Lampert’s new book dropped – all my despair vanishes

I see him as the Living Strauss, though some might disagree. The education of old Germany continuing on in America to some degree. Lampert is old so you never know if this will be his last book. Evola and Strauss- thee two recoverers of political tradition in the 20th century? They don’t “justify mainstream prog values”, and you can’t say that about many.

It gives me hope that people have visited this site for a while even if they are unable to initiate into the higher grades. Escaping the human realm even slightly is more than you can ask of most people. They’d legitimately go insane if they embraced certain ideas so I can’t really hold anything against them. “What do YOU know?” I know. It’s clear as day. Grifters are objects without self-awareness- they can only respond with more grift, just how it is. Sophists who only use noble-sounding ideas for their own self-interested purposes. Since we’re talking about a Straussian book right now, think of neocons. That same kind of spirit is present in the younger generations too.

This is going to be epic

With the Parmenides each part of the dialogue serves the central purpose of showing the young Socrates the way to think properly about forms, and I therefore treat all of it.

This book is also on the Phaedo, so I will see what properly thinking about the forms gets you too–“death potion” in Lampert’s words. “Yeah, so don’t call me a grifter then!” It’s possible to be Socratic to a degree that avoids poisoning. Most are just plain sophistic and DO the poisoning themselves. Describing the planes of the angels, you shouldn’t do that, God designed it so mortals avoid it. The “rabble” is His creation after all. Do you see how Judaism in this context is “making it with the world”? Yahweh isn’t the forms, it’s a cross between forms and materiality. And speaking of crosses, Christianity is between Socratism and Judaism. The crucifixion is a simplistic way of making sense of Socrates. So it’s too bad that most post-/Christians today are Jews. Talking about these three Types is itself a way of discussing the “poisonous forms”. Calling it globalism or liberalism is a pact with materiality. You know how some Christians are into the “blood-covered Christ”? I think I have a similar relation to Socrates. Understanding the myth concretely and not just cerebrally. What would be ideal is a “Golden Dawn” of people who are not the poisoner-type. The third dialogue this book is on is the Symposium – another layer. Getting away from the materiality of the exoteric world. One might speculate that there were other “Socrateses” throughout history who thought about the forms even more properly, and their works were simply burned. A heretic would say it’s a demotic symptom that Socrates survived through the ages. Whatever, I’m content with him. When someone starts talking like a Platonist they stand so far away from the crowd. You don’t see it very often. Not what is beautiful, what is beauty itself, that kind of question. Dugin says this is a debate they had in the medieval age and they decided against that way of thinking. “God’s Workshop” thinking. I bet you can even understand why from reading that. Hubris to even dare to attempt to speak of such matters. I never present myself as the authority, it’s just casually what crosses my mind. “What IS the overlord that produces all these simpletons?” Not a question you should be asking. The ones who decided against the forms for thousands of years don’t like you to. Lampert is a great muse- he hasn’t even said anything very explicit yet like he’s prone to do.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: