Isn’t this an odd thing to read?

Reinhardt is the one whose essay on Goethe and the Greeks I briefly lighted upon the other day. The classicists and philologists from a few generations ago people don’t really know much about. Kind of goes without saying, they didn’t study antiquity to discover social justice talking points.

I return to Reinhardt because I just saw 1935 H endorsing his book on Sophocles, and H is by no means “quick to praise”, especially those of his own generation. And late Strauss also recommends Reinhardt. So if those two appreciate a scholar that’s good enough for me.

For some of you the name Wilamowitz-Moellendorff will be familiar. Early neech was in a feud with this philologist. Thing is, Wilamowitz lived until 1931. Still, people only remember neechboi. I’m willing to set aside differences and unite against a common enemy- all these krauts, even if they were feuding with each other, were not current year americans. Reinhardt’s lifelong struggle was the attempt to remain loyal to BOTH Wilamowitz and neech.

So let’s just do a quick survey on what he has books on. Parmenides, Posidonius (an unknown Stoic polymath), Plato’s myths, Sophocles, Aeschylus, and Homer, in that chronological sequence. He was not a National Socialist, though he remained within Germany “during the dark times”, so he was similar to Jünger.

When someone’s favorite books are many of your favorite books, it’s easy to see them as a friend.

Do I believe in the “Greek gods” myself? The purified version of them, as found in Plato and Aristotle, yeah, I guess I do. I just have to admit, also, that I find the talk of divinity in Homer and the tragedians to be more compelling than either Christianity or “Progressivism” as well.

Believing in the Greek gods? I didn’t know I did until I read that statement above.

I think many of us can relate to this nature

at the last moment, Reinhardt avoided going into the George-Kreis in order to preserve (as he himself declared) his liberty.

Stefan George- in retrospect he wasn’t that great. At least relatively speaking. Kreis=circle. If you believe in “the Greek gods” you don’t really want to join a circle. This is similar to Nietzsche’s distance from Wagner too, and Heidegger’s distance from Nietzsche. And this is the type of person I address here. If there’s a “circle” I want it to be only of sovereign natures.

I discuss this important point here. This is a secret meaning of the Greek gods. If you challenge Yahweh you’re essentially thinking of yourself as Zeus. I only want to be in a circle of Zeuses.

I INFER that this is one of the Eleusinian “Mysteries”.

Certain citizens walk around Athens knowing they’re Zeus, acting like Zeus, without ever making it too obvious. Socrates made it too obvious, hence the hemlock.

One might, upon first glance, see the jews as Zeuses, and I don’t think this is the case. Their testicles are in the egregore’s jar. These can’t be Zeuses.

Continuing with one of the most sovereign Zeuses of our Kreis, H

For the thinking of the early Greek thinkers, the unity and antagonism of Being and seeming were powerful in an originary way. However, this was all portrayed at its highest and purest in Greek tragic poetry.

This is the context in which he endorses Reinhardt, so I think that’s pretty significant.

We’re going to die someday, so I only want the best of friends during that time, and thus I dwell on the ones I dwell on.

Ahh see this?

in the period when he was preparing Sophokles… Heidegger certainly played a part in his life.

Piecing together the canon. Sophocles deserves to be part of it in my opinion, and more precisely, the proper interpretation of Sophocles.

My general point here is that to understand the Greeks we must understand the people who were most similar to the Greeks, and see what they had to say about them.

-A Christian reading this, fuming- “I want to be like Zeus! In fact I’m better than Zeus!” Chances unlikely. Can you read Bjerknes’ recent study without coping? The idea contained therein is cliche to me, though I appreciate someone unpacking it. Commoner-Christians are intrinsically slaves of jews by nature. Being meek is not being Zeus-like. Everything about the so-called “theological-political problem” is contained in this idea of being Zeus-like. Can jews do it, can christians do it? Most can’t. And this is “Jerusalem”.

“And I AM Zeus so now I will disagree with you about all these things.” Wrong. That is ressentiment. See above- I am a reverent respector of fellow Zeuses. We don’t have the urge to hate people like ourselves. We exist in a circle of sovereigns. The jerusalem castes can only live in ressentiment and say the opposite of what the Zeuses say.

Oy, I’m revealing the Mysteries aren’t I? And what shall my fate be for doing so?

I invite you to interpret this post in this way

Behind the historicism of Wilamowitz stands a violent appropriation of the divine order of Hellas

The scholar I pull this from finds “absolute integrity” in being “immunized against Nazism” so I’d have to expect a violence of interpretation on his part.

I only speak into the void. If you were to try to “pull a Zeus” I would be amused and see you as a friend.

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: