Uncategorized
Ex-Trotskyite, Neo-Jacobin/Fascist, National Greatness, Commie-Racist-Nazis
That’s how Justin Raimondo describes Perle and the Gang in his first article for Taki Theocropo-somthing-or-other’s new site.
And what could be more American?
Discussion
7 Comments
Leave a Reply
Buy Scott's Stickers
Social Bookmarks
© 2007 Stress. 
The Straussian nihilist goal is the new world order, Bush hasn’t done anything to screw in up.
One of the reasons why the Straussians are nihilists, in my opinion, is because they think Fukuyama’s book is right. They except it. Actually Kojeve who Fukuyama is following. This essentially makes life meaningless. One world state, with a bunch of self centered homogeneous, overconsuming empty bourgeois souls, who, trapped in the context of this, do not even realize they are trapped or enslaved in satisfying their “desire” to consume. (This isn’t what I think, it’s what I think they think)
Lots of credit, lots of debt, lots of consumption. The new world order is Alexander Kojeve. More centralization, less currencies. Look at the European Union, next will be a North American. The idea has not been screwed up. There is a reason why all the gang meet at the Bilderberg, including…yes, Chalabi. Now there is some other agendas, Rockefeller interests etc. And some people may be more tied to Israel with ideoligy, but I think a lot of them are on the same track. Rothchild was very important to the establishment of Israel.
There is also a fascist part about them. This is their idea of the free economy. Corporatism. It is the best form of dictatorship, or semi dictatorship, because it has the appearance of freedom to the majority of people.
As for this: Conservatism used to mean anti-statism. Today, under the rubric of neoconservatism, this has been stood on its head. It is a Bizarro World conservatism, where the individualism of Barry Goldwater and Frank S. Meyer has given way to the militarized groupthink of David Frum and the Dittohead demagoguery of Rush Limbaugh.
I agree, but I sill don’t know if you can be a conservative and support a totally free market. As far as I know the first form of conservatism was monarchy or rule which was a power struggle between church and monarchy. This tension is what lead to freedom. The free market is liberal, unless we mean by this conservative in the sense of not meddling with government. But the market or free market is liberal, in the sense that some of the things that will be produced in it will be anti-tradition etc. The person who wants to preserve a form of heritage or tradition with a totally free market will be very hard pressed. How do you stop the things in a liberal society that undermine the very tradition or culture that brought about a sense of freedom and individualism? Also, doesn’t voting, in itself, make people act and think collectively, and how is the average person able to vote or know what to vote in order to preserve this in a division of labour society? I am more and more thinking that the free market is an “abstract conception”. What you are seeing happen is the free market, I think there can only be a semi free market, one which could be much more free then our current, but it is rare, and I don’t know if voting or democratic republicanism is any better then monarchy then upholding it or bringing it about. In fact it may be worse, because democracy and the current forms of government gives the banks more power, this is why the banks I feel like democracy, it has the guise of freedom and appeals to peoples inherent populism of being “self empowered”. People don’t need to be involved with voting to be free or thinking.
From MICHAEL S. ROTH,
Alexandre Kojève developed an idiosyncratic and widely influential reading of G.W.F. Hegel in a seminar in Paris from 1933 to 1939. Kojève read Hegel as having discovered that truth was the product of history, and that history was the product of the human desire and struggle for recognition. Kojève emphasized that once this desire was satisfied, history, properly so-called, was over. He claimed that for all essential purposes this human desire had been satisfied in the modern period, and thus that we had experienced (and Hegel had come to know) the end of history. The notes from this seminar were published in 1947 and continued to have an important impact on French philosophy throughout the post-war period.
Kojève (born Kojèvnikoff) left Moscow at the age of 18, and spent most of the 1920s in Berlin and Heidelberg. During his years in Germany, he was strongly affected by the teaching of Martin Heidegger and by his fellow students in philosophy, Jacob Klein and Leo Strauss. By 1927 he had come to Paris, where he would give his Hegel seminar as a replacement for his friend, Alexandre Koyré. After the Second World War, Kojève worked as a negotiator and advisor for the French Ministry of Economic Affairs (especially on world trade matters). He continued to write on philosophy in his spare time.
The end of history
Kojève’s early writings, especially those on the mystical philosophical texts of Vladimir Solov’ëv, show a concern with finding legitimate criteria for making sense of historical change. If these criteria were themselves the product of historical change, how could stable philosophical knowledge be possible? Kojève’s idea of the ‘end of history’ (which he attributed to Hegel) was meant to answer this question.
Kojève acknowledged his departure from Hegel in his sharp separation of the natural from the historical. Kojève was interested only in the latter, and used the master–slave dialectic as a schema for understanding the stages of work and struggle in history. In this schema the human is defined by the desire for recognition – a desire that could be satisfied only with the conservation of its object (the person who provides love, honour, respect) – and the will to risk one’s life in order to satisfy that desire. The realm of the human and of history is defined specifically in contradistinction to the realm of the animal and of nature.
The desire for recognition is the motor of history, and Kojève used the master–slave dialectic as an allegory of human development: bloody battles for recognition were followed by the rule of the masters over the working slaves. Slaves were those whose animal desires for self-preservation led them to surrender and to recognize the masters. The masters, however, could not satisfy their human desire, because they were recognized by mere slaves. Eventually the slaves deposed the masters through revolution but they remained in servitude in relation to their work. This is the bourgeois condition. Real freedom would come only through the universal recognition of each and every one as a citizen.
The final synthesis of the master–slave dialectic is the freedom of universal recognition because it provides full (human) satisfaction. It also represents the end of history, since once the desire for recognition is satisfied there will be no force to create historical (human) change. There would be merely the activity of beings seeking to satisfy animal (nonhuman) desires. In other words, rather than engaging in action to achieve freedom and recognition, after the end of history ‘people’ would find ways of acquiring toys of various sorts. For Kojève, the end of history was the ‘definitive reality’ that served as a transhistorical standard of judgment.
In the 1930s, Kojève situated his reading of Hegel just before a revolution that would be a final confirmation of the interpretation itself. History was ending in universal recognition, and Kojève was contributing to the self-consciousness that would be part of the final state. Perhaps in response to some important criticism of his views by Leo Strauss, and certainly in response to the increasingly congealed political situation of the early 1950s, I have argued that Kojève abandoned his ‘heroic Hegelianism’. He continued to believe that the culmination of world history would define the truth of all previous events, but in his later work claimed that the end of history had occurred at the beginning of the nineteenth century. This left the mid-twentieth-century philosopher in the ironic position of having nothing left to say, except to repeat that everything of importance had already been said in order to make sense of what had already been done.
The idea of the ‘end of history’ in Kojève’s later work no longer refers to the triumphant ascension of humanity, but instead, for those who see that we live on the other side of it, signals a final decadence in which humans are distinguished from other animals only by their snobbery. Kojève’s early combination of Marx, Hegel and Heidegger in the service of claiming the future of the world is thus incorporated into a perspective reminiscent of Weber on the routinization of life. The closure of the end of history is an iron cage in which human animals can engage in a variety of activities without struggle because their essential drives have been satisfied. Kojève takes an ironic stance towards this condition in which the struggle for recognition is replaced by conspicuous and endless consumption; historical change is replaced by animalistic or snobbish repetition.
Kojève’s idea of the end of history spoke to the dissatisfaction of those on the left and right who thought that liberalism and modernity left no possibility either of genuine human life or of greatness. The philosopher continued his work among the bureaucrats until his death, helping to work out trade policies that might be suitable for the end of history.
As for the nationalist fascist love of Spartan ethos, this I totally agree with. But it is a myth in the end. The end is the end of history. This is their noble lie to give our lives meaning. Now that God is dead, man is the center of all meaning, and being so, man must make meaning. Historicism has shown in the Straussian’s eyes that there is no truth essentially, and no meaning except man made. Man is the measure of all things.
This is why they think lies or noble lies are important. Because it gives lives meaning, there is no more meaning.
They also think that science too, has shown us our truth, but, cannot give us any meaning hence the seperation of fact and value, science itself has undermined value by showing fact. Science and social science has shown us cultural relativism. Which culture is correct, which one is better at producing the best life? Is it personal preference, or is one more beneficial to life? I seem to think the latter, but Strauss doesn’t. He says that where many others, including many philosophers see “ground” there isn’t any.
This is where we come to Plato’s cave. Is the light what you see when you step out of your culture? Is our culture our cave? Is our certainty in our best way of life blinding us to the limitations of or way? If so, does this show there is no way? This is the bad thing about modern thought, our ideoligy or certainty of creating a better tommorow on a glorious utopian libertarian form of government could lead to a nightmare like 1984 or A Brave New World. Especially by not becoming politically involved more, libertarianism mostly makes people into educated non perticipents.
When good men don’t rule, bad men will. Libertarian thought implies that all governing is wrong. Some would say Plato’s Republic, is a rally against utopianism, he is showing that there isn’t any perfect form of government.
>Taki Theocropo-somthing-or-other’s
That’s funny! Taki’s a hoot, too.
While those nice little neoturds push this country into wars, get hundreds of thousands of people killed and wounded and are wrong about everything they still make fortunes. Aren’t ya proud to be ‘Merican?
But damn the Empire lost it’s fifth helicopter in two weeks. If the insurgents can shoot down helicopters at will the Empire’s really gonna take it in the shorts. Just think what will happen when the Shiites decide to join in and fight the Empire.
…If, in time, all definitions must be revised, which is the essence of RR’s impressive pamphleteering and command of facts…Does this include the Libertarian Thesis as well? Again: The State never abdicates…CH, even a facultative Shi’ite-Sunni alliance of necessity–a la the Hindu-Muslim pact against British Rule in India; is I believe highly unlikely…The continuation of this occupation instigated, internecine Arab-Persian massacre, very much in the context of the Hutu vs.Tutsi business in Rwanda if you will, i.e. a continuation of Colonial legacy and the resulting power vacuum; is the Political Dynamic upon which the success, or ultimate failure of the neo-Conservative’s long range intent is sustained…They’re bleeding the place white with US Tax Dollars. US life and limb don’t mean that much to them, let alone Helicopters…Go figure…Past that, Bretheren, I’ll be down for awhile per writing a piece the neo-Con will I hope, long cherish
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070207/pl_afp/usiraqmilitaryjustice_070207222956
Why not let this guy go and try the rest of these guys for Treason. After all, their allegiance is to a foreign flag (Israel), so lets try em, convict em and best of all….Deport them!!
Treason?