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?
“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.