Leo Strauss As Interpreted By A Gentile: He’s really rather good.

At some stage I came to the idea that the old testament, though bullshit from start to finish, was a very positive influence for many gentiles.  But that in the hands of people who think they are “chosen ones” it becomes kind of toxic. And many protestants can begin to believe they are “chosen ones”.

I’ve got a hunch that Leo Strauss may be similar. I have read fuck all books since 2003.  Maybe in about 1995, thanks to being a casual worker who hated being bored even for a second, I ended up one of the best-read people of my generation.  All I did was read, exercise, and do casual work.  Thats probably why I made such an impact on Ozblogistan in 2005.   But I’m not any kind of well-read person now.  Thats all degraded.

So I cannot pretend to have read Leo Strauss in the original.  But a second hand interpretation of Leo Strauss gives me the hunch that how I’ll feel about him is how I would feel about a gentile, versus a chosen-one, with regards to the old testament.

My interim thinking is that us gentiles, when we get the time, would do well to read Leo Strauss in the original. And I say that on the basis of Angelo Codevilla, who I read in the original any chance I can get.

The legitimate Plantangenet heirs live in Australia.  If we make the elder daughter Queen and she makes me Governor of the Southern Highlands, supposing we want the best for her subjects?  Do we want war? No because with economic science I know exactly what to do to bring great wealth and the good life to the people.  So war is this horrific distraction from pursuing the good life.  So war is an explosive action you do to kill the right people so you can quickly get home and continue doing a Lee Kwan Yew performance in making all the little people fantastically wealthy and happy.

Now I heard about this philosopher Strauss.  I now know that his alleged followers,  though they seemed like a ship-of-fools, convinced me (in error) of the rightness of the second Gulf war.  What a bunch of utter clowns these people are.  These neocons.  But lets take a bit of secondhand Leo Strauss commentary:

This impressive condensation of Strauss and Codevilla thought is in this essay from the Claremont review of books.  Here is a sample.  Can you see in any of this a justification for the second Gulf War?

https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/leo-strauss-and-american-foreign-policy/

“We must face up to this disturbing Socratic endorsement of expansionism or imperialism in case of necessity. For although the size of the conquest may not “amount to much,” it might mean something quite drastic to the neighboring city that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It will definitely require the seizure of property and killing of men who oppose this expansion.

Socrates in effect shows that he knows how problematic his open defense of aggressive warfare is, when he says that the government must lie to the citizens about the true origin of the city’s territory. The citizens will be told, in a noble lie, that the native land on which they are born was their mother, not that it was taken by force from a foreign nation.

We may sum up the Socratic approach by saying that although foreign policy is in principle amoral, because it is dictated by the selfish needs of the political community, it is also moderate, because the needs of the city are limited, given the primacy of its concern for civic virtue and therefore domestic policy.”

Moderate because the needs of our people are limited.  With the science of permaculture our needs are even more modest.  There is precious little excuse for war.

“If a city is defeated in war, says Socrates, only those who are responsible for the war will be punished. It is probable that this Socratic suggestion arises from the humanity of his philosophic orientation, which transcends loyalty to a particular political regime. We can perhaps see in this proposal the roots of the much milder rules of conquest established by Locke and other early modern thinkers.”

Here I think it is implied that in a high-tech war, violence should be projected against regime leadership.  No ill will ought to be held against the population once the war is over.  I extrapolate from this that a lot of effort must be put in advance, just who is culpable regime leadership when it comes to the dispute to hand.

“It is important to understand why, for Strauss and the classical political philosophers, the purpose of foreign policy should be limited to self-preservation or necessity. Obviously, it is not because life has no higher purpose than mere survival. Rather, it is because all policy, foreign and domestic, should be in the service of one thing: the well being or happiness of society. This means that government’s most important task is to help the citizens live the good life by promoting the right ideal of human excellence. That is emphatically a matter of domestic policy, not foreign. For that reason, in principle, foreign policy is easy, and domestic policy is very difficult. No one disputes that preservation is better than death; but all claims about the content of the life of human excellence are inherently controversial.”

Foreign policy is easy.  Because you are focused, Lee Kwan Yew style, bringing the good life for all your people tip to stern.  So foreign policy consists of dissuading foreigners from distracting you from this concentrated task.  Which means classifying regime leadership for death, or humiliating fear, should they distract you too much.  I suggest doing this via Venn diagram.  Narrowing it down to hundreds of people.  Or just a few thousand.

“For Strauss, the truly important question to consider is whether Iraq (or any other nation) has been actively planning or supporting the killing of American citizens or citizens of America’s most important allies. As it happens, there is quite a bit of evidence that Iraq was doing just that. Angelo Codevilla’s excellent series of articles in the Claremont Review of Books has convincingly shown the connection between Iraq and terrorists who seek to harm, and who have harmed and do harm, American citizens and their allies.”

It turns out that Codevilla had been unwittingly picking up low-hanging fruit from Mossad.  Me too.  I made the same mistake.  Mossad had been planning this since about 1978 and they had left all this bogus evidence around.   But lets suppose Codevilla had not been fooled by the Jews.  Lets suppose that the Arabs really had committed 9/11 and not the Jews?  Lets suppose Iraq had subtly caused these plans to gain momentum? In that case the Straussian thinking would apply.

Anyway Codevilla is not Strauss, West is not Codevilla,  Strauss is not Socrates.  But reading these Strauss interpreters makes me think there is a lot of worthwhile stuff going on there.

But put these ideas in the hands of the Jews and they are going to make a pigs breakfast out of it.

15 thoughts on “Leo Strauss As Interpreted By A Gentile: He’s really rather good.

  1. Good news. Two of the politicians I like the most have come out in favour of bringing our boy Assange home safely. I just read this in the Sydney Morning Herald. Bob Carr and Barnaby Joyce. Despite a few recent sins of Barnaby the fact is these two have always been good solid patriots so it was pleasing to see them working to bring our boy home.

    Like

  2. Bruce of Newcastle has terrific all around science acumen. He’s also quite gullible. Here is an example:

    “NASA engineer invents physics-breaking new space engine

    I’m sceptical!

    But if the box and ring are travelling near the speed of light, Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity says as the ring approaches the front end of the box it will increase in mass because it’s going faster than when it’s going backwards – so it’ll hit harder, resulting in forward momentum.

    The trouble is if you use the frame of reference of the box, not the observer, the momentum is exactly the same since the relative velocity of the ring isn’t close to c (relative to the box). So if you are a passenger in the spacecraft all you see is a ring bouncing of the front wall doing nothing, as there’s zero difference in absolute momentum going forwards or backwards.”

    When will he realise this is all horseshit and a psychological operation?

    Like

  3. Probably Marx’s “Capital” is likely to have the same effect discussed. Keynes was not an economics sophisticate and his major work is an embarrassment every page. Marx’s Capital is deeply sophisticated. But if you have a tendency for eschatological utopianism. Or if you are brought up to think you are a chosen one of some sort, then this book may have bad effects. Basically I think its a good book if you are onto Marxs’ trickery from the start. Rands books may be similar in this respect.

    Both Keynes and Marx are trying to get usury and debt off the hook. Keynes much moreso. Keynes is going further trying to make government debt a positive thing. Rothschild will be pleased. Both these guys are trying to take the blame off the financial sector, and thrust it onto general business. With that and a few other caveats aside, the Keynes book is ignorant and without value. But the Marx book ought to be considered sophisticated and of enduring value, just usually misused.

    Like

  4. Marx didn’t describe the money creation process and some people infer that he didn’t understand money creation. There was still a lot of confusion over this subject back then. I suspect he did have a good idea of it. But he’s a Jew and he covered it up. That would be my best bet.

    Like

  5. I suppose what I”m saying is that if we treat Marx as another Jewish con-artist, seeking power for the Jews, than we can appreciate his sophistication without becoming a sucker. Whereas Keynes too is a trickster. But he’s not any kind of sophisticate at all.

    Like

  6. I cannot even find the full video. Yet Steve reckons its a white guy. Well maybe a white guy got lazy and decided to just take the video from the Kinsman movie. Thats possible but not likely. One of us alt-right types would be a little bit hesitant about showing a massacre within a Christian Church. A Jew would find this hilarious. Like for example it took me months before I watched the original of the fake massacre in the Christchurch Mosque. There two massacres, held at the same time, at two different mosques. But I couldn’t watch the fake Tarant one until I was sure it was fake. And that wasn’t for many months.

    Its a bit of a shocking video from what I have seen so far. Eventually I’ll see the Jewish humour in it. The other reason why I reckon a wingnut didn’t do it is that they have Trump killing Bernie. Every alt-righter knows that Bernie is one of the good guys. So its got the mark of Judea on it for sure.

    Like

  7. Another giveaway is the Maxine Waters appearance. The right just thinks of her as ineffectually stupid. There isn’t the ill-will there. But they did well with the John McCain and other Republican Presidential frontrunner. That fits. There are all these Jewish tells going on here.

    Like

  8. Okay here is the full video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhkcQqFAcl8 He gets Hillary and Soros in the end. The only two that would actually deserve it.

    Here is a lecture explaining what culture these mass-killings are indigenous too. We know that Tarant didn’t do the Mosque massacres since its impossible to be two or three places at once. Actually he’s of some Jewish background though his parents were born in England. But if we want to find out who did the Mosque massacres we should look at who did mosque massacres and similar undertakings in the past. Whose got form on this matter? With the video since this damages Trump we also want to know who is big on false flag hoaxes from the past.

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/vpYXf2krhnsq/

    Like

  9. I took awhile to find the video. But in typical racist fashion Steve reckons its a white nationalist wingnut. Well maybe a white guy got lazy and decided to just take the video from the Kinsman movie. Thats possible but not likely. One of us alt-right types would be a little bit hesitant about showing a massacre within a Christian Church. A Jew would find this hilarious. Like for example it took me months before I watched the original of the fake massacre in the Christchurch Mosque. There were two massacres, held at the same time, at two different mosques. But I couldn’t watch the fake Tarant one until I was sure it was fake. And that wasn’t for many months.

    Its a bit of a shocking video from what I have seen so far. Eventually I’ll see the Jewish humour in it. The other reason why I reckon a wingnut didn’t do it is that they have Trump killing Bernie. Every alt-righter knows that Bernie is one of the good guys. So its got the mark of Judea on it for sure. Bernie is much beloved by non-mainstreamers across the spectrum. Like a left-wing Ron Paul.

    Another giveaway is the Maxine Waters appearance. The right just thinks of her as ineffectually stupid. There isn’t the ill-will there. They get it right with zionist warmonger John McCain. Not loved on the alt-right for being the American ISIS go-between and more generally for helping bankrupt America and get her soldiers killed. Mitt Romney is no favourite either. So that was an interesting touch.

    Okay here is the full video.

    He gets Hillary and Soros in the end. Hillary actually deserving it. Soros needs to go on trial.

    Here is a lecture explaining what culture these mass-killings are indigenous too. We know that Tarant didn’t do the Mosque massacres since its impossible to be two or three places at once. Actually he’s of some Jewish background though his parents were born in England. But if we want to find out who did the Mosque massacres we should look at who did mosque massacres and similar undertakings in the past. Whose got form on this matter? With the video since this damages Trump we also want to know who is big on false flag hoaxes from the past.

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/vpYXf2krhnsq/

    Like

  10. Its hard to be a great historian and an excellent commentator of current events AT THE SAME TIME. We saw this with the brilliant Murray Rothbard. Sensationally intelligent man, great historian, but too deep in his books to be the best at contemporary commentary. I thought I was a good commentator on contemporary events 12 years ago though completely wrong about the neocon thing. But I was reading all the newspapers back then. Now I’m not particularly useful on that score. I think a lot of people were interested in what I had to say when they found I had popped up on twitter. They were probably disappointed. I had stopped watching the TV or reading the newspapers.

    So be a bit careful with Chris. Chris is a brilliant historian. But you cannot be a brilliant historian and stay perfectly current. Yet he’s still worth listening too.

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/jvtPWKrXYfv3/

    Like

  11. We need some balance here since Steve reckons its a wingnut Trump supporter that made the video. Well maybe a white guy got lazy and decided to just take the video from the Kinsman movie. Thats possible but not likely. I will play Devils advocate and make a counter-Accusation. One of us alt-right types would be a little bit hesitant about showing a massacre within a Christian Church.

    Its a bit of a shocking video from what I have seen so far. . The other reason why I reckon a white Trump supporter didn’t do it is that they have Trump killing Bernie. Every alt-righter knows that Bernie is one of the good guys. So its got the mark of Judea on it for sure. Bernie is much beloved by non-mainstreamers across the spectrum. Like a left-wing Ron Paul.

    Another giveaway is the Maxine Waters appearance. The right just thinks of her as ineffectually stupid. There isn’t the ill-will there. They get it right with zionist warmonger John McCain. Not loved on the alt-right for being the American ISIS go-between and more generally for helping bankrupt America and get her soldiers killed. Mitt Romney is no favourite either. So that was an interesting touch.

    Okay here is the full video.

    He gets Hillary and Soros in the end. Hillary actually deserving it. Soros needs to go on trial.

    Like

  12. Chris Bjerknes has an interesting conspiracy theory. Horrifying but it could be true. Think of all the false flag attacks lately that the media has blamed on Iran. Think of all the soldiers that have been moved into Saudi Arabia. In the conspiracy the Turkish invasion is preparing the ground for an attack on Iran.

    Terrible terrible terrible. A real worry.

    Like

  13. Not long ago all these synagogues were being threatened with bombs and things. Someone was using a voice distortion device to launch all these threats. Naturally white nationalists were being blamed. Those of us who know about who does this kind of thing knew that was bullshit. But we didn’t expect anyone of the rabbinical persuasion to actually be arrested over it, given Jewish privilege. But sure enough an Israeli male was arrested. The odd thing wasn’t who was making the threat. Thats just standard. The odd thing was that he got arrested.

    Same thing with the Trump video.

    Like

  14. Bernie wants a more aggressive wealth tax than Warren. Skip eight minutes and fifty seconds in (8.50). They start talking about Bernies wealth tax.

    To oversimplify a little bit: The only billionaires should be big factory owners. Like ship-builders or dirigibles builders, Heliostat builders, Small floating modular thorium reactor builders ……..and in their capacity as a sole trader. That takes care of 80% of economies of scale if such people aren’t taxed on retained earnings of their stand-alone factories.

    If they reinvest in depreciating producer goods, sure they can keep their wealth. But if they pull drawings out they should have to pay most of it in taxes. But modern billionaires its all in fake entities. Shares, trusts, derivatives, obligations held over the heads of other people. So with this one caveat I would support Bernie. If you rich slobs want to keep your billions; take the money out of all these trusts and pay off your debts. Clean your room you dirty billionaire and invest in a big factory providing wealth. Or we should take that wealth off you. If your wealth isn’t supported by way of industrial production you ought not have it. “Heavy Metal Don’t Mean Rock And Roll To Me””

    Like

  15. “Heavy Metal Don’t Mean Rock And Roll To Me”

    I cannot get that slogan out there enough. Its not just that Johnny Cash is this great culture hero. But its also because Western Economists, for a very long time, went feral on secondary manufacturing. They went insane on making and building stuff. Just crazy. This bizarre doctrine still lingers on although its not with the air of arrogant certainty like before. The three stooges; Davidson, Berg and Kirchner were frightful in this regard. Humphreys is a true lunatic and barely worth mentioning. But the whole lot of them were errant. I think Frank from national tiles has weathered well. I mean he’s no great shakes. But back when I was on Catallaxy he was very young with a serious logic deficit. He’s not bad at all now and he hopefully wouldn’t make a prick of himself if Davidson repented and did the right thing.

    Only an average song by Cash Standards. I like the attitude though. And it fits with my radical pro-Industrial stance.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s