The essay drives home ideas of Dugin's 4th Political
Theory; a brand which taken at its heart would
eventually leave USA,
CHINA and RUSSIA to battle for a final world
domination.
Diehl writes much directly
about Kojeve and Strauss's
arguments found in "The Introduction to The Reading
of Hegel."
One of the arguments in the book, perhaps pages 159-163, presents the end of history argument; therein
is the view of, which for Hegel was NOW, of the re-animalization of our species.
John Adams Wettergreen jhr. gave us what this "time"
might like in a wonderful
essay titled- Is Snobbery a Formal Value? Considering Life at the End of Modernity.
Wettergreen shows the case for an actual country where the folk live according to the values stated in the title (Japan's long time homogeneous state).
He thus shows a moderate,
yet not lethal alternative.
He gives us an amazing view. The best good that can be had in the present
circunstance.
The goals of those specific to modernity- which are nothing but the goals of "History" and of the "Marxist" Revolution is accomplished by "Capitalistic neo-Imperialists."
How can sincere Marxist feel that "History" has done them
JUSTICE?
Perhaps Wettergreen has tongue in cheek here or maybe there is esotercism
at work. Certainly it is a means of defending morality. Strauss taught that
wisdom and political moderation are harmonius.
Diehl's case is Machiavelli, and Strauss never hesitated to declare Machiavelli to be
Regarding Tren de Aragua, I seem to remember a certain non-state, criminal actor that by crossing our southern border to cause violence and mayhem incurred a massive military response. I'm thinking of Pancho Villa. Rather than trying to define “invasion” as some sort of Venezuelan re-make of “Red Dawn” perhaps it would be more helpful to think of it as a Venezuelan version of Sr. Villa in 1916
To Lucretia's point about that liquor/gun store in Flagstaff. There used to be a place down the road from home in Chandler, AZ that advertised “Guns. Liquor, and Picnic Supplies.” Remember ATF isn't just a federal agency, it's also your one-stop party HQ.
As much as I like John with his strong Philly vibe, master of all media, and his presence on the show can you please take away his privilege re: speaking on foreign policy? It was bad enough in the past when he would go on about Ukraine and Russian casualty counts, as if our Ukraine policy should be based on a “bubble gum card” strategy of filling out score sheets of tanks destroyed and KIA
However, he has gotten worse. I almost caused on accident on the Beltway last week when he quoted Kenneth Waltz's “Man, State, and War” - a book that was already problematic when I was an undergrad. Then there is his substack post today where he confuses his definitions, equating American 19th Century westward expansion and various Indian wars with foreign policy within a system of nation-states. Then there are his attacks against Steve and Hadley, illuminated by constructing fields of strawmen, dousing them with incendiary cliches, and setting them alight.
May I recommend that John stop reading things like the Economist and National Review, put down books written in 1959 that were already problematic in 1969, and try something perhaps more relevant? May I suggest “New Makers of Modern Strategy”? Not only is it a series periodically updated to reflect current realities but it actually deals with... strategy.
Miss John wettergreen adams jr: is snobbery a formal value at the end of
history?
Not cliches or snorts; just
careful pondering in those times!
Hal Ladd
I have in mind writing something about that classic article here some time soon.
I have studied john
Wettergreens 1973
paper on Kojeve's
and others New Left
visions.
Much of the study
is a masterful
understanding which,
at that date, sheds
light on our present
politics of confusion.
Hal Ladd
Wow
Peter Diehl has written a 30
page essay titled The Straussian Moment."
It is neither Straussian nor momentary.
Diehl defends Karl Schmitt's
doctrine of "the political."
This Schmitt defined as "friends and enemies."
The essay drives home ideas of Dugin's 4th Political
Theory; a brand which taken at its heart would
eventually leave USA,
CHINA and RUSSIA to battle for a final world
domination.
Diehl writes much directly
about Kojeve and Strauss's
arguments found in "The Introduction to The Reading
of Hegel."
One of the arguments in the book, perhaps pages 159-163, presents the end of history argument; therein
is the view of, which for Hegel was NOW, of the re-animalization of our species.
John Adams Wettergreen jhr. gave us what this "time"
might like in a wonderful
essay titled- Is Snobbery a Formal Value? Considering Life at the End of Modernity.
Wettergreen shows the case for an actual country where the folk live according to the values stated in the title (Japan's long time homogeneous state).
He thus shows a moderate,
yet not lethal alternative.
He gives us an amazing view. The best good that can be had in the present
circunstance.
The goals of those specific to modernity- which are nothing but the goals of "History" and of the "Marxist" Revolution is accomplished by "Capitalistic neo-Imperialists."
How can sincere Marxist feel that "History" has done them
JUSTICE?
Perhaps Wettergreen has tongue in cheek here or maybe there is esotercism
at work. Certainly it is a means of defending morality. Strauss taught that
wisdom and political moderation are harmonius.
Diehl's case is Machiavelli, and Strauss never hesitated to declare Machiavelli to be
a teacher of evil.
Harold Ladd
Check out Harold Ladd
JULY 8, 2025
Steve check this guy out!!!
Activity, comments et
Regarding Tren de Aragua, I seem to remember a certain non-state, criminal actor that by crossing our southern border to cause violence and mayhem incurred a massive military response. I'm thinking of Pancho Villa. Rather than trying to define “invasion” as some sort of Venezuelan re-make of “Red Dawn” perhaps it would be more helpful to think of it as a Venezuelan version of Sr. Villa in 1916
To Lucretia's point about that liquor/gun store in Flagstaff. There used to be a place down the road from home in Chandler, AZ that advertised “Guns. Liquor, and Picnic Supplies.” Remember ATF isn't just a federal agency, it's also your one-stop party HQ.
As much as I like John with his strong Philly vibe, master of all media, and his presence on the show can you please take away his privilege re: speaking on foreign policy? It was bad enough in the past when he would go on about Ukraine and Russian casualty counts, as if our Ukraine policy should be based on a “bubble gum card” strategy of filling out score sheets of tanks destroyed and KIA
However, he has gotten worse. I almost caused on accident on the Beltway last week when he quoted Kenneth Waltz's “Man, State, and War” - a book that was already problematic when I was an undergrad. Then there is his substack post today where he confuses his definitions, equating American 19th Century westward expansion and various Indian wars with foreign policy within a system of nation-states. Then there are his attacks against Steve and Hadley, illuminated by constructing fields of strawmen, dousing them with incendiary cliches, and setting them alight.
May I recommend that John stop reading things like the Economist and National Review, put down books written in 1959 that were already problematic in 1969, and try something perhaps more relevant? May I suggest “New Makers of Modern Strategy”? Not only is it a series periodically updated to reflect current realities but it actually deals with... strategy.
Love the new comment digs. Classy all the way