If you want to go to the heart of darkness I’d have to say that’s Straussianism. It’s because all other modes of discourse are overly-trusting that politics and truth are unified. This is a discourse that presupposes that illusion is the norm, and further that enforced illusion is the norm. It’s a discourse that takes place within that very norm. Thus it’s arguably the most self-aware discourse. Everything seems so peaceful on the surface, in the “marketplace of ideas”. People are so secretive that no one would ever wonder whether there is an exoteric/esoteric distinction. Being itself one of the discourses among others within the norm of enforced illusion it itself has to be exoteric as well. The difference is that it has moments of esotericism. If you remember that Dante book from yesterday, this means that certain types will hear a refreshingly candid joke once in a while. It’s a cathartic break from the all-pervasive enforced illusion. Again, I think of this in a personal way- some people starve for a break from that. If you are someone like that I again link you to that index of Straussian books I found just the other day. This isn’t necessarily “Jewish”, just slightly. Centuries of universalist morality has led to most goyim being hostile to the notion of a profound gulf between types of souls. Others have emerged from our Christian past and this is not the case- they starve. That index is how you can find mental stimulation in a democratic time. All they do is talk about the geniuses of history and muse non-democratically from time to time. If you’re not content with the “children’s version” of reality then these ones are for you. I just found a book on Augustine through that index for instance. At least with them there’s a decent chance he won’t be read exclusively through modern concepts. As I’ve said before, there are people in the academy who are far beyond my mental range, they just don’t say the kinds of things I do because they want to live a “normal life”. That’s what I starve for, people like them going off. Straussians are often a cautious, filtered version of what I seek, and that’s better than what can be said of what I find virtually everywhere else outside of the anonsphere. People talk about human rights. Snobs like me don’t get any human rights, we’re excluded from that. The real meaning of human rights is that certain people don’t have human rights. This is because we question the meaning of “human”. Human to them is equivalent to the “children’s version” of reality. I’m willing to bet none of the books on that index are as candid as this post, that they’re all something of a children’s version- nonetheless they’re at least an effort in the direction I speak of. As radical as many of those Frenchmen are, Strauss contains all of them. They’re grandsons of the revolution, and Strauss is willing to lend an ear to ancients and medievals on their own terms, he’s a counter-enlightenment thinker. Our media establishment is itself kind of like “Cartoon Network”. Some people are content watching only cartoons. Others want to watch something like Twin Peaks. I would characterize Lampert’s works as being of that tier of sublimity.
Here’s something random I pull from Fortin’s Dante book
The poet’s sole intention is to offer a model by which human beings may be guided in their efforts at political reform while at the same time making them aware of the limits of human justice and hence of the need for moderation in its pursuit.
Most discourse does not mention the difference between Justice and justice. Most discourse is moderate and seeks to carry out political reform toward justice with a lowercase j. These kinds of books thus can be interpreted as “immoderate” and between Justice and justice. “What do YOU know about moderation?” Nothing, and I’m glad.