| Pardon me, but I meant to include Peter Thiel’s Manifesto, "The Straussiam Moment,” which I’ve shared before, but some may have missed it. Especially those who denounce Leo Strauss, but love DJT and his “ideology.” Don’t know why but in looking for ’The Straussian Moment” by Thiel, and coming across the other attached file on “Weltanschauung,” the two just sort of went together. For what the latter explained of Weltanschauung, not to compare Thiel himself to the subject of the title of the book reviewed, but it must be noted that there is an “ideological” connection between the two ideologies in the form of Carl Schmitt so that Thiel’s paper could better be entitled: "The Schmittian/Straussian Moment,” or better, just the The Schmittian Moment, as Strauss was the “carrier” of the Schmittian virus to the US where he would meet with so much enthusiasm by the Conservative Movement, as it would take a book to chronicle. So its "not an accident” that one of Schmittianism’s two most zealous advocates, Adrian Vermeule, is also part of the “post-Liberal” National Conservatives, as this article from the Acton Institute does a pretty good job of explaining: https://www.acton.org/religion-liberty/volume-35-number-1-2/awkward-alliance-neo-integralism-and-national-conservatism; "with this as a salient point from the conservative Catholic author of the article: "If the post-liberals have some good points of diagnosis, what then is the problem? There are two problems. The first is with the facts and the second is their solution.” So attached are the aforementioned pieces, along with my own modest effort against Vermeule’s Schmittianism from almost 12 years ago now. Also attached is is a method of translating Strauss, and his “secret writing,” in the introduction to a translation of Rousseau’s “The Government of Poland” as it is a “translation” also of the obscurantist language of the translator: |
Attachment:
The Straussian Moment, Peter Thiel, President, Clarium Capital Management.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
Attachment:
Hitler’s Weltanschauung.docx
Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Attachment:
Guantanamo at 10.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
Thiel says this of Strauss: "The political philosopher Leo Strauss attempted to solve this central paradox of the postmodern world. The challenge of that task is reflected in the difficulty of Strauss’s own writings, which are prohibitively obscurantist to the uninitiated.” That method of translating Strauss, and his “secret writing,” was by the one who was explained in the Dedication: "To Leo Strauss, the colleague and teacher under whom, Willmoore often said, he put himself to school again to learn what the ancients and the moderns have to teach us.” Who can be said to have been a “pioneer” in "post-Liberalism,” making him so attractive today to Conservatives of all stripes, as the numerous articles about him make clear. But read “The Government of Poland” which makes clear there is a "Rousseauist Right,” element, which is (poorly, but adequately) explained here: https://tangaroa.livejournal.com/367110.html? Don’t take my word for it, or anyone’s view of these “ideologies,” but read them for yourself, and their founding documents, and apply your own minds to understanding the ideological conflicts of today, as there were in the 1920s, and decide for yourself if variations of the “solutions” decided upon then in Italy, is what is appropriate to the problems of today, by either the “Left” or the “Right,” as Rousseau was the progenitor of. So read “The Government of Poland” to see how Rousseau was celebrated by both Strauss, and the “translator” of Strauss’s “prohibitively obscurantist to the uninitiated” language which called for a right-wing “translator.” |
Attachment:
The Government of Poland.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
BLUF: (translator’s, ok, Kendall’s, intro) Furthermore, it is Rousseau's contention that freedom is intimately connected with the kind of virtue he is describing in the Poland; and thus, somehow, true•Iiberty 1s to be achieved only through the form of total government which he is proposing. Rousseau indeed is proposing in the Poland a radically paradoxical, though by no means a totally new notion of freedom. Liberty, he says, is a food for strong stomachs; and it can only be attained as the result of, a prior act of establishing rather harsh and extensive restraints: (Rousseau quote) “I laugh at those debased peoples that let themselves be stirred up by agitators, and dare to speak of liberty without so much_ as having the idea of it; with their hearts still heavy with the vice~ of slaves, they imagine that they have only -to be mutinous in order to be free. Proud, sacred liberty! If they but knew her, those wretched men; if they but understood the price at which she is won and held; if they but realized that her laws are stern .as the tyrant's yoke is never hard, their sickly souls, the slaves ,of passions that would have to be hauled out by the roots, would fear liberty a hundred times as much as they fear servitude. They would flee her in terror, as they would a burden about to crush them,” (translator’s intro) What needs to be restrained so that liberty may flourish are, first of all, those selfish and private attachments of modern man that cause division in society. More specifically, it is above all the passion of acquisitiveness, which must be rooted out .from the hearts of men and replaced by the desire for honor: Honor in turn is a monopoly of the state; Rousseau would .deny all avenues to glory except those that lead to the service of the state (tp- the CIA mindset at work). The Poles should follow the example of the Romans and spurn all luxurious acquisitions as being inherently- degrading; they should discourage commerce with other countries and foster a ,frugal but self-sufficing agrarian economy; The trouble with modern European man, as Rousseau insists throughout the Poland, is that the failure of contemporary legisliitors to provide him with institutions that promote a fully politicized existence leaves him free to pursue-indeed forces him to pursue-the divisive ends dictated by private interests. In view of this increasingly desperate situation, the only way to prepare man for good legislation is by a prior founding of unique "national institutions" that will so fill up •the horizon of his interests that he will have no opportunity for creating private ends. As for the nature of Rousseau's envisaged ethos, he seems to say that almost anything will do as long as it serves to promote a distinctively national character. (end) (Rousseau quote) “You must maintain or revive ( as the case may be) your ancient customs and introduce suitable new ones that will also be purely Polish (tp-or “Israeli,” “American,” Italian,” . . . ). Let these new customs be neither here nor there as far as good and bad are concerned; let them even have their bad points; they would, unless bad in princip{e, still afford this advantage: they would endear Poland to its citizens, and develop in them an instinctive distaste for mingling with the peoples of other countries.”(end quote) (translators intro) It becomes more and more clear as one reads the Poland that Rousseau identifies the viciousness of the moderns with a certain randomness in the pattern of their lives. His notion of virtue, then, involves simply the replacement of "random man” with the kind of person whose life is ordered by some consistent purpose. 'This kind of person is the citizen or the completely public man; and it is the business of the state, or, more properly, it is the business of the founder of the state to see to it that the citizen passes every waking moment within institutions that will insure his constant attention to public affairs. To put it another way, for Rousseau the random life is slavery because it is constantly subject to the vicissitudes of the moment, whereas even under the most authoritarian regime the genuine citizen enjoys a superior freedom by virtue of his sense of purpose. (tp-emphasis added) Apart from being grounded in an intense piety toward the fatherland, Rousseau's notion of virtue is almost without content. Throughout the Poland he holds up the example of Sparta as the ancient regime most worthy to be emulated for the hardihood and simplicity of its citizens, but most of all for the unparalleled devotion to the state which was exemplified in its heroes from the time of Lycurgus onwards (emphasis added). One must read the whole thing to see that the translator translated this for the purpose of letting the contents speak as his own thoughts, as Leo Strauss did with the despotic ancients and “Moderns” whom he chose to speak for him, as his own form of “secret writing,” as is also explained well here but the translator of this work. If one didn’t "know better,” one might think Yoram Hazony’s and TAC’s National Conservatism was a plagiarism of this work! And before that, Mussolini’s of the same.
|