The Stronger
Strauss shares the insights of the wise Plato that justice is merely the interest of the stronger; that those in power make the rules in their own interests and call it justice.
6) “The Rule Of The Wise” is unquestionable, absolute, authoritarian, undemocratic and covert
The rule of the wise is not to be questioned: one is not to raise questions about classic values such as justice or constitutional principles; hence the rule of the wise must be unquestioned.
The rule of the wise is to be absolute, authoritarian and undemocratic: The rule of the wise cannot involve any consideration of the unwise: Leo Strauss said: “It would be equally absurd to hamper the free flow of wisdom by consideration of the unwise wishes of the unwise; hence the wise rulers ought not to be responsible to the unwise subjects;" the rule of the wise must be absolute and authoritarian; majority-democracy would result in the subjection of what is by nature higher to that which is lower. Strauss’ reading of Plato comes down to this: a majority-democracy is an act against nature and must be prevented at all costs. Under the Straussian autocratic system, dissent is not only dangerous, it is seditious.
This rule of the wise must be covert; and this principle 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.
7) The Three Classes: The Wise-Few, The Vulgar-Many And The Gentlemen
The wise are the lovers of the harsh, unadulterated truth. They are capable of looking into the abyss without fear and trembling. They recognize neither God nor moral imperatives. They are devoted above all else to their own pursuit of the “higher” pleasures, which amount to consorting with their “puppies” or young initiates.
The 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.
The gentlemen, are lovers of honor and glory. They are the most ingratiating towards the conventions of their society, that is, the illusions of the cave. They are true believers in God, honor, and moral imperatives. They are ready and willing to embark on acts of great courage and self-sacrifice at a moment’s notice.
8) The State Is Omnipotent: It Manifests Militaristic Nationalism.
Strauss believed that human aggression could only be restrained by a powerful, nationalistic state. He believed that such an omnipotent state can only be maintained if there is an external threat, "even if one has to be manufactured." This is why Straussians believe in perpetual war and is another reason why they have formed a cult around "the church of Lincoln," whom they hold up as "the greatest statesman in history." Lincoln manufactured many "threats," including the truly bizarre notion that representative government would perish from the earth if the Southern states were permitted to secede peacefully. In reality, peaceful secession would have been a victory for self-government, keeping in mind that neither Lincoln nor Congress ever said that they were launching an invasion for any reason having to do with liberating the slaves.
Strauss taught that war – any war – will restore our “moral seriousness”, "clear away the fog of unthinking relativism," enable us to see evil, restore virtue, heroism, valor, and a sense of sacrifice, allow us to die for our comrades, country and faith, avoid the "hazards of civilization," make us more thoughtful, force us to "consider our loyalties," make men "decisive", and "place greatness within the reach of ordinary men."
“Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed," he once wrote. "Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united – and they can only be united against other people."
The only way a political order can be stable and not deteriorate in hedonistic pleasure is if it is united by an external threat.
Wealth, freedom, and prosperity make people soft, pampered, and depraved. War is an antidote to moral decadence and depravity. Thus war is held to be redemptive
9) Perpetual War Is Necessary
Perpetual War not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in; thus an "aggressive, belligerent foreign policy," of the kind that has been advocated by neocon groups like PNAC and AEI scholars, not to mention Wolfowitz and other administration hawks who have called for a world order dominated by U.S. military power. Strauss' neoconservative students see foreign policy as a means to fulfill a "national destiny", as Irving Kristol defined it already in 1983, that goes far beyond the narrow confines of a "myopic national security."
10) Patriotic Fervor Is To Be Rallied
The nation against its external enemies as well as its internal decadence, sloth, pleasure, and consumption, encourages a strong patriotic fervor among the honor-loving gentlemen who wield the reins of power. That strong nationalistic spirit consists in the belief that their nation and its values are the best in the world, and that all other cultures and their values are inferior in comparison.
11) Political Expediency And Murder Become Virtue
Athens, the democracy, weakened by plague, suffered a terrible defeat at the hands of oligarchic Sparta and its allies. Strauss, following Plato, did not grieve for the loss of Athens; the real city had been no match for the ideal city. In his view, the active life of the citizen of Periclean Athens suffered by comparison with the contemplative life of the philosopher.
The Straussians in the Department of Defense and in the think tanks took this to mean that they could kill on principle. And they did and they do. The first Bush sent his Spartan general to Iraq, and the second sent the same Spartan to the Security Council. The Straussians could not call their work politics, so they called it virtue.
12) Possess And As Necessary Present The “Hidden Meaning” Reject Countervailing Historical Narratives
Straussians routinely claim to possess unique understanding of the "hidden meaning" of history and historical documents, which is often directly at odds with the plain historical facts.
13) Maintain A Culture Of Lying And Carry On A Perpetual Confusion Campaign
Maintain a culture of lying through a compliant media and professional spokes-liars, and carry on a perpetual campaign to confuse the public and keep it ignorant of the elites political designs. The result of this is that Elite operate from a shroud of secrecy; thus their reasonings and logic is nontransparent.
Strauss continually endeavored to convince his acolytes that they are the natural ruling elite.
And it does not take much intelligence for them to surmise that they are in a situation of great danger, especially in a world devoted to the modern ideas of equal rights and freedoms. Now more than ever, the wise few must proceed cautiously and with circumspection. So, they come to the conclusion that they have a moral justification to lie in order to avoid persecution.
Yes Strauss goes so far as to say that dissembling and deception – in effect, a culture of lying – is the peculiar justice of the wise.
14) The Many Are Told What They Need To Know And No More.
Deception is carried on continually.
Lies are to be both aggressive and perpetual.
While the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, the many could not cope; if exposed to anything other than the maintained reality, they would quickly fall into nihilism or anarchy.
15) Lies Are Held To Be Nobel: Develop, Maintain And Present Noble Lies
Strauss believed in the concept of “noble lies”: the conviction that lies, far from being simply a regrettable necessity of political life, are instead virtuous and noble instruments of wise policy to keep the many from the dangers of liberalism and democracy.
Plato himself advised his nobles, men with golden souls, to tell noble lies, that is, political fables, much like the specter of Saddam Hussein with a nuclear bomb: to rally the people, to keep the other levels of human society (silver, iron, brass) in their proper places, loyal to the state and willing to do its bidding
Strauss defined the modern method of noble lies in the use of esoteric messages within an exoteric text, telling the truth to the wise while at the same time conveying something quite different to the many; thus he advocated an Orwellian double speak http://tinyurl.com/8jxjo method of communication
16) Dissemble Democracy
Maintain true democracy that is a leadership-democracy for the Few while at the same time feign majority-democracy to the Many.
Relate the principle of true democracy to the elite: the strong must rule the weak. While at the same time dissemble http://tinyurl.com/rpyod mythical democracy to the populace: the rule of the majority.
Strauss had no objections to democracy as long as a wise elite, inspired by the profound truths of the ancients
Wrap speeches with the American flag giving the appearance of appearance of legitimacy in dissimulation and deceit.
17) Religion Is For The Many
Strauss believed in, and proposed, a state religion as a way of reviving absolutes, countering free thought, and enforcing a cohesive unity. Strauss argued against a society containing a multiplicity of coexisting religions and goals, which would break the society apart.
Religion was primarily a propaganda tool to be used to get the many to acquiesce in state intervention on behalf of aggressive nationalism.
Authority and discipline are key values for Straussians; the many need religion to keep them in line. Marx called religion the opium of the people, Strauss thought the people needed their opium.
Thus, Religion is absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the many who otherwise would be out of control.
Religion was for the many alone; the philosopher kings need not be bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths proclaimed by religion were "a pious fraud." Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers.
“Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing,'' because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, precisely those traits that may promote dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats or not be available for aggressive nationalism
18) Secrecy Is Essential
The wise must conceal their views for two reasons – to spare the people’s feelings and to protect the elite from possible reprisals. People will not be happy to learn that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior, and both lies and secrecy are thus necessary to protect the superior few from the persecution of the vulgar many.
19) Nature Abhors A Contract
Long before the events of September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration, goaded on by Wolfowitz, Kristol, The American Enterprise Institute, The Project for the New American Century, and others on the right, had made a decision to oust Saddam Hussein. Bush seems to have had a personal vendetta, but the others had more philosophical reasons.
There was nothing Machiavellian about the attack. It was based on principles the planners derived from natural law. One suspects that President Bush, with his simplistic messianic mind-set, was attracted to this line of reasoning: The natural law in the yew hearts of human beings, the innate ability to know right from wrong, took precedence over mere convention.
And so the Bush regime violated the contract that was agreed to when the United States joined the United Nations; it flouted the U.S. Constitution, which is also a contract, by attacking without the required declaration of war by the Congress; and it disregarded the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in other secret detention camps around the world.
The administration's wise men held up Strauss's version of natural law as the model, dismissing contracts as mere laws of men.
Natural law, interpreted by Bush's "wise counsels," gave the President permission to launch a preemptive war through an appeal to the higher power. Natural-law theory assumes that men seek the good and that by asking the perennial questions--what is virtue? What is justice?--they will come to wisdom.
Straussians, like Kristol, hold that the Founding Fathers espoused natural-law theory, saying that natural law was both divine and self-evident. But the Founders were concerned with inalienable natural rights. After much debate in their convention, they wrote a contract.
20) Intimidate All Opponents
"Professors who had less respect for Leo Strauss . . . were read quotations from [Strauss’s] Natural Right and History." The other faculty and students at Chicago viewed the Straussians as "intellectual brown shirts, engaged in a campaign of deliberate intimidation." This of course is a practice that these same people practice today, rarely engaging in honest intellectual debate but rather attempting to intimidate or censor those who disagree with them. Alan Keyes, for example, typically dismisses his critics as being "incapable of recognizing moral purpose," as though he alone possesses such abilities.
21) Extinguish The Fires of Rabble
Jim Lobe in ‘Strong Must Rule The Weak’ writes: As for what a Straussian world order might look like, (Shadia) Drury said the philosopher often talked about Jonathan Swift's story of Gulliver and the Lilliputians. ''When Lilliput was on fire, Gulliver urinated over the city, including the palace. In so doing, he saved all of Lilliput from catastrophe, but the Lilliputians were outraged and appalled by such a show of disrespect.''
The fires of rabble are the modern licentious doctrines and philosophies; these include such things as individualism, liberty, legalism and constitutionalism. The fires of rabble have resulted in great social decay: divorce, delinquency, crime, and abounding creature comforts; and the fires of rabble have created seditious constructs of contracts, statutes and constitutions.
The Vulgar, that is America, is literally on fire; in order for it to be saved, the fires of rabble must be extinguished through the institution of martial law.
22) Ennoble The Many
If the Few were to give the Many, such things as freedom, happiness, and prosperity, in Strauss's estimation, this would turn them into animals.
The goal of the wise is to ennoble the vulgar. But what could possibly ennoble the vulgar? Only weeping
1) Neo-conservatism is the ultimate stealth weapon of mass destruction whose purpose is to destroy liberty and affluence.
2) It is ironic that American neoconservatives have decided to conquer the world in the name of liberty and democracy, when they have so little regard for either
3) It is helpful to think in terms of opposites
Mother Teresa and Straussians are opposites. Mother Teresa was humble, willing to yield, caring and truthful; whereas, Straussians are exhalative, ruthless, uncaring and deceitful. If Leo Strauss were alive today he might consider the above statement "seditious", one worthy of Ennoblement.
4) Strauss as a nihilist
Strauss is a nihilist in the sense that he believes that there is no rational foundation for morality.
He is an atheist, and he believes that in the absence of God, morality has no grounding. It’s all about benefiting others and oneself; there is no objective reason for doing so, only rewards and punishments in this life.
But Strauss is not a nihilist if we mean by the term a denial that there is any truth, a belief that everything is interpretation.
He does not deny that there is an independent reality. On the contrary, he thinks that independent reality consists in nature and its “order of rank” – the high and the low, the superior and the inferior. Like Nietzsche, he believes that the history of western civilization has led to the triumph of the inferior, the rabble – something they both lamented profoundly.
In the novel the hero made clear he didn't want his family running to POWER to cash in on the musicology of his lifetime----he found all that wrangling of family after an artist's death a bit distasteful. Shostokovich makes the joke about BACH as today we can about STRAUSS.
'The requisite joke is that Bach had twenty kids because his organ had no stops.
More seriously, though, twenty children is certainly a lot, but not so many as to be historically very significant (Brigham Young, after all, had 56! — but they were from multiple simultaneous wives)'.
LEO STRAUSS bound tightly to OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS -----or France's global banking 1% FAKE 'LEFT' COMMUNIST ----Strauss- Kahn
----it is always the case with REAL GENIUS which does not run in families----that those next generations are hyper-5% freemason/Greek player WANNABES
We are shouting to our 99% GENIUSES/GEEKS-----STAND UP and be TRUTH AND VIRTUE----stop MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD where cultural arts and talent will go to DIE.
The Strauss Family
The composition of the Strauss family gives rise to some confusion as to who did what, not helped by there being three Johanns.
This page gives an overview of the musical dynasty while there is a whole page dedicated to the best known
Johann Strauss Jr.
Johann Strauss I (the Elder, Snr, the Father) (1804-1849)
Founder of the Strauss Musical Dynasty who came to be known as 'The Father of the Waltz'.
Self-taught violinist, played in a dance orchestra.
In 1824 he formed his own orchestra. He composed waltzes, polkas and other dances for it and published over 250 works. He also composed marches for the local regiment, including the Radetzsky March, his best known piece.
The Strauss Orchestra played in Viennese taverns, restaurants and society events and as its reputation grew it toured all over Europe.
He died of scarlet fever aged only 45.
Johann Strauss II (the Younger, Jr, the Son) 1825 - 1899'The Waltz King'
See our special page on Johann Strauss II
Josef Strauss (1827 - 1870)The second born son of Johann I.
Studied mechanical engineering and started a career as an architectural draughtsman.
Hobbies: painting, poetry, singing, inventing and composing.
In 1853 following his brother Johann's nervous breakdown he stepped in to keep the orchestra going. On Johann's return he was persuaded to give up his day job and to join the family business.
He was also a talented and prolific composer of over 300 dances and marches. Additionally he made over 500 arrangemens of other composers' works.
His brother Johann said: "Pepi (Josef) is the more gifted of us two; I am merely the more popular..."
He died aged 53 after falling off a conductor's podium.
Eduard Strauss I (1835 - 1916)Youngest son of Johann I, brother of Johann II and Josef.
Started work in the diplomatic service.
Joined the orchestra as a harpist then worked together with his brothers as a conductor.
When Josef died he took over the management of the orchestra until he disbanded it in 1901.
He also was a prolific composer and wrote over 320 dances and marches.
He married and had two sons, one of which - Johann Strauss III - followed the family business (see below). The other son, Josef, went into the motor trade instead, but his third child Eduard did become a talented conductor.
Here is an example of his composing: Mit Dampf (At full Steam), Polka
Johann Strauss III (1866-1939)Son of Eduard Strauss
He also was a conductor and composer. He was not however as prolific or successful as his relatives. It is said that critics tried to persuade him to compose under a pseudonym so as not to damage the family reputation.
He conducted the Strauss orchestra in the first recordings of his family's works.
He died in Berlin aged 81.
Eduard Strauss II (1910 - 1969)Grandson of Eduard Strauss, nephew of Johann Strauss III.
An eminent conductor who of course was an expert on the works of the Strauss family. He travelled all over the world including 6 major tours with the Tokyo Symphony Orchestra.
He was the first conductor of the Vienna Joannes Strauss Orchestra which he took on a tour of the USA in 1966.
As far as I know he did not compose anything.
We can see history repeating itself when a USSR Shostakovich very prolific while protected by STALIN--------being that global banking 1% freemason STAR-----so too of course THE STRAUSS family seeming to have been Jewish no doubt hiding the fact converting to ROMAN CATHOLIC.
''Here, you may look at them if you want.''
The Americans stepped back in awe. Nothing happened to Strauss's family. Instead, officers arrived a few days later for dinner. Strauss and his wife were then allowed recuperation in Switzerland. In 1948, after perfunctory German denazification, Strauss was classified ''not incriminated.''
So, WAGNER/STRAUSS having a big fan of HITLER-----HITLER of course like STALIN being referred to as JUPITER/ZEUS------neither being those WISE MEN---both being VULGAR with BLIND AMBITION working for those global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS KNIGHTS OF MALTA---TRIBE OF JUDAH.
Music; Richard Strauss and Hitler's Reich: Jupiter in Hell
By MICHAEL H. KATERJAN. 6, 2002
MOST German composers were in for a hard time when the Allies descended on Hitler's Reich in 1945. Hans Pfitzner, who had strived unsuccessfully to be the Führer's court composer, was lying low in shabby south German quarters. Carl Orff, who had composed an ''Aryan'' version of incidental music to ''A Midsummer Night's Dream'' to replace Mendelssohn's original, among other follies, lied to American denazification officers about having helped found the anti-Nazi resistance group White Rose. He was speedily rehabilitated. His friend Werner Egk, who had been an official in the cultural bureaucracy but who lacked Orff's opportune connections, took much longer to whitewash himself.
Only Richard Strauss seemed unperturbed. As his grandson Richard Strauss Jr. tells it, American jeeps pulled up to Strauss's villa in Garmisch at the end of April. Richard Jr., then 17, ran into the composer's study, shouting, ''Grandpa, we are being evacuated within 20 minutes.''
''Easy, easy,'' the composer said, slowly opening a drawer. He fetched a number of papers, including certificates of honorary citizenship from cities in the United States, and some scores. Then, tall and imposing, he planted himself at the front of his house and announced to the soldiers in halting English: ''My name is Richard Strauss. I am the composer.'' He held up pages from ''Der Rosenkavalier'': ''Here, you may look at them if you want.''
The Americans stepped back in awe. Nothing happened to Strauss's family. Instead, officers arrived a few days later for dinner. Strauss and his wife were then allowed recuperation in Switzerland. In 1948, after perfunctory German denazification, Strauss was classified ''not incriminated.''
This was the unspectacular end of a career in the Nazi regime by a man whose biographers have usually called him either ''fascist'' or ''apolitical.'' Strauss, who loved Mozart's ''Jupiter'' Symphony above all and himself expected to be called home to the gods after having fulfilled what he saw as Germany's highest cultural mission -- this Jupiter said that he never meddled in politics. In fact, neither label applies. As late as 1930, Strauss derided the Nazi Party culture broker Alfred Rosenberg as a political ingénue, ''who did not have one clue.''
All the same, by January 1933, Strauss, guided by his belief in authority, thought that a Hitler dictatorship might have the stuff to institute reforms in operatic production, music instruction and the like. In the fall of that year, he calculatingly accepted the offer of Joseph Goebbels, the Reich propaganda minister, to make him president of the Reich Music Chamber. An aes thetocrat, Strauss wanted to regulate the affairs of music and musicians in the German Reich according to his rarefied canon. For one thing, he wanted an assurance that musicians would earn more money, especially composers, and especially he. Since early in the century, he had harbored professional and personal goals that had never been realized.
Not that any such short- or long-term frustrations have got in the way of Strauss's ultimate vindication as a bright and permanent light in the musical universe. Whatever else may have been going on, after all, Strauss did continue to write the music that solidified his fame, from ''Arabella,'' which had its premiere in 1933, through the ''Metamorphosen'' of 1945 right down to the ''Four Last Songs'' of 1948.
Examples of Strauss's continued staying power lie close at hand. In New York this season, the Metropolitan Opera has followed a notable revival of ''Arabella'' with an acclaimed new production of ''Die Frau Ohne Schatten,'' which runs through Jan. 17. And on Wednesday, the New Jersey Symphony Orchestra begins a three-week festival, ''Richard Strauss: A Hero's Life?,'' which includes a symposium examining the composer's personality, reputation and politics.
Strauss assumed his highly political job when -- in November 1933, as the new head of the music chamber but by no means a Nazi -- he thanked Goebbels and Hitler for allowing him to use the National Socialist leadership principle in an effort to coordinate the German music establishment tightly. Strauss had enough political savvy to see him through the first few months of the Nazi regime's music administration, but he implemented few reforms, for a combination of reasons.
First, he preferred staying at home in mountainous Garmisch and composing music to directing the chamber's turgid bureaucracy from Berlin. His deputies, though largely handpicked, were third-rate, and they soon succumbed to internecine quarrels and intrigues against him.
Second, he could have delegated more authority to his vice president, the famous conductor Wilhelm Furtwängler, but Furtwängler, Strauss's greatest rival as German musician laureate at the time, felt overlooked too often and caused ill will.
Third, Strauss's sensible-sounding reform proposals offended Goebbels: not least those for downgrading the Berlin opera that was under the propaganda minister's jurisdiction, the Deutsches Opernhaus, to a sort of pops company. Strauss wished to leave the serious repertory to Prussian Minister-President Hermann Göring's Berlin Staatsoper.
And fourth, Strauss mixed up his own business with that of his office when he encouraged stagings of his operas. These included, in June 1935, his newest one, ''Die Schweigsame Frau,'' with a libretto by Stefan Zweig, an Austrian Jew. Strauss thus created conflicts of interest, which the leaders of the Third Reich frowned on, and he violated the regime's official policy of anti-Semitism, an infraction that weighed even more heavily because of his earlier refusal to enact discriminatory policies against Jewish musicians.
Goebbels ordered Strauss to resign the chamber presidency in July 1935 ''on account of ill health,'' and Strauss complied. He had experienced more than his share of trouble with the music administration in Berlin, and he realized that even if Hitler and Göring were on his side (a reasonable assumption only in Göring's case), Goebbels, his immediate superior, could not stand him.
At any rate, the fact that Strauss was doing his best to retain the services of the Jewish Zweig as his librettist did not escape the leaders of the regime. Goebbels, especially, was furious. After a couple of repeat performances of ''Die Schweigsame Frau,'' further presentations were prohibited. Moreover, as the Nuremberg Race Laws were being prepared for promulgation at the Nazi Party rally in September 1935, it was becoming obvious to the leadership that Strauss was bent on protecting his Jewish daughter-in-law, Alice, as well as his grandsons, Richard, 7, and Christian, 3.
Strauss, 71 at the time, should have been able to retire to a quiet life as head of his family in Garmisch and as the pre-eminent and still awesomely creative composer of his day. Instead, he entered into a new working relationship with the regime, which has puzzled Strauss biographers ever since. By its unwritten terms, Strauss, for his part, continued to serve the Third Reich in various representative functions, like president of the Nazi-controlled Permanent Council for the International Cooperation of Composers. He also provided his ''Olympische Hymne'' for the Olympic Games of 1936 in Berlin, and he conducted his own works as the centerpiece of a Reich music festival in Düsseldorf in 1938.
But if events of 1935 had constituted a humiliating defeat for him, as he tried to intimate in a pained letter to the Führer in July of that year, why did he cooperate further, and what did he expect in return? For one thing, this Jupiter, grand-signorial yet also disarmingly charming in his arch-Bavarian manner, had never been a recluse; he loved company. In addition, his music would continue to be performed often and prominently, something very important to his ego: his sacro egoismo, as it had always been.
PERHAPS more critical still, behind a facade of what outsiders might have mistaken as immense wealth, Strauss was forced to earn money and spend it moderately, even if, by ordinary standards, he was very well off. He was the sole breadwinner for his extended family, which included that of his son, Franz, whom Strauss employed as his personal secretary.
With ''Die Schweigsame Frau'' off limits and foreign enemies of Germany now against him, Strauss was acutely dependent on the performance of other compositions, his past and future operas, in the Reich. Apart from personality frictions, he knew that the Nazi leaders, including Goebbels, not only loved them but also used them as a showcase. Contrary to rumors spread abroad, supposedly by Jewish exiles, German culture, it was claimed, still had cachet, with Strauss as its symbol.
So when his new composition ''Friedenstag'' was given its premiere in Vienna to celebrate his 75th birthday in 1939, with Hitler and Goebbels present, both sides knew that Strauss was caught as the weaker partner in a relationship of mutual dependence with the regime. By then Strauss had no choice but to continue doing the bidding of the Nazi leadership, for it had placed him under permanent pressure, in effect holding his daughter-in-law and grandchildren for ransom as life in the Third Reich was becoming ever more unbearable for Jews.
In a carefully planned collaboration between Goebbels's ministry and Heinrich Himmler's Gestapo, Alice Strauss and her sons had already been harassed during the pogrom of November 1938. This action was taken solely to keep the composer in line. Jewish spouses of ''Aryan'' Germans were then generally not molested. (Nor later, as partners in ''privileged'' marriages, were they typically evacuated to the eastern camps.) Moreover, during that infamous Kristallnacht only men, rarely women, were singled out for punishment. And just to drive the regime's point home, Christian and his brother Richard were manhandled, spat on and kicked by storm troopers in the market square of Garmisch, alongside the small town's adolescent male Jews.
Strauss used the occasion of the Viennese birthday celebrations in 1939 -- which, both sides understood, were needed window dressing for the outside world -- to demand guarantees from Goebbels that vital confiscated documents would be returned to his daughter-in-law and that his grandsons would not be encumbered in their education and careers. Eventually, the grandsons should also be permitted to marry ''Aryan'' women. Strauss noted that such concessions would free his creative forces ''from a pressing burden'': a strong hint that he was prepared to withhold his side of the bargain. Still, it took the Mephistophelean Goebbels almost two years before he asked Hitler to extend to the boys ''Aryan'' privileges, limited to their formal education.
Then, in 1941, the regime again reminded Strauss who was boss. Alice's Jewish grandmother, Paula Neumann, nee Haurowitz, three years older than Strauss himself, was being interned in Prague, as were many other of Alice's Czech-based relatives. Helped by Alice's mother, Marie von Grab, herself safe in Lucerne, Switzerland, Strauss and his son, Franz, tried for several months to move Frau Neumann from the Nazi-occupied Czech Protectorate to Vienna, where Gauleiter Baldur von Schirach had recently emerged as the latest of the composer's few benevolent but ultimately impotent allies in the regime. At a time when other Jews were often protected or set free by the highest Nazi leaders -- examples being the wives of Hitler's favorite light-music composer, Franz Lehar, and of the Viennese film comedian Hans Moser -- the regime pretended not to notice Strauss's plight.
In 1942 Strauss wrote to SS-Obersturmbannführer Dr. Günther of the Prague Gestapo, reminding him that ''the old woman is without any help'' and asking whether he would assist her in traveling to the Swiss border. Strauss had already secured the cooperation of the Swiss ''with the greatest of difficulties,'' he wrote. But now, ''what I was able to accomplish abroad does not seem possible for me in my own fatherland, and that is to facilitate the emigration of a totally innocent and harmless woman to Switzerland, without a single penny of her own.''
No answer came, so Strauss set out in his Horch limousine. Chauffeured right up to the gates of the Theresienstadt concentration camp, he stepped out, announcing to the SS guards, as he later would to American G.I.'s: ''I am Dr. Strauss, the composer.'' This time they looked right through him and ordered him to turn around, without Paula Neumann. In the end, she was killed, along with 25 other relatives of Alice Strauss, in the eastern camps.
In this case, the Nazi regime's reticence was just as calculated as was Goebbels's decision to award carefully selected medals and cash prizes to the master from 1942 to 1944. Nor did Strauss's daughter-in-law escape further chicanery; she and even her husband, Franz, were repeatedly arrested by the Gestapo.
Strauss himself was harried in Garmisch, where he was supposed to surrender parts of his house to civil engineers. His social intercourse with Nazi personnel was interdicted (not that he now cared). Border crossings to his favorite spa in Switzerland were forbidden, and he was denied a full measure of 80th-birthday honors in 1944. (These slights he minded very much.) His last opera awaiting performance, ''Die Liebe der Danae,'' in which the magnificent baritone Hans Hotter was to star -- in the role of Jupiter -- that summer, was granted only a dress rehearsal in Salzburg.
Clearly, Strauss, the Jupiter of the composer gods, had compromised himself through his working arrangement in Hitler's hell by the time the American soldiers looked him up in 1945. He was no hero, as his biographer George Marek has astutely noted, but then Strauss had satirized himself and somehow forewarned his audience, Eulenspiegel-like, in his tone poem ''Ein Heldenleben'' half a century before. Other than for the safety of his family and his personal amenities, he did not do battle with the Third Reich.
ALL the same, never having censored a work of art during his short administrative tenure, and having resisted censorship of his own music, he did what he would always claim to have accomplished: he respected art for art's sake even when he disliked it, as with abstract paintings, Paul Hindemith's early atonal experiments and Arnold Schoenberg's dodecaphony. As much as he was Jupiter, the last two decades of Strauss's life were tainted by misfortune. A child of the 19th century, he had foolishly tried to use the modern-day phenomenon of totalitarian fascism for a good cause, or so he thought.
At the cost of personal hardship, he had to be disabused of that notion. Still, he was fortunate not to have come to realize the depths of political corruption and crime that might have lain in wait had he overstayed the Nazis' welcome for him as music chamber president beyond the summer of 1935.