/lit/ - Literature

>>22720970
Whenever we have a Strauss thread some dude always comes in immediately to make a 4-5 post copypasta about how Strauss was a Zionist
I wonder how long it'll take him to post it this time

>>22720970
>[Strauss] saw through me like an x-ray...
What exactly does this imply?

>>22720980
Schmitt respected Strauss's interpretation of his work. The Concept of the Political (in English at least) is often published with Strauss's essay about the book, and for me personally it completely changed how I understood Schmitt's argument, which was much stronger and more subtle than I got from my initial reading. I think they had a long correspondence on that book and other topics, and Schmitt really respected Strauss's insight (and Strauss of course thought Schmitt was a genius when this was not a popular opinion politically).

>>22720980
That the normal canned response about Carl Schmitt, that Schmitt is only trying to describe how politics really works and doesn't care about justice, is completely wrong. Schmitt was actively trying to obfuscate the question.

>>22720970
>>22720980
>(((Strauss))) saw through me like an x-ray

>>22721002
How is he obfuscating, he just justice to be relative

>>22720975
>Paul Gottfried on Strauss and the Straussians:
"It is possible to find evidence of Strauss’s Zionist loyalties after
his coming to America – and even after he had established himself as
an academic celebrity in the 1950s as the Robert Maynard Hutchins
Distinguished Professor at the University of Chicago. Many of Strauss’s
most intimate students, such as Allan Bloom, Harry V. Jaffa, Ralph
Lerner, Stanley Rosen, Harry Clor, William Galston, Abram Shulsky,
Werner Dannhauser, Seth Benardete, Steven Salkever, Hadley Arkes,
and his frequent collaborator, Joseph Cropsey, have been Jewish – and
strong supporters of Israel and usually of the Israeli Right.

The same judgment would apply to such non-Jewish students of
Strauss as Harvey Mansfield, Jr., Thomas L. Pangle, Mark Lilla, and
Walter Berns. One of Strauss’s non-Jewish students, George Anastaplo,
noted the special favor that the master showered on those who
expressed his “ahavat yisrael,” love of Israel, but also the scorn that
he sometimes reserved for those who were imprudent enough to show
the opposite sentiment."

"As a Jew, he wished to be in a society in which he
felt safe, although the nationalist entity he desired for Jews would not
necessarily be the kind of society that he would wish to reside in as a
Jew in exile. While in Germany before the rise of the Nazis, he may
have hoped for a time to see the land of his birth become such a haven,
but when forced to emigrate, he transferred his hopes to Anglophone
societies. In England, where he found temporary employment at
Cambridge in 1935, Strauss came to idolize Churchill, the adversary
of the Nazis and, perhaps even more significantly, the personification
for him of Anglo-American democratic practice."

"But whether deutsche Kultur was to be admired or demonized may have
been less important for Strauss than a more practical concern. Given
what he considered his Jewish marginality, it seemed best to promote a
“liberal democratic” society in which he and others of his kind would feel secure."

"What Strauss privileged were “liberal democratic” values, and he
scolded his fellow academics for not rallying to this political cause
with suitable enthusiasm. The other loyalty that Strauss passionately
expressed throughout his life was to Jewishness and the Jewish state.
This loyalty came through with unmistakable force in his conversations
and social judgments, even if Strauss spent only a single year of his life
in Israel and even if he observed on more than one occasion that Zionism
would not suffice to hold Jews together."

>>22721498
>Continued:
"The cure for this problem of discrimination against Jews, Strauss
indicates in the preface, was “political Zionism,” a solution that he
backed in principle. What had to be done at the same time, however,
was to make life tolerable for those Jews who, like Strauss, did not
embrace the Zionist option. Their alternative was “liberal democracy,”
by which the writer meant something more fortifying than freedom as
that term would be understandable to nineteenth-century European
bourgeoisie or contemporary libertarians. Strauss may have favored
a strong democracy, of the kind that has appealed to Jaffa, Berns,
and Bloom. This democracy would be actively committed to universal
principles and would see itself in a tradition of democratic heroes
stretching back to Lincoln and the signers of the Declaration of Independence.

This sanitized or virtual Right has found a powerful voice in Harry
Jaffa’s Claremont Institute, a foundation that combines a generally
interventionist approach to dealing with America’s undemocratic enemies
abroad with generally progressive positions on racial and immigration
questions. After thirty years, this foundation is a well-endowed
presence in the movement conservative community, and figures who are
affiliated with the Institute, like Charles Kesler and William Bennett,
appear frequently on network TV, including the Today show.

The Institute’s position on Israel is one of unqualified support for
the nationalist coalition now ruling the Jewish state. The Claremont
Review of Books and the speeches of Jaffa strongly suggest the
inseparability of “conservative values” from both the crusade against
“Islamofascism” and a categorical endorsement of the Israeli Right.
The Jaffaites also emphasize the indispensable role of public education
in promoting “democratic values.” Far from being advocates of a diminished
state presence, Jaffa and his followers happily espouse the kind of strong
government that is thought to aid their foreign policy and value instruction.

Although Strauss was close to Jaffa and spent considerable time
with him in the 1960s, there is no proof that he would have approved
of his student’s political plan in all its details. What is being suggested
is that Strauss’s concern about chastening the Right and his favorable
view of the Anglo-American liberal democratic regime, and especially
Churchill, animated such projects as the Claremont Institute. Without
Strauss’s teaching and example, their own mission might have been
less inspired, if not entirely unthinkable."

"All that is being argued is that their critics have unfairly attributed to
the Straussians extreme right-wing positions in international affairs,
which the latter do not seem to hold. Their support of Jewish nationalism
may be the exception, but even here the reason given for their
Zionism is not ethnic nationalism but the fact that Israel is a liberal
democracy like the United States."

The Straussian deception must be understood as two-storied. Whoever thinks the Straussians’ exoteric fantasies are motivated by some form of concern for America (her values, her empire, etc.) is victim of their esoteric lies. The key for understanding the essence of Straussianism is the word that Curtis never pronounces in his three-hour documentary on the Straussians: Israel.

To get some insight into Strauss’s Zionism, we must turn to a primary source (that Drury, to her credit, mentions): his 1962 lecture at the Hillel Foundation, “Why We Remain Jews”, one of his recorded oral communications made accessible to the public in the 1990s.[17] Strauss begins his lecture by stating that, for once, “I will not beat around the bush in any respect.” Then he reveals that, “since a very, very early time the main theme of my reflections has been what is called the ‘Jewish question,’” which will come as a surprise to many. His main message to his American Jewish audience is: “return to the Jewish faith, return to the faith of our ancestors.”

Drury considers Strauss’s defense of the “Jewish faith” as a form of deception or hypocrisy, since Strauss is an avowed atheist and openly calls Judaism a “heroic delusion” and “a dream” (such as “no nobler dream was ever dreamt”). But the accusation is unfair, I think, because it neglects Strauss’s qualifications of “faith” and “dream”. First, Strauss clarifies that, by “faith”, he means not necessarily “belief”, but “fidelity, loyalty, piety in the old Latin sense of the word pietas.” Secondly, immediately after calling Judaism a “dream”, Strauss adds that, “dream is akin to aspiration. And aspiration is a kind of divination of an enigmatic vision.” Although he doesn’t elaborate, it is clear enough: to Strauss, Jewishness is not God-chosenness, but self-chosenness. This is a very common view among Jewish intellectuals, akin to the Kabbalistic notion that Yahweh is like the collective soul of the Jewish people. In an “Essay on the Jewish Soul” (1929), for instance, Isaac Kadmi-Cohen writes that, “divinity in Judaism is contained in the exaltation of the entity represented by the race.”[18] That is why Jews can be non-believers in God yet believers in Yahweh’s promise. When Drury criticizes Strauss for being “interested only in the political advantages of religion,”[19] she should know that it is not necessarily a betrayal of Jewish tradition. The notion that prophecy has a “political mission” (Strauss, Philosophy and Law) is self-evident to many secular Zionists.

>>22721510
The central passage in Strauss’s lecture “Why we remain Jews” is a long quotation of Nietzsche’s Dawn of Day aphorism 205, in which Nietzsche predicts that the Jews will become “the lords of Europe”. After eighteen centuries of training in Europe, says Nietzsche, “the psychic and spiritual resources of today’s Jews are extraordinary.” Among other strengths, “they have understood how to create a feeling of power and eternal vengeance out of the very trades that were left to them.” Because of this, says Nietzsche (as quoted by Strauss):

“at some time Europe may fall like a perfectly ripe fruit into their hand, which only casually reaches out. In the meantime it is necessary for them to distinguish themselves in all the areas of European distinction and to stand among the first, until they will be far enough along to determine themselves that which distinguishes. Then they will be called the inventors and guides of the Europeans.”

Strauss notes that “Europe” should now be replaced by “the West” in Nietzsche’s aphorism, and comments that it is “the most profound and radical statement on assimilation that I have read.” It may well be, in fact, the key to the Straussian agenda. Assimilation as dissimulation and as a long-term strategy for Jewish supremacism is the only assimilation that Strauss approves of.

In this same lecture, Strauss criticizes political Zionism as belonging to the wrong kind of assimilation, since it sought to create a nation like others. If Israel became a nation like others, Jewish identity would perish, because Jewish identity is based on the persecution inherent in the dispersion. Strauss calls for a “religious Zionism” that transcends the national project. He believes that Jews must continue to be a nation dispersed among other nations. Yet Strauss commends the State Israel for setting an example with its prohibition of mixed marriages, fulfilling “an act of national cleansing or purification”, “a reassertion of the difference between Jews and non-Jews.” Strauss also defended Israel’s State racism in the National Review: political Zionism, he wrote, “fulfilled a conservative function” by stemming the “tide of ‘progressive’ leveling of venerable ancestral differences.”[20]

Strauss’s emphasis on endogamy goes to the very heart of the Torah, which insists on the strict equality between monotheism and racial purity; committing idolatry (“serving other gods”) and marrying non-Jews are one and the same thing (e.g. Deuteronomy 7:3-4 and Numbers 25:1-2). All Jewish laws are essentially walls built around the sacred duty: keep the blood! “All is race—there is no other truth,” wrote another “assimilated” Jew.[21]

>>22721511
>>22721510
>>22721504
>>22721498
What does that have to do with Carl Schmitt

>>22721545
Somebody was Jewish so he sprang into action.

>>22721545
This is a thread about Strauss. The OP pic always determines the subject, never the text.

>>22721498
based.

>>22721487
Relative as in there's no answers, or that everyone has an answer?

>>22721545
schmitt was opposed to both the fake liberal democracies strauss wanted in the west and his hypocrisy in only wanting weak liberal regimes for his enemies while his own people had a strong decisionist regime

>>22721995
As in both sides are justified in pursuing what they regard their vital interests, and there is no general system of right that can incorporate all competing interests into a harmonious whole.

>>22722933
The liberal regimes flattened Dresden to the ground. So much for muh strong decisionist regime.

>>22721568
The West is saved.

>>22724908
ashkenazi hands posted this

>>22724589
It's still a fundamentally question of what is "right", not a question about power. Power may be what settles the question ultimately, and politics may be regulated by a show of force, but Strauss is right in this regard that justice is always the motivating force. Hence, he saw through Schmitt like an x-ray.

>>22724608
Two decisionist regimes (the corrupt plutocratic one in England and America that had also parasitized and economically vassalized France, and the mindless Bolshevik behemoth state) allied to take out the third, the fascist "Fortress Europa," showing very well that Schmitt was right: existential threats to each polity activated the decisionist core of each nation (the Anglo-American oligarchy and the Stalinist totalitarian successor apparatus to the Tsarist police state, respectively), each of which subordinated civil society to themselves in order to fight a "total" war in which values beyond the political did not matter. After things were normalized, both states then went back to pretending they were just defending values like humanism and democracy, even though they were the only two states to have chemical and biological weapons programs for example, while Hitler and the Japanese both banned such programs because they were dishonorable.

The fascists were the only ones who actually fought according to humanistic, human, values. The other states were just leviathans led by money and mindless lust for power. Fascism was deliberately conceived as a revolt against these leviathans, Anglo-American finance imperialism and Bolshevik terror. See Corradini's concept of "proletarian nations." The fascist nations literally pioneered the concept of the "third world" - that is, a third option or alternative to capitalism and Bolshevism. The fascist revolution was the actual socialist revolution called for throughout the 19th century - it WAS the mass revolt of a highly-developed civilizational vanguard against world-capital that Marx and Engels wanted the 1848 Spring of Nations to be.

Schmitt didn't deny that the emerging fascist system, or nomos, had its own rationales and decisionist component. What he objected to was the capitalists and communists destroying and enslaving other nations in the name of "liberation." At least the fascist alliance was honorable enough to simply declare its interests and say "Stay out of Europe, as nobody wants you here." Once again, fascists have actual honor.

Strauss on the other hand perfectly typifies the Anglo-American solution to geopolitics: claiming to be acting in the name of democracy and human rights while really just weakening enemy nations until they become economic and cultural vassals, dissolving their local cultures and value systems into mush that can be absorbed into the Anglo-American network of funny money (whether it's big finance since the '70s, forcing central banks on people, the petrodollar, etc.). Nobody can be allowed to stand "outside" this system - it only works if it's a total, global system of parasitism. Schmitt explicitly criticized such a Kojevian "universal homogeneous state" as only superficially a-political in Concept of the Political. The political is actually still active. Read Theory of the Partisan, Nomos of the Earth, and Baudrillard's Fatal Strategies.

>>22726705
>Democracy and plutocracy are equivalent in Spengler's argument, and he said the "tragic comedy of the world-improvers and freedom-teachers" is that they are simply assisting money to be more effective. He believed that the principles of equality, natural rights, universal suffrage, and freedom of the press are all disguises for class war of the bourgeois against the aristocracy.

>Spengler said that in his era money has already won, in the form of democracy. However, he said that in destroying the old elements of the Culture, it prepares the way for the rise of a new and overpowering figure, who he calls the Caesar. Before such a leader, money collapses, and in the Imperial Age the politics of money fades away.

"The coming of Caesarism breaks the dictature of money and its political weapon, democracy. After a long triumph of world-city economy and its interests over political creative force, the political side of life manifests itself after all as the stronger of the two. The sword is victorious over the money, the master-will subdues again the plunderer-will. ... The private powers of the economy want free paths for their acquisition of great resources. No legislation must stand in their way. They want to make the laws themselves, in their interests, and to that end they make use of the tool they have made for themselves, democracy, the subsidized party. Law needs, in order to resist this onslaught, a high tradition and an ambition of strong families that finds its satisfaction not in the heaping-up of riches, but in the tasks of true rulership, above and beyond all money-advantage. A power can be overthrown only by another power, not by a principle, and no power that can confront money is left but this one. Money is overthrown and abolished only by blood."
>Spengler

>>22726714
>Kojève claims that history comes to an end with what he calls the universal and homogeneous state. When we recognize that all men are free and all men are equal, the only thing left is to create a form of society that recognizes this freedom and equality. That form of society has to be universal. It can’t be attached to any particular culture, because culture is over, too. History is just a record of cultures, and when history ends, culture is over, too. Culture becomes, in some sense, unnecessary, because it’s really not the best medium for coming to self-understanding. Kojève glimpses a tendency towards the complete homogenization of the world within this universal state. So he calls the end of history the universal homogeneous state, and he thinks this is great. This is wonderful.

>We’re rapidly seeing this all around us. In Bhutan, they’re getting TV today. Tomorrow, they’re going to be wearing little baseball caps—backwards, of course—listening to rap music, and wearing t-shirts with American brand names on them. Eventually it will be more practical to just learn one language: English. As one friend puts it, “language par excellence.” And we’ll all be English speakers; we’ll all be buying the same things; we’ll all be watching the same TV shows. We’ll be one big, happy, peaceful world, and mankind will be entirely satisfied, because we’ll all be free and we’ll all be equal.

>This is Kojève’s description of the end of history: “In the final state, there are naturally no more human beings.” Why? Because man is a historical being, too, and when history comes to an end, what is distinctively human disappears. “The healthy automata are satisfied. They have sports, art, eroticism, and so forth, and the sick ones get locked up.” Or they get Prozac. Or other mood-altering drugs to make them happier. “The philosophers become gods. The tyrant becomes an administrator, a cog in the machine fashioned by automata for automata.”
https://counter-currents.com/2018/09/alexandre-kojeve-and-the-end-of-history/

>>22721002
>obfuscate the question
As in, hide that there is a question of justice at all or that he cares about said question?
>t. hasn't read either author

>>22726705
This all sounds like you're dreaming. The Japanese who tred dropping plague bombs on the Chinese banned biological weapons? France was a vassal of pre-war isolationist America? Germany just wanted to live Germanly and not impose their rule on Czechoslovakia, Poland, Holland, Belgium, France, Norway, and Sweden? Strauss somehow "weakened" "enemy nations" by teaching Plato, Locke, and Aristophanes?

This is such a scattershot understanding of history, politics, and the authors in question. If you spent more time reading Schmitt, Kojeve, and Strauss directly and less time swallowing the facile summaries of your dreaming kin at Counter Currents, you might actually have an understanding. But no one on /lit/ reads.

>>22727043
France was a vassal of Anglo capital by WW2, yes. Its exiled bourgeois elites were used as attack dogs because they still had atavistic, merely national hatred of the Germans, as if it was still the 1870s. That's why they practically supported Stalin in wanting to utterly demolish Germany and salt the earth, even though this was horrendously unstrategic. They didn't care about strategy. But they did their job supporting the Anglo-finance leviathan, which did understand strategy.

Yes, Germany was in a difficult situation and was involved in the centuries-long redrawing of East and Central European national borders, just like all those countries were themselves in their endless disputes - with Romania absorbing Transylvania practically as a gift from the Allies after WW1, Bulgaria and Poland attempting to reclaim irredenta on principles just as flimsy as German Volksdeutsch rationales, etc. Like I said, the fascist bloc was just as much a practitioner of realpolitik. But the fact that many governments saw what the Germans were doing, and understood its necessity, shows that elites who weren't poisoned by Anglo-American money, like Knut Hamsun for example (see his obituary for Hitler), and Ezra Pound and many others, understood what was actually happening in Europe and understood that the Germans were just its likeliest vehicle at the moment. They all understood implicitly what Schmitt outlined explicitly in Nomos of the Earth: that a new nomos was forming, and that the great atheistic powers to the west and east would crush it if possible.

Once that realpolitik realization had been reached, and it was implicitly reached by most people even prior to WW1, including Max Weber for example (see Mommsen's book on him), everything else is just a formality. It is self-evident that Europe will either be absorbed into the Anglo-American system or into Bolshevism or divided between them - UNLESS a new order emerges, and does this by navigating, appropriating, and sublimating existing historical forms, necessarily an imperfect process.

I have read every book by Schmitt and Strauss in German and English.

>Strauss somehow "weakened" "enemy nations" by teaching Plato, Locke, and Aristophanes?
Yes. See >>22721498 >>22721504. "A closed state for me, not for thee." See pic related. Same old tactic. See the New York Intellectuals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Intellectuals Trotskyist emigres who participated in Soviet terror until it became Russian again, then became "dissenting" Bolsheviks and then American neocons (read: anti-Russian genocidalists using America as a tool to and a base to finance anti-communism). Jews are always out for themselves, never the things they seem to profess.

>>22727043
Yeah, the German State that didnt push for Nuclear Bomb, as opposed to faggot USA "who did it to save democracy and liberty".

Like when the Anglos starved Europe, twice
Or when Murica dropped the Atom Bombs.

>>22727043
>This is such a scattershot understanding of history, politics, and the authors in question. If you spent more time reading Schmitt, Kojeve, and Strauss directly and less time swallowing the facile summaries of your dreaming kin at Counter Currents, you might actually have an understanding
tone down you anti-europeanism, racist.

>>22720970
facsim is a failure of humanity

>>22727625
Don't forget the Anglos inventing concentration camps (and genocide via "accidental" poor hygiene/supplies at the camps) because they couldn't outmatch the superior Boers' use of asymmetric warfare, so they just decided to target their women and children instead.

Or the fact that the British propaganda office in WW1 created everything we now associate with WW2 propaganda aimed at the Germans, except that it was aimed at German atrocities supposedly perpetrated against the Belgians, including all the familiar "turning people into soap and lampshades" shit. They just repurposed the same propaganda 30 years later.

We owe the histrionic, gore porn-obsessed style of political history to which we are all accustomed over the last 70 years to this propaganda. Though they barely care when actual mass killings or systematic genocides were carried out by Stalin and the USSR.

Strauss and his inheritors have always seemed to me to be principally interested in taming Schmitt.
Fun Jewish dichotomy: You can have Popper who just seethes about him and simply demands that liberalism crush everything except itself or you can have Straussian muscular liberalism that strategically appeals to chauvinism and to civilizational ideas to attempt to extend the life of what is still a basically Jewish, liberal enterprise

>>22727043
How dare you speak of Plato and Locke in the same breath lmao

>>22724908
Thank God *someone* finally had both the intelligence and - more importantly, the COURAGE - to post copypasta about the Jews in a thread about some issue they did not and could not understand, but where someone was Jewish. It gives me such hope for the future knowing such people exist.

>>22727712
You definitely can't understand Strauss without knowing him as a Jew

>>22727678
Japanese people in Concentration Camps too lol, really crazy shit

>>22727715
STUNNING and BRAVE, but Strauss could understand Schmitt, which is what Schmitt is saying in the OP, and which is actually what the thread is about. But thank you for spamming the thread with alerts about Jew Cooties, you have done humanity a great service this day.

>>22727734
Of course Strauss understood Schmitt. No one disputes that. He spent a great deal of effort trying to reintegrate Schmitt's criticisms of liberalism. The thread is about Strauss, and the principally interesting thing about Strauss is that he was a typical Jew who wished liberalism for the gentile and Zionism for his own people. If you tire of hearing it it's probably because there are so many Jews who take that stance.

>>22727734
>The Jew is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”

>>22727678
>We owe the histrionic, gore porn-obsessed style of political history to which we are all accustomed over the last 70 years to this propaganda.
How does the Anglo keep getting away with this? , somehow, their own "manipulation" of their own in-group is something that is so close that is impossible to percieve. You are so right anon.

>I have read every book by Schmitt and Strauss in German and English.
I have started reading Schmitt's "On Dictatorship"
What books by these two gents are a must for you? what do you recommend? any orders?
>such a pleasure being able to be in this thread with someone like you.

>>22721568
Kek I wonder how many hours a day the avg poltard spends fantasizing about jews.

>>22727176
This is scattershot again and ignoring the core thrust with vagueries and excuses of the sort of "when Hitler does a socialism or sides with corporations and sells out the SA it's different." Even Heidegger in his long note on Hitler in Mindfulness finally came to see that Germany was just as under the same spell as America and Russia.

As for:
>Yes. See >>22721498 # >>22721504 #. "A closed state for me, not for thee." See pic related.
For someone claiming to have read all of Schmitt and Strauss, this is as far from an acceptable argument as you could get. The Neocons with actual political power (Wolfowitz, Perl, and their cadre), it was *Albert Wohlstetter* who was decisive as a political mentor, and you and Gottfried are merely repeating liberal talking points from Bush's terms. Gottfried doesn't have a handle on Strauss because he cares about politics simply, and Strauss (and this is the worst one can say about him; read between the lines) cares about philosophy and its continued possibility simply. Gottfried tilts at windmills because he thinks he's attacking X when he's really hitting at Y, and doing so (queerly enough) because he's nodded his head in agreement with lib media explanations.

>>22727625
>doesn't say anything positive about the Allies
>BUT WHATABOUT THE MURICANS
Reading is wasted on some people. Look up Uranprojekt fag.

>>22727646
Lol

>>22726705
>while Hitler and the Japanese both banned such programs because they were dishonorable.
Lmao the japs did human experimentation and mass raped chinks.

>>22727744
>The thread is about Strauss, and the principally interesting thing about Strauss is that he was a typical Jew who wished liberalism for the gentile and Zionism for his own people.
It's funny watching people on the right who ought to be playing up Strauss's 1933 letter to Lowith downplay it while the libs play it up.

>>22727759
Vagueries is not a word. You're thinking of vagaries which means digressions or wanderings (from vagare, to wander or ramble). Vaguery is a common barbarism.

>or sides with corporations and sells out
Typical anti-European canard, could be from a standard playbook alongside "Fascism was big business' reaction to the impending socialist revolution." Both equally bullshit, not worth responding to.

>Even Heidegger
Yes, he saw that the NSDAP regime lapsed into being another manifestation of Gestell. That doesn't negate his original hope and support for the regime. Neither he nor Schmitt ever denounced their Nazi allegiance, by the way. Schmitt didn't even denazify, which was a huge move.

As I explained above in my posts, which I'm sure you didn't read, all intellectuals understood what was ultimately manifesting THROUGH the NSDAP, Germany, and the fascist phenomenon in Europe, and understood that this manifestation would be tempered by many contingencies, which would have to be sublimated into what was essential in the movement. Of course, they disagreed slightly on what exactly was essential to fascism. But Heidegger never disagreed with what the NSDAP represented or tried to do. Only with its failure to actualize its essence and its consequent drowning in a sea of contingent factors, that tended to make it a mirror image of capitalism and communism.

>Gottfried
Gottfried has an excellent comprehension of Strauss generally, including enough training in classics to know that Strauss' readings of classical thought are embarrassing, and betray a very sad and impoverished sensitivity to the soul of Greece. See:
https://carnegieendowment.org/2006/02/06/i-am-not-straussian-at-least-i-don-t-think-i-am-pub-17984

>Strauss ... cares about philosophy
Strauss cares about pushing a factually incorrect, occasionally bizarre (the numerology shit) interpretation of the history of political philosophy in which all philosophy inevitably converges on a Jewish-American liberal anti-fascist's preference for liberal "democracies" effectively governed by a tight cabal of Jewish-American liberal anti-fascists using nepotism to colonize the "philosophizing class." Except when it comes to Israel, regarding which Strauss is a textbook Heideggerian ethno-nationalist fascist, except for the part where Heidegger didn't want Germans to aid their world conquest by infecting other peoples like an influenza so that the German home-state could never be threatened.

Sorry you get triggered by people noticing your "thing" (promoting degeneracy and plurality except when it comes to Jews) but just about everybody notices it now.

>>22727751
Wow, if I was Leo Strauss I would be absolutely btfo by this. I was tempted to add that you should take your schizo meds, but real schizos can actually have original hallucinations, rather than just spamming shit that was incredibly played out on this site a decade ago. "Take your meds, 4 line Perl script" doesn't quite work though.

>>22727793
It comports completely with a correct understanding of Strauss though? He was a fascist, but Jewish fascism assumes the character of its nation, and the Jew feels a need to be at home in and master of all Gentiles. All the liberalism is just to make that happen.

>>22727759
>Look up Uranprojekt fag.
Read Otto Skorzeny's book you ignoramus, the Nazis never Speedrunned for the Atomic Bomb because Hitler didn't like the idea of it.

>>22727176
Regarding the creation of a new nomos: Do you regard it as possible that what Schmitt and other intellectuals saw forming in the interwar period could still come into being, or that its development was only slowed or delayed by the destruction of the Axis?
The more I learn the more I see fascism, for lack of a better term, struggling underneath the surface of so many tendencies from the interwar to the present day. People from the Axis who escaped, third positionist movements in other parts of the world, and often more recently, movements of the left and the right that inevitably come back around to the new idea whether they know it or not.

It seems futile to ask it in such a direct way but I do see signs of hope even today.

>>22728046
>The more I learn the more I see fascism, for lack of a better term, struggling underneath the surface of so many tendencies from the interwar to the present day. People from the Axis who escaped, third positionist movements in other parts of the world, and often more recently, movements of the left and the right that inevitably come back around to the new idea whether they know it or not.

read kondylis, stop with the nonsense larping

>>22728068

>>22727803
Hi (((friend)))

>>22727802
>the numerology shit
kek, based post. the guy definitely had schizophrenic tendencies, his letters are filled with this sentiment

>>22728068
>>22728074
I do have Planetary Politics in my library waiting to be read but I get an impression of this as being so much waffle. It seems to say that "the three ideologies of the twentieth century were modernist and idealist, and to understand anything more we must consider individual cases." Which doesn't really tell you anything more than a high schooler could.

Can you elaborate on why you think it's relevant to what I was asking about? If it's a LARP to hope for the destruction of world liberalism and the (re)emergence of what was something undoubtedly better then I'll continue to LARP. I don't want sharp uniforms and Hitler reborn, I want the deeper idea.

>>22728111
>Can you elaborate on why you think it's relevant to what I was asking about? If it's a LARP to hope for the destruction of world liberalism and the (re)emergence of what was something undoubtedly better then I'll continue to LARP. I don't want sharp uniforms and Hitler reborn, I want the deeper idea.

well.....read pic related then

>>22727702
>Strauss and his inheritors have always seemed to me to be principally interested in taming Schmitt.
Strauss tamed Schmitt according to Schmitt himself.

>>22728076
More plausible than saying I'm Leo Strauss, but I am verified 0% Jewish DNA on both sides of the family. It's not even that I'm against antisemitism - most people tired of (many) Jewish people's hypocrisy about being "fellow white people" when they want to criticize non-Jews, and then not being white when there are consequences for it.

The problem is that you - you personally and the rest of the Jew spammers on here - are stupid, humorless, and robotic NPCs. This thread has nothing to do with Jews, but someone was Jewish, so you just have to paste walloftext derail, and anyone who finds this to be tiresome is, shockingly, called Jewish too. Try having a second idea, just to mix it up. Try not being utterly predictable. Jesus Christ, be as antisemitic as you want, nobody gives a shit - but could you please not be so fucking boring? A good chunk of the funniest memes on this site were anti-Semitic as hell, but nobody cared because we were crying with laughter. You aren't funny, you aren't interesting, and you aren't even trying to talk about the topic of the thread - a really interesting topic btw. You're just ...

You're a mossad psyop to discredit antisemitism, aren't you? Almost got me there, schlomo.

>>22728240
Wut means

>>22728314
>writing this much about not being jewish
Hi (((friend)))

>>22728314
>This thread has nothing to do with Jews, but someone was Jewish, so you just have to paste walloftext derail
Thread is about a Jewish liberal political philosopher's "seeing through" an illiberal political philosopher's political philosophy. Everything posted was about how the Jewish liberal political philosopher is conning both sides, only pretending to be a liberal while actually being a more dishonest and slimy version of a (Jewish) illiberal, when the other guy was at least honest about being illiberal.

Schmitt's gracious openness to Strauss' good critique of the first edition of Concept of Political - a critique that wasn't even discussed in the thread - was only vaguely referred to as a way of implying Schmitt is somehow subordinate to Strauss. But Schmitt is more penetrating and consistent than Strauss because he is more honest.

>>22721498
>the cure for a particularist chauvinism of Schroedinger's ethno-'creed' is indulging it with diplomatic immunity and territory from which to exercise its fifth column activities

>>22728357
Wow, just wow. How dare you bring up the fact that a jewish-american political theorist who spent major amounts of time talking about zionism is jewish and had israeli sympathies. Anti semite much?

>>22721504
>t. political AIDS immunodeficiency that will ultimately result in your lunch being eaten by Moscow & Beijing et. al.

If there was not appropriate measures taken following the endemic levels of Soviet espionage in the FDR administration facilitated by Zero Sum Game Brits this is all on course to end in manmade horrors beyond human comprehension.

>>22721510
picrel

>>22721511
>“at some time Europe may fall like a perfectly ripe fruit into their hand, which only casually reaches out. In the meantime it is necessary for them to distinguish themselves in all the areas of European distinction and to stand among the first, until they will be far enough along to determine themselves that which distinguishes. Then they will be called the inventors and guides of the Europeans.”

World historic Borderline Personality invoking its own undoing .

>>22726705
>Nomos of the Earth

America can take man to space debrided of baggage tethering it to earth by Lilliputian humanist dick rippers. The alternative is indefinite crab barrell bullshit at a technological cargo cult level of current year Sino-Soviet industrial and societal mediocrity. This all is ending with prejudice one way or the other before the century is out.

>>22727176
>France was a vassal of Anglo capital by WW2, yes

DeGaulle aligned with stolen Resistance valor communists during and after the war, just for nominal 'sovereign' appearances. French funding built the Wuhan lab, and the Winnipeg one that ought've been the tripwire alarm.

>>22727802
>>22727802
>regarding which Strauss is a textbook Heideggerian ethno-nationalist fascist, except for the part where Heidegger didn't want Germans to aid their world conquest by infecting other peoples like an influenza so that the German home-state could never be threatened.

It remains a cadet branch of international socialism and useful as a brushfire is for clearing; their misguided gentile breeding program will end with them being the final useful idiots in this picture. 'Fascist' is one more bit of moral cant, nominal at best.

>>22727650
>platitude is a failure of platitude

You are a midget licking the taint of beasts.

>>22728314
>talking about the Jewishness of a thinker who wrote to discredit gentile illiberalism and bolster Jewish illiberalism is just...boring, guys! Talk about something else, haha! Antisemitism is just a joke, right?
You reek of Twitter NRx Mischling.

>>22728357
>Schmitt's gracious openness to Strauss' good critique of the first edition of Concept of Political - a critique that wasn't even discussed in the thread - was only vaguely referred to as a way of implying Schmitt is somehow subordinate to Strauss.
Hallucination. No one said it implied Schmitt was "subordinate" to Strauss - if anything it was the opposite: Strauss thought Schmitt was a profoundly important thinker, Schmitt never mentioned Strauss (afaik) until Strauss engaged his ideas. (And Strauss didn't offer a"critique" of the Concept of the Political, he was in complete agreement, his (extraordinarily good) essay is an appreciation and an apology for Schmitt and his ideas, and Schmitt himself confirms this - the x-ray comment was an endorsement of Strauss's commentary. The worst you could say was that Strauss said the quiet part loud.)

All the Jewish bullshit is just mindworms. Someone was Jewish so spam_poltardation.pl was triggered in your NPC script, you are incapable of understanding how derailing and utterly dull and tired and rote everything you say is. Perhaps, just perhaps, you retain enough self awareness to see how, given this situation, calling everyone who tells you to shut up "Jewish" doesn't effectively exhonerate you of the charge of being a bore with no ability to think beyond robotically doubling down on your tedious poltard bullshit. I'm not holding my breath or anything, but we live in hope.

>>22728473
>NOOOO you CAN'T MENTION JEWS and ZIONISM when somebody is JEWISH and ZIONIST
>that's ANTI SEMITIC and DUMB
kek. can't believe you're a real person

>>22728473
Can you just shut the fuck up lmao
What the fuck else do you want to talk about Strauss and Schmitt for you disingenuous tourist, if not for the way that Strauss tried to appropriate Schmitt for the Zionist and liberal projects? I notice your complete lack of response to this >>22727802 post which I appreciate for its deft dismissal of the motte-and-bailey cocksucking bullshit of "Strauss cares about -philosophy-, jeez, guys."

Go back to Twitter where all the antisemites are banned

>>22728481

>>22728552
Even people that just bitch about Jews are at least engaging with reality instead of desperately demanding that others not do so

>>22728473
You overwrite and come across as a kvetching boomer trying hard to seem "above it all." This only makes it more fun for people of the persuasion you dislike to mock and dismiss you. This isn't an attack. I am telling you this as neutral information.

>>22728565
it's probably a bluepilled 35 year old neoreaction twitfag

>>22728552
>know your meme image
LMAO go back to twitter bud

>>22728573
bluepill isn't really a useful descriptor here i just hate the word at this stage since he clearly knows about the jews
but yes nrx faggot with a twitter and a substack no one reads, who desperately wants younger people to die for israel

>>22728502
>Is informed that banging on about the joos in response to every stimulus indicates a limited intellect
>../AdvancedNPCCogitation.sh
>"Your Jewishly Jewing this Jew and Jews are Jewy Jewish Jewingly Jew Jewness Jew Jew and Jews Jewer Jewishly Jewsomeness Jew Jew Jews ..."

>>22728596
kill yourself lol

>>22728596
Yes, why would a jewish man have the fact that they are jewish ignored
IGNORE IT! PLEASE IGNORE! MY TWITTER FRIENDS TOLD ME SO

Is this the thread for being antisemitic in?

>>22728565
>You overwrite and come across as a kvetching boomer trying hard to seem "above it all." This only makes it more fun for people of the persuasion you dislike to mock and dismiss you. This isn't an attack. I am telling you this as neutral information.
Lol friend could you possibly sound gayer?

>>22728612
I like that I didn't even say the word Jew in the post he replied to but he persists in furiously demanding that I...mention the Jews less? I guess?
Seriously what the fuck else does he want to talk about with regard to Strauss
>>22728617
No this is the thread for making some Twitter neoreaction immigrant seethe
But you can make him seethe by talking about Jews so I guess?

>>22728612
>If I say "Jew" enough times it will stop sounding autistic
I wish you great success in the endeavor

>>22728627
the irony

>>22728627
you just sound like a faggot
can you actually fuck off to twitter, this game is boring now

>>22728634
>Hmm he's gotten wise to the fact that my entire persona is robotically saying Jew over and over
>I know, I'll robotically say Twitter over and over too
Bots can be programmed to have some variety in their responses, this kind of mindlessness can only be generated by an actual person. The Turing test trick question!

>>22728651
yes, the know your meme image gave you away, newfag
hope that helps

>>22728651
>>22728657
the frantic appeals to novelty, attempts to portray fascist or antisemitic sentiment on 4chan as just a silly joke or meme, and discomfort with discussion of the jewish issue also give you away
as well as actually liking strauss desu, i'd accuse you of literally being moldbug but he only makes threads about himself like bap does

>>22728672
>Now hallucinating that I'm various nitwit ecelebs he's parasocially obsessed with
I already assumed you never had sex, this confirmation was totally unnecessary

>>22728699
seethe
also strauss is a filthy kike and america will be destroyed
don't reply to me again

>>22728699
kek know your meme faggot

>>22728320
The OP? Hello?

>>22728715
you got mad when we tried to discuss the op so what else do you want to talk about retard
you're still not allowed to reply to me btw

>>22728719
... I haven't been mad this whole thread. I barely participated.

>>22728728
my apologies

>>22720970
>Guenther Krauss, who was a doctoral student of Schmitt’s in Berlin, was apparently told by Schmitt that “[Strauss] saw through me and X-rayed me asnobody else.”(Meier, 1988; xvii)
>If we are to believe this letter (which is in the hands of a Prof. Helmut Quaritsch,
according to Meier) and this apocryphal story of Dr. Krauss, Strauss was seen by Schmitt
as someone who could penetrate to the core of Schmitt’s thought.
so some random doctoral student said in HIS letter that schmitt told him that. kek

>>22728730
My politics align with Schmitt more but I think Strauss is the better philosopher (though Schmitt is still good). So I respect them both. May the best thinking win!

>>22728738
why would Krauss make that up

>>22728714
I had to read this 6 times before I realized it was _yet another_ weird website reference. I'm embarrassed I eventually understood it, but I'm glad you've (temporarily) stopped calling everyone Jewish, and are now making pointless references to your only actual contact with the outside world. Actually, the antisemitic sperging was less patgetiv, would you mind terribly going back to that?

>>22728752
go away

>>22728752
Israel will implode within 10 years due to civil war and a dying economy.

>>22728752
You're a newfaggot. Where do you usually post? Go back there.

>>22728748
maybe he liked strauss and wanted to attribute praise to him

>>22728768
if he liked Krauss why would he be studying under Schmitt? besides, Schmitt already had plenty of praise for Strauss. why the need to make some more stuff up?

>>22725367
You're supposed to keep asking me if I'm Jewish then persistently urge me to say Christ is king.

>>22728831
You stink of twitter. Stay there.

>>22728831
You are an obvious Gentile I can smell a fellow Jew from a mile away.

>>22728792
>(((Krauss)))
Jews always lie

>>22727802
>Gottfried has an excellent comprehension...
Wrong. Gottfried is interested in political solutions, and is only interested in philosophy insofar as he thinks it may offer solutions or clarity into problems for the sake of finding solutions. So, surprise, Strauss looks inadequate to him, because Strauss sees only problems in all the "solutions" more or less. And Gottfried has recently had come to a slighlt different reckoning, per https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/clearing-up-the-confusion-on-leo-strauss/ :
>Lately I’ve been hearing from colleagues and friends that Leo Strauss helped birth neoconservatism and that Straussianism and neoconservatism belong together rhetorically and conceptually. Supposedly neoconservatism would not have existed in the form in which it took over the conservative movement in the 1980s if Strauss had not provided its essential ideas. Thus, so goes the argument, neoconservatives and Straussians are so intertwined that it may be futile to distinguish between them.
>This is an error which I fear my book, Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America, may have unintentionally nurtured. It’s time to set the record straight by restating my argument, which only partly overlaps the interpretation provided above.

>Strauss cares about pushing...
And here's how I know that, contrary to your claim, you've certainly never read all of Strauss's books, let alone one; you read Gottfried and Counter Currents on Strauss, and maybe haphazardly looked at Why We Remain Jews to get your conspiracy boner hard. His claims about exotericism are now abundantly well demonstrated (not just in his books, but in the continued studies of figures like Melzer), and I know you haven't read shit because numerology appears in a small section of *one* book with significant qualifications; your own take, by contrast, is just swallowing modern consensus on the philosophers, a consensus only accomplished in the 19th century at the same time revolutionary fervor blew up in the West. What's more, it's abundantly clear you haven't read "every book" by him, since he everywhere points to the ancients as having a superior understanding of politics. Three books published during his life were general (Natural Right and History, What is Political Philosophy, Liberalism Ancient and Modern), and eleven were devoted to the interpretation of philosophers (Spinoza, Hobbes, Maimonides, Machiavelli, Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, Aristophanes, Xenophon), in which he's devoted to showing how much of a non-solution liberalism and modern science are to old political problems, and *how solutions such as a cabal of the "wise" just ignore the fundamental problems (his early books and articles also include criticisms of political Zionism, but don't let that get in the way of your deaf polemics).

>>22727802
And Heidegger never apologized for being abNazi, because he wasn't going to apologize for supporting a movement he thought stood for X, but which switched gears and stood for Y. But since you know so much about Heidegger, Schmitt, and the Nazis, I'm sure you have a perfect understanding of why the regime didn't think much of and were suspicious of Heidegger and Schmitt.

>>22730699
strauss' take on xenophon was retarded jewish schizophrenia
no one but straussians take his view on anything but Machiavelli and Maimonides at best

>>22730768
>strauss' take on xenophon was retarded jewish schizophrenia
Abundantly false, and I'm pretty well assured you haven't read his books and essays on Xenophon. Mainstream non-Straussian Xenophon scholarship from the 90s on acknowledge Strauss for revitalizing studies of Xenophon. Cf. Louis-André Dorion, Vivienne Gray, Stavru and Moore, David Johnson, Marina Tamiolaki, Christopher Tuplin, and Michel Narcy, who are all non-Straussian scholars of Xenophon who acknowledge his work positively while backhanding him for the regular shitlib reasons.

you can't call anyone a shitlib while shilling for a theorist who tried to turn fascism to the defense of world judeoliberalism
also we told you to go back to twitter

>>22730955
>Louis-André Dorion
wrong. I get you're either a chicago fanboi or something, but don't get on this board and be this illinformed/dishonest

>>22730699
(1/?)
Most of the statements in this post seem like non sequiturs to me. How does Gottfried being "interested in political solutions" contradict Gottfried being a capable reader of Strauss? What does that even mean? The above posts from Gottfried's book, which you have still never meaningfully responded to, show that Strauss and his followers have been plenty involved in politics, especially Zionism and Neoconservatism. Does that mean Drury's boogeyman reading of Strauss, as the "Father of Neoconservatism and Therefore a Fascist or Something," and nothing else, is correct? No, which is all Gottfried seems to be saying in what you've quoted. You say he "came to a slightly different reckoning" with Strauss but then in the very quote he says
>It’s time to set the record straight by restating my argument, which only partly overlaps the interpretation provided above.

Strauss was a significant figure for a particularly odious group of Neocons but as you can see even from the Kagan essay I linked above, he isn't some mastermind of Neoconservatism. He's just a hypocritical Zionist, a very typical double-dealing Jew in that respect, and a man who undermined his own very interesting thoughts on the phronetic nature of classical ethics by routinely instrumentalizing it to serve boring Zionist ends.

As already stated, his ideal world is a congeries of "pluralistic liberal democracies," meaning supine states parasitized by foreign (Anglo) capital and "cultural exchange" (the "Americanization" dreaded by all old Europeans), states which will therefore have low ethnic self-consciousness, and can therefore never become fascist and threaten Jews, who are gypsies who love to live in other people's "open" states and die whenever those states decide to "close" (to develop a discourse on exclusivity). Strauss himself was an old European who frequently expressed disdain for his American students and for Americanization in letters and so on. He had no illusions about what he was promoting.

There is one exception to this though, one state that doesn't have to join the "last men" in the "steel-hard shell," the inevitability of both of which Strauss knew VERY intimately as a systematic reader of both Nietzsche and Weber. That state is Israel. Israel gets to be a closed, highly self-conscious ethnostate. Does that mean Strauss is even honest enough to be a Jewish supremacist fascist then? Nope, because then he would simply be a Schmitt, or Avraham Stern, an honest Zionist. Instead, he outdoes himself with chutzpah once again: the Jews are to remain BOTH Zionists in their cozy ethnostate of Israel AND to remain a Strauss-like diaspora of elitist old Europeans, spread throughout the nations and making use of their educational institutions to remain "old Europeans."

>>22730992
(2/?)
Never mind the fact that the pitiful American goyim and their Americanizing European vassals are getting more retarded by the generation, and the old Europe that formed Strauss, the "German" half of the equation "German-Jewish," was being destroyed and turned to mush. As long as the JEWS can maintain their elite status and bearing, that's all that matters.

Strauss' whole thesis about phronesis as the foundation for a civil society requires an aristocracy. The question is with what class or what group of people he identifies this aristocracy. The ancients would never in a million years have identified it with a roving stateless band of gypsy-intellectuals, who "know how bad fascism is" and thus carry on some perennial discourse of world-weary atheistic pluralism so that none of the states they dwell in become too uppity or "harm themselves." The ancients had an entirely ambivalent conception (actually several) of the aristocratic aspects of imperialism and great conquerors and so forth.

Ultimately Strauss' vision of the poleis as "frogs around the pond" of the Mediterranean in some kind of static equilibrium is a Jewish self-conception born of centuries of experience in medieval and early modern Europe, and his attempt to identify his aristocratic philosophizing caste with an itinerant literate elite is obviously very Jewish. Gottfried's critique of Strauss rings true: he looked into all of human history, developed an entire theory of esoteric hermeneutics, and what he found was German-Jewish expats living in Chicago or New York, whispering to one another across time about how Europe can't be allowed to get the Hitler codes. It's disgusting. What makes his views especially annoying is that he is brilliant, and an extremely sensitive reader of texts, both classical and modern, but he ultimately only cares about mutilating them to serve his own interpretation.

Because Heidegger and Gadamer, the dreaded "historicists," are ACTUAL pluralists, meaning ethnopluralists who would instinctively want an Israel to thrive and remain sovereign, just as much as they want a Germany and other distinct cultural formations to thrive in their own sovereign state, they are ironically far better about respecting the integrity of ancient thought. Simply because they are not bothered by the ancients being DIFFERENT from us. Jews like Strauss are terrorized by difference on an unconscious, almost instinctive level, because their first thought is "How am I to live among this? How am I to live among this and be safe?" Actually that's their second thought, because their FIRST thought is "I have a right to live here; this place will soon be mine; the middle class economy of this place will soon provide my children with their much-needed Talmudic literacy, while the local goyim put food on our tables." Again, a medieval conception, of an invisible peasant caste sustaining a more interesting literary elite.

>>22730992
>Does that mean Strauss is even honest enough to be a Jewish supremacist fascist then? Nope, because then he would simply be a Schmitt, or Avraham Stern, an honest Zionist. Instead, he outdoes himself with chutzpah once again: the Jews are to remain BOTH Zionists in their cozy ethnostate of Israel AND to remain a Strauss-like diaspora of elitist old Europeans, spread throughout the nations and making use of their educational institutions to remain "old Europeans."
kek, well said.
>le democrat for the goyische
>fascist zionist for the jewish inner circle

>>22731001
(3/?)
This is why Marx called Jewish consciousness the acme of bourgeois consciousness, and why all modern socialistic movements initially dislike Jews, and essentially must dislike Jews - because they exemplify the parasitic aspects of a bourgeoisie. Never mind the fact that Jews in practice take over most socialist movements and dilute them into anarcho-dipshit utopian socialism, in practice promoting scab labor (economically very useful for the moneyed and propertied classes in which they are disproportionately overrepresented, funny how that works out for Jews!) and degeneracy (further diluting local morality and thus the capacity for an indigenous, i.e., non-Jewish and competing with Jews, aristocracy - funny how that works out for Jews!). Jews are very similar to the Victorian gentry that requires a "background character" class of servants making up 95% of the population. They PRESUME the presence of such a "background" and they presume it will be goyish.

Ultimately Strauss wants the entire world to be a New York filled with Jews and a submissive class of non-Jewish goyim staffing service roles, with a hinterland of "flyover" states doing menial work and farming. Plus a Jewish redoubt and vanity state in the Holy Land so if any of the New York Jews gets a little ennui after eating Chinese food on Christmas as a deliberate mockery of the goy and joking about how "shiksas are for practice," maybe after hearing some klezmer music, he can go on taglit and get back in touch with his roots. And there too, in Israel, the slightly more rowdy Arabs, made docile by "European-style" (Jewish-led) imperialism and weapons, will know to stay in their menial service roles and not interrupt the fifth pride parade in Tel Aviv this week.

>you've certainly never read all of Strauss's books, let alone one;
It should be, never read one of Strauss' books, let alone all.

>His claims about exotericism are now abundantly well demonstrated ... Melzer
As soon as I see Melzer mentioned I know I'm talking to a man of one book. I could figure out what department you matriculated from and probably your exact advisor if I just had a few guesses. You are a walking example of why Straussians suck: you only read Strauss, as strained through his much less competent successors, in departments aggressively colonized by Straussians. Funny how the infamous practice of Straussian colonization of political philosophy departments, mirrors, again, the Jewish experience of taking over movements and countries.

>numerology appears in a small section of *one* book
It's bizarre enough to be worth citing. I strongly recommend anyone interested read this https://www.jstor.org/stable/190835 Use scihub if you don't have jstor access.

>>22731005
(4/5)
>swallowing modern consensus on the philosophers ... 19th century
This is a typical Straussian line, again just buzzwords you absorbed from some class you took that "changed your life," which I respect to an extent despite the fact that it has made you a man of one book. Your type is very numerous. Anyway I don't think you are correct about it arising in the 19th century. Strauss' conception of the decisive shift in modern philosophy is really more of a late Renaissance and Early Modern thing, and is fairly complex, involving the detachment of early modern philosophy and political philosophy from Christian scholastic moral teleology, the "reassertion" of classical pagan naturalism and virtue ethics, etc. So I don't know what you're referring to here.

First of all, read the above essay by Kagan again, and actually read Gottfried's book, if you want to see whether Strauss is actually an honest interpreter of ancient thought. He isn't. However, where he really shines is in his reading of early modern philosophy's attempt to develop disinterested political theory after its detachment from scholastic moral assumptions. That is the context in which his reading of Hobbes so affected Schmitt's reading in Concept of the Political for example. He's also a very good and interesting reader of the perennial conflict between reason and revelation, and his early theses on Spinoza and Spinozism and their impact on German philosophy are very valuable. This is one respect in which his Jewish heritage, being conversant with thinkers like Rosenzweig and the issues facing Jewry in the interwar period, shaped and nuanced his thinking for the better.

However I find his ultimate stance on reason and revelation, its perennial solution and re-solution by those smart enough to realize revelation is retarded (Jews getting pride of place of course), to be impoverished and, once again, procrusteanly forced to fit his secular presuppositions. Ultimately once again he's just a secular Jew disdainful of goyish plebs and trapped in a kind of Jewish Nietzscheanism. I recommend Wolfson and Scholem as correctives to this tendency.

>how solutions such as a cabal of the "wise" just ignore the fundamental problems
He's against a cabal of technocrats, not an EFFECTIVE cabal of the wise maintaining itself through perpetual discourse. It's a very melancholic conception of philosophy and human history in general. We will always be mired in plebs, so it is our duty to prevent them from getting too rowdy and doing an Intifada or Hitler. It's frankly a twisted and Judaized epicurean conception of life.

>>22731013
(5/5)
>And Heidegger never apologized for being abNazi, because he wasn't going to apologize for supporting a movement he thought stood for X, but which switched gears and stood for Y.
Yes. Like how Marxists remain Marxists after Stalin was Stalin. Unless they're Jewish, then they remain Marxists as long as it's politically convenient, then quickly disperse into other ideologies that conveniently enable them to attack their former host state which just drove them out using the resources of their new host state.

>I'm sure you have a perfect understanding of why the regime didn't think much of and were suspicious of Heidegger and Schmitt.
Yes, it's not that complicated or interesting. The NSDAP was a polycratic mixed movement and Hitler was a strongman who was so obsessed with his racial teleology that he didn't care about party politics. In a way his conception of race has some similarity with the classical conception of excellence, since he saw a healthy race (especially the Aryan race) as a naturally excellent being that didn't need theories and programs and directives since it simply manifested excellence. He put the horse before the cart. Evola critiqued this in "Notes on the Third Reich" as successful only up until a point, because it creates an ambivalent sort of excellence by uniting body and soul, but neglecting spirit.

Schmitt never fit perfectly well into the Nazi regime for various reasons. Ultimately he was, like Strauss, a old European, conservative in the broad sense, haut bourgeois and somewhat of a decadent or dandy, and above all interested in maintaining his neutrality and intellectual freedom at all costs. The idea of a totalitarian regime was hideous and almost "oriental" to him, as it was to most people in his class. He could never be an enthusiast even to the degree that Heidegger was. So he played a kind of ironic game, probably. There is plenty of dispute about how serious he was, how much of an "opportunist" he was, etc. Personally I think it's fairly simple. He didn't want to live in Americanized mush, same as Strauss, and he hated Bolshevism and the "Herrschaft der Minderwertigen" it represented, so he threw in his lot with the emerging anti-American, anti-Bolshevik European nomos already described in this thread. Doesn't mean he identified with every single aspect of it.

As already outlined above, you don't have to identify with Hitler or official Nazi party line to understand and appreciate that the NSDAP, Hitler, and Germany were the spear point of something more significant. Schmitt, Evola, Heidegger, Spengler, and to an extent even Jünger all understood it.

>>22730992
>>22731001
>>22731006
now this is an evisceration. inb4 low IQ "responses"
>you haven't read it
>you're dumb
>anti semite

>>22726738
I don't think anon knows what that word means.

>>22731005
>>22731021
Thanks, also I hope the person I'm responding to doesn't take my banter too seriously. I originally meant to write something not very long, and it wouldn't have been inappropriate to be insulting and snarky in that context because we're on 4chan and it's part of the fun, but in a longer response I think my "lol you made a minor error" gotchas are inappropriate so I regret that.

I really don't like Strauss as a person (I respect him a lot as a scholar), but I also meant it when I said I respect that the guy in this thread is deep into Strauss.

>>22731071
I have to say that aside from agreeing with your stance (though I don't have as good an understanding of it) I find your posts more possible to follow up on than the person you're talking to. Just as an example I've tended to turn away from people like Evola because I -am- an American pleb and I find what you call old Europeanism to be somewhat alienating and not exactly interested in the things that I'm interested in, even if I recognize it as something good. But the thing about NS Germany being polycratic and Hitler not being very interested in programs is a problem I've recognized myself so I may go pick up Notes on the Third Reich at some point in the future. That's one of several things but just one that comes to mind.

Meanwhile it's hard to know what to do with the claim that e.g. Strauss mastered a litany of ancient philosophers. It seems like it's an attempt to place him beyond criticism in the way that the paper you linked described.

Anyway, great posts, anon.

>>22731022
I know what it means. It's usually the smug Schmitt fanboys who want to have their cake and eat it too who fail to grasp what I'm trying to say.

>>22731071
Any book recs? Really interesting stuff in your posts.

>>22731018
What's your opinion on Strauss' debate with Kojeve

>>22731001
You raise brilliant points, but I think this passage here:
>Because Heidegger and Gadamer, the dreaded "historicists," are ACTUAL pluralists, meaning ethnopluralists who would instinctively want an Israel to thrive and remain sovereign, just as much as they want a Germany and other distinct cultural formations to thrive in their own sovereign state, they are ironically far better about respecting the integrity of ancient thought. Simply because they are not bothered by the ancients being DIFFERENT from us. Jews like Strauss are terrorized by difference on an unconscious, almost instinctive level, because their first thought is "How am I to live among this? How am I to live among this and be safe?"
is a bit naive. Many aspects of the political are zero sum. And while Heidegger could have easily rationalized Israel as a solution to the Jewish Question (so they are no longer "world poor"), would other National Socialists be on board, knowing that International Jewry could always be a possibility if they were allowed to influence culture, politics, and societies beyond their borders as they have always done? If Zionism was the first solution to the Jewish Question (by kicking them somewhere else and giving them a land to call their own), how would Mitteleuropa have dealt with the resurgence of the Jewish Question when their sphere of influence inevitably expanded to the Middle East? I don't know if I've given my concerns the proper voice, but I feel like you've glossed this over as if "international national socialism" would magically solve every problem as if competition over limited resources and strife for its own glorious sake were not common themes of the political since its inception.

>>22731006
>Ultimately Strauss wants the entire world to be a New York filled with Jews and a submissive class of non-Jewish goyim staffing service roles, with a hinterland of "flyover" states doing menial work and farming. Plus a Jewish redoubt and vanity state in the Holy Land so if any of the New York Jews gets a little ennui after eating Chinese food on Christmas as a deliberate mockery of the goy and joking about how "shiksas are for practice," maybe after hearing some klezmer music, he can go on taglit and get back in touch with his roots. And there too, in Israel, the slightly more rowdy Arabs, made docile by "European-style" (Jewish-led) imperialism and weapons, will know to stay in their menial service roles and not interrupt the fifth pride parade in Tel Aviv this week.
I don't think he would like this considering how he personally considers this to be an ugly world to live in on many such occasions. I understand the duplicity of some of Strauss's political takes, especially regarding Israel (after all, Strauss first was an ardent Zionist before philosophy tamed him), but it's not nearly as clear-cut as you imagine (e.g. ignoring his early admiration of third positionist governments and his metapolitical work that is now beginning to blossom into a homegrown illiberal trend among right-wing intellectuals in the United States). If globohomo was the world that Strauss wanted, then why would he use his unique position and background to sow the potential seeds of its own destruction?

>>22731006
>As soon as I see Melzer mentioned I know I'm talking to a man of one book. I could figure out what department you matriculated from and probably your exact advisor if I just had a few guesses.
I also like Melzer as an introduction to the Straussian method of reading. Now do my horoscope.

>>22731071
>>22731111
If you want a brief overview of Notes on the Third Reich, check out Michael Millerman's channel. He has a few videos on Evola's politics where he reads him charitably. Millerman enjoys platforming people like Heidegger, Evola, Schmitt, Dugin, and Strauss and having them all in dialogue with each other, which to me is much more interesting than trying to pick a camp and stick with it. It's clear to me that all of these thinkers (except maybe Dugin, I'm still deliberating on that) have made fantastic contributions to the art of philosophy, and all of their thinking will be required to breach through the iron wall of liberalism.

>>22721001
How does Strauss' essay make Schmitt's argument stronger?

>>22731708
It doesn't. It simply puts Schmitt into his appropriate place within the hierarchy of philosophy, especially within the genealogy of liberalism.

bump

great thread.
bumperino.

Where can I read about Leo Strauss being for weak liberal polities for non Jews alongside a Jewish ethnostate? Sounds a little ridiculous

>>22733641
Where can I read about Strauss being against zionism and Israel? go back to twitter

>>22733649
I say it as someone that wants it to be true. I'm aware of his Zionism in his 20s in Germany, less aware of anything he stated about Israel in the 50s or 60s, and it doesn't seem very easy to find

>>22733666
>I say it as someone that wants it to be true
begone demon

>>22733669
Okay, instead I'll just take a 4chan anon's word for it. It's a compelling argument but its validity relies on whether or not the positions and stances it ascribes to individuals are ascribed fairly and accurately. So to evaluate the argument (because I'm not retarded enough to accept what people say at face value) I need textual support for the decisive claims, and because there's a fair amount of literature on the topic and by those in question, I'm asking for a place to start looking.

>>22733700
I read the Why We Remain Jews lecture. Pretty good stuff but the summary up top is definitely edited maliciously. For instance, Strauss doesn't first state he won't "beat around the bush" and then state his interest in the JQ. Chronology is off and the summary is written to make it sound especially bad (not that it sounds great even without that). More importantly, he doesn't explicitly state in the lecture any idea about Jews remaining as a diaspora people, and he hedges his bets on liberalism (characteristically). If anything, seems like he's quietly seething about the fall of revelation and genuine religious belief, which is closer to my original interpretation of him. Still obviously advocates for religious Zionism for what it's worth.

>>22733895
And going further, he explicitly extols secular jews to become religious Zionists

>>22733700
Most of the claims come from Gottfriend and Drury and are exaggerated a bit. Again, like other anons have pointed out, Strauss did quite a bit of heavy-lifting for illiberal metapolitics. Strauss was a little bit hypocritical in his political "pragmatism", but ultimately he's not an innate ally of any cosmopolitan order.

>>22733641
It sounds like common sense to me. Ideologies exist to serve your and your group's interests, so who's to say that you can't be for communism abroad but for nationalism at home? The moment an ideology stops serving your interests is the moment you should ditch it like a used condom for something more suitable for the moment. It's all rhetoric and smoke and mirrors, only fools take what they claim to be for actually seriously in a world where everyone knows realpolitik is the only kind of politics there can truly be.

>>22731517
>>22731531
>>22731538
>>22731565
Schmittanon has been real quiet ever since these posts dropped...

>>22734558
The issue is Strauss was fairly well known for not being an advocate of communism, or even of liberal democracy

>>22735120
you got BTFO bro

>>22735174
Wait, so is this kike for or against globohomo? I don't get it.

>>22735181
He's for "liberal democracy", with the exception of Israel, which should be zionist and exclusionary. lol

>>22735184
Where do you get the idea he's for liberal democracy? He is hardly a vocal supporter for it, except maybe in comparison to communism and NS Germany

>>22735188
>He is hardly ..., except maybe
weasel words lmao

>>22735192
he hates everything you seething Nazi chud. deal with it.

>>22735213
>seething
?
>weasel words lmao

>>22735192
The orthodox reading of Strauss never makes the claim he advocates for liberal democracies, anywhere. Feel free to prove me wrong, but you won't

>>22735225
Post any quote that promotes anything but liberal democracies in the modern world lmao.
inb4 you say >in grecian times....

>>22735238
So you're saying he advocated for liberal democracy but can't find a single quote across all his written works and recorded lectures to support your claim?

>>22735259
No, can you read?
>Post any quote that promotes anything but liberal democracies in the modern world lmao.
Oh, what an esoteric genius!

>>22735266
Shouldn't be very hard to find one in Strauss then. But here you are, unable to come up with one

>>22735322
>avoids posting Strauss quotes that promote anything but modern democracy
I thought you were a straussian? I'm asking you, the expert

>>22735266
Strauss spent much of his work bashing liberalism and its dogmatic adherents (e.g. look up how he and Voegelin referred to Popper’s Open Societies And Its Enemies as “dilettantish crap”). Many people still accuse Strauss of being a crypto-fascist because he’ll pay lip service to liberal democracy while undermining its foundations every chance he gets, mocking the boilerplate criticisms of fascism, and even making qualified praises towards fascism. The consequences of his “metapolitics” is undoubtedly illiberal.

>>22735668
Wow, so he shit on a fellow jew, probably for not kissing ass. What a genius!

>>22720970
progenitor of lying about your political views and revolting neocons like irving kristol. this guy was a fucking hack
opposite of truth seeker

>>22735668
But is that really true? Essentially he decided that liberal democracy exercised the same over goals of domination as fascism which is why he supported it instead of outright just being a Nazi

>>22735668
>>22735699
>>22735689
Furthermore, liberalism as a whole is just dissimulation so once you realize this you can see that Strauss was not doing anything contradictory. Liberals exercise power and domination by concealing their actions with a universalist ideology of freedom. It's in their nature to constantly lie about everything and play every side. Neocons like Strauss and Kristol were just honest about the true intentions of liberalism and how utterly violent it is, this doesn't make them any less of liberal imperialists

>>22735726
Strauss wasn’t a neocon. He voted like a New Deal Democrat and never advocated for interventionist foreign policy.

>>22735840
so what did he want

>>22735911
Something that didn’t suck in the long-term that would also allow for the survival of philosophy. Strauss wasn’t a big fan of democracy and was fine with planting metapolitical seeds of its destruction for more thoughtful minds to take advantage of in the future. Nobody seems to give Strauss any credit for influencing the Claremont Institute or BAP, which (for all their flaws) have worked wonders at pushing the Overton window of the conservatives further to the right. The propositional nation is dead among today’s pioneering institutional right-wing intellectuals, and now there’s space for new ideas to grow. What they’ll be? Who knows. But we have Strauss to partially thank for it.

>>22736042
>BOP
an even bigger fag who larps as a pirate/ advocates for drug dealing & pornography while being a schizophrenic
OH WHAT INFLUENCE!

>>22736082
BAP is a big redpilling influence and has massively expanded the Overton window among millennial and zoomer right-wingers. I don’t like his persona much, but you can’t deny that he works with us (to an extent). It’s like night and day from as little as 10 years ago.

>>22736137
cope

https://rmorrison.substack.com/p/a-historical-criticism-of-costin

>>22736137
nonresponsive
He's a schizophrenic phd who advocates for dealing drugs and creating gangs, the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard
chapo trap house for ben shapiro types

>>22736159
I also agree with Morrison's criticism. Do you know if it's picked up any traction? I want to see if BAP or any of his fanboys have responded to it. By the way, you know you can criticize or dislike a thinker while also acknowledging a generally positive influence, right? BAP has been a radicalizing vehicle for many of my friends, who then continued on beyond him.
>>22736170
I don't think anybody who watches Ben Shapiro religiously would find BAP attractive, especially in this day and age.

Look, I understand that there are limits to BAP's diet Nieztschean thinking, but The Daily Wire is never going to push human biodiversity and eugenics. There's a certain line of "redpilling" that is crossed, the difference between a normie conservative and dissident right, and BAP is clearly to the right of that line.

>>22736217
>I don't think anybody who watches Ben Shapiro religiously would find BAP attractive, especially in this day and age.
did you miss where ben shapiro called bop a "genius but crazy thinker"?

>>22736217
>dude black people bad lmao
>DON'T EVER CRITICIZE ISRAEL
retarded shit for midwits, neocons for the twitter age

>>22736237
Wow he is pathetic. The rightmost tweet reminds me of the satirical Hilldawgs pictures except in this case it's real.

>>22736228
Yeah, I found it strange that he has a lot of tentative acceptance among normie conservative voices and alt-lite figures. But I don't buy into the gatekeeper argument. If BAP is a gatekeeper, then he's a very bad one, speaking from personal experience.
>>22736237
Honestly once you get past the stigma of HBD, and once you start caring about objective right and wrong (e.g. virtue, religion, etc.), it's only a hop, skip, and a throw away from being redpilled on the JQ (e.g. the Kevin MacDonald argument). You just put two and two together and you realize that they're a problem. Lots of metapolitical foundations being laid there thanks to BAP.

>>22736253
>once you get past the stigma of HBD
>it's only a hop, skip, and a throw away from being a drug dealing pornographer-wannabe schizophrenic like BOP
are you serious right now?

>>22736271
It's like they can't help themselves. They're instinctively attracted to perversion and ugliness.

>>22736271
Are you trying to misread me? Or are you not capable of nuance? Point out where I said that BAP is the ideal.

>>22736388
The only metapolitical foundation (LMAO) that fag is laying is acting like a schizophrenic nagger (but also supporting israel)
hope that fuckin helps

>>22736271
I admire that this "big new voice" for the Right that these losers keep trying to push as a bold intellectual is a 40 year old Jewish Strausssian hedonist who thinks that creating transgender porn where you dominate sissies on camera while posting online about conquering inferior lower classes would somehow threaten the current world order in any way. It's just so absurd.

>>22736399
You're just not seeing it. I presume you're under 20 years old and incapable of seeing how things have changed recently.

>>22736349
Why is jewish sexuality so grotesque and malformed?

>>22736271
> everything that is declared sacred must be dragged through the gutter to see what retains its luster
> everything except israel, holocaust and the jews.

>>22720970
I honestly don't understand how Strauss has anything to say. Every time I hear anyone discuss him it always blatantly contradicts what others are saying, his own statements seem to contradict each other, and there just doesn't seem to be a point to his writing at all. It just seems like endless academic prattling without a unified form.

>>22736520
Whenever I hear people say pseudo-edgy shit like that, I immediately ask myself questions like
>could you say the exact same sentence or express the same general idea or critique without societal and legal consequences if you replaced the key words with "jew", "judaism" or "israel", or substituted the arguments for arguments about those three?
And if the answer is "no" I immediately dismiss the line of thought as bullshit.

>>22736559
see >>22735689
just a hack who wouldn't ever be clear except to his "close friends" who also shared his religion.

>One of Strauss’s non-Jewish students, George Anastaplo, noted the special favor that the master showered on those who expressed his “ahavat yisrael,” love of Israel, but also the scorn that
he sometimes reserved for those who were imprudent enough to show the opposite sentiment.

>>22736559
>Every time I hear anyone discuss him it always blatantly contradicts what others are saying, his own statements seem to contradict each other, and there just doesn't seem to be a point to his writing at all.

Sounds like any intellectual current originating from jews, arabs and other semites. But I guess Athens and Jerusalem are fated to never truly understand the other.

talk about shifty-looking

>>22736566
But surely he has something of worth out of everything he has said? It can't *just* have been pilpul that garnered the respect of thinkers like Schmitt.

>>22736575
I think the Old Testament and Arab philosophy is done a disservice when collated with Strauss and other modern Jewish thinkers like him. I don't have the same trouble understanding or appreciating them.

>>22736646
Schmitt never wrote to Strauss in any letters. They weren't friends or even intellectual colleagues.

>>22736655
I know but apparently he did revise his work in response to Strauss' criticisms, if that is even true it gives me justification for reading Strauss.

>>22736665
>apparently he did revise his work in response to Strauss' criticisms
no one says this but Straussians. you do you, bro.

>>22736671
I see, well I guess I wont even consider him until a long time in the future and after I'm done with Schmitt. Maybe I'll pick up whatever book he talks about Plato in.

>>22736682
Yeah, don't mean to convince you one way or the other, but really, only the people taught by Strauss affiliated professors rate Strauss as influential to Schmitt. Again, they never wrote to each other and the main book about their "connection" is written by a Straussian.

>>22736655
>>22736671
>>22736697
delusional. you don't have to seethe THAT hard against Leo Strauss.

Reminder that Strauss, in the lecture retards use to try and paint Strauss as advocating "a closed state for me, not for thee," Strauss actually advocates for all secular Jews to realize their basis of their status as Jews and become religious Zionists (aka, to go to Israel).

>>22736918
why didn't he then?

>>22736943
also lol at "religious zionists"

Zionists are rootless ashkenazi faggots larping as Europeans and unable to get over the trauma of being diaspora Jews because they have no traditions and are unwilling to be sincerely religious, most authentically religious Jews hate Zionism

>>22736943
People advocate for the destruction of the kikes, why don't they do it then?

>>22728831
Its pretty obvious that the same leftard/zogbot keeps posting these memes calling everyone an Arab. Is that supposed to like trigger chuds or something?

>>22736943
he was a profoundly evil and deceptive fraud

>>22736697
>Again, they never wrote to each other and the main book about their "connection" is written by a Straussian.
And? The kind of influence that they had on each other was Straussian. Yet we can look at the timeline of Schmitt's work in comparison to Strauss's critiques and see Strauss's influence on Schmitt's thought, and we even have people within Schmitt's inner circle who admitted Strauss's influence on him. Your denial of Strauss's role here is borne out out of resentment towards Strauss without any consideration of the evidence.

Like, you can appreciate Leo Strauss while admitting his faults and refusing to become a hardcore Zionist, you know? Leo Strauss is all about a return to the ancients, a prioritization of classical virtue, a distrust or even disdain for modern liberal democracy, etc., which seems to be key right-wing metapolitical themes.

And while some "Straussians" have taken Straussian thinking to mean "boilerplate neoconservatism" (many of those people are not even scholars by any definition of the word, like Bill Kristol), others are not even political (e.g. Benardete, Rosen), or toe the line at the right border of the Overton Window (e.g. Claremont Institute, and they covertly host people who have crossed it too, Michael Millerman, who platforms Dugin, Heidegger, Schmitt, etc.). When you read Strauss, you're more likely to consider right-wing thought seriously (Strauss and his ilk was among the first in the United States to seriously criticize the embarrassing shibboleths thrown towards third positionism).

If Leo Strauss never existed, then the American dissident right, especially in its intellectual and academic capacity, would likely be half its size and would have never sustained any momentum after Trump won the presidency.

>>22738173
>four paragraphs of cope about how Schmitt didn't even like Strauss and never wrote a single letter to him
chill out buddy, your 5'2" philosopher has other merits

>>22738183
You're just making stuff up now. It's embarrassing.
>other merits
Really? So the Jewish trickster has merits now? Tell me about them, from your POV, and I might take you more seriously.

>>22738208
delusional and frankly schizophrenic posts from you
Don't care, the facts are the two never wrote to each other, Strauss sent letters to Schmitt but never got a single response. Cry about it, I don't give a fuck

>>22738229
Schmitt's thinking changed dramatically and you can see the influence almost mechanically in his work when you look at the timeline of his publications. Keep coping.
>other merits
I guess you were just making that up now for rhetoric, huh? That tracks. What else are you willing to make up just to win an argument?

>>22738233
>Schmitt's thinking changed dramatically and you can see the influence almost mechanically in his work when you look at the timeline of his publications.
That's an opinion. Do you know what's a fact? that Schmitt never wrote back to poor Leo
>What else are you willing to make up just to win an argument?
>argument
BEEP BEEP BEEP AUTIST DETECTED

>>22738236
>That's an opinion.
It's a fact, unless you think that Schmitt changing his thought in exactly the way Strauss's critiques would have provoked him to do so was a mere coincidence. (btw it was more than just letters, Strauss had published a public critique of Schmitt too).
>Do you know what's a fact? that Schmitt never wrote back to poor Leo
And? Nobody cares. It doesn't change the fact that Strauss rocked Schmitt's world.
>BEEP BEEP BEEP AUTIST DETECTED
Nah, I'm just needling you on the fact that you don't care about the truth and all you care about is whether somebody is a JOO or not.

>>22738251
>Schmitt changing his thought in exactly the way Strauss's critiques would have provoked him to do
kek at this subjunctive word salad. are you ESL?
>And? Nobody cares. It doesn't change the fact that Strauss rocked Schmitt's world.
>Leo sends two letters to mr. nazi guy.. pls respond.... i can rock your world....
are you personally offended right now? lmao
>all you care about is whether somebody is a JOO or not.
kek, okay schizophrenic. I am quarter ashkenazi, does that mean I MUST love Strauss? You're just an autist who seems obsessive over Strauss. I really hope you didn't go to university for this, imagine spending four years to get mad about Strauss on a chinese cartoon board

>>22738259
>are you ESL?
Are you literate? It sounds like you struggle with grasping basic concepts.
>I am quarter ashkenazi,
That explains a lot. Looks like you got all of the pilpul genes but none of the IQ. It's a shame.

>>22738315
Low IQ ad hom lmao

>>22738315
>strauss fanboi trying to be anti semitic
KEK

>>22738431
>throws ad homs
>gets mad when he gets them back
If you can't handle the heat...
>>22738439
Not a Strauss "fanboy." I just think his work is good. But he's not where anybody should stop.

>>22738467
>not a fanboi
>i'm just his fan
state your IQ before I engage you further, fagocrat. tired of being a shabbos goy?

>>22738503
Why do you think I'm a fanboy? I think his work is valuable, I think his methods are valuable, but I think his conclusions are wrong. Just because I shoot down dumb opinions about his work doesn't make me a fanboy. It means I'm interested in substance, not fluff.

>>22738574
Shuffle around like the good goy you are, fagocrat
your shit posts demonstrate bad faith, dishonesty, lack of reading comprehension
and you're balding

>>22738655
>Shuffle around like the good goy you are, fagocrat
I support Palestine, and I think there needs to be affirmative action against Jews in top universities. I don't think that Jews would take a person like me to be their shabbos goy.
>your shit posts demonstrate bad faith, dishonesty, lack of reading comprehension
That actually is you. I've been trying to bridge the gap. You can't even get the basic gist of my arguments correct, and you accuse me of things that simply aren't true.
>and you're balding
I have a full head of hair. Is this more projection by you?

>>22738876
>That actually is you
>n-no you!
sure thing, bald fagocrat. go back to twitter

>>22738903
I don't have a Twitter account. /lit/ is my home. I actually read books.

>>22738910
>defends strauss
>purports fagtin is "right wing"
>strauss isn't a neocon! he's le based tyrant guy
go back to twitter

>>22738929
I can defend Strauss on the points where he is right and criticize him on the points where he is wrong. There's no reason to say he's all good or all bad. That's just sloppy thinking. Are you a sloppy thinker, anon?

>>22738950
>criticize him on the points where he is wrong
Where have you done this? How can you pretend you're able to discuss any subject while misrepresenting the absolute basics of thought so blatantly? dishonest yet again.
opposite of looking for truth. go back to twitter

>>22739015
>Where have you done this?
Plenty of times on /lit/. For example, when I've criticized Strauss for the tendency of thinking that every major ancient thinker was secretly a modern thinker who happened to agree with how a 20th century cosmopolitan atheist Jew viewed the world. It undercuts the premise of classical natural right as a "return", since all we would be returning to is "internally modern, externally ancient." A society that "pretends" will always fail.

I also think the fact that he strays away from metaphysics to be a weakness of his, and I think it's a bit embarrassing that he never grappled with the heavier metaphysical aspects of, for example, Plato. Strauss wants to be in the good company of philosophers, mutually recognizing each other as such, but he never performed a deep exegesis of the "crown jewels" of the Platonic canon like Parmenides, Timaeus, The Sophist, etc. This makes him inferior to a philosopher like Heidegger in my opinion. It's also ironic, because Strauss and Kojeve talked poorly of Heidegger behind his back in their exchanges when Heidegger mogs the hell out of them both (Strauss only has one trick up his sleeve against Heidegger, the question of justice, and I'm otherwise not convinced that he understands the depth of Heidegger's thinking on metaphysics. Kojeve is much worse, a hack in my opinion.).

The thing is, none of these topics, or others, arose in this thread, so I haven't criticized Strauss for it. Nobody asked, so I never answered. When it comes to Schmitt vs. Strauss on the question of the political and on justice, I think that Schmitt is right, but that Strauss sees "from a higher vantage point", at least when it comes to political philosophy (we're not talking about political policy here).

Why do I think this is important? Because I don't want my politics to be defined by a lack of concern with justice. I want to advocate for my race KNOWING that it is the right thing to do, not because there is no such thing as right and wrong. Too many people read Schmitt's deconstruction of liberal democracy, revealing the political abyss, and stay in resulting abyss. I don't like that, because that guarantees that we stay in a nihilistic post-constructionist framework. I want justice. So Strauss is a good guide after Schmitt. But then you want to move on from Strauss to Heidegger and beyond. Does that make sense?

>How can you pretend you're able to discuss any subject while misrepresenting the absolute basics of thought so blatantly?
I haven't misrepresented anything. I've pointed out what was obvious, provided evidence or at least pointers to the evidence, and you're simply in denial of it, responding never with substance and only with ad hominems, because you've refused to think with nuance (e.g. "I can't agree with a thinker whose politics I disagree with on a point that has nothing to do with politics! I have to say he's all bad!"). It's getting old, and I hope you're better than that.

>>22739088
Checked. At least now you read like an actual person with nuanced views, instead of a total one-note hack as before. Dubs reflect this.

>>22739114
I'll take that to the bank. Thank you for at least hearing me out.

>>22739088
>Too many people read Schmitt's deconstruction of liberal democracy, revealing the political abyss, and stay in resulting abyss. I don't like that, because that guarantees that we stay in a nihilistic post-constructionist framework.
So, what's the way out then? Who are the writers and thinkers that have outlined a viable future? I am asking this because I do not believe they exist yet. We all live in Fukuyama and Kojeve's purgatory, the way I see it.

>>22739511
>Fukuyama and Kojeve's purgatory
kek. yes, that EU neolib 90's end of history was so true! Upvoted!
L M A O

>>22739520
name them

>>22739511
>whats your way out
>he doesnt respond to you back
>>22739520
Hey Big Sarcastic ant, so whats your way out? or are you just full of shit and your presence in this thread was Ironic.

>>22739088
Good post.

>>22739088
>I also think the fact that he strays away from metaphysics
The reason he can't comprehend metaphysics is his Nietzcheanism. Pull on the Nietzschean thread in Strauss' thought and the whole garment unravels. He is 101% committed to an atheistic, nihilistic interpretation of Nietzsche as the final position possible in scientific, natural, and metaphysical philosophy. He simply sees Heidegger and the "historicists" as embracing the relativism implicit in it the final, inevitable, ineluctable ur-sceptical deconstruction of all natural philosophy, while he turns like the ancients away from it, and toward rhetoric (in the classical sense as the goad of phronesis).

He thinks the entire Socratic legacy, or the core of it anyway, is its formalization of this rhetoric, and the melancholy implicit injunction to maintain a sect of philosophers who perennially do their best to educate future rulers, so that the political history of humanity minimizes its "Critias count," and its number of revelation-based zealot regimes. And this melancholy sect is allowed to talk to itself through time whenever it is living under a Critias or a revelation-based regime, using esoteric writing that keeps the Socratic core teaching alive.

On this view, Plato's metaphysical views were either a retarded inconsistent distraction or they were all a clever noble lie masking the real intent of the dialogues which is to repeat the Socratic sceptical and practical thesis for those with eyes to see.

>>22739088
Also I agree with you strongly and I have similar thoughts on the need to go beyond both and synthesize both. Have you read anything you feel represents or argues for this goal? Are you writing anything yourself?

I'd never trade 4chan's anonymity away but I sometimes wish I could keep touch with some posters like this, who are working on interesting ideas, so I can see what they end up producing in a few years.

>>22739088
Schmitt always seemed to me to go sort of hand-in-hand with Heidegger.

>>22739764
Ethically, yes. Metaphysically, no.

>>22739511
>>22739732
Fuck if I know. My current pathway has been Schmitt > Strauss > Heidegger > studying Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and Peirce. And dabbling here and there with the Presocratics, Chinese philosophy, Hermeticism, Christian mysticism, etc., mostly to stimulate alternative perspectives. My goal has been to mostly clarify my own "vision" of things and pass down what I know.
>>22739722
>He simply sees Heidegger and the "historicists" as embracing the relativism implicit in it the final, inevitable, ineluctable ur-sceptical deconstruction of all natural philosophy, while he turns like the ancients away from it, and toward rhetoric (in the classical sense as the goad of phronesis).
The funny thing is that I don't even think Heidegger can be fairly read as a "relativist" or a "historicist", at least not in the small-minded sense that would cause one to think of Marcuse or Butler or some puerile progressive narrative from an American university. Heidegger simply wasn't concerned about ethics, probably because it often "crowds out" the conversation with its demanding nature.
>He thinks the entire Socratic legacy, or the core of it anyway, is its formalization of this rhetoric, and the melancholy implicit injunction to maintain a sect of philosophers who perennially do their best to educate future rulers, so that the political history of humanity minimizes its "Critias count," and its number of revelation-based zealot regimes. And this melancholy sect is allowed to talk to itself through time whenever it is living under a Critias or a revelation-based regime, using esoteric writing that keeps the Socratic core teaching alive.
When you put it like that, it sounds kind of badass. That is, if he's right. But the collective laziness of Straussians (minus Rosen and maybe a handful of others) towards the metaphysical side leaves me completely unimpressed. What even is "phronesis" if there is no noetic foundation for it? There would be nothing stopping it from being reduced to techne. So, Strauss and his ilk end up destroying their own project when they treat "the good" as a placeholder: a potentiality to browbeat relativists with (of both the skeptical and the tyrannical variety) while solemnly resigning themselves to its folly.

>>22739764
Why is that? I have my own thoughts, but I'd like to hear what you have to say first.

>>22739722
I don't know how that squares with what he says about Husserl and Plato/Aristotle here in a letter to Voegelin in 1943.
>>22740368
This is my first post in the thread but I remember talking to you before. Funnily Rosen highly admired Kojeve for some reason. It's Rosen who ends up in the company of Kojeve and Nietzsche despite metaphysics. Reflections on Nihilism (1968) is very revealing.

>Thus man can know the truth about himself, with respect both to his end and his incompleteness, but he cannot, by virtue of the nature of that truth, possess a 'systematic' or 'complete' account of it. The truth is that, instead of solving his problems,and thereby incurring the disaster of a 'final solution', man must reconcile himself to a perpetual process of approximations, of prudential adjustments and accommodations, sometimes in the direction of daring, sometimes of caution. But these approximations are not directed toward an infinitely distant, and so infinitely inaccessible, goal of progressive perfection; for that would amount to having no goal at all, and so to approximating to nothing, or to Nihilism. The goal is accessible but unaccomplishable; man can understand that his nature would be fulfilled in a completely rational speech satisfying his desire as such, if it were not the case that such a speech would, when completed, destroy his nature.

It is a bizarre avowal of Hegelianized Jewish nihilism and what I would have to call inverted Buddhism, and completely self-contradictory in result and arbitrary in reasoning. I mention this because we have similar interests.

>>22739511
The non-complete-retards and -cowards of the world (Chinese, Russians, Palestinians, et alia) are making it. You aren't going to theorycel your way to a viable future.

>>22740727
Only the Chinese have a viable alternative but they do not export it anywhere and it's a nationalist country

>>22740727
>It is a bizarre avowal of Hegelianized Jewish nihilism and what I would have to call inverted Buddhism, and completely self-contradictory in result and arbitrary in reasoning. I mention this because we have similar interests.
Yeah, that's the problem with Straussianism: it's dominated by that overarching view. I feel like Benardete and Bruell fall into vaguely the same space when it comes to metaphysics. I have not finished enough of Bolotin or Burger yet (what's with Straussians with B- last names and metaphysics? was this the rule of assignment at the council of philosophers? kek) to make a case for them. And again, the question of the good is such a hard-hitting rebuttal to the finality of nihilism because even its mere possibility makes it worthwhile to pursue, like some kind of generalized Pascal's argument.

>>22739088
>Kojeve is much worse, a hack in my opinion
Kojeve actually engaged in the metaphysics of the ancients, though