May 2008


Dear Friend of Radio Liberty,

"Neoconservatism is not the philosophy of free markets and a wise foreign policy. Instead, it represents big-government welfare at home and a program of using our military might to spread their version of American values throughout the world." [1]

"Ledeen's most recent publication . . . praises 'Creative destruction . . . both within our own society and abroad . . . (foreigners) seeing America undo traditional societies may fear us, for they do not wish to be undone' . . . 'They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.'" [2]

"Ledeen quotes Machiavelli approvingly on what makes a great leader. 'A prince must have no other objectives or other thoughts or take anything for his craft, except war.' . . . 'the virtue of the warrior are those of great leaders of any successful organization." [3]

"Ledeen believes man is basically evil and cannot be left to his own desires. Therefore, he must have proper and strong leadership, just as Machiavelli argued. Only then can man achieve good, as Ledeen explains: 'In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to 'enter into evil.'" [4]

What is the "historic mission" of the United States? Why is America changing? Who is responsible for the moral and fiscal bankruptcy of our nation? Is the "war on terrorism" designed to protect American citizens from Moslem terrorists, or is the program designed to monitor the American people and establish a dictatorship? Will the United States survive as a free nation? What can you and I do to remedy the current situation?

I concluded my discussion of Congressman Ron Paul's 1984 "Farewell Address to The House of Representatives" last month, and wanted to deal with a different subject this month, but changed my mind when I read Congressman Ron Paul's July 10, 2003, speech because he discussed the philosophy that Plato, Niccolo` Machiavelli, Leo Strauss, and Michael Ledeen espoused, and that information is vitally important today.

Who was Niccolo` Machiavelli, and why is his political philosophy important today? Machiavelli was a member of the revolutionary government that ruled Florence from 1494 to 1512, and Machiavelli was forced to leave Florence after Pope Julius II helped the Medici family regain control of the city. In the years that followed, Machiavelli wrote The Prince, which established his place in history. What did Niccolo` Machiavelli believe? He believed people are inherently evil, people cannot rule themselves, and a successful State needs an authoritarian ruler (a Prince). To succeed, the "Prince" must wage war, he must be willing to use deceit and cruelty, and he must believe "the end justifies the means." Where did those concepts originate? [5]

In a letter that Machiavelli wrote to a friend at that time, he stated:

"When evening comes, I return home . . . and go to my study. On the threshold I strip naked . . . and put on the robes of court and palace, and in this graver dress I enter the courts of the ancients and am welcomed by them, and there I taste the food that alone is mine, and for which I was born. And there I make bold to speak to them and ask the motives of their actions, and they, in their humanity reply to me . . . I pass indeed into their world." [6]

Was that statement an allegory, was it a figment of Machiavelli's imagination, or did his spirit pass into the supernatural realm and encounter the teachings of "the ancients"? [7]

Why is Niccolo` Machiavelli's political philosophy important today? Because the neoconservative movement that controls the Bush administration is implementing Machiavelli's totalitarian plan in the United States and throughout the world.

Who was Leo Strauss, and why is his philosophy important today? Leo Strauss created the neoconservative (Trotskyite) movement when he was professor at the University of Chicago during the middle decades of the twentieth century, and the Neo-cons control the Bush administration today. What did Leo Strauss teach? He convinced his students they were a "special few" who could change the world, he taught his students Plato and Niccolo` Machiavelli were correct, and he taught them that the use of deceit and cruelty are acceptable. He also he taught his students that mankind must be controlled by a ruling oligarchy or a "philosopher king." Where did those ideas originate? They come from the occult teachings of the "ancients" and the Mystery religions. Leo Strauss also taught his students the secret of esoteric writing, and the difference between exoteric and esoteric concepts.

An article by Robert Locke at reveals:

"The key Straussian concept is the Straussian text, which is a piece of philosophical writing that is deliberately written so that the average reader will understand it as saying one ('exoteric') thing, but the special few for whom it is intended will grasp its real ('esoteric') meaning. The reason for this is that philosophy is dangerous. Philosophy calls into question the conventional morality upon which civil order in society depends; it also reveals ugly truths that weaken men's attachment to their societies. Ideally, it then offers an alternative based on reason." [8]

Exoteric information is disseminated to the masses, esoteric (occult) information is reserved for the "special few."

Who is Michael Ledeen, and why are his ideas important today? Michael Ledeen is a prominent leader of the Neoconservative movement that is promoting an authoritarian regime in the United States, and totalitarian regimes throughout the world today.

* * * * *

"Neo - CONNED!"

JULY 10, 2003, ADDRESS

The modern-day limited-government movement has been co-opted. The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative revolution in Washington. Party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated. The liberal arguments for limited government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.

Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who's really in charge? If the particular party in power makes little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded government programs, increased spending, huge deficits, nation building and pervasive invasion of our privacy, with fewer Fourth Amendment protections than ever before?

Someone is responsible, and it's important that those of us who love liberty, and resent big-brother government, identify the philosophic supporters who have the most to say about the direction our country is going. If they're wrong - and I believe they are - we need to show it, alert the American people, and offer a more positive approach to government. However, this depends on whether the American people desire to live in a free society and reject the dangerous notion that we need a strong central government to take care of us from the cradle to the grave. Do the American people really believe it's the government's responsibility to make us morally better and economically equal? Do we have a responsibility to police the world, while imposing our vision of good government on everyone else in the world with some form of utopian nation building? If not, and the contemporary enemies of liberty are exposed and rejected, then it behooves us to present an alternative philosophy that is morally superior and economically sound and provides a guide to world affairs to enhance peace and commerce.

One thing is certain: conservatives who worked and voted for less government in the Reagan years and welcomed the takeover of the U.S. Congress and the presidency in the 1990s and early 2000s were deceived. Soon they will realize that the goal of limited government has been dashed and that their views no longer matter.

The so-called conservative revolution of the past two decades has given us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. Deficits are exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater than a half-trillion dollars per year. Taxes do not go down - even if we vote to lower them. They can't, as long as spending is increased, since all spending must be paid for one way or another. Both Presidents Reagan and the elder George Bush raised taxes directly. With this administration, so far, direct taxes have been reduced - and they certainly should have been - but it means little if spending increases and deficits rise.

When taxes are not raised to accommodate higher spending, the bills must be paid by either borrowing or "printing" new money. This is one reason why we conveniently have a generous Federal Reserve chairman who is willing to accommodate the Congress. With borrowing and inflating, the "tax" is delayed and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to identify it. Like future generations and those on fixed incomes who suffer from rising prices, and those who lose jobs they certainly feel the consequences of economic dislocation that this process causes. Government spending is always a "tax" burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing.

Many present-day conservatives, who generally argue for less government and supported the Reagan/Gingrich/Bush takeover of the federal government, are now justifiably disillusioned. Although not a monolithic group, they wanted to shrink the size of government.

Early in our history, the advocates of limited, constitutional government recognized two important principles: the rule of law was crucial, and a constitutional government must derive "just powers from the consent of the governed." It was understood that an explicit transfer of power to government could only occur with power rightfully and naturally endowed to each individual as a God-given right. Therefore, the powers that could be transferred would be limited to the purpose of protecting liberty. Unfortunately, in the last 100 years, the defense of liberty has been fragmented and shared by various groups, with some protecting civil liberties, others economic freedom, and a small diverse group arguing for a foreign policy of nonintervention.

The philosophy of freedom has had a tough go of it, and it was hoped that the renewed interest in limited government of the past two decades would revive an interest in reconstituting the freedom philosophy into something more consistent. Those who worked for the goal of limited government power believed the rhetoric of politicians who promised smaller government. Sometimes it was just plain sloppy thinking on their part, but at other times, they fell victim to a deliberate distortion of a concise limited-government philosophy by politicians who misled many into believing that we would see a rollback on government intrusiveness.

Yes, there was always a remnant who longed for truly limited government and maintained a belief in the rule of law, combined with a deep conviction that free people and a government bound by a Constitution were the most advantageous form of government. They recognized it as the only practical way for prosperity to be spread to the maximum number of people while promoting peace and security.

That remnant - imperfect as it may have been - was heard from in the elections of 1980 and 1994 and then achieved major victories in 2000 and 2002 when professed limited-government proponents took over the White House, the Senate and the House. However, the true believers in limited government are now shunned and laughed at. At the very least, they are ignored - except when they are used by the new leaders of the right, the new conservatives now in charge of the U.S. government.

The remnant's instincts were correct, and the politicians placated them with talk of free markets, limited government, and a humble, non-nation-building foreign policy. However, little concern for civil liberties was expressed in this recent quest for less government. Yet, for an ultimate victory of achieving freedom, this must change. Interest in personal privacy and choices has generally remained outside the concern of many conservatives - especially with the great harm done by their support of the drug war. Even though some confusion has emerged over our foreign policy since the breakdown of the Soviet empire, it's been a net benefit in getting some conservatives back on track with a less militaristic, interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, after 9-11, the cause of liberty suffered a setback. As a result, millions of Americans voted for the less-than-perfect conservative revolution because they believed in the promises of the politicians.

Now there's mounting evidence to indicate exactly what happened to the revolution. Government is bigger than ever, and future commitments are overwhelming. Millions will soon become disenchanted with the new status quo delivered to the American people by the advocates of limited government and will find it to be just more of the old status quo. Victories for limited government have turned out to be hollow indeed.

Since the national debt is increasing at a rate greater than a half-trillion dollars per year, the debt limit was recently increased by an astounding $984 billion dollars. Total U.S. government obligations are $43 trillion, while the total net worth of U.S. households is about $40.6 trillion. The country is broke, but no one in Washington seems to notice or care. The philosophic and political commitment for both guns and butter - and especially the expanding American empire - must be challenged. This is crucial for our survival.

In spite of the floundering economy, Congress and the Administration continue to take on new commitments in foreign aid, education, farming, medicine, multiple efforts at nation building, and preemptive wars around the world. Already we're entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan, with plans to soon add new trophies to our conquest. War talk abounds as to when Syria, Iran and North Korea will be attacked.

How did all this transpire? Why did the government do it? Why haven't the people objected? How long will it go on before something is done? Does anyone care?

Will the euphoria of grand military victories - against non-enemies - ever be mellowed? Someday, we as a legislative body must face the reality of the dire situation in which we have allowed ourselves to become enmeshed. Hopefully, it will be soon!

We got here because ideas do have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences, and even the best of intentions have unintended consequences. We need to know exactly what the philosophic ideas were that drove us to this point; then, hopefully, reject them and decide on another set of intellectual parameters.

There is abundant evidence exposing those who drive our foreign policy justifying preemptive war. Those who scheme are proud of the achievements in usurping control over foreign policy. These are the neoconservatives of recent fame. Granted, they are talented and achieved a political victory that all policymakers must admire. But can freedom and the republic survive this takeover? That question should concern us.

Neoconservatives are obviously in positions of influence and are well-placed throughout our government and the media. An apathetic Congress put up little resistance and abdicated its responsibilities over foreign affairs. The electorate was easily influenced to join in the patriotic fervor supporting the military adventurism advocated by the neoconservatives.

The numbers of those who still hope for truly limited government diminished and had their concerns ignored these past 22 months, during the aftermath of 9-11. Members of Congress were easily influenced to publicly support any domestic policy or foreign military adventure that was supposed to help reduce the threat of a terrorist attack. Believers in limited government were harder to find. Political money, as usual, played a role in pressing Congress into supporting almost any proposal suggested by the neocons. This process - where campaign dollars and lobbying efforts affect policy - is hardly the domain of any single political party, and unfortunately, is the way of life in Washington.

There are many reasons why government continues to grow. It would be naive for anyone to expect otherwise. Since 9-11, protection of privacy, whether medical, personal or financial, has vanished. Free speech and the Fourth Amendment have been under constant attack. Higher welfare expenditures are endorsed by the leadership of both parties. Policing the world and nation-building issues are popular campaign targets, yet they are now standard operating procedures. There's no sign that these programs will be slowed or reversed until either we are stopped by force overseas (which won't be soon) or we go broke and can no longer afford these grandiose plans for a world empire (which will probably come sooner than later.)

None of this happened by accident or coincidence. Precise philosophic ideas prompted certain individuals to gain influence to implement these plans. The neoconservatives - a name they gave themselves - diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence. They documented their goals, strategy and moral justification for all they hoped to accomplish. Above all else, they were not and are not conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional government.

Neo-conservatism has been around for decades and, strangely, has connections to past generations as far back as Machiavelli. Modern-day neo-conservatism was introduced to us in the 1960s. It entails both a detailed strategy as well as a philosophy of government. The ideas of Teddy Roosevelt, and certainly Woodrow Wilson, were quite similar to many of the views of present-day neocons. Neocon spokesman Max Boot brags that what he advocates is 'hard Wilsonianism.' In many ways, there's nothing 'neo' about their views, and certainly nothing conservative. Yet they have been able to co-opt the conservative movement by advertising themselves as a new or modern form of conservatism.

More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former Trotskyites. Liberal, Christopher Hitchens, has recently officially joined the neocons, and it has been reported that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc consultant. Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss' books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli's philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree.

The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare.

More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:

1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means - that hardball politics is a moral necessity.
5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.
6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.

* * * * *

I will complete Congressman's Paul's treatise next month.

I began this letter by asking:

"What is the 'historic mission' of the United States? Why is America changing? Who is responsible for the moral and fiscal bankruptcy of our nation? Is the "war on terrorism" designed to protect American citizens from Moslem terrorists, or is the program designed to monitor the American people and establish a dictatorship? Will the United States survive as a free nation? What can you and I do to remedy the current situation?"

"What is the 'historic mission' of the United States?" The neoconservatives believe the U.S. must destroy other nations "to advance our historic mission." What is their goal? To rule the world, destroy Christianity, and establish a world leader, the 'philosopher king.'

"Why is America changing?" Because the Neo-cons, and other components of the Brotherhood of Darkness, want to destroy Christianity and establish a "world religion."

"Is the "war on terrorism" designed to protect American citizens from Moslem terrorists"? No! The "war on terrorism" is designed to monitor the American people, and establish a Machiavellian dictatorship in the United States. The Neo-cons are Trotskyites.

"Will the United States survive as a free nation"? That is up to you.

I believe the neoconservatives who control the Bush administration (among them, Vice President Dick Cheney) want to precipitate a war with Iran and Syria before President Bush leaves office in January 2009. Why would rational men want to do that? Because we are not dealing with rational men, we are dealing with men who are knowingly or unknowingly subservient to "The Prince of This World." [9]

What can you do? You can pray that I am wrong, you can ask God to intervene, you can contact your elective Representatives and ask them to oppose the neoconservatives' plan to attack Syria and Iran, and you can copy this letter and give it to your friends. Some people distribute Radio Liberty letters at Flea Markets, others distribute them in front of grocery stores and malls. Everyone can do something because a pre-emptive attack on Syria and Iran will destabilize the Middle East and have a disastrous impact on our nation. What else can you do? You can tell people about the spiritual battle that is taking place behind the scenes, and remember:

"I am not skilled to understand What God has willed, what God has planned
I only know at His right hand Stands one who is my Saviour.

I take Him at his word and deed: "Christ died to save me," this I read
And in my heart I find I need of Him to be my Saviour.

That He should leave His place on high and come for sinful man to die
You count it strange? So once did I Before I knew my Saviour.

And O that He fulfilled may see, The travail of His soul in me
And with His work contented be, As I with my dear Saviour.

Yes, living, dying, let me bring My strength, my solace from this spring,
That He who lives to be my King Once died to be my Saviour!"

Dora Geenwell (1821-1882) [10]

Funding for Radio Liberty went behind last month. If you can help, it would be greatly appreciated.

Barbara and I appreciate your faithful support, and your prayers.

Yours in Christ,

Stanley Monteith


1. p. 10.
2. Ibid., p. 11.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., p. 12.
6. Ibid., p. 2.
9. The Work of the Spiritual Hierarchy, The Lucis Trust, 120 Wall Street, 24th Floor, New York, NY 10005.
10: Poem by Dora Geenwell, carried faithfully by a surgeon who met an untimely death in Canada a few years ago. One of our faithful supporters thought it would be appropriate to share with our "family" at this time.

Return to Radio Liberty home page

Please help Radio Liberty to expand our ministry to other outlets with your gift.
Please note that donations to Radio Liberty are not tax deductable