When DC is guided by Bad Philosophers ..

High functioning sociopaths with an authoritarian drive to get and abuse power they turn to tyrannic philosophy to excuse their own criminal despotic minds.

Shallow "thinkers" like Ayn Rand,Leo Strauss,Machiavelli,Eric Voegelin and
Leo Strauss are what you get when sociopaths "philosophize" for themselves...

Put Ayn Rand in with this toxic stew of depraved excuses for a kakistocracy,
and you can see how ugly and cruel neo conservatism
and the "free market" becomes and, you arrive at the REAL reason for the Iraq war.

A hierarchical Empire cannot have complete control if there is an alternative way to live that the citizen, consumer, 'slave' Finds out exists.A society that might value them,nurture them,help them find meaning within themselves,a non-competitive,sharing society,where they might find empowerment,happiness and peace as they lost in the drive to consume,survive,trying to elevate themselves over othersor fighting against each other..

Empire cannot have equality or diversity or close knit groups of people - within it's dominated world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Again: When impetuous young men are repelled by the vulgarity of democracy,
Plato can point out to them that energy, pride, and will to rule
can indeed establish the despotism of a spiritually corrupt elite,
but not a just government;
and when democrats rave about freedom and equality
and forget that government requires spiritual training
and intellectual discipline,
he can warn them that they are on the way to tyranny.

These examples will suffice to indicate that political science
goes beyond the validity of propositions to the truth of existence.
The opinions for the clarification of which the analysis is undertaken
are not merely false: They are symptoms of spiritual disorder
in the men who hold them.
And the purpose of the analysis is to persuade—
to have its own insights, if possible,
supplant the opinions in social reality.
Analysis is concerned with the therapy of order.

http://www.voegelinview.com/ev/being_and_scientific_analysis.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Voegelin


In other words, we impose representative government on countries
which lack the conditions for it, namely the articulation of the
individual as a representative unit.
What makes the individual a representative unit is that he is,
and is seen as, a potential knower of truth,
or, as Voegelin put it, a sensorium of transcendence.
These conditions do not obtain in Moslem countries such as Iraq,
which are articulated in terms of clan, tribe, and mosque,
not in terms of the individual.
Therefore attempting to impose democracy on such countries will only
succeed in liberating their clannish and tribal and religious passions,
to the ruin of the country.
A fortiori, spreading "global democracy"
may only succeed in unleashing the evil forces of Islam-ism
on the world as a whole. The silver lining of this disaster is
that it may (we hope) discredit the ideology of democratic
universalism and lead to a re-awakening of the West
to its own historic identity vis à vis the non-West.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/002260.html

Remember the conservatives called Obama an ANTI- COLONIALIST...


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Leo Strauss =asshole enabler of liars.

Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception
Many neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz are disciples of a philosopher
who believed that the elite should use deception,
religious fervor and perpetual war to control the ignorant masses
What would you do if you wanted to topple Saddam Hussein,
but your intelligence agencies couldn't find the evidence to justify a war?

A follower of Leo Strauss may just hire the "right" kind of men
to get the job done – people with the intellect, acuity,
and, if necessary, the political commitment,
polemical skills, and, above all, the imagination to find
the evidence that career intelligence officers could not detect.

http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/


Strauss-ian method: so careful is he to hide the point of his argument,
he nearly fails to make it. Certainly he fails to support it.
Strauss puts his students to such a mental effort to try to understand
him that they are too exhausted to make the mental effort to criticize him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A second fundamental belief of Strauss’s ancients has to do with
their insistence on the need for secrecy and the necessity of lies.
In his book Persecution and the Art of Writing,
Strauss outlines why secrecy is necessary.
He argues that the wise must conceal their views for two reasons
– to spare the people’s feelings
and to protect the elite from possible reprisals.

"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."
In On Tyranny, Strauss refers to this natural right
as the “tyrannical teaching” of his beloved ancients.
It is tyrannical in the classic sense
of rule above rule or in the absence of law (p. 70).


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5010.htm

He was actually one of the first thinkers of the power of people over the monarchy. It is only through the reactionary reading of his philosophy by neo-monarchists that we now so easily associate him with something like "might makes right" or "the end justifies the means." These are actually bastardized readings of Machiavelli by his enemies. Unfortunately, his enemies won, so they're the little slogan versions of what Machiavelli is arguing that have gained traction in the public imagination. Think of it like Dick Cheney reading Al Gore, and telling you what he said. That's the version of Machiavelli we usually get. What Machiavelli was largely inventing in his philosophy was the principle of popular sovereignty, that sovereignty (or political legitimacy and power) is always being constituted, is never finalized once and for all. Power doesn't "make right." Rather, power - the very legitimacy of power - is always contingent, and subject to change. People who associate his political thought with silly little slogans generally don't read Machiavelli with any rigor or context.