Jeffrey Neuzil
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Messages
- 53
John Locking Up?
Does this mean that commentary about my post will be disallowed, but the post itself can be read? If so, that is fair enough; to answer your other questions, yes this is my own work on Leo strauss, and, as with most of my other posts, they deal with preeminently important (in my humble judgement) issues in contemporary politics, although I am still searching for the voice to communicate them to the public at large or small (for the forum is limited!) in a less academic idiom. The long and short of it is that I believe that the UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO has spawned some radical politics that are playing themselves out right now in our polity—that these politics are connected to the so called (putative) war on terror, that this war has as its central aim the overthrowing of the U.S. constitution and the foundation of a universal—that is global planatary aristocracy—which will be radical enough to try to deprive, if it has not already done so, citizens of their liberty, and even re-institute Aristotelian "natural slavery," based on "Natural Right" (see Leo Strauss' "Natural Right and History" especially chapter 'Classic Natural Right,' and its Victorian and subtle suggestion that the classics defended the rule of "Prospero over Caliban," said to be there by "nature just." I do not necessarily disagree with the arguments made in Strauss' treatise—one of the most complex and fascinating, not to say profound and difficult I have read: But believing that the American Regime is based on principles of Liberty and Equality (always debatable within the context of the constitutional structure of our government, which has the virtue of allowing us to re-define it from time to time (witness the Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement, etc), and that at present the Government and its elected and non-elected representatives—and, especially, it CIA, FBI, Homeland security &c—are duty bound to operate in defence of these institutions, I believe that they need to do so with complete knowledge of forces which may oppose these principles, especially constitutional regimes; therefore, whether in the end I support conservative politics or liberal or both (the latter is in fact the case), the representatives of the Demos, if not the demos itself—for these issues are in some way above the competence of the demos at large—have to operate with knowledge or reasonably well-grounded opinion about the challenges they face in ruling: To this end, I provide the analyses I have in the hope to stimulate critical—but not hostile—debate about these vital issues; much of what I have offered has I hope provided at best some starting points for a better understanding of Neo-conservatism, but less than this and more important in my opinion, some beginning points for understanding the father—or stepfather—of this movement: Leo Strauss whose work is of vital importance to our polity and who said that as supporters of Liberal democracy we cannot afford to be mere flatterers of it, and that we must try to ascend from a "universal democracy to a universal aristocracy" (see "Liberalism Ancient and Modern"). John Locke and an understanding of some aspects of his thought are essential, I feel certain, to grasping our plight as a Nation, and Leo strauss has provided us with an incomparable analysis of his work as well as the whole tradition of "Natural Right" in his "Natural Right and History"—this was, when I first read it, the most difficult book I had ever read, but, I believe after several readings, I understand it better now, and highly recommend it to all who are interested in the future well being of the country as it faces the challenges of the future and attempts to improve its government and citizenry.
Does this mean that commentary about my post will be disallowed, but the post itself can be read? If so, that is fair enough; to answer your other questions, yes this is my own work on Leo strauss, and, as with most of my other posts, they deal with preeminently important (in my humble judgement) issues in contemporary politics, although I am still searching for the voice to communicate them to the public at large or small (for the forum is limited!) in a less academic idiom. The long and short of it is that I believe that the UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO has spawned some radical politics that are playing themselves out right now in our polity—that these politics are connected to the so called (putative) war on terror, that this war has as its central aim the overthrowing of the U.S. constitution and the foundation of a universal—that is global planatary aristocracy—which will be radical enough to try to deprive, if it has not already done so, citizens of their liberty, and even re-institute Aristotelian "natural slavery," based on "Natural Right" (see Leo Strauss' "Natural Right and History" especially chapter 'Classic Natural Right,' and its Victorian and subtle suggestion that the classics defended the rule of "Prospero over Caliban," said to be there by "nature just." I do not necessarily disagree with the arguments made in Strauss' treatise—one of the most complex and fascinating, not to say profound and difficult I have read: But believing that the American Regime is based on principles of Liberty and Equality (always debatable within the context of the constitutional structure of our government, which has the virtue of allowing us to re-define it from time to time (witness the Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement, etc), and that at present the Government and its elected and non-elected representatives—and, especially, it CIA, FBI, Homeland security &c—are duty bound to operate in defence of these institutions, I believe that they need to do so with complete knowledge of forces which may oppose these principles, especially constitutional regimes; therefore, whether in the end I support conservative politics or liberal or both (the latter is in fact the case), the representatives of the Demos, if not the demos itself—for these issues are in some way above the competence of the demos at large—have to operate with knowledge or reasonably well-grounded opinion about the challenges they face in ruling: To this end, I provide the analyses I have in the hope to stimulate critical—but not hostile—debate about these vital issues; much of what I have offered has I hope provided at best some starting points for a better understanding of Neo-conservatism, but less than this and more important in my opinion, some beginning points for understanding the father—or stepfather—of this movement: Leo Strauss whose work is of vital importance to our polity and who said that as supporters of Liberal democracy we cannot afford to be mere flatterers of it, and that we must try to ascend from a "universal democracy to a universal aristocracy" (see "Liberalism Ancient and Modern"). John Locke and an understanding of some aspects of his thought are essential, I feel certain, to grasping our plight as a Nation, and Leo strauss has provided us with an incomparable analysis of his work as well as the whole tradition of "Natural Right" in his "Natural Right and History"—this was, when I first read it, the most difficult book I had ever read, but, I believe after several readings, I understand it better now, and highly recommend it to all who are interested in the future well being of the country as it faces the challenges of the future and attempts to improve its government and citizenry.
