#reagan strauss | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

kramlabs · 27 days

Text

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE STRAUSSUIANS

Let us stop for a moment to consider this group, the Straussians, about whom Westerners know little. They are individuals, all Jewish, but by no means representative of either American Jews or of Jewish communities worldwide. They were formed by the German philosopher Leo Strauss, who took refuge in the United States during the rise of Nazism and became a professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago. According to many accounts, he had formed a small group of faithful students to whom he gave oral instruction. There is no written record of this. He explained to them that the only way for the Jews not to fall victim to a new genocide was to form their own dictatorship. He called them Hoplites (the soldiers of Sparta) and sent them to disrupt the courts of his rivals. Finally, he taught them discretion and praised the “noble lie”. Although he died in 1973, his student fraternity continued.

The Straussians began forming a political group half a century ago, in 1972. They were all members of Democratic Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson’s staff, including Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. They worked closely with a group of Trotskyite journalists, also Jewish, who had met at the City College of New York and edited the magazine Commentary. Both groups were closely linked to the CIA, but also, thanks to Perle’s father-in-law Albert Wohlstetter (the US military strategist), to the Rand Corporation (the think tank of the military-industrial complex). Many of these young people intermarried until they formed a compact group of about 100 people.

Together they drafted and passed the “Jackson-Vanik Amendment” in the midst of the Watergate crisis (1974), which forced the Soviet Union to allow the emigration of its Jewish population to Israel under pain of economic sanctions. This was their founding act.

In 1976, Paul Wolfowitz [1] was one of the architects of the “Team B” charged by President Gerald Ford with assessing the Soviet threat [2]. He issued a delirious report accusing the Soviet Union of preparing to take over “global hegemony”. The Cold War changed its nature: it was no longer a question of isolating (containment) the USSR, it had to be stopped in order to save the “free world”.

The Straussians and the New York intellectuals, all of whom were on the left, put themselves at the service of the right-wing president Ronald Reagan. It is important to understand that these groups are neither truly left nor right wing. Some members have switched five times from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party and back again. What is important to them is to infiltrate power, whatever the ideology. Elliott Abrams became an assistant to the Secretary of State. He led an operation in Guatemala where he put a dictator in power and experimented with Israeli Mossad officers on how to create reserves for the Mayan Indians in order to eventually do the same thing in Israel with the Palestinian Arabs (the Mayan Resistance earned Rigoberta Menchú her Nobel Peace Prize). Then Elliott Abrams continued his exactions in El Salvador and finally in Nicaragua against the Sandinistas with the Iran-Contra affair. For their part, the New York intellectuals, now called “Neoconservatives”, created the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the U.S. Institute of Peace, a mechanism that organized many colored revolutions, starting with China with the attempted coup d’état of Prime Minister Zhao Ziyang and the subsequent repression in Tiananmen Square.

At the end of George H. Bush’s (the father’s) term of office, Paul Wolfowitz, then number 3 in the Defense Department, drew up a document [3] based on a strong idea: after the decomposition of the USSR, the United States had to prevent the emergence of new rivals, starting with the European Union. He concluded by advocating the possibility of taking unilateral action, i.e. to put an end to the concerted action of the United Nations. Wolfowitz was undoubtedly the designer of “Desert Storm”, the operation to destroy Iraq that allowed the United States to change the rules of the game and organize a unilateral world. It was during this time that Straussians valued the concepts of “regime change” and “democracy promotion.”

Gary Schmitt, Abram Shulsky and Paul Wolfowitz entered the US intelligence community through the Consortium for the Study of Intelligence’s Working Group on Intelligence Reform. They criticized the assumption that other governments think the same way as the US government [4]. Then they criticized the lack of political leadership in intelligence, leaving it to wander into unimportant issues instead of focusing on the essential ones. Politicizing intelligence is what Wolfowitz had already done with the B-team and what he would do again in 2002 with the Office of Special Plans, inventing arguments for new wars against Iraq and Iran (Leo Strauss’ “noble lie”).

Richard Perle

In 1994, now an arms dealer, Richard Perle (a.k.a. “the Prince of Darkness”) became an advisor to the President and ex-Nazi Alija Izetbegović in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It was he who brought Osama Bin Laden and his Arab Legion (the forerunner of Al Qaeda) from Afghanistan to defend the country. Perle was even a member of the Bosnian delegation at the signing of the Dayton Accords in Paris.

In 1996, members of the PNAC (including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser) wrote a study at the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) for the new Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. This report [6] advocates the elimination of Yasser Arafat, the annexation of the Palestinian territories, a war against Iraq and the transfer of Palestinians there. It was inspired not only by the political theories of Leo Strauss, but also by those of his friend, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the founder of “revisionist Zionism”, of whom Netanyahu’s father was the private secretary.

Robert Kagan

Thanks to the 9/11 attacks, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz installed Admiral Arthur Cebrowski in Donald Rumsfeld’s shadow. He played a role comparable to that of Albert Wohlstetter during the Cold War. He imposed the strategy of “endless war”: the US armed forces should not win any more wars, but start many of them and keep them going as long as possible. The aim would be to destroy all the political structures of the targeted states in order to ruin these populations and deprive them of any means of defending themselves against the US [7]; a strategy that has been implemented for twenty years in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen…

Bernard Lewis and Benjamin Netanyahu

Prime Minister Office

Some individuals, such as Bernard Lewis, have worked with all three groups, the Straussians, the Neoconservatives and the Revisionist Zionists. A former British intelligence officer, he acquired both U.S. and Israeli citizenship, was an advisor to Benjamin Netanyahu and a member of the U.S. National Security Council. Lewis, who halfway through his career assured that Islam is incompatible with terrorism and that Arab terrorists are in fact Soviet agents, later changed his mind and assured with the same aplomb that the religion preaches terrorism. He invented the strategy of the “clash of civilizations” for the US National Security Council. The idea was to use cultural differences to mobilize Muslims against the Orthodox, a concept that was popularized by his assistant at the Council, Samuel Huntington, except that Huntington did not present it as a strategy, but as an inevitability that had to be countered. Huntington began his career as an advisor to the South African secret service during the aparteheid era, and later wrote a book, The Soldier and the State [9]understanding national security needs.

After the destruction of Iraq, the Straussians were the subject of all sorts of controversies [10]. Everyone is surprised that such a small group, supported by neoconservative journalists, could have acquired such authority without having been the subject of a public debate. The U.S. Congress appointed an Iraq Study Group (the so-called “Baker-Hamilton Commission”) to evaluate its policy. It condemned, without naming it, the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski strategy and deplored the hundreds of thousands of deaths it had caused. But Rumsfeld resigned and the Pentagon inexorably pursued this strategy, which it had never officially adopted.

In the Obama administration, the Straussians found their way into Vice President Joe Biden’s cabinet. His National Security Advisor, Jacob Sullivan, played a central role in organizing the operations against Libya, Syria and Myanmar, while another of his advisors, Antony Blinken, focused on Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. It was he who led the negotiations with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei that resulted in the arrest and imprisonment of key members of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s team in exchange for the nuclear deal.

Regime change in Kiev in 2014 was organized by the Straussians. Vice President Biden is firmly committed to it. Victoria Nuland came to support the neo-Nazi elements of the Right Sector and to supervise the Israeli “Delta” commando [11] in Maidan Square. A telephone intercept reveals her wish to “fuck the European Union” (sic) in the tradition of the 1992 Wolfowitz report. But the leaders of the European Union do not understand and protest only weakly [12].

“Jake” Sullivan and Antony Blinken placed Vice President Biden’s son, Hunter, on the board of one of the major gas companies, Burisma Holdings, despite opposition from Secretary of State John Kerry. Hunter Biden is unfortunately just a junkie, he would serve as a front for a gigantic scam at the expense of the Ukrainian people. He would appoint, under the supervision of Amos Hochstein, several of his stoner friends to become other front men at the head of various companies and to plunder Ukrainian gas. These are the people that President Vladimir Putin called a “clique of drug addicts”.

Sullivan and Blinken relied on mafia godfather Ihor Kolomoysky, the country’s third largest fortune. Although he is Jewish, he financed the heavyweights of the Right Sector, a neo-Nazi organization that works for NATO and fought in Maidan Square during the “regime change”. Kolomoïsky took advantage of his connections to take power within the European Jewish community, but his co-religionists rebelled and ejected him from international associations. However, he managed to get the head of the Right Sector, Dmytro Yarosh, appointed deputy secretary of the Ukrainian National Security and Defence Council and to get himself appointed governor of the Dnipropetrovsk oblast. Both men would be quickly removed from any political function. It was their group that President Vladimir Putin called a “clique of neo-Nazis.”

Joe Biden is not a Straussian, but he has been doing business with them for about fifteen years. Here with Anthony Blinken.

THE STRAUSSIANS ARE STILL THE SAME AS EVER

Since Joe Biden returned to the White House, this time as President of the United States, the Straussians have been running the show. “Jake” Sullivan is National Security Advisor, while Antony Blinken is Secretary of State with Victoria Nuland at his side. As I have reported in previous articles, she went to Moscow in October 2021 and threatens to crush Russia’s economy if it ded not comply. This was the beginning of the current crisis.

Undersecretary of State Nuland resurrected Dmitro Yarosh and imposed him on President Zelinsky, a television actor protected by Ihor Kolomoysky. On November 2, 2021, he appointed him special advisor to the head of the army, General Valerii Zaluzhnyi. The latter, a true democrat, rebelled at first and finally accepted. When questioned by the press about this astonishing duo, he refused to answer and mentioned a question of national security. Yarosh gave his full support to the “white führer”, Colonel Andrey Biletsky, and his Azov Battalion. This copy of the SS Das Reich division has been staffed since the summer of 2021 by American mercenaries formerly from Blackwater [13].

Having identified the Straussians, we must admit that Russia’s ambition is understandable, even desirable. To rid the world of the Straussians would be to do justice to the million or more deaths they have caused and to save those they are about to kill. Whether this intervention in Ukraine is the right way remains to be seen.

In any case, if the responsibility for the current events lies with the Straussians, all those who let them act without flinching also have a responsibility. Starting with Germany and France, who signed the Minsk Agreements seven years ago and did nothing to ensure that they were implemented, and then with the fifty or so states that signed the OSCE declarations prohibiting the extension of Nato east of the Oder-Neisse line and did nothing. Only Israel, which has just got rid of the revisionist Zionists, has expressed a nuanced position on these events.

This is one of the lessons of this crisis: democratically governed peoples are responsible for the decisions taken for a long time by their leaders and maintained after alternations in power.

Thierry Meyssan

[1] “Paul Wolfowitz, the Pentagon’s Soul”, by Paul Labarique, Voltaire Network, 4 October 2004.

[2] Killing Detente: The Right Attacks the CIA, Anne H. Cahn, Pennsylvania State University Press (1998).

[3] This document was revealed in “US Strategy Plan Calls For Insuring No Rivals Develop”, Patrick E. Tyler, New York Times, March 8, 1992. See also the excerpts published on page 14: “Excerpts from Pentagon’s Plan: ’Prevent the Re-Emergence of a New Rival’”. Additional information is provided in “Keeping the US First, Pentagon Would Preclude a Rival Superpower” Barton Gellman, The Washington Post, March 11, 1992.

[4] Silent Warfare: Understanding the World of Intelligence, Abram N. Shulsky & Gary J. Schmitt, Potomac Books (1999).

[5] « Toward a neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy », Robert Kagan & William Kristol, Foreign Affairs, july-august 1996, vol. 75 (4), p. 18-32.

[6] «A Clean Break : A New Strategy for Securing the Realm», Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (1996).

[7] “The Rumsfeld/Cebrowski doctrine”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé, Voltaire Network, 25 May 2021.

[8] «Sommet historique pour sceller l’Alliance des guerriers de Dieu », Réseau Voltaire, 17 octobre 2003.

[9] The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations, Samuel Huntington, Samuel Huntington, Belknap Press (1981).

[10] This controversy is still ongoing. To write this article I have mainly consulted these eight books: The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss, Shadia B. Drury, Palgrave Macmillan (1988). Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire, Anne Norton, Yale University Press (2005). The Truth About Leo Strauss: Political Philosophy and American Democracy, Catherine H. Zuckert & Michael P. Zuckert, University of Chicago Press (2008). Straussophobia: Defending Leo Strauss and Straussians Against Shadia Drury and Other Accusers, Peter Minowitz, Lexington Books (2009). Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America, Paul E. Gottfried, Cambridge University Press (2011). Crisis of the Strauss Divided: Essays on Leo Strauss and Straussianism, East and West, Harry V. Jaffa, Rowman & Littlefield (2012). Leo Strauss, The Straussians, and the Study of the American Regime, Kenneth L. Deutsch, Rowman & Littlefield (2013). Leo Strauss and the Invasion of Iraq: Encountering the Abyss, Aggie Hirst, Routledge (2013).

[11] «Qui sont ces anciens soldats israéliens parmi les combattants de rue dans la ville de Kiev ?», AlyaExpress-News.com, 2 mars 2014. « The new Gladio in Ukraine », Manlio Dinucci, Il Manifesto (Italie) , Voltaire Network, March 18, 2014.

[12] “What about apologizing to Ukraine, Mrs. Nuland?”, by Andrey Fomin, Oriental Review (Russia) , Voltaire Network, 7 February 2014.

[13] « Exclusive : Documents Reveal Erik Prince’s $10 Billion Plan to Make Weapons and Create a Private Army in Ukraine », Simon Shuster, Time, July 7, 2021.

Via: https://www.voltairenet.org/article215855.html and here: https://www.voltairenet.org/article221176.html

#Thierry Meyssan #neocons #BRICS vs NATO #BRICS vs WHIGS #ziocon #team b #straussians

0 notes

ulkaralakbarova · 3 months

Text

Eric O’Neill, a computer specialist who wants to be made an agent is assigned to clerk for Robert Hanssen, a senior agent with 25 years in the FBI, and to write down everything Hanssen does. O’Neill’s told it’s an investigation of Hanssen’s sexual habits, however Hanssen is really suspected of spying for the Soviet Union and Russia for years and being responsible for the deaths of agents working for the United States. Credits: TheMovieDb. Film Cast: Robert Hanssen: Chris Cooper Eric O’Neill: Ryan Phillippe Kate Burroughs: Laura Linney Juliana O’Neill: Caroline Dhavernas Rich Garces: Gary Cole Dean Plesac: Dennis Haysbert Bonnie Hanssen: Kathleen Quinlan John O’Neill: Bruce Davison Geddes: Jonathan Watton Jim Olsen: Tom Barnett D.I.A. Suit: Jonathan Potts Photographer: David Huband Agent Nece: Catherine Burdon Agent Sherin: Scott Gibson Agent Loper: Courtenay J. Stevens Lisa Hanssen: Clare Stone Greg Hanssen: Jonathan Keltz Michael Rochford: Richard Fitzpatrick Jane: Melissa Thomson Gene Connors: Craig Eldridge Tim Bereznay: Jonathan Whittaker Beautiful Reporter: Reagan Pasternak Vivian O’Neill: Mary Jo Deschanel Libyan Man: Elie Gemael Libyan Wife: Oula Boubkraoui Trunk Cataloguer: Chris Owens SWAT Agent: Jonathon Ruckman Father McKee: Stan Coles Information Center Manager: Bart Bedford Agent Pack: David Frisch Director Louis Freeh: Scott McCulloch Richard: Mathew Lyons Special Agent in Charge: Greg Campbell Man in Car: David O’Neill Latin Speaking Man at Church: Guido Rossi Self (archive footage) (uncredited): John Ashcroft D.C. Driver on Bridge (uncredited): Paul D’Elia FBI Agent (uncredited): Aaron Michael Lacey D.C. Police Officer (uncredited): Mike Monroe Woman on Cell Phone (uncredited): Talia Russo FBI Agent (uncredited): Don Whatley Film Crew: Screenplay: Billy Ray Story: Adam Mazer Story: William L. Rotko Director of Photography: Tak Fujimoto Editor: Jeffrey Ford Producer: Scott Strauss Producer: Scott Kroopf Executive Producer: Adam Merims Executive Producer: Sidney Kimmel Executive Producer: William Horberg Producer: Robert F. Newmyer Casting: Cassandra Kulukundis Production Design: Wynn Thomas Costume Design: Luis Sequeira Art Direction: Andrew M. Stearn Set Decoration: Gordon Sim Music: Mychael Danna Co-Producer: Jeffrey Silver Associate Producer: David O’Neill Additional Casting: Robin D. Cook Set Decoration: Jay Klein Movie Reviews:

View On WordPress

#based on true story #biopic #family #fbi #headquarter #loyalty #political thriller #russian spy #spy #surveillance #Top Rated Movies #undercover

0 notes

dyggtheway · 9 months

Text

Blue Jeans, Baby!

From miners' overalls to a global fashion icon, the story of denim is as rich and complex as the fabric itself. It's a tale of hard work, rebellion, and cultural evolution, woven into every thread of these timeless blue jeans.

Denim's journey began in the 1870s, as sturdy "waist overalls" designed for Levi Strauss to outfit rugged miners in the American West. Crafted from brown canvas, these utilitarian garments were tough enough to withstand the demands of the job, but comfort wasn't exactly their strong suit. Enter Jacob Davis, a tailor who had a revolutionary idea: rivets at the stress points to prevent rips and tears. This seemingly simple addition birthed the iconic blue jean, forever linking Strauss's name with this enduring garment.

But denim's true ascent to cultural phenomenon began in the 20th century. Hollywood's cowboys like John Wayne and Marlon Brando brought blue jeans to the silver screen, transforming them from workwear to symbols of rugged individualism and rebellion. Greasers and rockers in the 1950s adopted them as a uniform of defiance, while James Dean cemented their coolness in "Rebel Without a Cause."👖

Denim's rebellious spirit wasn't lost on the political front, either. Presidents like Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan donned jeans, blurring the lines between blue-collar and white-collar worlds. Even Elvis Presley, the King of Rock and Roll, sported custom-made white denim jumpsuits, proving that denim could be both stylish and revolutionary.

The 1970s saw denim reach new heights of popularity. From the disco dance floor to the punk rock scene, denim became a canvas for self-expression. Flared jeans, acid wash, and ripped styles emerged, reflecting the changing cultural landscape. Even cars weren't immune to denim fever, with the iconic Levi's edition pickup truck rolling off the assembly line in 1978.

Today, denim reigns supreme as a global fashion staple. From high-end designer jeans to vintage Levi's, there's a denim style for every taste and budget. Whether you're channeling your inner rock star in ripped skinny jeans or keeping it classic with a straight-leg cut, denim has the unique ability to transcend trends and generations.

So next time you slip on your favorite pair of jeans, remember the rich history and cultural significance woven into every fiber. From humble beginnings as a miner's garment to a symbol of rebellion and self-expression, denim's story is far from over. It's a testament to the enduring power of human ingenuity and the ever-evolving spirit of fashion.

Like these looks, check out Vogue's Shopping list: ✔️✔️✔️ https://bityl.co/NVzs ⬅️⬅️

#wealth #streetwear #fashion #clothes #street fashion #swag #style #uniqueboutiquestreetwearatl #uniqueboutiquestreetwear #100%

1 note · View note

grandhotelabyss · 1 year

Note

What do you make of Leo Strauss and Straussianism? I know you’ve discussed Alan Bloom, but what (if anything) do you make of the master himself?

I've barely read Strauss, just Persecution and the Art of Writing back in the years when liberals darkly whispered the philosopher's name as the menacing and mysterious Svengali of the neocons. Nothing I've read of this material impressed me much, though; it seems, no less than much current Marxism, like an intellectual's compensatory fantasy of impossible political power. The Platonic philosopher-kings will come, again or for the first time, and lay low the vulgar moderns! Except that when the Straussians had power, in various Republican administrations, they only abetted by providing grandiloquent rhetorical cover for intensifications of modern vulgarity, as with Reagan's neoliberal policies or W.'s warfare-state propaganda. But, again, I can't say much about Strauss himself and know the philosophy mainly through Bloom.

#leo strauss

1 note · View note

70s80sandbeyond · 1 year

Text

First Lady Nancy Reagan poses with recipients of the Outstanding Learning Disabled Achiever Award given by the Lab School of Washington on October 30, 1985.

(L-R) G. Chris Anderson, Tom Cruise, Bruce Jenner, Mrs. Reagan, Cher, Richard C. Strauss, and Robert Rauschenberg.

1 note · View note

denimbex1986 · 1 year

Text

'It is a pleasure, in my latest Q&A, to talk with Kevin Williamson, my old friend and colleague. We cover the waterfront, or a stretch of it: climate change; U.S. politics; transgenderism; Ukraine; books; “Barbenheimer” — especially the “heimer” part, Oppenheimer, the new biopic.

I have not seen it. I don’t plan to. Then how in the world can I talk about it? I know that Lewis L. Strauss is a villain of the piece. I know some other things, too. I object to a gross misteaching.

More than most, I think, I believe in the separation of art from politics, and even, to a degree, the separation of art from facts. I know that Oppenheimer is “just a movie.” But is it? This movie will teach, or misteach, millions upon millions about J. Robert Oppenheimer, Admiral Strauss, and the controversy of that time. How many will read No Sacrifice Too Great, the biography of Strauss by Richard Pfau, published in 1985? Eleven?

Talking with Kevin, I thought of a piece written by Tom Wicker, for the New York Times. It was published in 1991. Wicker was responding to JFK, the latest Oliver Stone movie. In this movie, Kennedy is the victim of a plot by the U.S. military, the CIA, and the FBI, with the complicity of Vice President Johnson.

Just a movie, right? Well, yes and no. As Wicker says, the movie rewrites history. It is a misleader, and miseducator.

I imagine that some number got their view of the Kennedy assassination from Stone’s movie. But there are a zillion books, documentaries, and other things about the Kennedy assassination. The Stone movie can do only modest harm. But when will people ever get another view of the Oppenheimer–Strauss matter?

As I mentioned to Kevin, I have not seen The Death of Klinghoffer, the opera by John Adams. Don’t think I will. To me, the Achille Lauro hijacking is a contemporary event. I was riveted to news about it. To me, it is not really a subject for artistic treatment.

In 1985, you recall, Palestinian terrorists hijacked an Italian cruise liner, the Achille Lauro. They murdered Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly American Jew, confined to a wheelchair. They shot him and dumped his body overboard.

Writing in 2014, the editors of the New York Times said, “The opera gives voice to all sides in this terrible murder.” Here on the Corner, I wrote,

“All sides” — really? Maybe I am misreading the editors, but this “all sides” business seems an almost comical example of moral relativism run amok.

Palestinian terrorists murdered an innocent, helpless man in cold blood because he was Jewish. Period. The terrorists have a “side,” true: They are monsters. Or am I being judgmental, in my simple, Reagan-like way?

Let me give you a footnote: By sheer coincidence, John Adams also composed an opera about Oppenheimer, Doctor Atomic.

Before closing, I’d like to return to Lewis Strauss. In 1997, I wrote an item about him for The Weekly Standard, where I was working. Alfred Kazin, the famed literary critic, had “casually perpetrated a drive-by infamy,” I said. In the course of an essay on another subject,

Kazin gratuitously smeared Adm. Lewis L. Strauss, who in a long and controversial career was private secretary to Herbert Hoover, an investment banker on Wall Street, a wartime naval strategist, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, and secretary of commerce. In a discussion of the sainted J. Robert Oppenheimer, whom Strauss opposed, Kazin remarked en passant that Strauss “pronounced his own name ‘Straws’ to make himself sound less Jewish.”

This would be a hilarious allegation if it were not so contemptible. Strauss was as prominent a Jew as could be found in the United States for four decades. If Strauss was out to disguise his faith, he could not have done a poorer job of it.

I elaborated,

He was a member of numerous Jewish organizations, assuming a leading role in many of them. In the summer of 1939, he was in Europe, attempting to rescue Jews from Germany. For over 10 years, he was president of Temple Emanu-El in New York. He once refused to eat a ham lunch that Queen Elizabeth served him. And until his death in 1974, he was in the forefront of Jewish philanthropy, donating large chunks of his fortune.

A bit more:

Kazin’s lame excuse for the libel is that he heard it from people, long ago. The truth is that Strauss grew up in Richmond, Va., and, like other southerners, pronounced the name “Straws.” (So had his father and grandfather.) Presented with this explanation, Kazin would have none of it, insisting that anyone saying “Straws” had to be trying to pass. With Strauss’s Jewish credentials, Kazin was irritably unimpressed.

The truth is, Lewis Strauss had no interest in making himself appear other than as he was. He was notoriously blunt, bold, and proud — even if he pronounced his name as a Virginian, rather than as a German...'

#Oppenheimer #Lewis Strauss #Barbenheimer #JFK #Oliver Stone #No Sacrifice Too Great #Richard Pfau #The Death of Klinghoffer #John Adams #Doctor Atomic

0 notes

jorgeclardiary · 4 years

Photo

«The Other Cheek» (A Spotify Playlist)

I am sitting on Good Friday, pondering on the nature of thanatophobia, the fear of death and dying. The 2020 Portal is a unique opportunity to make peace with our fears, be friends with all, regardless of energy or intention. Particles fly; an exchange of DNA happens. In the midst of transmutation thoughts materialize quicker. The flow, the redesign—the veritable ascending—that is part of the new alignment of this dear planet occurs at an accelerated rate. Being open and calm, changes come forth smoothly. Tense and dispersed, a more urgent realignment is needed…a reset. An instant synthesis with whom we truly are.

Oh! Nights and visions! When faced with the drama of existence, one must turn the other cheek. No resistance. The disarming switch of focus effortlessly redirecting our attention to productivity and evolution.

The music here takes me on a voyage from my early days of childhood to travel through time and space. I often think of the house on the rocky hill: I used to go down the wooden ladder to the bare rock nearby, sit there and stare at the sunlight on the ground.

The air was very much like now. Everywhere an opportunity for contemplation. A facsimile of the 18th century. The light makes every wall sublime painting. Flowers greet us in the night. There is a balm in music, and perhaps now we seek it more than ever.

This playlist features music by Gioachino Rossini, Igor Stravinsky, Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, Pyotr Ilych Tchaikovsky, William Grant Still, Will Marion Cook, Sean Shepherd, Frédéric Chopin, Reagan Fabry, Leonard Bernstein, George Gershwin, and Johann Strauss II.

The photograph by Dietmar captures Van and I’s birthday party at Henry’s, January 20, 2019, a glorious evening with dear friends. Jane helped me move the furniture so we could pose. I am wearing a custom crown by King Icry, Levi’s Iconic 501 jeans, and a vintage Tommy Hilfiger Red Label Denim shirt.

Photo by Dietmar Busse. (L-R [back]: Tony Allicino, Lillan Munch, Foster Mickley, Scooter LaForge, Bubi Canal. [front]: Katsumi Miki, Kelly Bugden, Van Wifvat, Jorge Clar, Joel Handorff, Henry Norton, Cynthia Powell.)

8 notes · View notes

gregellner · 8 years

Photo

Cover by Nelson Blake II.

Today I’ll be reviewing “Romulus” issue 3 by Bryan Hill and Nelson Blake II, published by Image Comics.

We open following the capture of Nicholas Franklin, Ph.D. by Achilles of the Ancient Order of Romulus. He is apparently in some kind of cell, in an orange jumpsuit. The way the dialogue is written around the page, it appears that Reagan Strauss, the Romulus agent from the previous issue, has been talking to him in an attempt to get him to work for her group. Given his irritated expression, her attempts don’t appear to be working.

Meanwhile, Ashlar and Sozo are on a plane, following the former’s agreement to work with the Illuminati to fight against Romulus. Sozo’s reaction to Ashlar’s obvious, unrelenting anger surprised me. “I’m not telling you to quiet your anger. I’m asking you to keep it. Keep it and learn what you can do with it.” This methodology is not unlike that of the Assassin Brotherhood, as I have mentioned before. Channeling emotion, rather than eliminating it, seems to be a better way to deal with less-than-cooperative members. This kind of behavior seems to run contrary to another organization in another media franchise: the Jedi of the Star Wars franchise, who look down upon outbursts of emotion to the point of eventually leading to the rise of the Galactic Empire by accident (best seen in “Episode III: Revenge of the Sith”).

Furthermore, I was amused by the words chosen by Sozo when describing what Ashlar is thinking, likely to the point of using her exact words, swears and all. Her wording makes me wonder if she is simply repeating Ashlar’s thoughts word-for-word, or if she is showing a more human side to herself that has a bit more vulgarity to it. For instance, she used the word “kinda” rather than splitting it into “kind of” when discussing Ashlar’s thought process, unlike her earlier, more refined and proper wording. Her words continue to be slightly less refined during the rest of the issue, such as using “yup,” rather than “yes,” making me believe that she is a lot less emotionless and more human than she came across as in the previous issue.

Eventually, the plane lands on a snowy plain on the southeast coast of Greenland, which serves as Ashlar’s location for the remainder of the issue. There appears to be a kind of encampment set up, including brick chimneys, tents, a large campfire, and an outhouse.

The training sessions with Caliban, Sozo’s apparent mentor (named for one of the main antagonists of William Shakespeare’s “The Tempest”), make for the action-based part of this issue, and also serve to show us the elements of Ashlar’s combat style that need work. Her desire to push back at anything that pushes her will never work, both in a fight and in her planning. Instead, Caliban’s tutelage shows her that she needs to think about other options, such as using speed to overcome strength. Her teachings are actually somewhat similar to those of Batman of DC Comics fame. While she is forced to accept her anger and how it stems from her fear, she also realizes that she needed to reach that acceptance in order to move forward and learn not to be as scared. Only through this method would she begin to think of things bigger than herself, to learn to trust others to help her rather than be afraid of their failures and deaths. Caliban himself says it best: “You need to make friends with death. And grief. And guilt. Because they will all come to know you well.” I am unclear as to whether Ashlar is willing to admit to help from the forces of the Illuminati rather than only their training, but regardless she seems willing to go after Nicholas at the earliest opportunity, given her internalized guilt in response to his capture.

At Reagan’s base of operations in an unknown location, she talks to Achilles, who is shaping up to be a possible archenemy to Ashlar, punishing himself for not eliminating Ashlar by holding his hand over an open flame until told he can stop by Reagan. The two of them discuss the Illuminati, and it appears that the group used to be a part of the Ancient Order of Romulus itself. However, around the time of the Age of Revolution that took place between 1774 and 1848, the Illuminati broke off, more interested in revolution than order. They seem to have been involved in, if not responsible for, at least the American and French Revolutions. According to Achilles, “they are the weed in the garden of nations. The rot of culture.”

Achilles’ goal does not appear to be the execution of Ashlar after all. Instead, he seems to be intended to break her down until there is nothing left, so that Romulus can rebuild her once more. How this technique could possibly work when they have hunted her down to the point of being their last Wolf, let alone the fact that they have already murdered her mother, is unclear, but I assume that they know what they are doing.

Reagan’s next talk is with Nicholas. He seems to be less than cooperative for the obvious reason of his kidnapping and discussions with Ashlar. He is calm, yet somewhat vulgar, to the point of sticking up a middle finger at his apparent captor. She does not exactly instill confidence either, given she admits that she wants to create “the most powerful bomb in the history of civilization” by using pure fusion, with his nuclear physics expertise. Still, their conversation touches on a few nerves, including how his race and monetary situation (in her rather inelegant words, the fact that he is “brown and poor”) leave people less likely to give him the benefit of the doubt in terms of his prospects as a potential employee. She offers him money and likely fame, both attempts to appeal to his ambition in their own ways, and I remain unsure as to whether or not he is going to take these offers and make the explosive device, or whatever other kind of bomb is intended. Still, the way that she brings up these “disadvantages” (in her own words) leaves me wondering if there is really a true “evil” side to Romulus, or if the conflict remains order versus chaos only, with each organization having its moments of beneficial attitude such as her compassion, muddying the waters of the secret war somewhat.

One part of the talk made me chuckle. Nicholas finds the need to make sure that werewolves are, or are not, real when comparing them to the idea of pure fusion. In his own words, he is “trying to keep [his] mind open” to the possibilities of the supernatural. Considering that he realized that the Illuminati are real, as are psychics, it’s hard to blame him for thinking other myths are also possibly true. Reagan’s comment in response, how she’s never seen a werewolf as a way of joking around with him, leads me to believe she has something of a sense of humor, albeit one that is rarely shown.

On another note, I have to wonder if she means a literal bomb. Such a device does not seem to be the type that would be very useful to a covert organization such as the Ancient Order of Romulus, and appears to be far too dangerous and public. Perhaps they mean a more metaphorical bomb, such as a revelation of some kind to the world?

In Nicholas’ ruined apartment in downtown Los Angeles, Sozo has arrived, and is trying to find him. The window where Ashlar crashed in during the first issue is still broken, and there is trash lying around on the ground. All together, this leaves me thinking that nobody has come by since then. Sozo’s attempt to locate someone seems to be through a mixture of a kind of non-touch psychometry to connect to the individual through their possessions, and her own singing, especially her song lyrics “I have your body, but I want more.” For some reason, she seems to have not only extreme difficulties finding him, but seems to cry out in pain and even shed tears of her own in the process. Is something blocking her, is the location hard to find, or does she just normally have issues such as this? The answer remains somewhat unclear for the time being.

On the whole, this issue shows me why I like this series so much. I can’t wait until the next issue, coming January 25.

#romulus comic #romulus #image comics #Bryan Hill #bryan edward hill #Nelson Blake II #ashlar #achilles #sozo #reagan strauss #ancient order of romulus #illuminati #assassin's creed #star wars #jedi #batman #caliban #nicholas franklin

1 note · View note

sciencespies · 4 years

Text

How Denim Became a Political Symbol of the 1960s

https://sciencespies.com/history/how-denim-became-a-political-symbol-of-the-1960s/

How Denim Became a Political Symbol of the 1960s

In the spring of 1965, demonstrators in Camden, Alabama, took to the streets in a series of marches to demand voting rights. Among the demonstrators were “seven or eight out-of-state ministers,” United Press International reported, adding that they wore the “blue denim ‘uniform’ of the civil rights movement over their clerical collars.”

Though most people today don’t associate blue denim with the struggle for black freedom, it played a significant role in the movement. For one thing, the historian Tanisha C. Ford has observed, “The realities of activism,” which could include hours of canvassing in rural areas, made it impractical to organize in one’s “Sunday best.” But denim was also symbolic. Whether in trouser form, overalls or skirts, it not only recalled the work clothes worn by African Americans during slavery and as sharecroppers, but also suggested solidarity with contemporary blue-collar workers and even equality between the sexes, since men and women alike could wear it.

To see how civil rights activists adopted denim, consider the photograph of Martin Luther King Jr. and Ralph Abernathy marching to protest segregation in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963. Notably, they are wearing jeans. In America and beyond, people would embrace jeans to make defiant statements of their own.

The Rev. Drs. Ralph Abernathy and Martin Luther King Jr. in Birmingham, Alabama, en route to a protest on April 12, 1963.

(Charles Moore / Getty Images)

Scholars trace denim’s roots to 16th-century Nîmes, in the South of France, and Genoa, in northwestern Italy. Many historians suspect that the word “denim” derives from serge de Nîmes, referring to the tough fabric French mills were producing, and that “jeans” comes from the French word for Genoa (Gênes). In the United States, slaveowners in the 19th century clothed enslaved fieldworkers in these hardy fabrics; in the West, miners and other laborers started wearing jeans after a Nevada tailor named Jacob Davis created pants using duck cloth—a denimlike canvas material—purchased from the San Francisco businessman Levi Strauss. Davis produced some 200 pairs over the next 18 months—some in duck cloth, some in denim—and in 1873, the government granted a patent to Davis and Levi Strauss & Co. for the copper-riveted pants, which they sold in both blue denim and brown duck cloth. By the 1890s, Levi Strauss & Co. had established its most enduring style of pants: Levi’s 501 jeans.

Real-life cowboys wore denim, as did actors who played them, and after World War II denim leapt out of the sagebrush and into the big city, as immortalized in the 1953 film The Wild One. Marlon Brando plays Johnny Strabler, the leader of a troublemaking motorcycle gang, and wears blue jeans along with a black leather jacket and black leather boots. “Hey Johnny, what are you rebelling against?” someone asks. His reply: “Whaddaya got?”

In the 1960s, denim came to symbolize a different kind of rebelliousness. Black activists donned jeans and overalls to show that racial caste and black poverty were problems worth addressing. “It took Martin Luther King Jr.’s March on Washington to make [jeans] popular,” writes the art historian Caroline A. Jones. “It was here that civil rights activists were photographed wearing the poor sharecropper’s blue denim overalls to dramatize how little had been accomplished since Reconstruction.” White civil rights advocates followed. As the fashion writer Zoey Washington observes: “Youth activists, specifically members of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, used denim as an equalizer between the sexes and an identifier between social classes.”

But denim has never belonged to just one political persuasion. When the country music star Merle Haggard criticized hippies in his conservative anthem “Okie From Muskogee,” you bet he was often wearing denim. President Ronald Reagan was frequently photographed in denim during visits to his California ranch—the very picture of rugged individualism.

And blue jeans would have to rank high on the list of U.S. cultural exports. In November 1978, Levi Strauss & Co. began selling the first large-scale shipments of jeans behind the Iron Curtain, where the previously hard-to-obtain trousers were markers of status and liberation; East Berliners eagerly lined up to snag them. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, when Levis and other American jean brands became widely available in the USSR, many Soviets were gleeful. “A man hasn’t very much happy minutes in his life, but every happy moment remains in his memory for a long time,” a Moscow teacher named Larisa Popik wrote to Levi Strauss & Co. in 1991. “The buying of Levi’s 501 jeans is one of such moments in my life. I’m 24, but while wearing your jeans I feel myself like a 15-year-old schoolgirl.”

Back in the States, jeans kept pushing the limits. In the early 1990s, TLC, one of the best-selling girl groups of all time, barged into the boys’ club of hip-hop and R&B wearing oversized jeans. These “three little cute girls dressed like boys,” in the words of Rozonda “Chilli” Thomas, one of the group’s members, inspired women across the country to mimic the group’s style.

Curiously, jeans have continued to make waves in Eastern Europe. In the run-up to the 2006 presidential elections in Belarus, activists marched to protest what they characterized as a sham vote in support of an autocratic government. After police seized the opposition’s flags at a pre-election rally, one protester tied a denim shirt to a stick, creating a makeshift flag and giving rise to the movement’s eventual name: the “Jeans Revolution.”

The youth organization Zubr urged followers: “Come out in the streets of your cities and towns in jeans! Let’s show that we are many!” The movement didn’t topple the government, but it illustrated that this everyday garment can still be revolutionary.

Why the dye that would put the blue in jeans was banned when it reached the West —Ted Scheinman

Fabrics soaked with indigo dye in Dali, Yunnan Province, China. “No color has been prized so highly or for so long,” Catherine E. McKinley writes.

(Alamy)

It might seem odd to outlaw a pigment, but that’s what European monarchs did in a strangely zealous campaign against indigo. The ancient blue dye, extracted in an elaborate process from the leaves of the bushy legume Indigofera tinctoria, was first shipped to Europe from India and Java in the 16th century.

To many Europeans, using the dye seemed unpleasant. “The fermenting process yielded a putrid stench not unlike that of a decaying body,” James Sullivan notes in his book Jeans. Unlike other dyes, indigo turns cloth vivid blue only after the dyed fabric has been in contact with air for several minutes, a mysterious delay that some found unsettling.

Plus, indigo represented a threat to European textile merchants who had heavily invested in woad, a homegrown source of blue dye. They played on anxieties about the import in a “deliberate smear campaign,” Jenny Balfour-Paul writes in her history of indigo. Weavers were told it would damage their cloth. A Dutch superstition held that any man who touched the plant would become impotent.

Governments got the message. Germany banned “the devil’s dye” (Teufelsfarbe) for more than 100 years beginning in 1577, while England banned it from 1581 to 1660. In France in 1598, King Henry IV favored woad producers by banning the import of indigo, and in 1609 decreed that anyone using the dye would be executed.

Still, the dye’s resistance to running and fading couldn’t be denied, and by the 18th century it was all the rage in Europe. It would be overtaken by synthetic indigo, developed by the German chemist Johann Friedrich Wilhelm Adolf von Baeyer—a discovery so far-reaching it was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1905.

#History

6 notes · View notes

creepingsharia · 4 years

Text

New York: Muslim immigrant who funded & scoped out NYC landmarks for al-Qaeda granted “compassionate” release by judge - 8 years early!

Sabirhan “Tareq” Hasanoff and Reagan-appointed judge Kimba Wood

A Manhattan federal judge on Tuesday ordered that a former New York City accountant who admitted to scoping out the New York Stock Exchange for al Qaeda be released early from his 18-year prison sentence.

U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood said Sabirhan Hasanoff, 44, of Brooklyn, had shown “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for being resentenced to time served under a law allowing the early “compassionate release” of some prison inmates.

Wood, who sentenced Hasanoff in 2013, cited evidence he was the only available caregiver for his mother, who is in poor health, and his “striking and unique efforts” to rehabilitate himself since his April 2010 arrest.

She said these included working in a chapel at the Otisville, New York, federal prison, teaching classes focused on tolerance and moderation in Islam, and teaching accounting and finance classes.

While Hasanoff’s crimes were “extremely serious,” Wood wrote that “this is a rare case in which a defendant exceeds the bounds of what we consider rehabilitation.”

The office of Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss in Manhattan, which opposed Hasanoff’s release, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

“This is a just and compassionate result,” Hasanoff’s lawyer, Joshua Dratel, said in an email.

Prosecutors said Hasanoff supported al Qaeda from 2007 to 2009, including by performing surveillance on the NYSE, and sending remote-control devices that could be used in explosives attacks to operatives abroad.

Hasanoff, a dual U.S. and Australian citizen, had worked at the accounting firms KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers.

He pleaded guilty in June 2012 to supporting al Qaeda and conspiring with other people.

A co-defendant, Wesam el-Hanafi, who has serious health problems, recently had his own sentence shortened to time served, Wood said.

The case is USA v. el-Hanafi et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 10-cr-00162.

#Islam #Muslim #Sharia #Jihad #Legal #Law #News #Politics #Media #Travel #Terror #Finance

3 notes · View notes

aion-rsa · 5 years

Text

Watchmen Episode 9 Easter Eggs Explained

https://ift.tt/2YSXMq4

The big finale of HBO's Watchmen comes together in episode 9! Here's all the references to the book we were able to catch.

facebook

twitter

tumblr

This article contains Watchmen spoilers.

Watchmen episode 9 “See How They Fly” wraps it all up. And you’d think that after nine time-hopping episodes they might be ready to wrap up all of their homages and references to the original book. You would be wrong.

But not everything comes from the book. The episode’s title, “See how they fly” is a lyric from The Beatles’ psychedelic masterpiece “I Am The Walrus” which features the sinister/joyful (and Watchmen-relevant) refrain of “I am the eggman.” Now, with that out of the way, let’s get down to business.

LADY TRIEU

- We’re once again back on Nov. 1, 1985...this time to witness the conception of Lady Trieu. Her mother, Bian (who in the future Lady Trieu will clone and raise as her daughter) was one of Veidt’s Vietnamese employees who kept his fortress of solitude, Karnak, running. The verse she recites is apparently from folklore about a Lady Trieu who lived during the third century.

Incidentally, this is the most we’ve seen of the inner workings of Karnak, including in the book, where we only saw TWO employees. Does this mean he murdered ALL of these people, too? That is dark as fuck.

read more: Complete Watchmen Timeline Explained

- Lady Trieu is sperm sample 2346. That’s 23 x 2. It could very well be a reference to the “23 enigma,” an almost cult-like belief in the significance of the number 23. It was popularized by counterculture icons like William S. Burroughs and Robert Anton Wilson.

- The fact that Bian crowns her insemination with “Fuck you, Ozymandias” is interesting. Is Veidt, like Dr. Manhattan, a symbol of American imperialism in Vietnam? Pretty likely, right?

- In 2008, when Lady Trieu confronts Adrian Veidt and refers to him as “the smartest man in the world” she’s using the nickname that had been given to Ozymandias by the press. Trieu is, of course, “the smartest woman in the world.”

ADRIAN VEIDT

- This is the filming of the “confession/congratulations” video that Wade Tillman was shown by Joe Keene back in episode 5. It will be presented to Robert Redford on the day he is inaugurated as President on January 21, 1993. You can see the giant squid in the tank behind Veidt while he is recording the message to President Redford, by the way.

- “Untie knot” is the password prompt on Veidt’s old computer. “Untie knot” refers to the Gordian Knot, which Alexander the Great famously solved with his sword. The password is “Rameses II” just like in the book.

- That’s a portrait of Alexander the Great in Veidt’s office, but as of yet I’ve been unable to identify it.

- We learn in this episode that Veidt has “never given himself to a woman.” The fact that he specifically mentions women and not men could possibly echo Rorschach’s observation about him in the book, that Veidt is “possibly homosexual.”

- Based on the five year timeline laid out by Lady Trieu here, it would appear that Veidt spelled out “Save me Daughter” on the surface of Europa with the corpses of his servants in 2013.