The Straussian Deception of Conservatives

Letters from O'Brien #49

Over the past few weeks, I have begun to familiarise myself with a particularly odd undercurrent within the western conservative right; and that is the philosophy of Leo Strauss. Initially perceived as a Marxist thinker, Strauss soon became popular in the west after criticising the Soviet Union. By the 1950s, Strauss was often considered a conservative thinker, and indeed he was even acquainted with many notable right-wing thinkers (such as Eric Voeglin), and his philosophy had begun to envelop the conservative right. Today we see his philosophy everywhere in the mainstream right, and the recent controversy surrounding the Daily Wire and the firing of Candace Owens exemplifies this.

In this letter I will highlight the emergence of the Straussian right, what it actually refers to, and why it is fundamentally at odds with the traditional idea of conservatism which had existed before the 1950s. Know that I am currently using the term ‘Straussian’ to refer to this movement, as it is the best term I am aware of that not only implicates the Neocons, but other ’normal’ conservatives who may actually hold some anti-conservative views. Other commentators have also used this term, although it is vague, so perhaps I will find a better term in the future, but for now stay with me...

PAINTING A PICTURE

Let’s consider the conservative movement in America broadly broken into two primary categories; the neo-conservative movement, and the Straussian conservatives which emerged in the 1950s. They are more than closely linked. In fact, the neo-conservatives, who’s ideology largely comes from Irving Kristol, were also influenced by Strauss. The Straussians have some sway over smaller movements such as the populist and dissident right, and have many breakaway movements themselves, most notoriously the ‘neo-reactionary right’, who turn to the controversial and shocking (thus adding a false layer of ‘dissident legitimacy’) by promoting ideas such as racialism, yet beyond this they continue to align themselves with the prevailing ideals of modernity; namely a faith in biological evolution as the foundation for reality, a rejection of Christianity, a rejection of true nationalism, and a subliminal push for unrestricted markets (which in a multipolar society results in degeneracy and corruption, in my humble opinion).

In what may have been an attempt to ‘prove itself’ as something shocking and alternative, many of the more outspoken thinkers in this movement began to label it as ‘Neoreactionary’. This movement - primarily composed of thinkers who claim to be against ‘democracy’, ‘communism’ and other such supposed ‘deceptions’ - are in fact still aligned with the grand narrative, which I will detail in just a moment. As I have said many times before; these beliefs deviate in outwards specifics and semantics, but their core is the same. They oppose the idea of a nation for its own people. They oppose the idea of religion, and certainly of a single national religion. A good experiment is to imagine how these thinkers would fare in an earlier age - which they supposedly long for with their calls for the abolition of democracy and the establishment of a monarchy. They would very quickly be banished from any European realm, as they oppose the Christian ideals from that time, but more on that later…

DECEPTIVE BELIEFS

In terms of the neo-reactionary movement, these thinkers regularly refer to themselves as ‘libertarians’ or ‘paleo-libertarians’ while also playing into the neo-reactionary movements. They will regularly talk about race and IQ, the flaws of democracy, the failures of the enlightenment, and so forth. Yet once again, these surface level issues are as far as they go.

The ‘controversial’ neo reactionary right - for example - are often anti-democratic monarchists, promoting the idea of ‘race realism’, claiming that America needs an authoritarian government, and that society should be structured around a stronger, more explicit hierarchy. These so-called controversial opinions are shallow deceptions. Dig deeper and one will quickly find that the Straussians calling for such things as an American Caesar will quickly do a backflip on such notions if the Caesar happens to promote Christianity, and especially if an ethnically white European.

Now what about some other common beliefs in this movement? Some claim to be in favour of same-sex marriage, freedom of religion, and the removal of any law or policy which singles out one race, group, or gender from another. They claim that conservatives should ‘relax’ when it comes to multiculturalism, because it will ‘figure itself out’. This is clearly a deceptive lie; demographically speaking, multiculturalism is irreversible unless there is some form of direct government intervention.

What else do they believe? Well, a common theme in the reactionary right more broadly is the belief that the government should be abolished and replaced by a ‘tech-CEO dictatorship’ (the position held by billionaire Peter Thiel - a self-admitted Straussian). This comes from an anti-enlightenment view which holds that populism and democracy are failed ideas which allow the masses to manifest their collective (and ‘uninformed’) will.

Now we see a connection to the mainstream conservatives in America. Note that these views on society are held by most conservatives inspired by the Straussian right; from those just mentioned, through to the likes of Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, Eric and Bret Weinstein (who work for Thiel’s capital management firm), Dennis Prager, and many more. Almost all claim to stand for a conservatism rooted in classical America yet advocate for modernist ideals such as a nation unbound from any one religion, people group, or set of morals. This contradiction will soon make sense when looking at the Straussian view on history, which I will note later.

When it comes to economics, it is the same. The Straussian right believe in the most extreme form of small government and free market (basically the Austrian School of economics) in which the state has practically zero intervention into the market. In theory this sounds good but consider the views of the Straussian right (multiculturalism, religious pluralism, no set morals). Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations assumed that if everyone acted in their own best interest, then they would also be acting in the best interest of society as a whole, thus a free market would propel the economy and society upwards. He was correct, but he also lived in a somewhat unified Christian society. We do not - and from the sounds of it the Straussian right doesn’t want such a unified Christian society. Now consider this; without a moral foundation adopted by those within our society, or a sense of cultural and historical unity, who is to say that a free market (or democracy) will not descend into degeneracy? I’m sure it will. In our society today, the ‘free market’ (which is still partially held back) already promotes harmful degeneracy in the form of porn, and online prostitution (onlyfans). If it were completely free of state intervention and dictated only by the lusts and desires of the consumer, who knows just how bad it could get. Degeneracy is big business, thus the market supposedly ‘demands it’. Why? Because there is no unity nor moral foundation for our society anymore, and individuals are driven by the lowest common denominator; fleshly carnal desires, and these ultimately result in the suffering of others. Thus, it could be claimed that in an un-unified, multi-religious society, the goal would be to get someone with classical morals into power, who would control the market insomuch as they are able to stop the spread of harmful material, thus preserving the wellbeing of the nation.

What is this ‘tech dictatorship’ (in the case of Thiel)? Who exactly would be governing it? What would its views on cultural, nationalism, and people groups be? What values would it promote? It is clear what is going on here. Note that none of this is traditionally conservative, as they claim. In centuries gone by, kingdoms and realms had distinct peoples with distinct value systems, religions, and practices. When a foreign people came in, bringing their foreign practices, much caution was taken by the kings and rulers, so that no harm or corruption would fall upon the nation and its beliefs. In Europe, this was Christianity, and for the founding fathers it was Christianity. The Straussians do not believe in Christianity, so one can only assume that what they are promoting is the same type of multicultural religious pluralism that has already destroyed much of the west. Who cares about race IQ, anti-democracy, and this other idiocy. It is all a distraction to cloud the fact that the primary organising factor within a society is the unified belief in God and the morals that come with it.

HISTORY OF THE STRAUSSIANS

So, there are many within the modern ‘libertarian’ and conservative movement - the ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ being a primary group - who all rose to prominence and espoused Straussian concepts. But who was Strauss, and what were the specifics of his ‘conservative’ beliefs?

During the late 1940s, many former Communists - who had defended Lenin, Stalin, and the genocidal regime during its purge of 66 million Christians - began to turn against the Soviet Union. Many of these intellectuals appear to have experienced a legitimate change in their belief (such as Arthur Koestler), yet there were others who merely pivoted to another form of anti-western rhetoric.

In the political centre Karl Popper would emerge championing a new form of liberalism with his book ‘The Open Society and its Enemies’, which laid the foundation for post-war America, and its rejection of a single religion and American culture. On the political left were the Critical Theorists who had emigrated from Germany to New York. On the political right was a variety of confused movements. To me it appears that the conservative movement was in disarray after World War 2, since the traditional ideas of nationalism, culture, and unified people were under scrutiny thanks to Germany and Imperial Japan’s views on ‘people’ and ‘nation’. It appears to have been risky to even promote these ideas following the war.

In the 1950s, Leo Strauss’s anti-Soviet rhetoric began to catch on with conservatives. While he criticised Marxism, Strauss was in no way a ‘conservative’, and as far as I am aware, he didn’t call himself one either. He appears to have had a diverse group of friends, from Kabbalah mystics (Gershom Shalom) to Critical Theorists, to liberals and conservatives. However, his bias did indeed lean towards the more liberal types. I will get into this later. What is important to note for the time being is that Strauss was not a ‘conservative’, he merely was a critic of Marxism and the Soviet model.

Traditional American conservatism as it was previously known for decades was really fleshed out during the French Revolution. As I have noted before, the decent American people initially supported the French Revolution as being another fight for liberty (the freedom to pursue greatness), yet quickly it became clear that the French were creating a bloodbath, fighting for a ‘liberty’ which - as they themselves enshrined in their constitution - was the freedom to do whatever one wanted so long as it did not contradict the law. In response, many Americans began to push back against these new ideas, in favour of ‘conserving’ older values and a more traditional outlook.

Among the most influential of the early American conservatives was Edmund Burke. One of the important points of Burke’s philosophy was the rejection of universalist politics. To Burke, politicians had to particularise their politics to suit a particular people, in a particular time and context. This stood in contrast to the view of the Platonic thinkers, who viewed ‘the people’ as abstract categories which could be sorted and dealt with using universalist methods, regardless of context or people group. Of important consideration is that Burke did not reject universal (and divine) truths but believed that a one-solution-fits-all approach would inevitably lead to the failure of a political system. This is notable, as it can insinuate that ethnic divisions (such as different cultures clashing) impedes upon conventional political processes, such as democracy - a claim which Straussian conservatives would never dare make.

One of the first distinct contradictions which emerged between the Straussians and the old Conservatives was in regards to the founding of the United States. The older conservatives held that the Founding Fathers created an independent nation in response to a particular contextual issue; there were injustices being committed by the English, which actually contradicted English Christian law and morals. The founding fathers viewed themselves as Englishmen who were entitled to the liberties afforded by the English, and the founding of the US was the ultimate response.

To the Straussians, the founding of the US was a propositional universalist project to create a society in which all men were equal, and in which ‘liberty’ (in the corrupted, modernist sense) was of top priority. Note that while this does not necessarily contradict the Burkian view, this worldview does inherently point to modern ‘liberalism’ as the goal of (and the outcome of) the American ideal.

Where the two philosophies truly drift apart is in regard to Americanism itself. Strauss was not a fan of the ‘Christian west’. Indeed, he and his followers have regularly attempted to downplay the role of Christianity and its values in the formation of the western world. Few nations exemplify this formation as much as America, which wrote into its founding documents the Christian principles to guide it. To the Straussians, Christianity holds little of value over any other system of religion. Here one notices a connection between the philosophies of Strauss, and those of Karl Popper and the Open Society model.

It is interesting then that the Straussians - who often claim to be against liberalism, the enlightenment, and so on - are indeed advocates of the Open Society model, albeit subtly. They still promote the idea of religious pluralism, of multiculturalism, of anti-Christian immorality. What then separates the Straussian conservatives from the liberals following Popper? Better yet, what differentiates them from the Critical Theorists such as Herbert Marcuse, who espoused roughly the same ideas, albeit with radical revolutionary language.

Strauss himself drew his philosophy from a variety of sources, including Heidegger and Nietzsche, however he also found much inspiration in Spinoza. An atheist Jew, Spinoza was banished from his own community after ranting about the non-existence of God. He would go on to become one of the key enlightenment thinkers, and in opposition to any religious ideas. Few people hold more responsibility for the spread of ‘rationalist atheism’ than Spinoza, who shifted the religious mind away from faith and towards empiricism and measurements. Note that many conservatives today (such as Ben Shapiro) obsess over ‘facts’ and ‘logic’ and promote a view in which only that which can be measured and quantified is worthy of discussion. This is indicative of a left-hemispherical bias (if I may make reference to Winston’s field) amongst the Straussians, who themselves took inspiration from Spinoza. It makes sense then that the Straussian view on human ethics is unbound from any religion or divine being, but rather emphasis some sort of ‘natural impulse’, as if God is nature itself.

Today, the term ‘Straussian conservatism’ has many connotations and confused meanings. Put simply, the Straussian conservative beliefs which appear most regularly are these; a downplaying or disregard for the role of Christianity in building the west, advocation for multiculturalism, advocation for religious pluralism, promotion of unregulated ‘legal’ immigration, hyper individualism, deregulated markets in said multicultural society, demonisation of nationalism, advocation for a ‘secular’ state, the view of ‘liberty’ as freedom to pursue degeneracy, etc.

Straussians believe that America - and indeed the west more broadly - is merely propositional. We hear many conservatives say this today, that America ‘could be set up anywhere’, yet this is clearly false. Just as they promote the common belief that the Ancient Greeks discovered ‘universal truths’, and that Greek Aristotelian philosophy - not Christianity - is what led to Americas success (the Founding fathers own statements contradict this), they also believe that these same ideas can be replicated anywhere. Really? What then of Haiti or Liberia, both were based on the American model of governance, however both are complete failures in practice.

What one will find is that many of the most prominent voices in American mainstream conservatism today believe in these things. From the Weinstein brothers, to Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro, Lex Friedman, Charlie Kirk, Dennis Prager, and so forth. Only under mounting pressure have some of them (namely Kirk) ‘walked back’ their original positions (advocating gay marriage for example).

If one looks closely, they will find consistent trends in their discussions. Firstly, many Straussians view economics as idealised in Adam Smith’s book ’The Wealth of Nations’. As I noted earlier, they use his arguments to then advocate for a free market stylised after the Milton Friedman/Chicago School of Economics, or in some cases even the von Mises/Austrian School model of absolute deregulation of the financial markets. This appeals to people because it sounds good (well not the Austrian view), but there is a problem; note that Straussians do not believe in a unifying Christian religion or culture. Now note that a deregulated market in a multicultural, multi religious culture with no binding morals will promote every form of degeneracy (anything one desires), even selling slaves.

Similar ideas are also held when it comes to social cohesion. Many Straussian conservatives promote the Ayn Rand view on man and society; that we should live in an individualist society. Again, this sounds somewhat reasonable, although it once again falls flat. Note that absolute individualism is not what the true critics of totalitarianism (Orwell, Solzhenitsyn) were promoting at all. They promoted a healthy individualism, but also a sense of collective wellbeing. Without any sense of collective meaning or community, societies become weak and fractured. Kids growing up today have no sense of community or sense of unity and collective meaning. Yet the mainstream conservatives promote these very ideas. The leftists - for all their insanity - at least understood that broad collective banners - such as ‘African Americans’ or the ‘trans community’ - helped to cultivate a sense of communal meaning and comradery, however wrong they were. 

I will use two figures who are currently relevant to exemplify this; Dave Rubin exemplifies the Straussian, whilst Candace Owens is beginning to exemplify the more traditional conservative. How so? Recently Dave Rubin stated that he is ‘no longer friends’ with Owens, insinuating this discord stemmed from her criticism (or rather lack of support) for Israel, and her pushback against the ADL, and several prominent rabbis. Owens was also removed from the Daily Wire (a ‘free speech’ platform) for questioning said things. As many on twitter have noted since this, Rubin wrote a book (‘Don’t Burn This Book’) which argues for free debate and the marketplace of ideas. Of course, this ‘tolerance’ only extends as far as it enables the propagation of the ‘open society’ model. Rubin is of course not traditional at all; he is open about his homosexuality, is married to another man, and has a surrogate child. He believes in Popper’s view on post-war America, and clearly does not see Christian morality as important in keeping the country afloat. Rubin himself is not even a declared conservative; as far as I am aware, he stills identifies as a ‘classic liberal’, yet most of his audience believes he is a ‘conservative figure’. The fact that they cannot distinguish between the two goes to show how much rot there is in the conservative movement.

On the other hand, Candace Owens has recently voiced opinions closer to that of a traditional conservative. For one, she has been more vocal about the importance of religious morality within American society; she speaks of the evils of pornography and degeneracy, and how it should be removed. She also speaks on the issue of foreign interference in the government. Apart from standing against American intervention in foreign conflicts such as Ukraine and Israel-Gaza, she is increasingly nationalistic about America and its people. So, what have other so-called ‘conservatives’ made of this? Apart from being blacklisted by Rubin, she has also come under continuous attack by Ben Shapiro (due to her criticism of Israel and America first stance), she is regularly slandered by major blue-checkmark conservatives on twitter, and supposedly she has received threats from others in the industry. Finally, she was removed from the Daily Wire because she is increasingly in opposition to the Popper-esque, Straussian ideals being promoted.

This same logic could also be exemplified in the recent comments of Daily Wire’s Andrew Klavin, who suggested that using the phrase ‘Christ is King’ in a nationalistic manner is ‘antisemitism’. Why is this? Because the phrase suggests a move back towards a state oriented around religious values, not secular universalism. The Straussians are in opposition to this. The list goes on, from Dennis Prager arguing that pornography is not wrong, to the time Charlie Kirk and ‘Turning Point USA’ (during the so called ‘Groyper War’ in 2019) argued that conservatives should support the LGBT movement, and that Christians can be homosexuals, all the while claiming that Christians arguing against him were ‘homophobic’ or ‘racist’.

Note also how several prominent commentators came under fire for questioning the ’shift’ in DEI that took place at the end of last year. As one is likely aware, DEI was explicitly anti-white in its agenda from the start, and for years it swayed academia and the job market with little serious pushback by the Straussian right. This all changed following the Palestine conflict, when it was noted that Jews were beginning to feel the heat of DEI policy and its by-products coming from leftists (‘anti-colonialism’ and ‘anti-white’ rhetoric). In a sudden shift, many on the Straussian right began to vehemently speak out against DEI, while also attempting to clarify that they (Jewish people) were not white at all, however this did not stop the attack from leftists (because, let’s face it, many Jews look white). Other strange occurrences took place, including Dave Rubin claiming that Jewish people are the most negatively impacted by DEI, which is clearly not true, as it explicitly targets white Europeans and Americans. Remembered that many on the Straussian right had no serious issue with DEI previous, beyond joking about it. This inconsistency was noted by Owens, Musk, and even Tucker Carlson, and for this they received serious pushback.

Now you have the right to think that what I am writing is ridiculous or far-fetched in this whole matter, yet when I look around I see a consistent move on the mainstream right to censor those who do not align with the prevailing vision of a return to 20^th century liberalism. The Marxists wants this, the Critical Theorists want this, the ‘open society’ libertarians (Bret Weinstein, Heather Heying) want this, and obviously so do many among the mainstream conservatives. It all points in the same direction; back towards a corrupted 1950s model of American Liberalism.

Even those who are not outrightly censored or attacked are at least being coerced to some extent; take Peterson for example. Although I have disagreements with Jordan Peterson, I have followed him since the early months of his career in 2016, and retain a level of respect for him, since I believe he is genuine but somewhat misguided. It is clear to me that the pressure has been on Peterson (from those around him, and likely those who help fund him) to move away from the biblical worldview (which he ironically advocated for when he was still an agnostic university professor) and back towards a more secular Popper-esque liberalism.

WHERE TO GO NOW

Now having said all that, I have to admit that I am not in complete opposition to all Straussian ideas. For example, the Burkians would reject spreading western ideals, yet I believe that the idea of universal justice is something which can be achieved, although only under a Christian government. Of course, clarity would be needed; when I speak of ‘western ideals’ I’m thinking Christian ideals, not liberal ideals as many are currently taught. Such a government would afford benefits to others - the English famously used their power to end slavery at home and abroad, lest it continued indefinitely. However, there can be no true liberty or justice under a pluralist system. Under a Straussian system, the English push to end slavery is implicitly ‘oppressive’, as it assumes that some values (English Christian) are truer than others (third world tribal slavery, justified through other religions and practices). In this way, the Straussians appear to reject the idea of a single, binding universal truth (especially if it is biblical), despite their supposed striving for universalist ideals. They are universal only in what is subjective liberal ideals, not what is divine truth.

This ties back to the term ‘liberty’. The founding fathers understood liberty to refer to a type of freedom from tyranny, allowing every man to pursue great things which aligned with his desires and skills. However, the French and their bloody revolution solidified the modern understanding of ‘liberty’ (as enshrined in their constitution); the freedom to do whatever one desires, so long as it does not ‘break the law’. Without an acceptance of religious truth as the truth, degeneracy takes over, ‘the law’ shifts with the times, and true liberty eventually dies (see more here). This is what will happen to America if conservatives do not wake up to the brainwashing that is currently taking place; a change must come, and people must return to true, moral, traditional conservatism for the west to survive.

Yours truly,

O’Brien

---

Consider supporting Notes From The Past- an attempt to give you an array of historical contexts in video form for you to better understand current events.