Bob, if you plan to go off on some intellectual-sounding rambling on Leo Strauss, you are free to do so, of course, but I have no interest in going over his junk again. I parted company with him forever when I got to the part about noble lies. You did see that, right? Do you see where lies have gotten us?
What I would focus on, and here is common ground, is the PNAC Statement of Principles. It's been signed and published by the core members of the neocon gang, and it outlines the thinking process of those who served up this war. In case you haven't noticed, it's this war - and not the dark recesses of Strauss' thinking - that matters today. Am I asking you to defend it? No. If you read it, and then look at what's happening today in the ME, you should be able to figure out all by yourself what the core error was. Sure, you can work that backwards into Strauss, by why bother? Isn't it better to know what to do then what not to do? Bill > > I am preparing a series of shorter, more focused posts > intended to engage Bill (and others of like mind) in a kind > of dialog on the subject of the underlying ideology of his > neo-con boogyman. Having been in closer proximity to real > live neo-cons than Bill will ever get, I have some insight on > the matter of what is good and bad about their thinking that > I haven't found much time to articulate quite the way I want > to, but over the next few days and weeks I'll give it a go. > > The first thing I'll address is at the "root" of his neo-con > "critique" (such as it is): namely, his rather bastardized > understanding both of the philosophy of Leo Strauss, and its > actual influence. > > The next I'll address is a better articulation of my critique > of the economic side of neoconservatism (which I think is > more significant and is having a much more unfortunate impact > on our long-term prospects as a nation), with particular > emphasis on a thinker who is far more pervasive in his > influence than Strauss will ever be (on more than just > neo-cons, too) and yet a name almost nobody knows. I've > alluded to it before; a free beer on me for the person who > can conjure the name up from the archives before I send that post. > > I have heard Bill make his case about the "garbage heap" of > Strauss' thinking. I'm willing to bet I know Strauss at least > as well as he knows Jung (though I don't consider myself a > student), and I have a response to Bill's mistaken views that > is not intended to promote Strauss (after all, at bottom I > disagree with the man on fundamental issues---Strauss being, > like Ed, an atheist after all), but rather to illustrate that > there is "more there than meets the eye" and it ain't all > black helicopters. I understand the appeal of Strauss to > those who espouse his views earnestly, which is why Bill's > tirades about "warmongers" and "powermongers" is so obviously > off base to me. It's the same pointless demonizing he assails > others for engaging in. > > Anyway, more of this, anon. Stay tuned to an OT near you. > > Or don't, as you like. > > - Bob _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
