While I cannot recommend any of Laurent Guyénot’s analysis of how 9/11 was pulled off, I think it is fair to say that 9/11 Was a Straussian Coup. The meat of the article is the analysis of Leo Strauss, the intellectual godfather of neo-conservatism.

It’s relevant, because virtually the entire “Dissident Right” has been taken over by a new wave of Neo-Conservatism, preaching the same Leo Straussian ideology, this time with yet another mask.

The first wave of Straussians were Neo-Trotskyite. The second wave were Neo-Conservative. This third wave are Neo-Reactionary.

The labels change and so does the marketing text. That was, in fact, a big part of what Leo Strauss was preaching. Crypsis.

In What is Political Philosophy? (1959), Strauss explains that philosophy or science seek “knowledge”, and therefore “endangers society,” whose element is “opinion”. “Hence philosophy or science must remain the preserve of a small minority”.

[The few] will distinguish between the true teachings as the esoteric teaching and the socially useful teaching as the exoteric teaching; whereas the exoteric teaching is meant to be easily accessible to every reader, the esoteric teaching discloses itself only to the very careful and well-trained readers after long and concentrated study.

As we see, Straussians write in an exoteric way for the “majority” but they have an esoteric meaning that only the “few” will understand. And indeed, we see that “for the public” Straussians once used Trotskyite language, then they used Conservative language, now they use Reactionary language. The public relations changes, but the song remains the same.

What is the song? Well, what do all of the Straussians, whether Neo-Trotskyites, Neo-Conservatives, or Neo-Reactionaries, all have in common?

Strauss’s attachment to Judaism is probably the most esoteric part of his teaching, in the sense that it is the least public. Even Drury remains very elusive about it: she sticks to the fiction that the Neocons are American right-wing imperialists. She takes Irving Kristol’s self-professed American “nationalism” at face value, and she ignores that some of the redactors or close associates of the Project for a New American Century also wrote secret reports to Benjamin Netanyahu recommending an aggressive policy of territorial expansion.

The Neo-Conservatives postured as American imperialists posturing as American “conservatives.” But their actual concern was for Israel – both Israel, as in the occupation regime in Palestine, and “Israel,” as in the “Jewish Diaspora.”

The Claremont Institute, home of Curtis Yarvin and Joel Kotkin, engage in the typical crypsis.

To see the astonishing chutzpah and the Straussian deception going on, consider Joel Kotkin’s Critical Race Theory Ignores Anti-Semitism.

Its obsession with ‘whiteness’ overlooks centuries of discrimination

Don’t think that Kotkin is concerned with the well-being of “whites.” Kotkin is concerned that “Critical Race Theory” doesn’t center Jews enough, and ignores “centuries of discrimination.” Not centuries of Jewish discrimination against non-Jews, for Kotkin, that is perfectly acceptable. It’s only the reverse that is a problem, if non-Jews discriminate against Jews.

The very first words of the very first sentence: “National Socialism.” Yes, Critical Race Theory is really Nazis! One is tempted to call this “irony” but it is not, it is chutzpah. In reality, Critical Race Theory was created by Jews and was introduced to America by the American Jewish Committee.

Who invented Critical Theory? Theodor W. Adorno.

Theodor W. Adorno … known for his critical theory … was a leading member of the Frankfurt School of critical theory

How did Critical Theory come to America?

The Authoritarian Personality is a 1950 sociology book by Theodor W. Adorno … part of a “Studies in Prejudice” series sponsored by the American Jewish Committee.

Joel Kotkin knows this. But he doesn’t want you to know this. He wants you to believe that Critical Race Theory, which was invented to demonize people racialized as ‘white’ but not ‘Jewish’, has something to do with “Nazis.” It’s a malicious reversal of reality. In reality, the Authoritarian Personality put everyone on a scale between “revolutionary” (i.e., Communist) and “fascist.” When they came to America, the American Jewish Committee knew that claiming everyone who wasn’t a “communist” was a mentally ill “fascist” wasn’t going to work, so they changed the scale to “democratic vs. fascist.”

It’s all there in black and white. Joel Kotkin knows this. He is simply engaging in Straussian double-talk, hoping to trick you, just as the American Jewish Committee tricked Americans into thinking they were promoting “democracy” when they were actually promoting their version of “communism.”

Kotkin goes on to actually endorse the anti-white aspects of Critical Race Theory, and engages in the typical sleight-of-hand by shifting CRT to a black empty suit.

In some respects, as an approach to understanding history, CRT has a certain credibility. Ibram X. Kendi’s retelling of American history in Stamped from the Beginning is lucid, well-crafted and internally consistent in its description of racism as both a motivating force and by-product of the American tale.

Here we see Kotkin obscuring the Jewish nature of Critical Race Theory and instead paint it as a black vs. white issue.

Kotkin then goes on to give the standard issue anti-white narrative, that Americans were oppressing all of the Ellis Island immigrants. He goes through the entire standard list, Irish, Italian, Asians, all “faced discrimination.” As is standard for Jews like Kotkin, only immigrants matter, the Americans, the very founding people of America, they are evil for “discriminating” against everyone else, they were supposed to simply welcome, with open arms, their replacements.

Kotkin – supposedly of the Right, a writer for the Claremont Institute, channels his fellow Jew, Noel Ignatiev, in How The Irish Became White.” Here is what Ignatiev had to say:

Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed — not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed. — Noel Ignatiev in his journal Race Traitor

But Kotkin doesn’t want you to notice that Critical Theory was invented by Jews and promoted by the American Jewish Committee.

It takes a couple of paragraphs, but eventually Kotkin gets to his main issue:

But perhaps no group has been more forgotten in the broad assault on “whiteness” than the Jews. CRT, notes David Suissa, publisher of the Los Angeles Jewish Journal, forces people of whatever background to allow themselves to be defined by their peculiar “systemic ethos”. This means that Jews are whites like any other, despite millennia of persecution in virtually every country where they have settled. Their right to a separate identity is denied; their unique history, obliterated.

Again – the chutzpah. Americans – white Americans, the founding people of the United States, are the ones denied “their unique history” and has their very identity “obliterated” by Critical Theory. Kotkin himself takes great pains to claim that even “Hindus” are actually “Americans” – “just like any other.” But Jews, Kotkin demands, must be both fully “American” while also getting to keep their “separate identity.”

Who is the only group Kotkin will deny the “separate identity” of? Americans, the people who founded the United States. Kotkin himself is engaging in Jewish Critical Theory, just like his fellow Jew Noel Ignatiev, attacking the “social construct known as ‘the white race.’”

Back to Guyénot:

The Straussian deception must be understood as two-storied. Whoever thinks the Straussians’ exoteric fantasies are motivated by some form of concern for America (her values, her empire, etc.) is victim of their esoteric lies. The key for understanding the essence of Straussianism is the word that Curtis never pronounces in his three-hour documentary on the Straussians: Israel.

To get some insight into Strauss’s Zionism, we must turn to a primary source: his 1962 lecture at the Hillel Foundation, “Why We Remain Jews”, one of his recorded oral communications made accessible to the public in the 1990s. Strauss begins his lecture by stating that, for once, “I will not beat around the bush in any respect.” Then he reveals that, “since a very, very early time the main theme of my reflections has been what is called the ‘Jewish question,’” which will come as a surprise to many. His main message to his American Jewish audience is: “return to the Jewish faith, return to the faith of our ancestors.”

Tellingly, Strauss was “pan-Zionist” – he wanted both a state of Israel that excluded non-Jews, while demanding that every nation on earth be open to Jews. Just as Kotkin demands the “American” identity include Jews – and everyone else, from Hindu Indians to the one third of the world population called “Asian.” But Americans are to be denied their own “separate identity.”

In this same lecture, Strauss criticizes political Zionism as belonging to the wrong kind of assimilation, since it sought to create a nation like others. If Israel became a nation like others, Jewish identity would perish, because Jewish identity is based on the persecution inherent in the dispersion. Strauss calls for a “religious Zionism” that transcends the national project. He believes that Jews must continue to be a nation dispersed among other nations. Yet Strauss commends the State Israel for setting an example with its prohibition of mixed marriages, fulfilling “an act of national cleansing or purification”, “a reassertion of the difference between Jews and non-Jews.” Strauss also defended Israel’s State racism in the National Review: political Zionism, he wrote, “fulfilled a conservative function” by stemming the “tide of ‘progressive’ leveling of venerable ancestral differences.”

In conclusion, Strauss has a very clear vision of Israel as a unique nation destined—by the most noble dream—to rule over other nations, and even destroy them spiritually, by all immoral means possible. We may call his vision Machiavellian pan-Zionism, or simply Jewish supremacism.

Since 2007, when Curtis Yarvin was given massive publicity by the Neo-Conservative Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic magazine, Yarvin’s “Neo-Reaction” – a rebranding of “Neo-Conservative,” itself a rebranding of “Neo-Trotskyism,” itself a rebranding of Straussian “pan-Zionism” i.e. “Jewish Supremacy” – has taken over the so-called “Dissident Right.” Originally intended to interrupt the growing anti-war movement around Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, and AntiWar.com, Neo-Reaction has swallowed up virtually all of the remnants of the “Alt Right.” James Lawrence, Jim Donald, Brett Stevens, Colin Liddell, and dozens of others have all dropped their original right-wing ideas to fully embrace Neo-Reaction – including its commitment to Israel, both in Palestine and the Diaspora.

Claremont Institute, the home of Yarvin and Kotkin, was itself founded by the students of Leo Strauss’ closest protege, Harry F. Jaffa.

Drury quotes Harry Jaffa, one of Strauss’s first Ph.D. students, as saying that “America is the Zion that will light up all the world.” She definitely misses the irony and the cryptic meaning: America will set the world on fire for Zion. That is what the Neocons have really been up to.

Curtis Yarvin, using Strauss’ double-speak technique, follows Jaffa here, as the esoteric meaning is quite understandable when read in context:

And as for designing an alternate regime designed not to capture power, but to accept power – who better but conservative and traditionalist intellectuals?

Just as “Neo-Trotsky” became “Neo-Conservative” became “Neo-Reaction,” so here Yarvin wants to rebrand these same pan-Zionist, Jewish supremacist, neocon Jews as “traditionalists” – the Trotskyite vanguard-in-waiting, available to “take power” in a crisis, e.g. Covid-19, which he suggested before.

The Neo-Trotskyites said they wanted to spread the “Revolution” – they meant “spread Zionism and Jewish power.” The Neo-Conservatives said they wanted to “spread democracy” – they meant “spread Zionism and Jewish power.” The Neo-Reactionaries say they want a “Restoration” – they mean “restore Zionism and Jewish power.” Following Strauss, the surface rhetoric is meant to appeal to “outsiders” – read, goyim. But the esoteric meaning is to be understood by “insiders” – read, Jews.

During the Trump administration, an Israeli born Yoram Hazony created the “Edmund Burke Foundation” – the name itself a wonderful example of chutzpah – and attempted to steer the “populists” of the Trump movement with something he called “national conservatism.” Their inaugural conference headlined Tucker Carlson, and to show you that it was nothing more than the usual Straussian deception, just another renaming, this time from “Neo-Conservative” to “National Conservative” it also headlined … John Bolton. “Israel’s man on the ground in Washington” and the only non-Jewish signer of the call for 9/11, the Project for a New American Century.

Why “National Conservatism?” The original term being used for “Trumpism” was “National Populism.” But that gives the game away a bit too much. “Populism” meant “economic populism” which, in an earlier era, would have been called “socialism” (even though it isn’t.) “National Socialism” gives the game away. “National Socialism” is “Nazism.”

So what do you call “Nazism” when it’s run by Jews? “Zionism.” Or, “Jewish supremacy.” After all, Adolph Hitler’s “National Socialism” was nothing but Judaism for Germans; Germans would be the “Master Race” in Germany, instead of Jews.

And that is what Yoram Hazony was attempting to steer the Trump fans into – a “national socialism” run by Jews, with Jews the privileged people, the ruling class, the “Master Race” – just as the religion of Judaism teaches.

Based in New Jersey, it is this crowd that Yarvin claims is inferior to his “West Coast” crowd around the Claremont Institute; the “East Coast” program that doesn’t go “far enough.”

So, it is a contest between East Coast Israeli Zionists and West Coast Jewish Zionists. The East Coast crowd were born in Israel and have names like “Yoram Hazony.” The West Coast crowd, more Straussian “assimilationist” in nature, have names like “Joel Kotkin” and “Curtis Yarvin” – the last, only “half Jewish by blood” but a self-proclaimed “International Jew” in his circumcised heart.

But whether it is San Francisco, New Jersey, or Tel Aviv, whether it’s called “neo-Trotsky,” “neo-Conservative,” “neo-Reaction, or “national conservative” – it’s all just the same pan-Zionist Jewish Supremacy.

And just like during the Bush administration, they have completely taken over the entire American right, and the few holdouts, back then only Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul, when they object get called … what else?

“Anti-Semites.”

The little fight between West Coast Yarvinites of the Claremont Institute and East Coast National Conservatives of the Edmund Burke Foundation should be understood as the same sort of fight that broke out between Jewish comedian Larry David and Jewish attorney for Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump, Alan Dershowitz (Dershowitz, let’s remember, actually wrote the book on Chutzpah.)

It seems that Alan Dershowitz’s ties to the Trump administration have made him persona non grata among the Martha’s Vineyard elite — including Larry David.

Note – not his ties to Jeffrey Epstein – that wasn’t enough to get Dershowitz kicked out of the Martha’s Vineyard elite. In fact, protecting Jeffrey Epstein will get you a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Anti-Defamation League like Barry Krischer.

But getting too close to all those “white” – but not “Jewish” – proles – goyim – that voted for Trump? That will bring down the wrath.

Larry David: “No. No. We really can’t. I saw you. I saw you with your arm around [former Trump Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo! It’s disgusting!”

Reached for comment, Dershowitz confirmed the exchange and told us that he and the “Curb” creator had been friends for many years until the lawyer began working with the Trump camp.

He even claimed that he helped get one of David’s daughters into college and had once represented him pro bono in a legal dispute he had on the Massachusetts island, where they both spend their summers.

He told us that he’d greeted David at the store, but that the comic had walked away from him — which is when he said, “We can still talk, Larry” and our spy picked up the dialogue.

Now, that scene is straight out of an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm. But another scene from that hilarious show could be Larry David meeting Curtis Yarvin at a cocktail party. Considering what Yarvin has said about Lincoln and FDR, literally, all you would have to do is change “George W. Bush” to “Elon Musk” and you could imagine it would go just like this:

Hey – if any right-wingers are interested in creating a New Right that is for us, by us – I’m game. But do you really want to waste your time with this same old “Neo” shit they have been peddling for 100 years?