BLACK TERROR WHITE SOLDIER PART 33

Esalen, the CIA & Ancient Aliens Part 2

    While in a trance state, Cayce would channel messages that mirrored many of the teachings of Saint-Yves, Blavatsky and Bailey about the Atlantean origins of the Tibetan and Egyptians civilizations. Following the tradition of Fabre d’Olivet and Saint-Yves, Cayce refers to events on Atlantis as happening several hundred thousand years “before Ram entered India.” According to Cayce, refugee Atlanteans arrived in Egypt after the sinking of their continent in 10,700 BC, bringing with them the records of their civilization, which were deposited in the “Hall of Records” buried beneath the pyramids of Giza and the Sphinx. When they will be uncovered, human civilization will be transformed. As Cayce explained:

With the changes that will be wrought, true Americanism, the universal thought that is expressed and manifested in the brotherhood of man, as in the Masonic order, will be the eventual rule in the settlement of affairs of the world.⁴⁷

In the 1970s, ARE received a sudden infl donors, and is now a powerful organization which has supported archaeological work in Egypt and elsewhere to try to fi civilization and the Hall of Records predicted by Cayce.⁴⁸ Many of the projects’ remote viewers reported encountering pyramids during their sessions. So when Lambert Dolphin Jr. took charge of the SRI expedition to Giza in the 1970s, primarily aimed at searches for hidden chambers beneath the Sphinx, he had information about the plateau derived from these sessions.⁴⁹ In 1973, ARE selected Mark Lehner to be their “insider” among academic Egyptologists, and paid for his training. ARE and Lehner also collaborated on a number of projects investigating the Giza Pyramids with SRI. Most important of these was a study headed by D. Joseph M. Schoch, to determine the possibility of water erosion on the Sphinx. Schoch, like all the authors of the new Egyptology, also drew on the work of Schwaller de Lubicz. De Lubicz began his study of Luxor in 1938, fi nding, he believ ultimate examples of synarchy, because they were ruled by a group of initiates.

His conceptions of Egypt were shaped by Saint-Yves, who believed that the Sphinx was created by the Atlanteans many thousands of years before the rise of Egypt. Saint-Yves placed the end of Atlantis at around 12,000 BC. Schwaller de Lubicz therefore proposed that the erosion on the Sphinx resulted from of exposure  to  water,  caused Atlantis . by  a  gre

Also conducting work at Giza in the late 1970s coinciding the SRI’s projects

was James Hurtak. Although Hurtak ha he has retained close contact with

 Jr, who according to Hurtak, “shared private insights” about Giza with him.⁵⁰ In 1977 and 1978, following up on a tradition found in Masonic lore, Hurtak and a number of colleagues undertook a private expedition to Giza, where they measured the angles of the shafts of the King’s and Queen’s Chambers to test the hypothesis that they were aligned with certain stars and constellations, namely Orion and Draco, and the star Sirius.

One of the most infl uential book Robert K. G. Temple’s 1976 The Sirius Mystery , which presents the hypothesis that the Dogon people of Mali in west Africa preserved a tradition of contact with intelligent extraterrestrial beings from the Sirius star-system. Temple’s attention was fi rstDogondrawnbyArthur Mto.Young,the myth who with Puharich and others had been one o with The Nine through Dr. Vinod in 1952. Young introduced Temple to the subject of the Dogon through a French book called Le Renard pale, which he in turn received from Harry Smith. Known as a surre a member of the OTO and claimed that Aleister Crowley was “probably” his biological father. ⁵¹ Known for experimenting heavily in hallucinogenic drugs, Smith became a hero of the Beat generation of the 50s and the Hippies of the 60s, and in the last Gratefulyears Dead.He of his produced the Folkways anthology, which became an such artists as Bob Dylan and received a Grammy in 1991 for his contribution to the music industry.

Temple’s The Sirius Mystery attracted the attention of the CIA, MI5 and the Freemasons. Temple was approached by Charles E. Webber, 33rd degree Scottish Rite and an old friend of his family and Mason, who had been high-ranking generations for generations, and asked him to join the Masons, in order to be able to discuss the book without divulging the order’s secrets. Webber told Temple:

We are very interested in your book The Sirius Mystery. We realize you have written this book without any knowledge of the traditions of Masonry, and you may not be aware of this, but you have made some discoveries which relate to the most central traditions at a high level, including some things that none of us ever knew.⁵²

The “mystery” that is central to the book is how the Dogon allegedly acquired knowledge of Sirius B, the invisible companion star of Sirius A. And he tries to show that the knowledge of the Dogon originated in the civilizations of ancient Egypt and Sumeria. Temple believed the Dogon preserved the memories of the visit of an amphibious, extraterrestrial race called Nommo, who descended to Earth in an “ark” from the Sirius system. These beings, who are hypothesized to have taught the arts of civilization to humans, are claimed in the book to have originated the systems of the Pharaohs of Egypt, the mythology of Greek civilization and the Epic of Gilgamesh among other things. Temple’s theory was largely based on his interpretation of the work of ethnographers Marcel Griaule and Germaine Dieterlen. However, some doubts have been raised about the reliability of their work, and alternative explanations have been proposed.⁵³ The claims about the Dogons’ astronomical knowledge have been challenged.

Nevertheless, these speculations form the basis of what is called the Ancient Astronauts hypothesis. Also known as Ancient Aliens, it attempts to connect the occult legend of the Sons of God of the Bible, or Lucifer and the Fallen Angels, who supposedly created the Aryan race on Atlantis, with extra terrestrials. A leading proponent of the hypothesis was Zecheriah Sitchin. Born in Soviet Azerbaijani, but raised in Israeli, American author Sitchin received a degree in economics from the University of London, and taught himself Sumerian cuneiform. However, Sitchin wrote his books at a time when only specialists could read the Sumerian language, and since then, sources such as the 2006 book Sumerian Lexicon have made the language more accessible to non-experts. Sitchin’s ideas have been rejected by scientists and academics, who dismiss his work as pseudoscience and pseudohistory, and criticized for flawed methodology and mistransla and scientifi c claims.

According to his interpretation of Mesopotamian iconography and symbology, outlined in his 1976 book The 12th Planet and its sequels, Sitchin attributes the creation of the ancient Sumerian culture to the Anunnaki, which he equates with the Nephilim of Genesis, and which he asserts were a race of extraterrestrials from a planet beyond Neptune called Nibiru. The Sumerian myth of the Annunaki is recognized by scholars as being connected to the story of the Anakim, or Sons of God of the Bible. The Annunaki are the seven judges of the Underworld, the children of the god Anu, who had once lived in heaven but were banished for their misdeeds. Effectively, the Annunaki are part of the common motif of giants, or Titans, found throughout the ancient dying-god mythologies. According to Sitchin, however, 50 Anunnaki, inhabitants of a planet named Nibiru, came to Earth approximately 400,000 years ago with the intent of mining raw materials, especially gold, for transport back to Nibiru. To assist them in their efforts, they genetically engineered slaves to work the mines, creating homo sapiens, the “Adapa” (Archetypal Man) or Adam of occult theology. Sitchin further claimed the Anunnaki were active in human affairs until their culture was destroyed by global catastrophes caused by the abrupt end of the last ice age some 12,000 years ago. Seeing that humans survived and all they had built was destroyed, the Anunnaki left Earth after giving humans the opportunity and means to govern themselves.

The Ancient Astronauts hypothesis is related to the “White Gods” theories, the belief that ancient cultures like those of the Egyptians and the Maya of South America, were visited by Caucasian civilizers who were ignorantly worshipped by primitive peoples as “gods.” Popularized by the works of Erich von Däniken and Zecharia Sitchin, these theories fall into a category of pseudohistory known as Mayanism, derived originally from Freemasonry and Theosophy. During the eighteenth century, speculations associated Mayan history with Biblical stories of Noah’s Ark, the Tower of Babel, and the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. This included speculation about legendary culture heroes such as Votan and Quetzalcoatl. In the early nineteenth century, Alexander von Humboldt and Lord Kingsborough contributed further to such speculation, and who were in turn cited by Godfrey Higgins, whose Anacalypsis (1833) contributed to the emergence of perennial philosophy and claims that all religions had a common origin in an ancient Golden Age. Higgins proposed the existence of a secret religious order, which he labeled Pandeism, for the worship of a pantheon of gods, that he purported had existed from ancient times, which at one time had constituted a grand world empire, and maintained that the institutions of Christianity were borrowed from the Essenes. However, the preface to Vol. I, Higgins warned of the cryptic nature of much of the book:

I think it right to warn my reader, that there are more passages than one in the book, which are of that nature, which will be perfectly understood by my Masonic friends, but which my engagements prevent

me explaining to the world at large.

In the late nineteenth century, Charles Étienne Brasseur de Bourbourg became convinced that the ancient Maya culture could be traced to the lost continent  of  Atlantis.  Brasseur’s work            influenced  the  pseudoscience and pseudohistory of Désiré Charnay, Augustus Le Plongeon, Ignatius L.  Donnelly,  and James Churchward. Le Plongeon and   Donnelly in  turn infuenced  H. P. Blavatsky and  Rudolf  Steiner who introduced misconceptions about the ancient  Maya into early New Age circles. These ideas became part of a belief system  fostered by psychic  Edgar Cayce and later popularized in the 1960s by author  Jess Stearn. Attempts at a synthesis of religion and science, a common theme in  Mayanism, are one of the contributions from  Theosophy. Alice Bailey’s husband,  Foster Bailey, wrote that Freemasonry was a remnant of the “primeval religion”  that had once been common on the whole world, citing the pyramids of Egypt  and South America as “witnesses” of this ancient world religion.” 54

  Mayanism experienced a revival in the 1970s through the work of   Frank  Waters, a writer on the subject of Hopi mythology. In 1970, Waters was the  recipient of a Rockefeller Foundation grant to support research in Mexico and  Central America. This resulted in his 1975 book Mexico Mystique: The Coming Sixth  World of Consciousness, a discussion of Mesoamerican culture strongly colored by  Waters’ beliefs in astrology, prophecy, and the lost continent of Atlantis. Notions

about extraterrestrial influence on the Maya can be traced to the book         Chariots  of the Gods? by  Erich von Däniken, whose “ancient astronaut” theories were in  turn influenced by the work of Peter Kolosimo (1922–1984)   and     especially Jacques Bergier and Louis Pauwels, the authors of The Morning of the Magicians. These latter writers were inspired turn  influenced  by  the  work  of  Peter Jacques Bergier and Louis Pauwels, the authors of The Morning of the Magicians. These latter writers were inspired by publications by Charles Fort (1874- 1932), and by the fantasy literature of H. P. Lovecraft, especially in “Part One:

Vanished Civilizations,” where they s alien-constructed civilizations of the past.⁵⁵ However, contributi also included notions of lost continents and lost civilizations, especially as popularized by Jules Verne, Edward Bulwer-Lytton, and H. Rider Haggard.

  The “White Gods” theory is popular amongst White supremacists, Christian Identity groups, ancient astronaut theorists and pseudoarchaeological and Atlantis writers. White gods theorists typically make reference to various South American  gods  supposedly  identified  a Typically, accounts of these gods refer to them as “civilizers” who instructed their societies with various skills. Most common is the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl who, like Hermes and the other dying-gods of the ancient Middle East, was also related to Venus, the dawn, and pertaining to merchants, arts, crafts and knowledge.⁵⁶ There were other deities, among the Maya in particular, whose identities seemed to merge closely with those of Quetzalcoatl. One was Votan, a great civilizer, whose principal symbol like that of Quetzalcoatl was a serpent.

  The story of Votan in Mexico dates back to at least the late seventeenth century, when  Constituciones was diocesanas fidelrs to bispado de relate Chiappa (1702) by Francisco Nunez de la Vega, Bishop of Chiapas, as reported by a Jesuit priest named Francisco Javier Clavijero. These clerics associated Votan with the Biblical stories of the Tower of Babel and as proof that these Native Americans regarded themselves as descendants of Noah. In 1773, Ramon de Ordonez y Aguilar attested that Palenque was built by Votan who travelled back and forth to the Middle East.⁵⁷

The similarity between the names Votan and Wotan, a variation of Odin, has also been the source of much confusion. Assertion of a relationship between Votan and Odin is found in the work of geographer Alexander von Humboldt who wrote Vues des Cordillères (1810). Ignatius L. Donnelly, in Atlantis: The Antediluvian World (1882), in a chapter titled “The God Odin, Woden, or Wotan,” repeats Clavigero’s reference in the context of speculation about Atlantis and (following Brasseur de Bourbourg) also suggests that Votan built Palenque. In Histoire des nations civilisées du Mexique et de l’Amérique Centrale (1857), Charles Étienne Brasseur de Bourbourg had claimed that Votan was an ancient Phoenician legislator who had migrated from the Middle East to the Maya, built Palenque, and established an empire to have once covered all of Mexico and part of the United States. The story of Votan was further associated with the Atlantis legend by Lewis Spence, whose 1940 book Occult Causes of the Present War seems to have been Nazithe f occultism.⁵⁸ In Atlantis in America (1925), Spence iden name for Quetzalcoatl” based on the account by Nunez de la Vega.

Votan has also been cited in the literature of neo-Nazism, like that of Miguel Serrano, that associates him with Quetzalcoatl who was to have come from Venus, as proof that these civilizations were founded by Aryan extra-terrestrials. Some Mormon scholars believe that Quetzalcoatl, who has been described as a white, bearded god who came from the sky and promised to return, was actually Jesus Christ who, according to the Book of Mormon, visited the Americas after his resurrection.

  Notions  about  extraterrestria lMaya of South  America can be traced to Chariots of the Gods, by Erich von Däniken, which brought widespread popularity to ancient astronaut theories. Däniken’s book, titled Gods from Outer Space in the US and Return to the Stars in Britain, was an immediate best seller in the United States, Europe and India, and subsequent books, according to von Däniken, have been translated into 32 languages and together have sold more than 63 million copies.⁵⁹ The book’s television adaptation, In Search of Ancient Astronauts (1973), was hosted by Rod Serling of the Twilight Zone. Von Däniken did not credit Pauwels and Bergier’s The Morning of the Magicians in his books, until a lawsuit forced him to disclose the sources he paraphrased In Chariots of the Gods? von Däniken reproduced a drawing of the Sarcophagus

of Palenque, the Mayan city-state in southern M seventh century, and compared the pose depicted on it of Pacal the Great,

the city’s famous ruler, to that of the 1960s Project Mercury astronauts. He interpreted drawings underneath him as rockets and offered it as evidence of a supposed  extraterrestrial Maya:  influence 

In the center of that frame is a man sitting, bending forward. He has a mask on his nose, he uses his two hands to manipulate some controls, and the heel of his left foot is on a kind of pedal with different adjustments. The rear portion is separated from him; he is sitting on a

complicated chair, and outside of th like an exhaust.

To acquire an understanding of von Däniken’s sources, we can consider that in his 1970 follow-up to Chariots of the Gods he writes of Blavatsky’s Book of Dz yan, which he describes, much as H. P. Lovecraft did, as “older than the earth,” and claimed that chosen people who simply touch the book will receive visions of what it describes, through “rhythmically transmitted impulses.”⁶⁰ Dz yan “is supposed to contain the primordial ancient world, the formula of creation, and to tell of the evolution of mankind over millions of years.” The book originated “beyond the Himalayas,” and its teaching reached Japan, India and China and traces of its ideas were found in South America. It was among the books of vast size guarded by secret fraternities in China. The Church Fathers failed to suppress this secret doctrine which was transmitted orally from generation to generation. Von Däniken quotes from the book at great length, discussing how its seven stanzas of creation are a perfect account of alien visitation, and notes, “Mahabharata , Cabbala, Zohar, Dz yan. Identical as to facts that point in one direction. Are they accounts of things that really happened?”⁶¹

Von Däniken claims that ancient art and iconography throughout the world illustrate air and space vehicles, and artifacts of an anachronistically advanced technology. To support his theory, he makes mention of the chariot of Ezekiel and the “wheel inside a wheel” as referring to a spacecraft. He also discusses the Ramayana , where the gods and their avatar chariots” called Vimanas. There are many mentions o the Ramayana, which dates to the 5th or 4th century BCE.⁶² However, much of the information proffered by ancient astronaut theorists on Vimana is derived from channeled information, as is the case with most of their absurd theories. They rely on a text known as the Vimanika Shastra, the existence of which was revealed in 1952 by G. R. Josyer, who asserted that it was written by an Indian

mystic named Pandit Subbaraya Shastry the years 1918–1923. A study by the a departments at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore in 1974 concluded

that the aircraft described in the text were “poor concoctions” and that the author showed a complete lack of understanding of aeronautics.⁶³

The Seventies Part 1

  The cultural transformations of the 60s all marked the thorough success of the Frankfurt School’s strategies, which used the left-wing politics of the 60s to pass through their bogus Freudian fantasies of the liberated self. Their mission accomplished, the leading intellectuals of the “non- communist left,” who had been responsible for nurturing the leftist ideals that helped shape the countermade-culture,complete ideological flip to-the fotherop extreme of the political spectrum. Reinventing American conservatism to align it with neoliberal economic principles, they became known as neoconservatives. As these neoconservatives gained control of the American administration, the Cold War acquired new intensity the 1970s, when they redefined the country role by reviving the notion of its mission to defend democracy around the world.

As reported by Justin Raimondo in Reclaiming the American Right, with the end of the CIA’s Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), “the core group later came to be known as the Neoconservatives.”¹ The CCF had faced an embarrassing scandal when its connections with the CIA and its publication of Encounter were made in 1962, in press articles, especially Ramparts, the New York Times, and the Saturday Evening Post. Irving Kristol then left Encounter and left-wing politics, to become the leader of the neoconservatives. The funding for his activities would continue to derive from the CIA fronts, the Rockefeller Foundation, and ExxonMobil.

  For Kristol and the other Neoconservatives, their original distrust for Stalinism supposedly turned to an outright rejection of communism as they drifted to the right. As Robert Lind wrote in a 2003 article for Salon:

Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right They are products of the influential Jewish-America sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into kind of militaristic and imperial right winoh precedents in American culture or political history. Their admiration for the Israeli Likud party’s tactics, including preventive warfare such as Israel’s 1981 raid on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, is mixed with odd bursts of ideological enthusiasm for “democracy.” They call their revolutionary ideology “Wilsonianism” (after President Woodrow Wilson), but it is really Trotsky’s theory of the permanent revolution mingled with the far-right Likud strain of Zionism.

The reason for the hundred and eighty-degree turn was offered by Kristol who explained: “a neoconservative is a Liberal who has been mugged by reality.” Denounced as traitors by their former friends, they were mocked in the left-leaning publication Dissent as “neoconservatives” and the slur became their slogan.

Kristol and the Neoconservatives’ worldview was inspired by German-Jewish political philosopher Leo Straus. As a youth, Strauss was “converted” to political Zionism as a follower of Zeev Jabotinsky. He was also friends with Gershom Scholem and Walter Benjamin of the Frankist School, who were both strong admirers of Strauss. He would also attend courses at the University of Freiburg taught by Martin Heidegger. After receiving a Rockefeller Fellowship in 1932, Strauss left his position at the Academy of Jewish Research in Berlin for Paris, where he established a life -long friendship with Alexandre Kojève. Because of the Nazis’ rise to power, he chose not to return to his native country and ended up in the United States, where he spent most of his career as a professor of political science at the University of Chicago. Prior to teaching at the University of Chicago, Strauss had secured a position at The New School of Columbia University where he joined the Frankfurt School exiles.

A significant influence on Leo Str Nazi past, was influential among the

Frankfurt School, like Walter Benjamin.² Schmitt’s highly positive reference for Leo Strauss was instrumental in winning Strauss the scholarship funding that allowed him to leave Germany, when he ended up teaching at the Rockefeller- funded University of Chicago. In turn, Strauss’s  critique  an The Concept of the Political led Schmitt to make signifi ca second edition. Strauss’ fascist tend through his and Schmitt’s mutual friend, Alexandre Kojève. Kojève and Strauss both played a major role in Schmitt’s postwar “rehabilitation.” In 1955, Kojève addressed a group of Düsseldorf businessmen at Schmitt’s invitation, and Schmitt attempted to arrange a private meeting between Kojève and Hjalmar Schacht. ³ Throughout his career in the US, Strauss regularly sent his leading disciples to study under Kojève in Paris. For example, Strauss’s top protégé the late Allan Bloom travelled to Paris annually, from 1953 up until Kojève’s death in 1968, to study Kojève’s Nietzschean fascist beliefs. Bloom would consider Kojève to be one of his greatest teachers.⁴

According to Steven B. Smith, “Strauss believed that modern philosophy began with Machiavelli, through his ‘realism’ and rejection of the utopianism of the ancients, and his desire to describe a political order more in tune with the brutal nature of humanity.”⁵ Strauss believed Machiavelli contributed to three waves of European thought, marked by attempts to provide a rational basis for human morality. First were the liberal theories of Hobbes and Locke and their notions of natural rights, followed by Rousseau, Hegel, and Marx who fixed laws in history Nietzsche,.Thewhose critique third pha of reason prepared the way for the “radical historicism” of Heidegger, who Strauss called the “highest self-consciousness” of modern thought.⁶ Strauss described how upon hearing Heidegger in 1922 it slowly became evident that Heidegger was preparing a “revolution” in thought the likes of which had not been experienced since Hegel.⁷ This was despite Heidegger’s association with Nazism. In fact, Strauss himself concedes that Heidegger, who had never praised any other contemporary political movement or leader, even refused to denounce the Nazis long after Hitler had been “muted.”⁸

Strauss shared Heidegger’s condemnation of modernity, but Strauss viewed Heidegger as falling victim himself of the fundamental problem of modernity, which was the nihilism that ensued from the rationalism of the Enlightenment, which would explain his false hope in the promise of Nazism. According to Strauss critic Luc Ferry, Strauss took over Heidegger’s critique of modernity, but gave it a more directly political meaning.⁹ While Heidegger proposed a deconstruction of history to discover the meaning of Being, Strauss proposed a similar deconstruction also through a return to the Greeks. Praise for the wisdom of the ancients and condemnation of the folly of the moderns, according to Shadia Drury, was the entire basis of Strauss’s most famous book, Natural Right and History. As Drury explained:

Strauss is not as obscure or as esoteric as his admirers pretend. There are certain incontestable themes in his work. The most fundamental theme is the distinction between the ancients and the moderns—a distinction that informs all his work. According to Strauss, ancient philosophers (such as Plato) were wise and wily, but modern philosophers (such as Locke and other liberals) were foolish and vulgar. The wise ancients thought that the unwashed masses liberty; and giving them these sublime treasures was like throwing pearls before swine. Accordingly, they believed that society needs an elite of philosophers or intellectuals to manufacture “noble lies” for the consumption of the masses. Not surprisingly, the ancients had no use for democracy. Plato balked at the democratic idea that any Donald, dick,  or  George ¹⁰ was  equally  fit

To Strauss, the ancients recognized the absence of any natural right to liberty. For Strauss, they correctly recognized that there is only one natural right: the right of the superior to rule over the inferior. In On Tyranny, Strauss referred to “the tyrannical teaching” of the ancients which must be kept secret for two reasons: to both spare the ignorant masses the humiliation and to protect the elite from reprisals. As Drury further explains:

Of course, Strauss believed that the wise would not abuse their power. On the contrary, they would give the people just what was commensurate with their needs and capacities. But what exactly is that? Certainly, giving them freedom, happiness, and prosperity is not the point. In Strauss’s estimation, that would turn them into animals. The goal of the wise is to ennoble the vulgar. But what could possibly ennoble the vulgar? Only weeping, worshippin masses. Religion and war—perpetual war—would lift the masses from the animality of bourgeois consumption and the pre-occupation with “creature comforts.” Instead of personal happiness, they would live their  lives  in  perpetual¹¹   sacrificet

As with Marx and capitalism, the neoconservatives attacked liberalism as containing the seeds for its own destruction through historicism, relativism and nihilism. The reason for resorting to religion was that, to Strauss, the problem with liberalism was that it led to relativism. Relativism was a problem because it removed society’s belief in one absolute truth, particularly religious truth. This was not because Strauss believed that such a belief was possible. On the contrary, he rejected all possibility of such truth, regarding religions as “heroic delusions” and “noble dreams,” and said of Judaism that “no nobler dream was ever dreamt” and concluded that “it is surely nobler to be victim of the most noble dream than to profi it.”¹² Rather, these delusions, or “noble lies,” were necessary for the masses who would succumb to nihilism for their inability to manage the awful truth that there is no truth. But for Strauss, the “philosopher,” who is equal to Nietzsche’s Superman, can create and manipulate delusions for the sake of society, but is himself beyond the truth and conventional morality, but he was required to keep his sacred mission secret from the rabble.

Strauss’ apologists who question his impact have often pointed out that Strauss managed to avoid all discussion of modern politics. However, as Shadia Drury explains, “He was a very secretive thinker who expressed his ideas with utmost circumspection.”¹³ To understand the role that he saw for himself, it is simple enough to consider how he interpreted the role of a philosopher. To Strauss, there are “gentlemen” and there are philosophers. The “gentleman” is the urban patrician who derives his income from agriculture. He must be a man of moderate wealth, or wealthy enough to be free from toil to pursue noble or honorable things. He devotes himself to the well-being of his estate, his household and his city. He is well-bred and public-spirited. He is the type of man described in Plato’s Republic as the lover of honor and reputation.¹⁴ He is the citizen par excellence. According to Strauss, while the best regime is the tyrannical rule of the philosopher, the best practical regime is the rule of “gentlemen” who are favorably disposed toward philosophers, and so allow them to direct political affairs in a “remote manner.”¹⁵

As Drury also noted, “There is an uncanny resemblance between Strauss’s view of the philosopher-prophet and the Sabbatean conception of the Messiah.”¹⁶ The Sabbateans, through the doctrine of holy sin believed, as Scholem pointed out, that “the elect are fundamentally different from the crowd and not to be judged by its standards. Standing under a new spiritual law and representing as it were a new kind of reality, they are beyond good and evil.”¹⁷ Strauss also betrayed otherKabbalah . For Strauss,influences Kabbalistic from numerology became one of the most important clues for deciphering the secret meaning of the texts. Strauss was notorious for att number of the chapters in Machiavelli’s Prince and to Locke’s numbering the paragraphs of his Two Treatises. Strauss notes that Machiavelli’s Prince consists of 26 chapters, which is the same numerical value as the letters of the sacred name of God in the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. Additionally, Strauss highlighted Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy where, in relation to a critique of the Aristotelian conception of the eternity of the world, Machiavelli notes that religions tend to change two or three times every 5,000 to 6,000 years. This passage indicates Machiavelli’s belief that religions have a typical life span of 1,666 and not more than 3,000 years, corresponding with the date of the appearance of the false messiah Sabbatai Zevi.¹⁸

Strauss shares the Kabbalistic view of knowledge as both dangerous and erotic. The Kabbalah was considered dangerous because its heretical tendencies could lead to excommunication, an uninitiated. Like the Kabbalists, Strauss associates the tree of knowledge with philosophy, with sin, the fall, and the devil. In Persecution and the Arts of Writing,

Strauss insists that all the great authors of the Western tradition are esoteric writers for precisely these same reasons. Kabbalistic theology is highly erotic through its religious interpretations of the interplay of God as the masculine quality in relation to the Shekhinah as the feminine aspect, or the relation of the “lover” and the “beloved.” Likewise, Strauss often relates that philosophy is a manifestation of Eros. To Strauss, Philosophy is the quest to understand man’s true nature, which is Eros, as opposed societal con constructs. Eros, like nature, is the enemy of society, marriage, and order. The fact that the Bible uses the same word for knowledge as for sexual relations reinforces the Kabbalah’s identification Eros. The Greek  words for “philosophy” is phil sophia, or love of wisdom, Metis the Zeus.But first Strauss’s conception wife of Eros is also connected

to the fact that he points out that the greatest philosophers, those who manage to rise above convention altogether, were pederasts.¹⁹

For Strauss, Kojève’s End of History is the result of all the errors of modernity and its values of liberalism, and was equivalent to the tragedy predicted by Nietzsche, as being the days of the Last Man. The error of liberalism is that it has departed from the wisdom of the ancients, who recognized the inevitability of a natural hierarchy among men. And while Strauss recognizes that the End of History is fated to produce itself, in a Hegelian sense, he believes that it will perish only to renew the cycle of history in Nietzsche’s sense of an “eternal recurrence.” As Strauss explains, “There will always be men (andres) who will revolt against a state which is destructive of humanity.”²⁰ In a world where “there is no longer a possibility of noble action and great deeds,” the rebels against the universal homogenous state may be “forced” into a “nihilistic revolution that is not “enlightened by any positive goal.” ²¹ As Shadia Drury comments, “What is ironic is that such radicalism passes for conservatism in America.”²²

Essentially, the Straussian basis of neoconservatism is that “liberalism,” which is the source of western liberal democracy and free market capitalism, is in crisis because of the Enlightenment principles on which it is based, and which were articulated by Kant, Locke and Adam Smith and put into practice in the United States by Jefferson and Madison. The main anti-liberal philosophers were Nietzsche, Heidegger and Carl Schmidt.

  Effectively, Neoconservatism was triggered by the repudiation of the politics of the American New Left. As journalist and writer of neoconservative ideology Jacob Heilbrunn related, “Neo-conservatism was turned into an actual movement by Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz,”²³ and as Podhoretz explained in an article in the leading neoconservative publication Commentary for which he was a long -time editor, neoconservatism “came into the world to combat the dangerous lies that were spread by the radicalism of the 1960s and that were being accepted as truth by the established liberal institutions of the day.”²⁴ As Adam Curtis explained in the BBC documentary, The Power of Nightmares : “Strauss explained it was the very basis of the liberal idea, the belief in individual freedom, that was causing the chaos because it undermined the shared moral framework that held society together. Individual this inevitably²⁵ According led to Irving Kristol: conflict.”

If you had asked any liberal in 1960, we are going to pass these laws, these laws, these laws, and these laws, mentioning all the laws that in fact were passed in the 1960s and ‘70s, would you say crime will go up, drug addiction will go up, illegitimacy will go up, or will they get down? Obviously, everyone would have said, they will get down. And everyone would have been wrong. Now, that’s not something that the liberals have been able to face up to. They’ve had their reforms, and they have led to consequences that they did not expect and they don’t know what to do about.²⁶

Podhoretz’s Commentary was originally a journal of the liberal left, but became a major voice for neoconservatives in the 1970s. As Benjamin Balint described it, it was the “Contentious Magazine That Transformed the Jewish Left Into the Neoconservative Right.”²⁷ Historian Richard Pells concludes that “no other journal of the past half century has been so consistently influential, or so central to the m political and intellectual life of the United States.”²⁸ Commentary was published by the American Jewish Committee (AJC), which was also responsible for the publication of The Authoritarian Personality. In the 1970s, AJC spearheaded the fight  to  pass  anti-boycott  legislatif Israel. In particular, Japan’s defection from the boycott was attributed to AJC persuasion. In 1975,  AJC   became  the  first  Jewish organization to  campaign against the UN’s “ Zionism  is    Racism” resolution, succeeded in 1991. AJC played a leading role in breaking Israel’s diplomatic isolation at the UN by helping it gain acceptance in WEOG (West Europe and Others),  one  of  the  UN’s  five  regional

The theoretical framework for neoconservative foreign policy during the final Cold years War was articulated of by the Jeane Kirkpatrick, in “Dictatorships and Double Standards,” published in Commentary in 1979. Though she ultimately became a conservative, as a college freshman in 1945 Kirkpatrick joined the Young People’s Socialist League, the youth wing of the Socialist Party of America, influenced by her grandfa and Socialist parties in Oklahoma. Kirkpatrick had also been involved with the League for Industrial Democracy from 1960 to 1965 known as the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), part of the network of the Tavistock Institute’s Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), which had been instrumental in creating the New Left in America.²⁹ Kirkpatrick eventually criticized the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter, which supported detente with the Soviet Union. She went on to serve the Reagan Administration as Ambassador to the United Nations.

  Ultimately, the social upheavals of the sixties caused by liberalism were perceived by the neoconservatives as a “rotting” through America’s lack of self-confi dence and belief in its of identity, the neoconservatives took hold of Strauss’ notion of the need to resort to Noble Lies. They would fabricate the mythos that America was the only source for “good” in the world, and should be supported, otherwise “evil” would prevail. Of the purported threat that came to be exaggerated by the neoconservative lobby, Adam Curtis explained, “this dramatic battle between good and evil was precisely the kind of myth that Leo Strauss had taught his students would be necessary to rescue the country from moral decay.”³⁰

Towards building the reinvention of America’s role in the world, the neoconservatives took advantage of that resulted from America’s defeat in Vietnam and the Watergate scandal. Primarily responsible for escalating the involvement of the US in Vietnam were McGeorge Bundy and McNamara who, along with Dean Rusk, were reportedly the authors of the controversial Report from Iron Mountain, which called for the need to maintain perpetual war. In the documents, “an established and recognized extraterrestrial menace” is also listed among the possible “substitute institutions for consideration as replacements for the nonmilitary functions of war.” McNamara was Secretary of Defense under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson from 1961 to 1968, and served as President of the World Bank from 1968 to 1981. Dean Rusk, an important participant in the formation of the Bilderberg  a top official with  the  CFR  and  then the head of  the  Rockefeller Foundation.

The Report from Iron Mountain was first published then editor E. L. Doctorow. According to the report, a panel called the Special Study Group met at an underground nuclear bunker called Iron Mountain in 1963 to examine what problems would occur if the US entered lasting peace. A member of the panel, a professor naming himself “John Doe,” decided to release the report to the public. The report concluded that peace was not in the interest of a stable society. Because war was a part of the economy, it was necessary to conceive a state of war for a stable economy. The government, the group theorized, would not exist without war and nation states existed in order to wage war. War also served a vital function of diverting collective aggression. They recommended that bodies be created to emulate the economic functions of war.

However, Leonard C. Lewin, claimed to have been the author of the work. Nevertheless, the report was reviewed in the book section of The Washington Post by Herschel McLandress, the pen name for Harvard professor John  Kenneth Galbraith, where he claimed t authenticity, because he had been invited to participate in its creation.³¹ Others have suggested it is merely a parody of the disturbing material produced by the popular think-tanks. Whatever the case may be, the conclusions mirror those discovered several decades earlier by Norman Dodds, as expressed in minutes of the tax-exempt foundations.