Letters to Prospect Magazine re: Francis Fukuyama
Introduction by Sean/iNoodle.com:
Below are two letters which I wrote and emailed, yesterday, to Prospect Magazine's editor, David Goodhart, in response to Francis Fukuyama's cover story in the February 2007 issue.
*****
Letter #1
Dear Mr Goodhart:
Why would Prospect run a cover article by Francis Fukuyama at the very time that Straussian political philosophy -- grounded in deception via the "noble lie" and the elevation of an elite few (pseudo-) intellectuals -- has finally become known and shamed, worldwide, due to the lies its adherents propagated and the strategy they initiated with regard to US/UK policy in Iraq? A policy that resulted in the supreme international crime: a war of aggression, as well as myriad war crimes, to say nothing of impeachable domestic offences, as per the now largely shredded US Constitution, committed by the Bush administration, whose oaths of office were pledges to uphold that document, a document and set of democratic ideals which Strauss's backstage choir boys hold in utter contempt.
I hold two master's degrees, in Western and Eastern thought, from St. John's College, a hothouse of Straussianism. Indeed, Leo Strauss spent his final days as the resident scholar at St. John's in Annapolis, Maryland.
I, therefore, know a thing or two about Straussianism first hand, having been subjected to its teachings for several years as a graduate student of philosophy, political and social thought, and classics, East and West.
I am also a former entrepreneur, principal management consultant, and Fortune 100 senior financial and marketing analyst with a degree in finance and business administration.
While Prospect is right to challenge its readers, its editors should realise that the fascistic ideas of Francis Fukuyama should be relegated to the rubbish heap of history, not disseminated via magazines such as yours.
Respectfully yours,
Sean M. Madden
Letter #2
Dear Mr Goodhart:
I should add, too, that this is a particularly dangerous time to grant Straussians a platform from which to hold forth given the ominous drumbeat underway to lead, yet again through deception, the US/UK public toward war with Iran and perhaps beyond.
Only this time, analysts are warning of the possibility of nuclear, rather than "conventional", war.
That Fukuyama has altered his tune since the demise of the Iraq adventure, a misadventure which he was in the forefront of promoting, further signifies his quintessentially Straussian propensity to morph with the winds of time.
This is the ultimate relativistic statement, colloquially stated as "might makes right".
We needn't scour their writings nor attempt to decipher their Straussian code, as actions speak louder than words. For we have witnessed this right, or justice, as the interest of the stronger in the unilateral policies of the US in Iraq and elsewhere, in the steamrolling of international law and of nuclear non-proliferation, in the undermining of the Geneva Conventions, in the outlandish insistence that the US and its armed forces are somehow exempt from International Criminal Court oversight, and, indeed, in the unitary executive himself, The Decider.
But I have learned, as have many of us in the post-Iraq-invasion world, to look, first, to what the Straussians, their political partners, and their organised mobs attack -- be the object of derision a concept, an individual, a group, or a nation -- and then to note with what frequency they vivify that which they deride.
If fascist, smear the enemy as such. If fundamentalist, attack fundamentalism. If un-American (with American defined -- particularly for naturalised US citizens, i.e., immigrants -- as those who have pledged allegiance to the Constitution), simply deem the opposition, those scrambling to uphold the Constitution, as un-American.
And, so, those most responsible for undermining the Constitution -- the document which against all odds managed to unify Americans on both sides of the aisle as well as those of various misfit political stripes left to talk amongst themselves beyond the pale, on neither side -- have the gall to proclaim, as Fukuyama does above, the "need to uncover those positive virtues that define what it means to be a member of the wider society". The Constitution, pre-Straussian-demolition, did exactly that.
With Iran now clearly in the sights of, possibly a nuclear, attack, bestowing yet more exposure to the likes of Francis Fukuyama is thoroughly misguided at best, or intensely dangerous to all of humanity at worst.
In closing, I would greatly appreciate hearing from you, either privately or within Prospect, in response to my letters. While this and my previous letter have been dashed off in immediate response to Fukuyama's latest article, I would welcome, too, the opportunity to write a full-length article for publication within your next issue, should those who continue to be truly inspired by the ideals of the Enlightenment remain welcome within Prospect's pages.
Sincerely yours,
Sean M. Madden
Below are two letters which I wrote and emailed, yesterday, to Prospect Magazine's editor, David Goodhart, in response to Francis Fukuyama's cover story in the February 2007 issue.
Letter #1
Dear Mr Goodhart:
Why would Prospect run a cover article by Francis Fukuyama at the very time that Straussian political philosophy -- grounded in deception via the "noble lie" and the elevation of an elite few (pseudo-) intellectuals -- has finally become known and shamed, worldwide, due to the lies its adherents propagated and the strategy they initiated with regard to US/UK policy in Iraq? A policy that resulted in the supreme international crime: a war of aggression, as well as myriad war crimes, to say nothing of impeachable domestic offences, as per the now largely shredded US Constitution, committed by the Bush administration, whose oaths of office were pledges to uphold that document, a document and set of democratic ideals which Strauss's backstage choir boys hold in utter contempt.
I hold two master's degrees, in Western and Eastern thought, from St. John's College, a hothouse of Straussianism. Indeed, Leo Strauss spent his final days as the resident scholar at St. John's in Annapolis, Maryland.
I, therefore, know a thing or two about Straussianism first hand, having been subjected to its teachings for several years as a graduate student of philosophy, political and social thought, and classics, East and West.
I am also a former entrepreneur, principal management consultant, and Fortune 100 senior financial and marketing analyst with a degree in finance and business administration.
While Prospect is right to challenge its readers, its editors should realise that the fascistic ideas of Francis Fukuyama should be relegated to the rubbish heap of history, not disseminated via magazines such as yours.
Respectfully yours,
Sean M. Madden
Letter #2
Dear Mr Goodhart:
I should add, too, that this is a particularly dangerous time to grant Straussians a platform from which to hold forth given the ominous drumbeat underway to lead, yet again through deception, the US/UK public toward war with Iran and perhaps beyond.
Only this time, analysts are warning of the possibility of nuclear, rather than "conventional", war.
That Fukuyama has altered his tune since the demise of the Iraq adventure, a misadventure which he was in the forefront of promoting, further signifies his quintessentially Straussian propensity to morph with the winds of time.
The dilemma of immigration and identity ultimately converges with the larger problem of the valuelessness of postmodernity. The rise of relativism has made it harder for postmodern people to assert positive values and therefore the kinds of shared beliefs that they demand of migrants as a condition for citizenship. Postmodern elites, particularly those in Europe, feel that they have evolved beyond identities defined by religion and nation and have arrived at a superior place. But aside from their celebration of endless diversity and tolerance, postmodern people find it difficult to agree on the substance of the good life to which they aspire in common.How utterly cynical are the Straussians, who have learned well to lead the attack so as not to be questioned themselves. Their rabid attacks on relativism as the pathology of postmodern society are a sham, a case of the pot calling the kettle black. For while advocating that the good and the bad exist beyond conditionality, Straussians tend to undermine classic liberal (by which I refer to those Enlightenment ideals upon which modern Western societies are grounded, not the left-of-centre connotation in common use) political philosophy to uphold, instead, Thrasymachus's proposition within Book I of Plato's Republic that the just is simply the advantage of the stronger.
Immigration forces upon us in a particularly acute way discussion of the question "Who are we?", posed by Samuel Huntington. If postmodern societies are to move towards a more serious discussion of identity, they will need to uncover those positive virtues that define what it means to be a member of the wider society. If they do not, they may be overwhelmed by people who are more sure about who they are.
This is the ultimate relativistic statement, colloquially stated as "might makes right".
We needn't scour their writings nor attempt to decipher their Straussian code, as actions speak louder than words. For we have witnessed this right, or justice, as the interest of the stronger in the unilateral policies of the US in Iraq and elsewhere, in the steamrolling of international law and of nuclear non-proliferation, in the undermining of the Geneva Conventions, in the outlandish insistence that the US and its armed forces are somehow exempt from International Criminal Court oversight, and, indeed, in the unitary executive himself, The Decider.
But I have learned, as have many of us in the post-Iraq-invasion world, to look, first, to what the Straussians, their political partners, and their organised mobs attack -- be the object of derision a concept, an individual, a group, or a nation -- and then to note with what frequency they vivify that which they deride.
If fascist, smear the enemy as such. If fundamentalist, attack fundamentalism. If un-American (with American defined -- particularly for naturalised US citizens, i.e., immigrants -- as those who have pledged allegiance to the Constitution), simply deem the opposition, those scrambling to uphold the Constitution, as un-American.
And, so, those most responsible for undermining the Constitution -- the document which against all odds managed to unify Americans on both sides of the aisle as well as those of various misfit political stripes left to talk amongst themselves beyond the pale, on neither side -- have the gall to proclaim, as Fukuyama does above, the "need to uncover those positive virtues that define what it means to be a member of the wider society". The Constitution, pre-Straussian-demolition, did exactly that.
With Iran now clearly in the sights of, possibly a nuclear, attack, bestowing yet more exposure to the likes of Francis Fukuyama is thoroughly misguided at best, or intensely dangerous to all of humanity at worst.
In closing, I would greatly appreciate hearing from you, either privately or within Prospect, in response to my letters. While this and my previous letter have been dashed off in immediate response to Fukuyama's latest article, I would welcome, too, the opportunity to write a full-length article for publication within your next issue, should those who continue to be truly inspired by the ideals of the Enlightenment remain welcome within Prospect's pages.
Sincerely yours,
Sean M. Madden
posted by Sean M. Madden at
10:15 AM
)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home