Thanks. By all accounts hip replacement is much easier rehab than knee. Since my wife took so well to the knee replacements (but has been hampered by sciatica and arthritic hip) we have hopes that the hip replacement will make a difference. Progress on the sciatica has been slow. Yesterday we did one of our favorite outings, taking our grandson to the Botanic Gardens, while I push the wheelchair. Around the house and for shorter outings my wife can use the walker.
10 years ago my mom (then 86) was walking 3 days after hip replacement surgery. I hope it goes that well for your wife.
The botanical gardens is a choice. My parents took my young daughters to the Queens NY botanical gardens frequently and it is one of their favorite memories. You are doing everything right. God bless you
My Mum recovered from a hip replacement at age 90. The trick is to get moving as quickly as possible. I hope Mrs Wauck will recover well. I do hope the sciatica will get sorted as well. Bless her.
Thanks. Through her two knee replacements and the sciatica she has done here therapy very determinedly. The sciatica has improved, but very gradually. Ways to go.
Interesting article although I struggle to understand the nuances inherent in the different flavours of Zionism. What I really struggle to understand is why powerful Zionists who apparently control so much of our Western political elite through political donations have allowed, indeed encouraged, the flood of Muslim immigration into Western countries and deliberately incited the left wing, especially left wing Jews, to sympathise passionately with Palestine and Islamists, which is now manifesting in a vehement antisemitism that is surely hostile to their agenda? Or is fomenting this conflict all part of the plan to bring on some longed-for Armageddon?
Interesting! I’m listening to a fantastic podcast series at the moment called History of the Crusades and it seems Christians, Muslims and Jews have been at war and scheming with and against each others for centuries and still are. It’s just this wonderful woman, Sharyn Eastaugh, who seems to be phenomenally knowledgeable on the topic, telling the stories and all about the leading players of the Crusades. You can see how history is driven by the lust for money and power but also by the family connections and, very much, the personal character of the participants. https://crusadespod.com/extras/
Most everyone today practices a cafeteria variety of those religions. We'd be in prison following it to the T. Problem is some Israeli Jews and some fundamentalist Muslims do not pick and choose so the conflict continues.
Because they hate the Christendom at least as much as the Ummah and more divided we are the weaker we are. A house divided can not stand. Its not just Muslims the Jewish orgs work diligently to import to the West. Any cultural disrupters will do -manchette wielding black Africans to sub-machine gun wielding south American gangs. Also, according the classic Plato and Aristotle theory of tyranny, the more heterogeneous a population, the less able it is to articulate itself and have a democratic say, and then Jewish oligarchs can then decide everything - as is the case today about any major issues in US and W Europe. Banking war etc. and most importantly Israel. The people are too consumed with cultural issues to pay attention to that stuff now.
Before, when we were homogeneous, 90% white Christian, we blocked Israel's craziness all the time. Settlement building etc...JFK blocking their nukes got him killed.. with James Baker probably being the last Western statesman who could/did in any significant way.
Finally, one day,, as they approach 30-50%, the Muslim immigrants in Europe, will inevitably lead to open conflict for cultural supremacy, where the native population will either prevail and reclaim their lands, or perish completely as a people. There will be "rivers of blood". That's suits them fine.
Americans are bystanders to the debate between Neocons and Revisionist Zionists. We get no say. Our elected “representatives” collect the money and send the weapons.
Interesting post Mark. Full disclosure, I did my doctoral studies at Claremont where Strauss/Jaffa was/still is in influence. Though I held some heretical views among that crowd.
What was Strauss’s “battle?” He was brought over by the Rockefeller $, as were many Germans of that era. Rockefeller $ was spread around among many foundations and ideas regarding the medical and social sciences. What were the social sciences supposed to do? Social engineering./construction. Plain and simple. Though ultimately failed.
Strauss was an advocate of Socrates/Plato, not Aristotle. Why? It is often said because of the need for a civic society and the need for philosophy. Bur this is incorrect. Socrates was viewed as describing the need for a full articulation of politics forming the society. The Republic and the Laws should be read together. Philosophy becomes a fig leaf of sorts.
Strauss’s job was to offer a view of “modernity” (think ELECTRIC) that had gone too far and the way to tame humans became the many ideas of early modernism or PRINT, thus his emphasis of Great Books programs. He wrote on Spinoza, among others, as trying to bring about peace by separating religion and politics: the fracturing of man that happens in the PRINT era.
The irony becomes that PRINT is the ground of Protestantism. The Book! Luther becomes Calvin and sinful Man must adhere to the Law of the Book to be saved, and the technology of the Modern either keeps the peace, Nukes, or it brings on the End Times.
Strauss, and others, including Jaffa, made the Protestant Reformation, and thus America, the City on the Hill in the post WWII era and Israel it’s child: a tame version of Globalism that will bring peace by making “religion” a threat or dagger at the heart of democracy. With the return of religion signifying the “end” to be avoided or wished for depending on one’s perspective.
As for Judaism being “archaic” recall that the first books of the Old Testament are written not in the archaic times, but in light of captivity and a return to Jerusalem out of a fear that Jews would not have a memory of what it meant to be Jewish.
"Strauss was an advocate of Socrates/Plato, not Aristotle. Why? It is often said because of the need for a civic society and the need for philosophy. Bur this is incorrect. ..."
Yes.
"Strauss, and others, including Jaffa, made the Protestant Reformation, and thus America, the City on the Hill ... With the return of religion signifying the “end” to be avoided or wished for depending on one’s perspective."
See my earlier MiH for the distinction between faith and religion. For Eric Voegelin Protestantism signifies the breaking in of Gnosticism to the social institutions of the West--the return of religion and the ousting of faith (The New Science of Politics). Voegelin was a lifelong Lutheran, of sorts. IOW, the Lutheran, and generally Protestant, concept of "faith" is not a Christian concept. Again, cf. Voegelin. Of course, Catholic thinking has devolved into a variant of that in its modernist form, and even so-called traditionalist forms suffer from that influence. Judaism in its modern form is very much under that influence.
"As for Judaism being “archaic” recall that the first books of the Old Testament are written not in the archaic times, but in light of captivity and a return to Jerusalem out of a fear that Jews would not have a memory of what it meant to be Jewish."
'Archaic' is a technical term for Eliade (Cosmos and History/Myth of the Eternal Return). Judaism as a development from Israelite religion breaks out of archaic thought in the direction of gnostic ideology. Thus its kinship to Protestantism, which avowedly embraces "OT religion".
Absolutely more can be said Mark. The ELECTRIC paradigm (1850 to 2000), particularly TELEVISION (1950 to 2000) retrieved the archaic (ORAL). Thus all the Gnosticism. Strauss’ study of Heidegger is instructive here. Voegelin tried to get a discussion with Strauss going on this and Strauss just stopped responding to his letters. McLuhan tried to talk with Voegelin about this and Voegelin stopped responding…
That was a fascinating read from Crooke, thank you for your explication.
I had a couple of thoughts.
1. "The Clean Break Strategy [1996] advocated the elimination of Yasser Arafat; the annexation of the Palestinian territories; a war against Iraq and the transfer of Palestinians there." WHAT?
2. Did Strauss ever consider living between the polarities of Abraham and Socrates... by living in Christ? Or are we not supposed to notice that THAT option is not on their menu? We are to continue in the evangelical tradition of denominational indifference as we sympathize with Jews who employ esoterism. Nobody is lying to us. They engage in an esoteric exercise to assert political hegemony to guard against a new Shoah (holocaust). The ends justify the means.
I wish people would stop going around suggesting Strauss & Co. are just guarding against a new holocaust. That makes them seem like lovable rogues. They are not lovable rogues; they are human darkness unleashed and ungoverned except at its own pleasure.
Why won't the numerically superior Russian army encircle the Ukrainian troops which have entered Russia without a supply line or reinforcements...cut them off from retreat...and annihilate them?
Thanks for the excellent post! Strauss' "Noble Lie" strategy certainly is being well employed by the Revisionist Zionists in their dealings with the West. I never grasped the extent of the interconnections between Strauss and the Neoconservative movement and the Revisionist Zionists before. It is interesting that there are Neocons (excepting Lindsey Graham) at some odds with the Zionists as regards expansion of the ME war.
For anyone interested, here is a (dated - 2008 I believe) chart I found a few years back showing the players, lineages, and organizations in the NeoCon movement. Strauss is prominent. The chart is from the WaPo archives:
Great chart! Very informative. Connects a lot of dots. Much to think about. There are certainly some terrible folks on the list. I'm surprised the Wapo hasn't buried it.
Interestingly, other than Churchill and Trotsky, who did hold high government office, but were hardly American Neocons, the only elected official I could find on the list is Donald Rumsfeld (twice), who is almost certainly not on the list because he served in Congress.
I'm not sure that fervent Neoconservatism is an attractive electoral position. It seems to work better behind the scenes and in the deep and dark crevices of Govt ops. Kinda like a cult.
(I also always knew I didn't much like the smug and arrogant little Rumsfeld.)
Are there really Neocons opposed to Zionist goals? Perhaps one ot two, but the cynic in me would say that Ms Harris and her owners are struggling to make a totally disingenuous election season case to the somewhat fractured Dem Party for both a cease-fire and also unqualified support for the Netanyahu regime. If we are lucky enough to get Ms Harris for four more years, I would expect the Neocons to absolutely revert to form. Why wouldn't they?
Agreed. I don't doubt they are in alignment with the goals. Any differences between them would appear to be as regards the best way and the timeline to achieve them, given the limitations of the Israeli and U.S. militaries; and given Neocon designs on Russia and China.
In addition to the tactical and strategic craziness of a Ukraine invasion of Russia which Col. Macgregor notes, please also note the reaction of a commenter to the YouTube version of Col. Davis' interview:
"Let’s all take a moment and understand just how many more Ukrainian lives are being lost through this reckless action by the Ukrainian government. Men that will never see their families again and will further deplete Ukraine. This is truly tragic."
Macgregor correctly says this attack is a debacle.
Oh, and best wishes to your wife for safe and successful surgery(s) and rapid recovery
Thanks. By all accounts hip replacement is much easier rehab than knee. Since my wife took so well to the knee replacements (but has been hampered by sciatica and arthritic hip) we have hopes that the hip replacement will make a difference. Progress on the sciatica has been slow. Yesterday we did one of our favorite outings, taking our grandson to the Botanic Gardens, while I push the wheelchair. Around the house and for shorter outings my wife can use the walker.
10 years ago my mom (then 86) was walking 3 days after hip replacement surgery. I hope it goes that well for your wife.
The botanical gardens is a choice. My parents took my young daughters to the Queens NY botanical gardens frequently and it is one of their favorite memories. You are doing everything right. God bless you
Thanks for the encouragement. We went to have a root canal done this afternoon and the endodontist had a similar story to tell about his mother.
My Mum recovered from a hip replacement at age 90. The trick is to get moving as quickly as possible. I hope Mrs Wauck will recover well. I do hope the sciatica will get sorted as well. Bless her.
Thanks. Through her two knee replacements and the sciatica she has done here therapy very determinedly. The sciatica has improved, but very gradually. Ways to go.
Wow. That Danny Davis-Doug McGregor video was totally worth watching. Thank you for suggesting and sharing grandpa ☺️
On fire.
Interesting article although I struggle to understand the nuances inherent in the different flavours of Zionism. What I really struggle to understand is why powerful Zionists who apparently control so much of our Western political elite through political donations have allowed, indeed encouraged, the flood of Muslim immigration into Western countries and deliberately incited the left wing, especially left wing Jews, to sympathise passionately with Palestine and Islamists, which is now manifesting in a vehement antisemitism that is surely hostile to their agenda? Or is fomenting this conflict all part of the plan to bring on some longed-for Armageddon?
To dilute the Christian heritage of the West, which is viewed as victimizing the Chosen.
Interesting! I’m listening to a fantastic podcast series at the moment called History of the Crusades and it seems Christians, Muslims and Jews have been at war and scheming with and against each others for centuries and still are. It’s just this wonderful woman, Sharyn Eastaugh, who seems to be phenomenally knowledgeable on the topic, telling the stories and all about the leading players of the Crusades. You can see how history is driven by the lust for money and power but also by the family connections and, very much, the personal character of the participants. https://crusadespod.com/extras/
Most everyone today practices a cafeteria variety of those religions. We'd be in prison following it to the T. Problem is some Israeli Jews and some fundamentalist Muslims do not pick and choose so the conflict continues.
Because they hate the Christendom at least as much as the Ummah and more divided we are the weaker we are. A house divided can not stand. Its not just Muslims the Jewish orgs work diligently to import to the West. Any cultural disrupters will do -manchette wielding black Africans to sub-machine gun wielding south American gangs. Also, according the classic Plato and Aristotle theory of tyranny, the more heterogeneous a population, the less able it is to articulate itself and have a democratic say, and then Jewish oligarchs can then decide everything - as is the case today about any major issues in US and W Europe. Banking war etc. and most importantly Israel. The people are too consumed with cultural issues to pay attention to that stuff now.
Before, when we were homogeneous, 90% white Christian, we blocked Israel's craziness all the time. Settlement building etc...JFK blocking their nukes got him killed.. with James Baker probably being the last Western statesman who could/did in any significant way.
Finally, one day,, as they approach 30-50%, the Muslim immigrants in Europe, will inevitably lead to open conflict for cultural supremacy, where the native population will either prevail and reclaim their lands, or perish completely as a people. There will be "rivers of blood". That's suits them fine.
This part:
Americans are bystanders to the debate between Neocons and Revisionist Zionists. We get no say. Our elected “representatives” collect the money and send the weapons.
Interesting post Mark. Full disclosure, I did my doctoral studies at Claremont where Strauss/Jaffa was/still is in influence. Though I held some heretical views among that crowd.
What was Strauss’s “battle?” He was brought over by the Rockefeller $, as were many Germans of that era. Rockefeller $ was spread around among many foundations and ideas regarding the medical and social sciences. What were the social sciences supposed to do? Social engineering./construction. Plain and simple. Though ultimately failed.
Strauss was an advocate of Socrates/Plato, not Aristotle. Why? It is often said because of the need for a civic society and the need for philosophy. Bur this is incorrect. Socrates was viewed as describing the need for a full articulation of politics forming the society. The Republic and the Laws should be read together. Philosophy becomes a fig leaf of sorts.
Strauss’s job was to offer a view of “modernity” (think ELECTRIC) that had gone too far and the way to tame humans became the many ideas of early modernism or PRINT, thus his emphasis of Great Books programs. He wrote on Spinoza, among others, as trying to bring about peace by separating religion and politics: the fracturing of man that happens in the PRINT era.
The irony becomes that PRINT is the ground of Protestantism. The Book! Luther becomes Calvin and sinful Man must adhere to the Law of the Book to be saved, and the technology of the Modern either keeps the peace, Nukes, or it brings on the End Times.
Strauss, and others, including Jaffa, made the Protestant Reformation, and thus America, the City on the Hill in the post WWII era and Israel it’s child: a tame version of Globalism that will bring peace by making “religion” a threat or dagger at the heart of democracy. With the return of religion signifying the “end” to be avoided or wished for depending on one’s perspective.
As for Judaism being “archaic” recall that the first books of the Old Testament are written not in the archaic times, but in light of captivity and a return to Jerusalem out of a fear that Jews would not have a memory of what it meant to be Jewish.
"Strauss was an advocate of Socrates/Plato, not Aristotle. Why? It is often said because of the need for a civic society and the need for philosophy. Bur this is incorrect. ..."
Yes.
"Strauss, and others, including Jaffa, made the Protestant Reformation, and thus America, the City on the Hill ... With the return of religion signifying the “end” to be avoided or wished for depending on one’s perspective."
See my earlier MiH for the distinction between faith and religion. For Eric Voegelin Protestantism signifies the breaking in of Gnosticism to the social institutions of the West--the return of religion and the ousting of faith (The New Science of Politics). Voegelin was a lifelong Lutheran, of sorts. IOW, the Lutheran, and generally Protestant, concept of "faith" is not a Christian concept. Again, cf. Voegelin. Of course, Catholic thinking has devolved into a variant of that in its modernist form, and even so-called traditionalist forms suffer from that influence. Judaism in its modern form is very much under that influence.
"As for Judaism being “archaic” recall that the first books of the Old Testament are written not in the archaic times, but in light of captivity and a return to Jerusalem out of a fear that Jews would not have a memory of what it meant to be Jewish."
'Archaic' is a technical term for Eliade (Cosmos and History/Myth of the Eternal Return). Judaism as a development from Israelite religion breaks out of archaic thought in the direction of gnostic ideology. Thus its kinship to Protestantism, which avowedly embraces "OT religion".
Much more could be said.
Absolutely more can be said Mark. The ELECTRIC paradigm (1850 to 2000), particularly TELEVISION (1950 to 2000) retrieved the archaic (ORAL). Thus all the Gnosticism. Strauss’ study of Heidegger is instructive here. Voegelin tried to get a discussion with Strauss going on this and Strauss just stopped responding to his letters. McLuhan tried to talk with Voegelin about this and Voegelin stopped responding…
That was a fascinating read from Crooke, thank you for your explication.
I had a couple of thoughts.
1. "The Clean Break Strategy [1996] advocated the elimination of Yasser Arafat; the annexation of the Palestinian territories; a war against Iraq and the transfer of Palestinians there." WHAT?
2. Did Strauss ever consider living between the polarities of Abraham and Socrates... by living in Christ? Or are we not supposed to notice that THAT option is not on their menu? We are to continue in the evangelical tradition of denominational indifference as we sympathize with Jews who employ esoterism. Nobody is lying to us. They engage in an esoteric exercise to assert political hegemony to guard against a new Shoah (holocaust). The ends justify the means.
I wish people would stop going around suggesting Strauss & Co. are just guarding against a new holocaust. That makes them seem like lovable rogues. They are not lovable rogues; they are human darkness unleashed and ungoverned except at its own pleasure.
"They engage in an esoteric exercise to assert political hegemony to guard against a new Shoah (holocaust)."
Rather than use reason (compromise, diplomacy, mutual respect) to eliminate the possible causes of a new Shoah.
That would involve questioning of basic identity concepts, cf. Lindemann's Esau's Tears.
Why won't the numerically superior Russian army encircle the Ukrainian troops which have entered Russia without a supply line or reinforcements...cut them off from retreat...and annihilate them?
That's essentially what appears to be in process. I've seen reports on that.
Otto von Bismarck: armies that invade Russia rarely, if ever, return.
Big Serge came out with an extensive treatment of the Kursk operation today, including potential objectives of it and some military details:
https://bigserge.substack.com/p/back-to-the-bloodlands-operation?publication_id=1068853&post_id=147487790&isFreemail=true&r=rjj5o&triedRedirect=true
He, like other commentators, is scratching his head at what Ukraine must have been thinking to launch this operation.
Thanks for the excellent post! Strauss' "Noble Lie" strategy certainly is being well employed by the Revisionist Zionists in their dealings with the West. I never grasped the extent of the interconnections between Strauss and the Neoconservative movement and the Revisionist Zionists before. It is interesting that there are Neocons (excepting Lindsey Graham) at some odds with the Zionists as regards expansion of the ME war.
For anyone interested, here is a (dated - 2008 I believe) chart I found a few years back showing the players, lineages, and organizations in the NeoCon movement. Strauss is prominent. The chart is from the WaPo archives:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/02/01/GR2008020102389.html
Interesting that they posit Trotsky as the intellectual forefather of the movement.
@dissonant1
Great chart! Very informative. Connects a lot of dots. Much to think about. There are certainly some terrible folks on the list. I'm surprised the Wapo hasn't buried it.
Interestingly, other than Churchill and Trotsky, who did hold high government office, but were hardly American Neocons, the only elected official I could find on the list is Donald Rumsfeld (twice), who is almost certainly not on the list because he served in Congress.
I'm not sure that fervent Neoconservatism is an attractive electoral position. It seems to work better behind the scenes and in the deep and dark crevices of Govt ops. Kinda like a cult.
(I also always knew I didn't much like the smug and arrogant little Rumsfeld.)
Channeling Carlin, it's a big cult and we're not in it.
Are there really Neocons opposed to Zionist goals? Perhaps one ot two, but the cynic in me would say that Ms Harris and her owners are struggling to make a totally disingenuous election season case to the somewhat fractured Dem Party for both a cease-fire and also unqualified support for the Netanyahu regime. If we are lucky enough to get Ms Harris for four more years, I would expect the Neocons to absolutely revert to form. Why wouldn't they?
Agreed. I don't doubt they are in alignment with the goals. Any differences between them would appear to be as regards the best way and the timeline to achieve them, given the limitations of the Israeli and U.S. militaries; and given Neocon designs on Russia and China.
In addition to the tactical and strategic craziness of a Ukraine invasion of Russia which Col. Macgregor notes, please also note the reaction of a commenter to the YouTube version of Col. Davis' interview:
"Let’s all take a moment and understand just how many more Ukrainian lives are being lost through this reckless action by the Ukrainian government. Men that will never see their families again and will further deplete Ukraine. This is truly tragic."
Macgregor correctly says this attack is a debacle.
It will, however, advance the de-nazification goals of the SMO.
Well, yes. But one has to wonder what will be the future of whatever Ukrainian state (and its people) which emerges from the horror of this war.