Here is part of my friend reggedieh’s response to my response to him

My first thought is- it doesn’t matter what Strauss thinks. Relatively speaking anyway. He was only a scholar, and he himself called himself that. To restate the matter using an obvious example- he wasn’t Heidegger. His “authority” is nothing compared to the ones he was a scholar OF, and this is often forgotten in the Straussian literature. Just because Strauss was one of the best minds America produced, that isn’t a compliment! The continent that Strauss fled from produced lots of minds that Americans know next to nothing about.

Just for context- these days I feel this sort of “distance” from even Nietzsche. Maybe it’s just me, after meditating on certain thinkers enough you cease to see them as an impeccable authority.

Put a different way- I’m not a Nietzschean, I AM Nietzsche. Further, I am not even Nietzsche because he’s so thoroughly incorporated into me that it’s more reliable to consult my own intuition than one of his texts. Knowing you, you might be this way with Blake.

Still, speaking of it this way might relativize things too much. There’s a definite decline from Nietzsche to Strauss.

To answer one of your questions more directly though- I take this to be an “occult” understanding of Strauss. He was a humble man, he knew this. That’s why he was a scholar, because he knew in his marrow the magnitude of the thinkers he discussed.

Sure, we can be that way with Strauss too. It’s undeniable that he’s an enigma. I AM humble regarding him, it’s just an I kind of got the point and time to move on kind of thing.

I want to show you something kind of crazy in this context

The reason I hate the Sabbatean modern world is because I understand it so well! The “revelations” of Sabbatai are just really old news to me. Time to move on, thank you, Sabbatai.

This ties in pretty seamlessly with another one of your questions. I’m glad you articulate that you sense that Strauss “discovers” atheistic rationalism written between the lines of the great minds of history. Scholarship usually isn’t so blunt about that “sense”. I get it too.

Strauss and Nietzsche are similar in that they’re not from OUR time. They can’t speak directly to us for that reason. In THEIR time it was something befitting of a philosopher to go against the grain and promote atheism.

That’s one of the main things I lament about Nietzsche actually- he was born so close to the “Gospel of Darwin” that he could never escape atheism.

And Strauss isn’t too far away from that really. Nor is Heidegger! And that’s why Corbin is important. Please tell me your thoughts about Shia Islam.

Anyway, in other words, Strauss insinuated atheism because that’s what his time called for. Christian Fundamentalists might as well be Satanists in how surface-level they are about things. And I think these are the ones Strauss was speaking to. And on the political plane, he was putting liberal democracy into question, which is the secular version of Christian Fundamentalism.

Another “occult” factor I can think of with Strauss- Plato. That’s not atheism, it’s quite the opposite. Let’s bring up my personal favorite student of Strauss

It’s not “atheism” to be rationalistic in the Platonic sense- that’s arguably a higher type of theism.

Let’s zoom out now- Strauss certainly does not speak like Plato. Heidegger gets closer to speaking like Plato.

The megalomaniacal mustached freak known as Friedrich tries to BE Plato.

Differences to keep in mind.

We’re speaking here of realms of reality virtually all of humanity doesn’t have the attention-span for. It’s icy places consciousness can ascend to. I don’t claim to be able to go there myself, outside of temporary visits, I at least try to tell people about it.

Synchronously, four Qabbalistic books arrived at my house as I was writing this.

Strauss, yeah I get the point, neech yeah I get the point, the list goes on. Regarding Kabbalah I do not yet get the point. It’s because they’re so secretive. Like I’ve said before, Kabbalah is the ultimate culmination of Strauss.

Or if you want to get “spicy”, Athens versus Jerusalem is so-called “Nazis” like me versus the most esoteric Kabbalists.

3 thoughts on “

  1. I’m almost tempted to say Real Sabbateanism has never been tried, at least not at the level of the masses. Are there Sabbateans among the Elites? Almost certainly. I suspect a Christian analogue of Sabbateanism among the gentile protestant Elites as well. Protestantism taken to the point of Satanism. Gnostic Christoluciferianism, perhaps. The Process Church and o9a have experimented with variations on the latter.

    But it should be obvious enough that the mass has never truly adopted “redemption through sin” as a maxim or guiding principle. Whether or not they should is another question altogether. But even the hostility to talk of sin is still evidence that “sin” as category/concept is alive and well. But not all talk of sin is treated equally. Calling sin “sin” is a grievous sin. Calling righteousness a sin, however, seems to be another story. Call “intolerance” a sin and you’ll likely be praised.

    We are in moral chaos today, but not because the notion of sin has disappeared nor has it been positively revaluated. Its content has simply been inverted. “Cease finger of God to write” says Blake, but where that Finger has ceased writing, other fingers, goblin-like, have taken up writing all sorts of Thou Shalts and Thou Shalt Nots. Simple inversion is not proper transvaluation. The moral chaos we see before us is the result of an incomplete/interrupted/retarded transvaluation.

    The simple inversion of perspectives is a means, not the end of transvaluation. But here we find the process arrested and we ourselves pronounced guilty of many “sins”: racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, chauvinism, and the apparently unpardonable one, namely blasphemy of the “Holy Semite.”

    You and I alike are meta-Sabbateans of sorts, as I’m sure you already know and would agree, seeking a kind of redemption (of ourselves, of the world, of history, etc.) through inquiry into the so-called “sins” of our time. But Sabbateanism is not for the masses, it never should have been and it never will be. The masses need Theonomy. Thus dictates the Order of Rank. They cannot be trusted with revaluation. Chesterton said it well: “If men will not be governed by the Ten Commandments, they shall be governed by the ten thousand commandments.”


  2. Re: Shia Islam, I do not have many thoughts at this time. A friend recently made me aware of “polytheistic” Shia heretical offshoots that revere the human manifestations of God or adopt something approaching a divine triad or trinity.


  3. “Christian Fundamentalists might as well be Satanists in how surface-level they are about things.” Probably not the sense in which you mean it, but I do suspect that many famous Christian fundamentalists, especially those promoting “satanic panic” and demonizing the occult, are themselves Satanists or at least occultists engaging in strategic disinformation.

    I too have begun my descent into the Kabbala for reasons similar to yours. However, I cannot help suspect that at the deepest level, there lies an occult unity of esoteric NS (not Serrano-ism, but “Freiburg National Socialism”) and Kabbalism.


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 )

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: