Princeton University, and New short, Aspen Institute, York Times, have once again deone of war the oldest whores of rhetoclared on Plato and have hired ric and sophistry in the republic, I.
Stone, to do the hatchet job: WE OF THE EDITORIAl.board of the Campaigner, are having more than a little trouble suppressing a wicked little smile of Satisfaction in noting these proceedings.
After all, why all this hue and cry about Plato at the Aspen Institute? Why all this panic about Plato at Princeton University? And why is the editorial board of the New York Times trying to execute Socrates one more time? Take a cursory look at the board of trustees of Aspen Institute, Princeton, Prudential, and the New York Times.
You need go no further to find the core of the financial oligarchy–some call it “the Eastern Establishment” which privately controls a 1arge portion of American industry and finance and which, hp until last year’s presidential election, controlled virtually a!l of policy making in this nation.
What a pity that this mighty financial oligarchy could find no better qualified champion against Plato than that wretched, retreaded old whore, I.
Stone! For the reader, three questions are of interest in this matter of now-surfacing public calumniations of Plato.
First, what is the motive of I.
Stone’s patrons? Second, what is I.
Stone’s argusent against Plato? Third, why were Mr.
Stone’s patrons unable to find a better spokesman for their cause against Plato? On the motive: beginning in 1978, the Campaigner,in a groundFebruary 1981 / CAMPAIGNER In equately contained to the point where high-:minded republicanism of Plato’s vintage would never again disturb the still waters of the l?!gsty into which I.
Stone and ms patrons were attempting to turn the United States.
General MacArthur had been crushed.
The life went out of the good elements in the Eisenhower administration after the U-2 incident.
Elections were stolen and electorates defrauded.
Longstanding republican institutions in the Congress of the United States were corrupted, destroyed, or watergated.
Pornography and banality ofI.
Stone’s variety proliferated all through the land.
Stone did not touch on the subject of philosophy through all these serene and felicitous years, Then all of a sudden, wham! I.F.
Stone begins to write and lecture on the subject of Plato’s philosophy, and specifically on the contention that Plato s philosophical system is the breeding ground of tyranny and dictatorship.
He is sponsored by Princeton University, which is the privately owned think tank of Prudential Insurance Company, to deliver the annual William Kelly Prentice Classics lecture, calumniating Plato, the “dictator.”The New York Times Sunday Magazine hosts another scandalous I.
Stone special, the retread of the old calumniation of Socrates, arguing that Socrates, when executed, got his just rewards from the “great Athenian democracy” which presumably acted wisely in assassinating the 2 breaking, historical piece, “The Secrets Known Only To The Inner Elites” by Lyndon H.
La-j Rouche, Jr., identified Plato, his philosophy, his politicalnetworks, and his successors as the single most important thread in the evolution of mankind’s republican faction down to the founding of the American Republic.
Subsequent studies, research monographs, and other reports published in this magazine further substantiated LaRouche’s historical thesis.
The case was conclusively proven.
In 1979 and 1980 LaRouche conducted a unique presidential campaign which was the cause of great grief among most of Mr.
Stone’s patrons, An actual Platonic republican movement was once again afoot in the land.
And that is what caused the alarums to go off at the rarified heights of’Aspen, Princeton, the New York Times and the recently bought-offHarper’s, On I.
Stone’s argument: The uninitiated among those who read I.
Stone’s written attacks against Plato or attended his Princeton lectures might imagine that his allegations that “Plato was a dictator” and that “Platonic philosophy breeds tyranny” have the ring of originality.
Stone certainly has been putting on the airs of a “classical scholar” recently, with pretentions to “original contributions.” What a loathsome, disgusting fraud.
Stone, the poseur, is passing on as his “original insights,” namely that Plato was the philosopher of tyranny, dictatorship, and arbitrary power, are the self-same standard slanders that were leveled against Plato during his lifetime.
They constituted the background “buzzing” gossip which surrounded Socrates’ legal lynching.
They werelater picked up by the unscrupulous fraud Aristotle, later by the dictator Sulla in Rome, as well as by the Ptolemies of Egypt, the Emperor Justinian, the Dominicans, the Jesuits, and so on down the line to the wretched Karl Popper in recent years.
Stone’s self-serving claims to “originality” are the sort of fraud that can only work on people whose intellectual fare doesn’t go beyond Sesame Street and Charlie’s Angels.
To RECAPITULATE the issues of argument involved: I.
Stone, in his Harper’s magazine article “Plato’s Ideal Bedlam,” claims that a The Truth About Plato with Part I of Charles Tate’s “The Truth About Plato,” the Campaigner overturns twenty-five centuries of slanders against the great philosopher and political leader.
The story of Plato’s life work as the chief strategist of a Mediterranean-wide antioligarchist leadership is set down here for the first time.
The liberals’ lie that humanism leads to fascism, so often leveled against Plato, is also torn apart in this issue.
Helga ZeppLaRouche reports in an interview that the Humanist Academy’s recent conference on “Friedrich Schiller and Today’s Culture” demonstrated that only a fight for the restoration of classical art and culture can rid us of the Aquarian kookery that must be buried along with the Carter administration. reading of Plato’s dialogue Politeia (referenced by Stone as The Republic), will show “Plato’s ideal state to be a totalitarian nightmare.” This is so, according to Stone, because Plato argues that the “second best state” would be that which is governed by leaders who have mastered the science of justice, virtue, and “the good,” three terms which-for Plato are synonymous.
Stone’s counterargument (and that of all his predecessors including Aristotle) is that such a state governed by such “philosopher-kings” would be a “totalitarian nightmare” because presumably there can be no agreement on what is “the good.” Different people have different ideas about what “good,” “virtue,” and “justice” are, and anyone attempting to educate civilized society around an ecumenical concept of “good,” must be suspect of “totalitarian proclivities.” If such a person threatens to be successful in educating society on what “the good” is, he must receive the treatment that Socrates suffered.
He must be lynched in the name of the philosophical principle that “truth is absolutely unknowable.” Ironically, I.
Stone’s argument against Plato, happens to be the refutation of I.
Stone’s very own argument.
The argument has the following form: MAJOR PREMISE: If there exists no “objective truth,” then Plato’s proposal of ruling society according to “objective truth” is a concealed proposal for a “totalitarian nightmare.” MINOR PREMISE: There exists no “objective truth.” CONCLUSION:Plato’s proposal of ruling society according to “objective truth” is a concealed _proposal for a “totalitarian nightmare.” 3 CAMPAIGNER / February 1981 EDITORIAL Continued from page3 What we can say to all of this, of course, is that I.
Stone supplies the recommendation that “there exists no objective truth.” For Mr.
Stone to be personally consistent with his own arguments, he must agree that his own very writing on Plato is not tainted by that to which he denies existence, namely truth.
Which proves our case that I.
Stone is deliberately, consciously, and unabashedly once again lying in public. IF THE READER WISHES to EXHIBITS
Read more about Airs : Stone certainly has been putting on the airs of a….: