‘The proposition “man exists” means: man is that being whose Being is distinguished by the open-standing standing-in in the unconcealedness of Being, from Being, in Being.’ — from his Existence and Being

And no, it is not clearer in the original German.

No wonder Strauss was kind of weird. Never read him myself. Don’t care to, either.

Critical to examine where we are headed and what we can do to interfere with where the “noble lie” criminals want to go. Many have bee warning us including Scott Ritter in his book “Target Iran”

Look Who Is Marching Our Nation Towards An Unnecessary Military Confrontation With Iran…Surprised?
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/5428

————————————————————————-

March 16, 2005

MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS

FROM: GARY SCHMITT

SUBJECT: Iran’s “Right” to a Nuclear Program

According to a front-page story in the New York Times yesterday (”Reshaping Nuclear Rules,” by David Sanger), the Bush administration is seeking to close loopholes in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The administration’s concern is that the treaty allows states to become virtual or actual nuclear weapons states under the guise of acquiring technology, infrastructure, and know-how for “peaceful” nuclear energy programs.

The core problem with the NPT is that it appears to give non-nuclear weapon states a “right” to nuclear technology and assistance in exchange for foreswearing weapons themselves. This is the “right” that Iran is currently insisting allows it to not only build a nuclear energy plant, but also the infrastructure necessary to enrich uranium to fuel that plant. As Sanger notes, this is a right “Mr. Bush’s aides” appear to “have acknowledged” and, in the case of Iran, have convinced our European allies “that the only acceptable outcome of their negotiations with Iran is that it must give up that right.”

But by accepting the idea that under the NPT Iran has such a prerogative, the administration only makes its own efforts to stop Iran’s program more difficult. It leads in practice to the idea that major concessions must be made to Iran in exchange for giving up its “right” and, bizarrely, allows Iran to position itself internationally as a defender of the treaty itself.

This need not be the case. As Henry Sokolski, Executive Director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, has previously argued, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty can be read differently. The specific intent of the treaty was to prevent proliferation, and it would be a strange thing indeed if the actual provisions of the treaty mandated precisely the danger it was trying to forestall. As the late strategic strategist Albert Wohlstetter noted: “The NPT is, after all, a treaty against proliferation, not for nuclear development.”

Moreover, the so-called right to nuclear technology and know-how found in Article IV of the treaty is itself conditioned on a state behaving “in conformity with articles I and II” of the treaty – articles which prohibit activities that lead to nuclear weapons proliferation. Add to this fact that, during the negotiations over the NPT, specific proposals were rejected that would have made it a “duty” for weapon states to aid non-weapon states with nuclear technology transfers and know-how. The strong inference is that Article IV should not be interpreted as giving non-weapon states a presumptive title to such transfers.

In the case of Iran, then, the administration should be arguing that Tehran has no inalienable right to its nuclear program. By dint of its multiple and prolonged deceptions with respect to that program, and the fact that the program has no feasible economic rationale, Iran has forfeited the ground on which it can plausibly argue that its program is “in conformity with articles I and II” of the treaty. The administration is right to worry about how the NPT is being abused. But it would be in a stronger position to address those concerns if it didn’t give up the high ground so readily with respect to what the treaty itself requires.

http://www.newamericancentury……050316.htm

Obama has all ready been told you have until late fall with the “diplomacy” angle with Iran. Then more sanctions then…..I believe a pre-emptive attack on facilities in Iran by Israel…possibly pulling U.S. into the illegal mix

And theraP, thank you very much for this succinct exposition of the Straussian cult.

Very few people seem aware of this blueprint .I heartily recommend familiarizing oneself with this intriguing Stanford Research plan,commissioned by the government way back in the “60’s.

Its called “Changing Images of Man.”

The ENTIRE work is available online.

An excellent synopsis is also availabl,written by Peter Chamberlain over at Online Journal.

Here’s a link,or two:

The planned collapse of AmericaDec 7, 2007 … Their final report was released as the Changing Images of Man. … Changing Images of Man predicts an American economic collapse and a …
http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/p…..2715.shtml – 33k – Cached – Similar pages

cryptogon.com » Archives » Changing Images of ManDec 11, 2007 … Unfortunately, I hadn’t heard of Changing Images of Man until 2005. (I wish I’d read it about 15 years earlier.) I felt very lucky to find …
cryptogon.com/?p=1707 – 16k – Cached – Similar pages

Changing Images of Man OCRChanging Images of Man – Stanford Research Institute (cultural transformation by the Elite) Culture-Dance Uncategorizable-Uncategorizable.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2553613/Cha…..of-Man-OCR – 806k – Cached – Similar pages

even those like myself, people saying cheney was a sociopath, it was based on his actions without any knowledge of his philosophy

now we know the philosophy as well