I just read Leo Strauss' lecture on German Nihilism and damn

persecution is the only strauss i've read and it's mind-blowing

true. all roads lead to Being

checking this out now. and holy shit you're right

Heidegger influenced like 99% of 20th century philosophy

too bad he was wrong though (bad for 20th century philosophy, that is)

bitch, you didn't even read Heidegger

bitch, you didn't even read strauss' critique of heidegger

check mate

Genuinely can't tell if this is supposed to be a critique

It is. Strauss is opposed to the destruction of civilisation German nihilism aims to achieve.

Can you post a passage from the part of the lecture where he presents his critique?

I find his critique not very convincing because he amalgamates his critique largely dwells on associating German nihilism with German nazism and German militarism. His main criticism which I find convincing is that German nihilism has nothing to propose in lieu of the civilisation it aims to destroy.

>Rauschning operates on somewhat safer ground when he stresses the Nazis' lack of any settled aims. He understands then by German nihilism the "permanent revolution of sheer destruction" for the sake of destruction, a "revolution for its own sake" (248). He stresses the "aimlessness" of the Nazis; he says that they have no program except action; that they replace doctrine by tactics (75); he calls their revolution "a revolution without a doctrine" (55); he speaks of the "total rejection" by the Nazis "of any sort of doctrine" (56). This appears to be an exaggeration. For elsewhere Rauschning says: "One thing National Socialism is not: a doctrine or philosophy. Yet it has a philosophy." (23). Or: "the fight against Judaism, while it is beyond question a central element not only in material con siderations, but in those of cultural policy, is part of the party doctrine" (22).21 Their anti-Jewish policy does seem to be taken seriously by the Nazis. But even if it were true, that no single point of the original party program or party doctrine had a more than provisional and tactical meaning, we still should be at a loss to understand a party, a government, a State not merely without a program or doctrine but without any aims. For it seems hard to conceive how any human being can act without having an aim. John Dillinger probably had no program, but he doubtless had an aim. In other words: Rauschning has not considered carefully enough the difference between program and aim. If he defines nihilism as a political movement without aims, then he defines a nonentity; if he defines nihilism as a political movement without a program or doctrine, then he would have to call all opportunists nihilists, which would be too uncharitable to be true.22 As a matter of fact, Rauschning does not always deny that the Nazis have aims: "a permanent revolution of sheer destruction by means of which a dic tatorship of brute force maintains itself in power" (xif). Here, Rauschning states the aim of the Nazis: that aim is their power; they do not destroy in order to destroy, but in order to maintain themselves in power.23 Now, to keep themselves in power, they depend, to a certain extent, on their ability to make their subjects, the Germans, happy, on their ability to satisfy the needs of the Ger mans. This means, as matters stand, that, in order to maintain themselves in power, they must embark upon a policy of aggression, a policy directed toward world-dominion.

1/2

Then again I feel like I partake in this special German nihilism, so who am I to criticise my critic?

>Rauschning corrects his remark about the aimlessness of the Nazis by saying "the German aims are indefinite to-day only because they are infinite" (275). Their "goal" is "the world-wide totalitarian empire" (58). They have not only aims, their aims form even a hierarchy leading up to a principal aim: "the principal aim, the redistribution of the world" (229). German nihilism, as described by Rauschning, is then the aspiration to world-dominion exercised by the Germans who are dominated in their turn by a German elite; that aspiration becomes nihilistic, because it uses any means to achieve its end and thus de stroys everything which makes life worth living for any decent or intelligent being. However low an opinion we may have of the Nazis, I am inclined to believe that they desire German world-dominion not merely as a means for keeping themselves in power, but that they derive, so to speak, a disinterested pleasure from the prospect of that glamorous goal "Germany ruling the world

2/2

Strauss was Jewish. Not to go full /pol/ but you have to realize that his objections are existential, and not solely rooted in logos.

Thanks

Can Veeky Forums ever stop sucking Debord's cock?

>/pol/
>destroying modern civilization
lol that's why U.S. economy is doing better under Trump right

It's probably a little bit of war propaganda too. the text was published in 1941. Strauss and Carl Schmitt (which he mentions as one of the idea givers of German nihilism) corresponded with and influenced each other and were something like friends in the post-War order.

I think his analysis of German nihilism is valid. The description he gave in the first post was even sympathetic if you ask me. What he formulates is a valid critique of (a fully) open society and a defense of morality.

So the motivation of German nihilism is valid but not its expression through aimless violence.

/pol/ doesn't want to destroy modern civilization, they just want to be shielded from the disadvantages that go along with it more or less necessarily

What are happenings all about? It's the constant longing for the Ernstfall Strauss described in the OP.

Strauss was initially somewhat sympathetic to Hitler and thought the antisemitism was just a ploy to get votes.

Strauss studied under Heidegger for a semester. So the influence is there even if he ultimately makes a critique

All of the assertions of this Nihilism so called as described in OP are to me completely dependent upon structurally western assumptions such as "greatness" "seriousness" et cetera and their antipodes. I am not saying this as a die-hard deconstructionist either I am just a little amused by the lack of rigor in this kind of argument. But that is the point of Straus' analysis which is not sympathetic as far as I can tell; it points out the internal contradictions of the Nihilists' position.

Civilisation is in itself a western concept and anybody willing to discuss it must work with "structurally western assumptions".

No I don't think civilization is western. I think the ancient Egyptians had a concept of civilization. Maybe it goes back even further. Civilization is an aristocratic concept. Meaning that to make all people serve or resemble the aristocracy is to civilize.

They weren't really friends but they did respect and influence each other. You can see a lot of Schmitt in Strauss' critique of liberalism and Schmitt re-wrote some of his works after Strauss' criticisms.

Schmitt wrote a letter of recommendation to the Rockefeller foundation for Strauss' grant and this helped him get out of Germany.

leo strauss is a GOAT jew
i would have vouched for him on the day of the rope

Maybe but in that context what matters is our definition of civilization because it's the rejection of contemporary civilisation by contemporary men. Strauss decidedly speaks of "modern civilisation" most of the time. Not that Strauss didn't account for your view as well:

>If nihilism is the rejection of the principles of civilisation as such, and if civilisation is based on recognition of the fact that the subject of civilisation is man as man, every interpretation of science and morals in terms of races, or of nations, or of cultures, is strictly speaking nihilistic. Whoever accepts the idea of a Nordic or German or Faustic science, e.g., rejects eo ipso the idea of science. Different "cultures" may have produced different types of "science"; but only one of them can be true, can be science.** The nihilist implication of the nationalist interpretation of science in particular can be described somewhat differently in the following terms. Civilisation is inseparable from learning, from the desire to learn from anyone who can teach us something worthwhile. The nationalist interpretation of science or philosophy implies that we cannot really learn anything worthwhile from people who do not belong to our nation or our culture. The few Greeks whom we usually have in mind when we speak of the Greeks, were distinguished from the barbarians, so to speak exclusively by their willingness to learn even from barbarians; whereas the barbarian, the non- Greek barbarian as well as the Greek barbarian, believes that all his questions are solved by, or on the basis of, his ancestral tradition

That's nice.

You can find the complete essay here btw:

interpretationjournal.com/backissues/Vol_26-3.pdf

bump

Anyone have the Strauss neocon philosophy thread for a few days ago?

I'm going to St. John's.
That's about as close to MUH PLATO WE WUZ PHILOSOPHERS N SHEIT as you can get.

bumped for interest

>Only life in such a tense atmosphere, only a life which is based on constant awareness of the sacrifices* to which it owes its existence, and of the necessity, the duty of sacrifice of life and all worldly goods, is truly human: the sublime is unknown to the open society." The societies of the West which claim to aspire toward the open society, actually are closed societies in a state of disintegration: their moral value, their respectability, depends entirely on their still being closed societies.
>it's a beta clings to his spook of devotion towards society episode
haaaahahahaahahahahahhahaahhaahhaah

But what if devotion towards society egoistically pleases me? Checkmate stirnerites.

Thanks. It also had some good talk of Carl Schmitt. There is a similar thread active right now, I just wish I knew the context of the other thread I saw previously.

Schmitt is a personal favourite of mine. I would be happy if we could discuss him at greater lengths.

I'd love to hear what you have to say about his works.

I like to read his definition of the political in conjunction with Gramsci's theory of cultural hegemony.

Schmitt sees the political as a dividing force. In the political struggle you have friend and foe fighting for control of the political entity. In our contemporary case, this is a democracy. Democracies have innate drive towards homogenisation as Schmitt notes once again. Ergo the winner of the political struggle enforces his policies upon the loser. Interpreted in a wider societal frame (here I rely on Gramsci), the winner enforces social standards on the loser. Now liberal democracy usually mitigates that by protecting the rights of the loser, right? Fair enough.

Most political systems are divided between conservatives and progressives (be they liberals or socialists). Conservatives are proponents of the status quo and do not necessarily strive to actively enact socially or morally revolutionary policies, if they act they react (hence their opponents deem them reactionary). They want society to stay like it is. Because of this, they become constant losers of society. Every time the progressives get their turn, they enact more and more progressive policies. In the short run, this does not matter because the hegemonic forces that control social culture (news companies, entertainment, etc.) usually prepare these changes and increase social tolerance in the populace.

However, this unequal struggle between conservatives and progressives will eventually escalate if the forces of cultural hegemony can no longer manufacture social consensus. Too rapid changes (e.g. migration crisis in Europe, Obama era policies) cause a conservative backlash that cannot properly express itself (because it lacks cultural hegemony that would otherwise give it the necessary vocabulary) and then turns into what Strauss described in the opening post, .

I feel like the reason so many liberals call Trump a fascist is because they notice the similarities between the German nihilists and the disgruntled Republican voter base which is motivated by similar existential concerns about preserving a closed society.

great post, my man

Is Schmitt's Nomos of the Earth worth a purchase?

Thanks man. I feel like I should pursue these thoughts further. The only way to prevent this development is in my opinion to stop the desintegration of our closed societies and maintain them in a semi-open style. I think Eastern European societies like Poland, Hungary or the Czech Republic are exemplary for such a state of affairs.

How to achieve this? I don't know yet. The question is also whether or not one thinks this desirable

I only read passages in university but I'd recommend it if you are a sturdy reader. There are a lot of insights to be had.

Do you think you and perhaps some of Veeky Forumss other Schmitt scholars could compose some charts and reading guides for his work, along with some appropriate secondary source readings?

I would but I am not knowledgable enough. I haven't read all of Schmitt's works. In any case start with his Definition of the Political though.

I figured at the very least an ongoing thread like this or perhaps the sharing of sources could use combined knowledge of his various works in order to help provide a good reference for those interested in developing his ideas further, or just those who want to know where to start with such texts and scholarship.

bump

I'd be interested in this as well.

Balakrishnan has a good book covering almost all of Schmitt's work. Alain de Benoist also has a good book covering Schmitt vs neocons.

There's a great lecture on youtube about Schmitt and his critique of parliamentarism.

I don't know how to photoshop. Sorry.

Thanks. Still would be nice to have regular threads on this or at least a google doc or something similar.

There's a reason Eden is described as a walled garden.

>I'm pretty sure Veeky Forums does not fit into achieving the sublime through seriousness and awareness of sacrifice.
You've clearly never been to r9k.

>tfw my identity has progressively become more and more defined against the normative other as I've spent years languishing on this site
>tfw we literally forego friends, familial feeling, sexual intimacy, even the prospect of happiness itself as a rebellion against the every-man's thralldom understood as so pervasive and pernicious the proof of which is one's preferred escapism here, where exile and the state of outcast are modern virtues in a modern landscape ruled by degeneracy and stupidity
People truly seldom appreciate the weight of the "normie"

This sounds like an off brand cucked version of Nietzsche really to politicize.

>What are happenings all about?
Boredom.
>It's the constant longing for the Ernstfall Strauss described in the OP.
The trouble this and many intellectuals is they read depth and intent where there is none.

there can be no higher praise

bump

>implying the nature and demand of deontology isn't timeless

this

OP here. I am happy that this thread has piqued the interest of so many Veeky Forumsizens.

>people truly seldom appreciate the weight of the "normie"

ding ding

>the normative other
isn't this an oxymoron

Big Other

Saint Elliot died for our sins.

Thanks. I honestly fascinated by the history and philosophy that exists behind right wing thought/ideology. I was the one who posted above about guides and reading lists for Schmitt, Strauss, and perhaps others.

I am*

I can summerize all of that in a single alt-right eceleb retweet.

Sure. Whole thread right here everyone.

bump

Has anyone ever contested this? I mean, its clearly easy to summarize in meme format, but is there a counter-argument?

what about:
all men are weak, but they flourish when they are bound by high social cohesion
social cohesion brings development
that same development then tears down social cohesion until people become too individualistic and therefore decadent
then the society slowly goes into a decay phase

strong men seems like a dumb and extremely simplified thing to say

It oversimplifies things into "strong vs weak" and "good vs bad", and perhaps an argument about time not being cyclical?

I don't disagree with the general point it's making but those are two ideas.

I was thinking of simplifying it into

all men have potential to be strong men > dire conditions require men to be strong for survival > eras in time that have more difficult conditions will by necessity eliminate those who cannot survive > the men who survived build great civilizations and nations > their immediate sons oversee/respect them > their grandsons take it for granted > their great grand-children will be the ones first introduced to the next great struggle > their great-great grandchildren become the next strong generation

Is there a sensible counter argument for this, within the realm of social theory? From an evolutionary perspective, its obvious, but we've gone and flipped a bitch on evolution, haven't we?

The claim that the open society is immoral or amoral is actually interesting. I've thought about the same thing with regards to the incessant cries for equality politically too.

I mean, I don't want to psychoanalyze too much, but it seems to me that the howls for equality in every corner of society is an attempt to annihilate value and difference between people, and that it's not necessarily a well-meaning ideal.

Everyone knows that when you value something, you devalue something else, which makes it hard then to actually see the value in equality because it aims to make everyone valuable regardless of any criterion of value.

How much of the cries of equality is actually nihilistic resentment? Seems hard to separate the people who want to "pull the great down" from the people who want to "help the weak up".

that is basically a less autistic version of the meme picture

id say that when societies become cozy and due to "better" and safer lifestyle, those who are supposed to die survive, there is accumulated a large number of people unfit to exist and by a collapse of the society that has kept them alive nature merely balances out by killing the weak off

the saddest part is that when you say that they call you a right wing fascist and when you say you want to "help the weak up" they call you a left wing hippie communist

and im just a poor old distributist

Ideologues of any stripe are in general not possible to talk to. They usually just scream their slogans in your face.

whats fascinating that despite myself being very traditional i can connect and relate 100 times better with normalfag commoner leftist voters than with rightist ones who are usually stuck up and way more ideological

For me it usually depends where they are socio-economically.

Middle-class and rich people who have ideological infatuations are just flat out annoying by definition.

He makes nihilism sound amazing.

No, that is straight /pol/. Boredom wouldn't demand a specific narrative or the passionate desire for a systemic crisis that would affect the individual.

Strauss was proto-Neocon garbage

he directly gives examples of what constitutes ernstfallen. War, swearing allegiance to a flag, etc. Perhaps talking about "seriousness" is dependent on a western assumption (though i think it's debatable whether its a fundamental part of the human experience), but using the objective experiences of war and loyalty to a larger group as reference points is completely valid and rigorous

>it's a stirnerite deliberately doesnt think and just posts shit unoriginal memes episode
getting bored of this one

Ancient Egyptians were Europeans. Early on, entirely; later, only the leadership; even later, none, which is why it stopped being a functional civilization and became a semitic wasteland.

Here's how it works:
>Europeans create civilization
>jews enter
>subvert host society to take power
>open the gates to their Arab cousins
>civilization falls or semites are expelled and try again at a later point in time.

Voila. It's a pattern you see over and over.

wow what a great nugget of wisdom
wew lad

bump

>distributist
I like you. Do you have reading suggestions on distributism?

>muh red scare

Describes my feelings pretty well desu - does he suggest a remedy to such thinking?

Not sure if I'm correct but I know Strauss sort of advocates shilling a unifying myth that the leaders don't necessarily themselves believe but is nonetheless constructive for society.

He's got some idiosyncratic and controversial readings of Plato and Maimonides which work into this.

That's sounds essentially like Brave New World but with a pseudoreligious twist (which, as he described, I am completely opposed to). I respect the man's diagnosis, but he doesn't offer anything else to people looking to reintegrate into normie society