Originally posted by giantBeen there, done that. I even have the last two revisions of the PNAC site with all the pdfs saved to disk. Hell, I can tell you what they each did their dissertations on.
Like I said, been there, done that. I'm working backwards.
Fast reader, good multitasker.
Giant, Ive done a little more research but am finding some blank and or complex spots. Perhaps you could help. It may be a few more questions than necessary, but Im curious about the following:
Well I am curious, what were their dissertations on?
Michael Lind, of the New Statesman, has linked the legacy and tactics of Trotskyism to the neoconservatives, as least those in defense. I know that Pfaff and Heer have made similar connections, and Pfaff (I think) has alluded to the administration is a rightist version of Trotskys permanent revolution. What do you think of Trotskys ideas even being a factor, if so, how important is it?
Some say LaRouche also found these connections, before most of it became public. Is that true?
Also Pfaff seems to think of Strauss as a true Machivellian; and that his writings promote a belief in an elite, an intellectual elite, that feels entitled to rule by covert means. I cant really speak to Machivelli, but do you agree?
Where does the A.E.I. fit in all this, if anywhere ? I know its a neoconservative think tank based in Washington, but how involved are they? The NYTimes said its made up of mostily of Straussians.
Do you know what Perles and Wohlstetters ties are, to each other and Strauss ? I know Perles speciality was nuclear arms issuesbut thats about all.
Bule, of Tikkun, pointed out the Jewish-Israel-Likkud connection, do you find any signifigance in that ?
And last, how do the senior members of the foreign policy team fit in, Im not sure if any of them are Straussians (Cheney, Powell, Rice and Rumsfeld) ?