The Machiavelli of Maryland
December 9, 2015 9:54 AM   Subscribe

'If there’s one point on which I agree with the leftist weaklings, it’s 1) that McDonald’s must go and 2) that American citizens should be forced en masse to take a course in phenomenology, so that they can develop the proper philosophical disposition necessary for understanding the incarnate evil of the chicken nugget.' Thomas Meaney profiles Edward Luttwak, strategy consultant, historian, rancher, right-wing bloviator, classicist and LRB contributor. posted by Mocata (21 comments total) 17 users marked this as a favorite
 
I can't tell what's real anymore.
posted by Artw at 9:59 AM on December 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


The psychohistory of emigres, former leftists, and Straussian combinations of the two (and how they drove our foreign policy to ends that were not always America First as we understand it) will be fascinating when the PNAC membership has all died off and we can start speaking honestly about the weird macho/intellectual culture that sprung up around them.

There's a line you can draw that goes through Rand, Kissinger, Luttwak, Perle, Wolfowitz and Cheney; it starts out as a pure beam of angry, focused light, and ends up a piece of rebar covered in shit and blood.
posted by turntraitor at 10:08 AM on December 9, 2015 [27 favorites]


Ah, but only an Irishman could tell Luttwak's improbable story so well.

Molto grazie, Mocata. See you in Palermo. . . .
posted by rdone at 10:18 AM on December 9, 2015


There's a line you can draw that goes through Rand, Kissinger, Luttwak, Perle, Wolfowitz and Cheney


Uh...What is The Committee on Social Thought, Alex?
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 10:28 AM on December 9, 2015 [8 favorites]


Also Irving Kristol, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Christopher Hitchens--to say nothing of respected academics who based themselves by becoming right-wing pundits (e.g., Victor Davis Hanson, Niall Ferguson).
posted by Cash4Lead at 10:50 AM on December 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


the incarnate evil of the chicken nugget

oh that's why they're so good at 1 am.
posted by numaner at 11:11 AM on December 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


I would like to see him wrestle Žižek.
posted by clockwork at 11:17 AM on December 9, 2015 [4 favorites]


I like this though:

“I believe that one ought to have only as much market efficiency as one needs,” Luttwak once said. “Because everything that we value in human life is within the realm of inefficiency – love, family, attachment, community, culture, old habits, comfortable old shoes.”

And this:

“I was born without a bottom,” he explained, a bit mournfully.
posted by sobarel at 11:25 AM on December 9, 2015 [3 favorites]


I liked that he has 'a large wooden totem of Nietzsche' staring out of the window his house.
posted by Mocata at 11:36 AM on December 9, 2015


I would like to see him wrestle Žižek.

No, it would be boring. They would talk right past each other and constantly negate each others assertions with counter-facts that would make your head spin.

This guy. Man, this guy. I know of his works, and I also know of his worldview and it fascinates me to no end. It is above the mundane observations, but has a very skewed sense of 'place' within the functioning of everything. It is also to hands-on to be accurate, at least to have a functionally repeatable grand theory behind it that would explain anything. Fascinating the broad reserve of cultural and political insight, but also broken by a very chaotic view. I do love this line though:

“I believe that one ought to have only as much market efficiency as one needs,” Luttwak once said. “Because everything that we value in human life is within the realm of inefficiency – love, family, attachment, community, culture, old habits, comfortable old shoes.”

(on preview, i see others have picked up on that as well)

It speaks of a very unique and deeper understanding of the systems of the world, yet revels in the existing structures. I also like his almost quirky respect for the Mennonite's and their pre-industrial farming methods. The mention of his "sugarless diet", and how if he were to start over with his attempt to not be bored, he would study the bacteria of the human guts. That would be a wonderful conversation to have, as it would seem he likely has read as much as he can get his hands on to try and build a model in his head to turn over and play with during idle times.

It is also very telling that, while he states a distaste for stability, he uses his considerable talent to help prop up a system that wants that improbably stability, for what it is worth. Instead of pushing the grand understanding that stasis is death, and all life is a dynamic system, he leads those in power by the nose with what amounts to a petty trick of information overload and, as described in the article, "counter-intuitive" ideas. Honestly, I do not see them as counter-intuitive. They are almost simplistic in the logical discourse of phenomenology (also, another great thing he uses with great skill, I must admit), yet seem "counter-intuitive" only because of the basic misunderstanding of the Inside/Outside Fallacy. Most of his consulting is simply being that outside set of eyes to point out what is assumed by the subjective parties to be not part of the picture. "You can't see the soles of your feet while walking on your path", was the way I was taught it. You can feel them, and make assumptions about what you are walking on, but you cannot see them.

I would love to sit and have tea with this man, as he would be a good opponent to learn from.
posted by daq at 11:42 AM on December 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


>> I would like to see him wrestle Žižek.

> No, it would be boring. They would talk right past each other and constantly negate each others assertions with counter-facts that would make your head spin.


I would like to see him wrestle Žižek under rules that forbid speaking, but that don't forbid the use of objects from outside the ring.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 11:44 AM on December 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


I would like to see him wrestle Žižek ... No, it would be boring. They would talk right past each other ...

No, I mean wrestle wrestle. In hot oil or grease, ideally.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:48 AM on December 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


sounds like a mefite to me...
posted by ouke at 11:59 AM on December 9, 2015


I cannot recommend his how-to manual on how to stage a coup more highly, it's short and fun and gives you a grand new game: assuming my city is the capital, how should I take over the country?
posted by alasdair at 12:20 PM on December 9, 2015 [4 favorites]


*holds bottle of boone's farm strawberry and bottle of smirnoff peppermint schnapps*

"i'll show you incarnate evil, motherfucker"
posted by pyramid termite at 12:28 PM on December 9, 2015 [3 favorites]


This post got me interested enough in the guy to sniff around a bit. Here is an interview that seems pretty meaty.
posted by No Robots at 12:34 PM on December 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


I know this isn't the most substantive comment, but hey! I'm from Maryland. I think I've driven by that house before, although Chevy Chase is full of people with enough money to put statues in their suburban front yards, so for all I know it was just some lobbyist's place.
posted by teponaztli at 4:37 PM on December 9, 2015


This dude makes most of the people we usually think of as erudite look like actual philistines. It's worth reading some of his books.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 8:23 PM on December 9, 2015


Compulsory phenomenology and a deep understanding of the humanity of inefficiency? "He follows the news closely and interprets it as an ongoing comedy."? My god, the man could be calling for the forced resettlement of San Francisco in Saudi Arabia and I'd be right there.
posted by Devonian at 5:12 AM on December 10, 2015


American citizens should be forced en masse to take a course in phenomenology, so that they can develop the proper philosophical disposition necessary for understanding the incarnate evil of the chicken nugget.

Am I the only person here who imagined this sentence in the voice of Werner Herzog?
posted by acb at 5:41 AM on December 10, 2015 [1 favorite]



“I believe that one ought to have only as much market efficiency as one needs,” Luttwak once said. “Because everything that we value in human life is within the realm of inefficiency – love, family, attachment, community, culture, old habits, comfortable old shoes.”


The question is should this inefficiency be (more or less) evenly distributed, with magnates and labourers alike being entitled to love, family, community and chillaxin' (i.e., SOCIALISM!), or should it be allowed to percolate upwards to where the Invisible Hand says it belongs, with the serfs bring flogged harder to gather all the slack for their masters? Is the right to inefficiency an inalienable human right, or does it follow the laws of property rights?
posted by acb at 5:46 AM on December 10, 2015 [1 favorite]


« Older ...but they can never stop Napster - the idea!   |   “MAKE THE GALAXY GREAT AGAIN!” Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments