I don't know where this idea that Strauss was someone whose influence was central to the neoconservative movement came from, but it is wrong. He wasn't even a big fan of liberal democracy. His main project was the study and analysis of political philosophy; it was as scholarly as it could get. Most of neoconservative foreign policy is either rooted in Israeli political realism or in the belief that liberalism represents the "end of history" and that any system opposed to liberalism is wrong and should therefore be removed.«Noble lie»Strauss didn't invent this. The idea originated with Plato. Although Strauss was highly interested in Plato, he didn't invent the concept of the noble lie. Anyone can see the idea in the Republic itself without relying on any Straussian interpretation.«They were students of Strauss»Not all neoconservatives were students of Strauss, and they came from diverse intellectual backgrounds. Just because some of them attended some of his seminars doesn't mean Strauss was the main influence on neoconservatism. His influence on neoconservatism was small to nonexistent.Strauss was used as a scapegoat.
Best jew thinkers:spinozaszaszthe guy the hungarian guy with the brain waves
Neocons are not pro-liberalism, they were/are skeptical of liberalism and its claims to be the end of history.They wanted a shadow aristocracy to hold the reigns behind a democratic facade.The ironic thing was that, in America, the ivy league WASP elite already functioned as just such an aristocracy.Neocon's real problem was that (1) Jews weren't allowed into the ivy league secret societies or country clubs, and couldn't play a part in this aristocracy and (2) WASPs wouldn't slavishly acquiesce to Israel's every demand (ie, for nukes).In the end, it was just a bunch of bitter Jews displacing the old elite, and afterwards, running the country into the ground, just as they did in Russia.
>>542461269György Buzsáki
I remember him because I read Schmitt's concept of the political and proceeded to not read Strauss's commentary
You are a fool.The Straussian cabal is real and very evil and has been controlling American politics since the Nixon era.Strauss taught that political elites should see themselves as philosopher kings and lie to the vulgar masses of people in order to keep the masses in-check so they don't overthrow the ruling intellectual elites. When philosophers aren’t ruling overtly, they should rule covertly. He HATED ordinary people.Neocons like Irving and Bill Kristol were die-hard followers of Strauss and sought to implement his thought any way they could. Paul Wolfowitz was a student of Strauss who was one of the primary architects of the Iraq War and 9/11 false flag.Neoconservatism is an expression of Jewish supremacy. Jews believe they are the "CHOSEN PEOPLE" and seek to preserve their ethnocentrism and tribalism against the universal brotherhood of man brought into the world by Christ. You can't separate these things.POWER OF NIGHTMAREShttps://youtube.com/watch?v=jxBbw13Y3GcNeocons are satanists and moral nihilists:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kEi5Mx6KfIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGVkNi3fcMwZionist Jew YouTuber: "Claiming Jews were behind Iraq War is 'BLOOD LIBEL.'"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUA2Sy3jAZE&t=6013s(1:40:13)>"oy vey goyim, let us lie and deceive the public and give us the oil and let us establish a rothschild bank"They aren't even making an effort to hide it anymore.Total neocon death.
>>542461708Schmitt was evil too.All of these people promote moral nihilism and elitism.PNAC (neocon think tank that orchestrated the 9/11 false flag) was one such group. Schmitt's STATE OF EMERGENCY fits here.
>>542461708The commentary is just Strauss calling Schmitt a closeted liberal and saying Schmitt needs to read more Hobbes.>>542461716>>542461798All of this is dogshit. Read the primary source material for once.>moral nihilistThe opposite. Strauss was a gigantic moralfag. Again, study the actual books before making statements this stupid.
>>542461269sophia dembling
>>542461232Great thread, it should be discussed way more often in this board. Having said that:>I don't know where this idea that Strauss was someone whose influence was central to the neoconservative movement came fromYou know very well where it comes from: from reality, because all "neocons" were his Trostkyite students like (((Wolvowitz and Kristol))), who went to recruit many other fellow Jevvs and also White race traitors like Cheney already in the 1970s and financed most of "conservative" publications via Kristol and (((Podhoretz))) money to, for example, young Thiel, DeSouza and (((Hazoni))) in the 1980s. Hazoni trained spy Bari Weiss and organizes the "American" NatCon this year in Jerusalem KEK."neocon" doesn't mean a new version of conservative: it means a liberal lefty POS who larps as conservative due to two main "conservative" principles: big war and big money. All these Trotskyte jevvs turned "conservative" after 1973's war when Isreal almost get wiped and USSR soon after declared them raycist at the UN, while locally the Left supported by the other faction of jevvs in govt. with LBJ and in the streets with pro-nig, pro-immigrant, pro-gay, pro-feminist jevvish lawyers and activists were doing the Esau gambit and "forcing" these poor neocons to support the Right (just like Bill Ackman and other big jevvs turned Republicans only because Oct. 7 after always supporting Democrats): they are always ethnically supremacists and only care about what's good for jevvs.All of this entrenched with the other factions of jevvs who did mafia, killed JFK, transported the nuclear materials for Isreal program -(((Wexner of Eps_tein))) fame and (((Feinberg))) = LBJ's political patron all involved, among others-, pushed for Vietnam War so US can't deter Isreal in 1967 as US did in 1956, and so on.
>>542462312No, it wasn't Calep Maupin who told me this: go watch Ryan Dawson Numec documentary, and go to watch one or both of Fuentes' exposes of Tucker where they revisit a lot of this, both on Rumble. For example>https://rumble.com/v6xd8i6-nick-fuentes-expose-on-tucker-carlson-pt-2.htmlThese commies = jevvs only lie and deceive 24/7 in every denomination and identity they present to you and in govt./media as their (((Bolshevik))) ancestors did when they rebranded as ant_ifa (or how they rebranded all the successful anti-White jew coups as "revolutions": Glorius, French, Russian, German), and so on.Yep, you fell for it.
>>542462057He said all philosophers in history had to write in code, because the so-called "vulgar" masses would try to punish them. And the great men (basically Nietzsche's ubermenschen) are actuall the philosopher kings in the platonic sense, and there are some great people who can define reality for themselves, and as they define reality for themselves they have to push back against the bulk of humanity that seeks to impose a moral code upon them, that seeks to impose rationality upon them and seeks to impose rules, and that the philosopher kings can rise to the top and it's necessary to lie to and deceive the masses of people, because totalitarianism is rooted in the drive for order in human beings.
>>542462312>>542462360Both Trotsky and Strauss hated the ordinary masses of people. Anti-populism and a disdain for the masses is what defines both Trotskyism and neoconservatism.
>>542461232leo strauss is the inventor of neo conservatismhe squared the circle of how to be a virulent ethno nationalist jew for israel and a social degenerate trotzkyite in the US, the worst of both worlds
>>542462360>>542462312Excellent post anon
>>542462312>>542462360Also,((("neocons"))) helped with or fully wrote these documents in their (((think tanks))) where all are friends and attend each others' Bar Mitzvah, weddings, orgies and funerals:>clean breakwhere they plan to stop the "good jew" approach of exchanging land for peace in Isreal and go for hostile takeover of enemies>pnacwhere they say "we need a new pearl-harbor-like event to awake the spirit of US to go and be a beacon of liberty" two years or so before 9/11>which road to persiawhere they say "let's create justification to destroy Iran by first making the JCPOA with Iran and then having a different govt. to shut it down alleging Iran violations, creating the conditions for more anti-Iran sentiment and more Iranian arm race to self-fulfil the prophecy".But for sure they just love to discuss Plato like Strauss did before watching his cowboy lawman show about good and evil...
>>542463126Yes. The cabal runs deep.>straussian cabal>woflowitz doctrine>PNAC - new pearl harbor
All the Jews I listed are way better than whoever this Strauss idiot isIf I don't know about this guy he's obviously worthless I don't even know what you people are discussingThis type of shit doesn't do you any good It's like going back and forth about Chomsky. These aren't useful things for you in your life
Haven’t read any of his stuff but I did read the book by Shadia Drury which argues against him.All I remember from it is some chapter arguing for Aquinas’ natural law against natural right with the former being pro-freedom and the latter being anti-freedom. Can someone explain?
>>542463335Strauss is interesting. You should at least read him before judging him.
>>542463674And what good do you see in his works? Are you an elitist?
>>542461232How exactly was he “based” according to you?
>>542461269Karl MarxRichard Stallman
>>542461232Post your Strauss.
>>542461232I don't like (((Leo Strauss))) either.His denial of the political reading of Plato's Republic is one obvious reason in spite of a potential esoteric reading......I agree more with George Klosko...Denying the political reading of the Republic is obvious damage control since after Karl Popper.Plato's Republic is important for the political reading due to its endorsement of corporatist politics, which obviously neocons and others have a bias against.
I can't stress enough how annoying I find it to be that people ignore the political contribution and political ideas in Plato's Republlic due to Strauss' denial of the political reading.
>>542466759>Plato's Republic >endorsement of corporatist politics
>>542466972Yea it’s retarded, especially since Sparta was right there, and was even more extreme than Plato’s city.
As for Karl Popper, yes, obviously Plato wasn't a fascist in the sense that he espoused the actual idealism and immanentism of Fascism.Yet Plato clearly endorses a kind of state corporatist mantra in Republic that follows Hobbes' Leviathan and Italian Fascism: the basis of a unitary state.Aristotle goes so far as to criticize this idea in Plato and derive his own political pluralism in contrast to Plato.--You just cannot ignore the signifiance of that because of some Jew's esoteric reading.But for reference, Plato writes in Republic:Now compare with Plato Republic:>And the city whose state is most like that of an individual man.&>“The same,” he said, “and, to return to your question, the best governed state most nearly resembles such an organism.”&>But we further agreed that this unity is the greatest blessing for a state, and we compared a well governed state to the human body in its relation to the pleasure and pain of its parts.”&>That the other citizens too must be sent to the task for which their natures were fitted, one man to one work, in order that each of them fulfilling his own function may be not many men, but one, and so the entire city may come to be not a multiplicity but a unity.>“But the individualization of these feelings is a dissolvent, when some grieve exceedingly and others rejoice at the same happenings to the city and its inhabitants?” “Of course.” “And the chief cause of this is when the citizens do not utter in unison such words as ‘mine’ and ‘not mine,’ and similarly with regard to the word ‘alien’?>“That city, then, is best ordered in which the greatest number use the expression ‘mine’ and ‘not mine’ of the same things in the same way.”Plato Laws:>That all men are, so far as possible, unanimous in the praise and blame they bestow, rejoicing and grieving at the same things, and that they honor with all their heart those laws which render the State as unified as possible
>>542466972Well Plato's attempt to build a politeia was motivated by creating a state of harmony between soul and social system.That's why he started from micro social realities (classification of types of people and the best role they could play) and proceeded all the way up to a political order.It wasn't necessarily meant only for political ends. It's just that he noticed that political regimes tended to last for a period of time then become unstable due to creating a certain disorder in the soul. So he thought that if you want to create a stable political order you must first create a stable inner order in the soul.
>>542467181Yes, Plato's Republic endorses Corporatism, the idea that the State should be "one personhood" or act like one man or that there should be a unitary mode of politics.From Plato's Republic:>And the city whose state is most like that of an individual man.&>“The same,” he said, “and, to return to your question, the best governed state most nearly resembles such an organism.”That is State Corporatism/unitary politics.That is why Karl Popper is actually half-right that the corporatist beliefs of Fascism and Hitler and others are found there.
>>542467299It's not a mere coincidence that Plato highlights the city as a mirror to the soul.
>>542467328OK but that has nothing to do with corporatism. Corporatism means an order in which big business dictates and influences the making of laws.It does not imply a big state or a complete fusion of state society and nation, like fascism.And yes Plato's politeia is a fusion between power/state and society into a harmonious monolith.But corporatism tends to private plural interests, it doesn't want any subordination to politics.
DESU, I partially suspect that rightwing thinktanks want to deny the political reading of Plato in part simply because they dislike the politics it espouses.
>>542467535You misunderstand corporatism.You are thinking of corporatism as in corporatocracy or plural."Corporatism" means that the State should be united as "one person" itself, not corporations, but the state itself as a corporation.
Hobbes Leviathan is actually playing off some of what Plato brings up to conflict with Aristotle.Now the two are clearly different philosophers: Hobbes, the philosophy of the Enlightenment and indeed Liberalism and Plato--but Hobbes is curating some ideas carefully with respect to scholasticism and readers who are well versed in classicism.One of those ideas being that Hobbes espouses a unitary politics whereas his opponent Aristotle is against it.
>>542467609No apparently it means that different interests in society are aggregated into in-corporated groups (corpora, corpus from Latin).So instead of fighting against each other like in Marx's class struggle, they come together and negotiate deals between them.So Plato's sytem would intersect with this in the sense that he also envisioned society as a system of harmonious classes, but he saw them subordinated to the philosopher king.So it's not 100%, just some degree of intersection with that idea.
>>542463674no, you should burn his works and dismiss everybody who praises himit is useless and a trojan horseonly study him to learn about your mortal enemies
>>542467807Also btw yea it seems that the word corporatism today gives these "corporate, bad thing" vibes, but it's misleading. The word has nothing to do with economic corporations of today.It means that social classes would form a corpus of interests, each rooting for their own. WHich is different from corporations, because it's not based on capital or wealth, but on some common traits, like all of them being intellectual or all of them being farmers.
Plato Republic>And the chief cause of this is when the citizens do not utter in unison such words as ‘mine’ and ‘not mine,’Plato Republic - Community of Pleasures & Pains>And there is unity where there is community of pleasures and pains–where all the citizens are glad or grieved on the same occasions of joy and sorrow?>No doubt.>Yes; and where there is no common but only private feeling a State is disorganized>And the chief cause of this is when the citizens do not utter in unison such words as ‘mine’ and ‘not mine,’--This passage right here is actually something both Hobbes and Fascism try to meddle with, for instance, so I have to agree that there are some political ideas of Plato's Republic that passed down and mattered.Take the infamous Fascist poster with Mussolini and the "si, si, si, si"--that whole idea originates with Plato's Republic as well as the corporatist idea owes at least some part to it. --I know people are repulsed by the idea,. but yes, there actually is some lineage of Plato in Leviathan and in Fascism as Plato was one of the early proponents of unitary politics like Hobbes or Fascism. Conservatives hate that.
Hobbes also obviously takes note of some of Plato's politics.Plato:>That the man who receives the portion should still regard it as common property of the whole StateHobbes writes,>Propriety of a subject excludes not the dominion of the Sovereign, but only of another subject.& also Hobbes>But in a Common-wealth this measure is false: Not the Appetite of Private men, but the Law, which is the Will and Appetite of the State is the measure. (this is Hobbes picking off that community of pleasures and pains idea that plato brings up.)
>>542461232My boyfriend is also a good kike
>>542467807>So it's not 100%, just some degree of intersection with that idea.No, Plato explicitly says, >And the city whose state is most like that of an individual man.&>“The same,” he said, “and, to return to your question, the best governed state most nearly resembles such an organism.”^That is State Corporatism.The idea that the state should be most like that of an individual man or some kind of unitary being -- that is state corporatism.Aristotle also explicitly criticizes that in Plato, so Aristotle himself recognized it and criticized it and explicitly denied the state corporatist doctrine.
IMHO, this is the classic instance of taking a completely allegorical reading for something you don't like: so neocons don't like the politics of Plato's Republic, so they don't take it literally but allegorically...
>>542468285Corporatism actually does not say much about the state. It's an idea of working against class conflict by negotiation between the big interests in society.So of course that would involve the state, but the idea in itself does not start from the state power. Because if it did, then we'd be talking about the state creating corporations not the other way around.Even fascists came up with the idea that these large interests represented in corporations (again, not modern corporations but something like farmers' groups, unions etc) should be integrated in the state. In other words, they recognised that corporatism exists before the state. It's not created by the state itself.So corporatism would look to work with and through the state, but it doesn't have to become taken over by the state. If something happens and the state collapses, corporatism should still exist independently. It's a form of representation for social classes and interests in a structured form.
>>542461232>Strauss was used as a scapegoat.Your entirely correctPic related is the real godfather of neoconservatism
>>542468620>Corporatism actually does not say much about the state. It's an idea of working against class conflict by negotiation between the big interests in society.Yes, that is also espoused by Plato, it's the appeal to arbiters.Plato Laws>Athenian: And every man surely likes his own laws best, and the laws of others not so well.Hobbes also appeals to an arbiter.>Athenian: The next step will be that these persons who have met together, will select some arbiters, who will review the laws of all of them, and will publicly present such as they approve to the chiefs who lead the tribes, and who are in a manner their kings, allowing them to choose those which they think best. These persons will themselves be called legislators, and will appoint the magistrates, framing some sort of aristocracy, or perhaps monarchy, out of the dynasties or lordships, and in this altered state of the government they will live.But you're missing the critical [point about what State Corporatism is.It's not just class collaborationist: the essence of state corporatism is that the state should be a unitary being or one personhood, like one big individual man.Or as Hobbes saysThomas Hobbes>The error concerning mixed government [constitutionalism] has proceeded from want of understanding of what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifies not the concord, but the union of many men.--So it is a stress on unity first.It is a unitary mode of politics--the state is viewed as a unitary being.
>>542468742>>542461232I feel like you people are split into two camps.Either Leo Straussites and Duginites.OrMachiavellians on another hand.A lot of you just hate realpolitik.
>>542468800Of course it is, it's not like we could have a plural state.It could only work if the state was unitary.Maybe what is meant by this is that for a socially enforced order to be effective, it needs functional top-down enforcement. It can't work if you have multiple groups pushing in multiple directions. So a state has to be unitary by definition. You can't have multiple tax authorities or border enforcers.
>>542468859Realpolitik is just the antithesis to neoconservatism. Kissinger and his mentor Kraemer did the old jewish mitosis to control both sides of the foreign policy 'debate'
Let me clarify again what State Corporatism is with Fascists themselves.Gentile>It is the State that possesses a concrete will & must be considered a person.Giuseppe Bottai>However, in speaking of the corporative State, it must not be understood as meaning only all that which pertains to the relations between employers and workers – relations based on a principle of collaboration rather than upon a struggle of classes. Fascism with its new arrangements aims at a more complex end. This, summed up in a few words, is "to reassert the sovereignty of the State over those syndicates, which, whether of an economic or social kind, when left to themselves broke out at one time against the State, subjecting the will of the individual to their own arbitrary decision, almost musing the rise of judicial provisions alien to the legal order of the State, opposing their own right to the right of the State, subordinating to their own interests the defenceless classes, and even the general interest, of which the State is naturally the judge, champion and avenger."Fausto Pitigliani>That the Corporation has no legal independent personality but is an organ of the State Administration.>To these organs, which take the name of Corporations and link the various productive activities of the country as members of one body>The Corporations constitute the unitary organisation of the forces of production and represent all their interests.>In virtue of this integral representation, and in view of the fact that the interests of production are the interests of the Nation, the law recognises the Corporations as State organs.
Mario Palmieri:>To make this discipline possible, and the sovereignty effective in practice as well as in theory, Fascism has devised the “Corporazione,” an instrument of social life destined to exercise the most far-reaching influence upon the economic development of Fascist States. (The Italian word “Corporazione” which is currently translated into English by the apparently analogous word “Corporation,” means, more exactly in the Italian language, what the word “Guild” means in English; that is: associations of persons engaged in kindred pursuits. We shall nevertheless follow the general usage to obviate the danger of misunderstandings.)>Within the Corporations the interests of producers and consumers, employers and employees, individuals and associations are interlocked and integrated in a unique and univocal way, while all types of interests are brought under the aegis of the State....>while all types of interests are brought under the aegis of the State.So you see that State Corporatism isn't just syndicalism or workers/employers, but an actual corporate notion of the State itself as a unitary being. The State is considered one personhood as a corporate entity or body, as one big individual -- that is what Plato stressed as well.
For clarity, Hobbes Leviathan also takes this stance on the limitation of subordinate corporations and the sovereign relationship of the state corporation:>Of Regular, some are Absolute, and Independent, subject to none but their own Representative: such are only Common-wealths [or States]; Of which I have spoken already in the 5. last preceding chapters. Others are Dependent; that is to say, Subordinate to some Soveraign Power, to which every one, as also their Representative is Subject. >Of Systemes subordinate, some are Politicall, and some Private. Politicall (otherwise Called Bodies Politique, and Persons In Law,) are those, which are made by authority from the Soveraign Power of the Common-wealth. Private, are those, which are constituted by Subjects amongst themselves, or by authoritie from a stranger. For no authority derived from forraign power, within the Dominion of another, is Publique there, but Private. >In All Bodies Politique [Any Corporation under the State] The Power of The Representative is Limited.>In Bodies Politique, the power of the Representative is always Limited: And that which prescribes the limits thereof, is the Power Sovereign. For Power Unlimited, is absolute Sovereignty. And the Sovereign, in every Commonwealth, is the absolute Representative of all the Subjects.Jean Bodin also adds.>Provided that they [the family] are joined together by the legitimate and limited rule of the father.>I have said "limited", since this fact chiefly distinguishes the Family from the State.>That the latter [The State] has the final and public authority.>The former [The Family or Household] limited and private rule.
Aristotle himself responds to the State Corporatism of Plato's Republic and condemns it. Aristotle denies that a state should be "many in one" or a corporate personage.Aristotle Politics>For the people becomes a monarch, and is many in one; and the many have the power in their hands, not as individuals, but collectively. Homer says that ‘it is not good to have a rule of many,’ but whether he means this corporate rule, or the rule of many individuals, is uncertain. At all events this sort of democracy, which is now a monarch and no longer under the control of law, seeks to exercise monarchical sway, and grows into a despot; the flatterer is held in honor; this sort of democracy being relatively to other democracies what tyranny is to other forms of monarchy. The spirit of both is the same, and they alike exercise a despotic rule over the better citizens.Contrast this with Plato again.>That the other citizens too must be sent to the task for which their natures were fitted, one man to one work, in order that each of them fulfilling his own function may be not many men, but one, and so the entire city may come to be not a multiplicity but a unity.
>>542461232Umm dude, the entire neocon cohort were his students. Pretty much all of them.
>>542468958But that's already the case today, even if we don't live in a fascist state.The state being the final arbiter of law making is still the current paradigm, otherwise we'd have private interests making their own laws and enforcing them without any state sanction. THat is, Amazon warehouse absolute jurisdictions in which the state would have no power whatsoever.So they weren't saying anything new. Except they needed to emphasise that because they needed to weaken any opposition in society so they could enjoy absolute power. But that's not because of corporatism.Totalitarianism did not come from corporatism, but from lack of real balances and checks between powers. So they degenerated into personalist regimes.
Aristotle denies that a state should be unitary but rather a plurality.--Aristotle opposes the centralization of Plato and instead advocates for a decentralized model or "partnership of clans". (this is what is more popular with rightwingers).Aristotle / Since the nature of a State is to be a plurality>Further, as a means to the end which he ascribes to the State, the scheme, taken literally is impracticable, and how we are to interpret it is nowhere precisely stated. I am speaking of the premise from which the argument of Socrates proceeds, "That the greater the unity of the State the better." Is it not obvious that a state at length attain such a degree of unity as to be no longer a State? since the nature of a State is to be plurality, and in tending to greater unity, from being a State, it becomes a Family, and from being a Family, an Individual; for the Family may be said to be more than the State, and the Individual than the family. So that we ought not to attain this greatest unity even if we could, for it would be the destruction of the State. Again, a State is not made up only of so many men, but of different kinds of men.
>>542469051There's a difference: Plato was arguing for a social order under the guidance of the philosopher king, not under the guidance of a bureacratic state.And his social classes were based on human types (warrior, priest, thinker) not on workers, employers etc.
Aristotle / state is a partnership of families and of clans in living well, and its object is a full and independent life.And a state is the partnership of clans and villages in a full and independent life, which in our view constitutes a happy and noble life;>These are necessary preconditions of a state's existence, yet nevertheless, even if all these conditions are present, that does not therefore make a state, but a state is a partnership of families and of clans in living well, and its object is a full and independent life. At the same time this will not be realized unless the partners do inhabit one and the same locality and practise intermarriage; this indeed is the reason why family relationships have arisen throughout the states, and brotherhoods and clubs for sacrificial rites and social recreations. But such organization is produced by the feeling of friendship, for friendship is the motive of social life; therefore, while the object of a state is the good life, these things are means to that end. And a state is the partnership of clans and villages in a full and independent life, which in our view constitutes a happy and noble life; the political fellowship must therefore be deemed to exist for the sake of noble actions, not merely for living in common. Hence those who contribute most to such fellowship have a larger part in the state than those who are their equals or superiors in freedom and birth but not their equals in civic virtue, or than those who surpass them in wealth but are surpassed by them in virtue.
