A timely reflection on Aphorism 23 in Nietzsche’s The Gay Science

By Pelopidas

“Corruption is merely a nasty word for the autumn of a people.”Autumn is harvest time. It is when the fruition of labor, nature, and time ripens and falls to the earth, ready to become life-giving sustenance or to reseed the next crop. Aphorism 23 in The Gay Science is about “the signs,” conditions, disadvantages, and opportunities that prevail amid times of corruption, when a predominant faith and morality begin to crumble. This aphorism helps explain our strange times.

It is necessary that a prevailing faith will eventually become corrupted. Politically, the old faith that has prevailed among us is not that of the old fashioned American founding—no, that was corrupted a long time ago—but the comfortable liberalism of the 70s-80s-90s-00s. This moral order arose out of a détente from elites on both Left and Right, and this faith is now being abandoned on both ends by those who were left out of the deal. The increasing decay of this faith has led to the rise of the most unexpected characters. Who would have foreseen the popularity of people as batshit crazy as AOC, Ilhan Abdullahi Omar, Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, or Kanye West? Furthermore, who is more inconsequential today than all other top-rank GOP candidates from 2016? Plus no one—no one—loves or hates passionately Joe Biden. He is not capable of arousing such a degree of feeling in anyone.

And what of Bronze Age Pervert? How to explain the rise of such a character in our day? What is happening, and what might happen?

In aphorism 23, Nietzsche asks his reader to consider the signs (die Anzeichen) of corruption that signify the disintegration of an old faith. He describes four.

First, the rise of superstition (Aberglaube). Superstition will begin to prevail over the existing faith (Gesammtglaube). This is a good condition for those who will become Individuals. They are born in this environment, for here they begin to exercise a wider range of thinking and choice beyond the limitations imposed by the old morality and faith. In fact, those who describe this phase as “corruption” are always the defenders of the old religion.

Consider how old liberals used to mock socialists like Bernie and how the GOP establishment mocked Trump. The old guard in their own Parties considered them highly immoral.

Second, national energy is directed inward. When corruption sets in, a people lose all will to fight a foreign threat. They may still want war, but they will not fight. They desire all the comforts previously secured from winning a war and all the honors that usually accrue from victory. The “ancient national energy”—a “national passion”—that once was visible when a nation went to war is now transformed into energy for “private passions.”

Consider how all the energy and passion we could muster before against real foreign threats is now directed inward, at ourselves and our fellow citizens. No serious country is more concerned about the mistakes its dead ancestors made than the real threats is present enemies pose.

Third, surprisingly, times of corruption are more cruel than times of the “older, stronger age that was more given to faith.” “Cruelty,” Nietzsche says, “becomes more refined” in days of corruption. Gone are the days of tar-and-feathering: “the art of wounding and torturing others with words and looks reaches its supreme development in times of corruption.” Why? Because “it is only now that malice (Bosheit) and the delight in malice are born.”

Consider the intense hatred citizens have for one another today. Here is a strange irony: many Americans today bear a greater hatred for fellow citizens whom they consider “racist” than did ever a truly racist people feel for a race they considered inferior. Genuine racism is characterized more by a confident apathy than a consuming hatred. Cancel culture is far crueler, is felt with greater hatred, and intended with greater malice than anything that Americans used to feel for foreign enemies.

Fourth, in times of corruption strange, new figures arise, tyrannical figures. These pushy personalities are the “precursors and as it were the precocious harbingers of individuals” (Vorlaüfer und gleichsam dei frühreifen Erstlinge der Individuen). As the corruption continues, these tyrants vie with one another for supremacy, and eventually one will emerge who brings an end to the struggle, a Caesar. Oddly enough, these are the times when great Individuals emerge, and culture therefore is “in its highest and most fruitful stage,” not because of or for the tyrant, but because of and for the Individuals.

Consider that small-souled men like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio and harpies like Stacey Abrams and Gretchen Whitmer arise, sensing that the time is ripe for them to bitch and scream and thereby cow any challengers into submission. Happily Trump overcame the first two in 2016, but the struggle is not yet over, and Trump has no guarantee of victory for the future. Will he arise as Caesar? Will another, hitherto unknown?

Nietzsche’s point is that it doesn’t matter. What matters more than these are the Individuals who will rise from the space created by the breakdown, the corruption, of the old faith. These are the free-spirits. They include famous men such as Elon Musk, who are escaping the normal ways of thinking and charting a path to Mars. But they also include men like BAP—who must remain less famous in order to remain free—who ridicule the old pieties and inspire young men with the whisper that it is beautiful to pursue greatness. 

These are the Individuals whose opposites are “herd men” (Heerden-Menschen). These are Individuals, Nietzsche explains, who attach themselves to violent men (Gewaltmenschen), not because they are filled with hatred, but because they likewise consider themselves capable of actions that herd men do not understand and cannot forgive.

None of us asked to be born in these times of corruption. Nonetheless, let us choose to consider ourselves fortunate to live at a time when the old, tired faith is being shaken, when a greater plain of choice lies before us, and let us work to shape the opportunities that fall out to us into a noble form.

The times of corruption are those when the apples fall from the tree: I mean the individuals, for they carry the seeds of the future and are the authors of the spiritual colonization and origin of new states and communities. Corruption is merely a nasty word for the autumn of a people.”

(all quotations are from Walter Kaufmann’s translation)

Written by Pelopidas

Aesthetics Are Not Enough

By EsotericTrad

Firstly let’s get the ‘poast physique’ retort out of the way. Here it is unadulterated, no IG filters or post production gimmicks.


Not great, but then I have a myriad of other hobbies and life activities going on. You see aesthetics aren’t everything, in fact at their worst they are indicative of an unhealthy obsession. Modern life is full of unhealthy obsessions – the cargo cult that is physical fitness of the Dissident Right has done much to pull modern men away from such obsessions. Yet it is not a new or radical idea. Physical Culture as a concept has existed for a long while, look at the Muscular Christianity movement, read up on Bernarr MacFadden. BAP poasting is the modern version of this. Where MacFadden created his own magazine and posed nude in the late 1800’s to mog, BAPists now quote tweet blue checkas with their own impressive physiques or reply to fat lesbians.

There is truly nothing new under the sun.

Some of us who have been around for a good while remember BAP’s first iteration. It was a simple exhortation, and even in the modern iteration it is also a simple exhortation.

Beauty shall conquer the world.

Yet I fear the BAPist physeek frogs are floundering somewhat – the online memetic culture of poasting is all too trite. #HandsomeThursday at its worst can appear nothing more than an advert for underwear from the mid 90’s. The Cult of Strength is all too real outside of the Right. Like anything in this clown world of piss earth as well we can be sure that it will bend ever more leftward. Don’t believe me? Venture outside the bubble – strong ggrrls are still present. Sculpting your physique is as modern as it gets. The Bench Press was only developed around the 1940s…

That is one side of it – but the truth does remain. Beauty shall conquer the world – or should that in fact be the beautiful shall conquer the world?

BAP talks of space and the necessity of it. Man’s desire to expand. To leave the matriarchial longhouse and conquer. In truth we lack space. Space is forever shut to the white man today. Anarcho-tyranny means only the leftist anti-fa sperg will experience the thrill of confrontation against the System that bred him without fear of arrest and destruction.

The world is made small by bugmen, wahmen and their smartphones. The world is made even smaller by Men who only pursue their own physique.

Lifting weight, being fit, being strong. These are necessary components of being a Man. Mastery of your body and knowledge of it is important but they fold into the rest of life. An endless obsession without competitive pursuit is masturbatory. By all means enter powerlifting competitions but enter to win. This isn’t about participatory trophies, and it never has been. Engage in the physical for the love of it but the memetic rhetoric must expand. New space must be conquered.

Beauty for example – what is beauty without true art? What is beauty without dressing well? Where are the serious considerations of fashion or art? They lurk beneath the surface but are not yet brought to light. It seems we are trapped in a small, infantile form, of rebellion. Mastery of the body in the gym that takes time, energy, but does not present space in which to truly expand.


Skills are what we must learn. A multitude of them. Maybe you think like me the dark times are coming (or are already here). What are you going to do when they dox you and you’re fired? In an absence of the Space we crave what fire can we nurture?


As a friend said though:

“Why are people not generative? I think because its too fucking hard”

It is fucking hard. What do we create? It is hard even for a man to create and build a strong family today let alone teach himself skills. But I do not despair. I say that BAPists must step away from the political. They must look more towards WrathofGnon. Ancient skills, woodworking, thatching, sewing, blacksmithing. Much of modern western men have been robbed of chance to learn and engage with such things.

We have been bred to become consoomers.

It is prevalent in any ‘masculine’ hobby. Guns, bikes, motorsports. Most of these hobbies however offer at least some degree of ‘space’. Space for innovation or to create your own. The tragedy of the 3D printer is that most of us don’t have the creative and generative nature to build things because we have everything we need. It is only adverts and the eternal psy-op of consooming that leads us to new purchases. This must change. We can’t pretend to be fully escaped from this clown world, certainly we can’t if we engage on Twitter!

Aesthetics for men can’t become like plastic tits for whores. We don’t just want to get in the door or get a free meal. They’re a compliment to the substance that follows. The beginning of cultivation of complexity. We love the BAPisms because it confounds our enemies to look good and be able to discuss complexity. You know this to be true. This concept is nothing new, the cultured thug. But the thug doesn’t just look dangerous – he knows how to fight, when to fight.

I hope we are on the cusp of more creative, generative content. Of a discussion of wider skills and knowledge. Too often people become parodies of the identity they seek. It is critical for Revolt Against Modern World to engage in this in more of a fashion than simply pumping iron. The next step involves fraternity as well – getting a good physique can be done alone, solo, by lonely men who hide in the gym. This is not good enough. You must take steps to expand, to meet other men, build relationships. Not everyone must bend to your political will from day one. Online relationships are ultimately not real.

The path forward is never easy – you may enter institutions if you wish, but there are steps in between from physique to that. Those steps involve reclaiming generative power of yourself. As mastery of the body helps the mind so to does mastery of skills. Learning something and becoming valuable is what the frogs must do. Do not whine about how they are shutting down thought criminals on YouTube – that is not valuable content. That could never help you rebuild your house or fix your car. You must step forward from physique poasting. Generate, fraternize, document your journey of learning. Inspire others beyond aesthetics.

After all.

Beautiful people will save the world.


EsotericTrad writes at The American Sun (https://theamericansun.com/author/esoterictrad/… ) and blogs at his own site: http://esoterictrad.wordpress.com . He’s currently learning more about woodworking when not lifting or poasting.

Straussian Temperature Check

Straussians East and West cling to political teachings that Strauss made viable, but are no longer useful today. That’s not a reason to stop reading Strauss, because he pointed beyond outward teachings, perhaps more emphatically than any philosopher before him.

Our political situation is straightforwardly bad. Even if it is beyond saving, it would still be a good thing if reasonable men didn’t betray their fellows or capitulate to the mob in their hearts. Straussians do more of the latter than the former. For reasons I will discuss in this essay, Straussians remain far below the “philosopher” and have largely fallen prey to modern doxxies in an embarrassing way. Specifically, Straussians are antiracist and antireligion and this leads them to accept, in their own hearts (i.e., not esoterically as a mask) political decisions that degrade the universities and politics in general.

To put our current situation bluntly: whites and normal people are legal subordinates to racial minorities and “the disabled.” Our political class has decided to put an end to all forms of “discrimination”; they aren’t going to “work for it” by persuading the citizens (i.e., treating them like free people). “No more discrimination. No threats to the safety and happiness of the people will be permitted!” Strauss explicitly called that communism. Why do the Straussians fall prey to communism if their teacher and guide was opposed?

East Coast Straussianism

East Coast Straussians usually, in my experience, come to Strauss as liberals and do not substantially change. They have the fundaments of their earlier beliefs reinforced. I have even seen some become rabid leftist hyenas who still get hired by respected conservative Centers.

This happens because part of the philosophic teaching, the Platonic teaching especially, has to do with the source of virtue and vice. I discussed this in some detail in my introduction to Straussianism, where I talked about the excellent book by Professor Leibowitz.

This teaching can be summed up as “knowledge is virtue.” If knowledge is virtue, then the source of vice is not the “will,” but ignorance. I am not concerned with persuading you of this position in this essay. Really, if you are interested, read Leibowitz’s book. The upshot of the teaching is that people are in a sense “innocent” of their misdeeds. Everyone wants to do what is good, but those who do not do what is good act out of ignorance. If they knew better, they wouldn’t do the misdeed. The Apostle Paul wrote “I do what I hate” in opposition to this teaching.

A corollary of this teaching: men cannot obey commands they think are bad for them. It’s impossible. When people make “sacrifices” in obedience to a higher authority, they do so for some reason, expecting to avoid some evil (being a coward, for example) or obtain some good (praise). If men cannot obey some commands, even moral dictates, then it makes no sense to get angry at them when they are disobedient. What they need is education, not punishment. Punishment implies that they “should have known better,” but they couldn’t have known better, because if they did they would have acted differently.

This teaching can lead one to moral skepticism, and indeed such skepticism is the position of many East Coast Straussians, if not most. Take gay marriage as an example. They say, “well, a person’s inclinations in this way cannot be helped.” And they draw a liberal or skeptic’s conclusion from this: therefore the law should be changed. They will talk the same way even about cannibalism. But for some reason this generous spirit doesn’t, in my experience at least, reach to things like “racism” or “sexism”—i.e., the aristocratic view of politics and romance.

You can get an East Coast Straussian to attack BAP as vulgar and, in the same evening, say “Cannibalism is understandable.”

The East Coasters have their finger on something true, but so many of them lack the strength to see things through to their end. I do think “virtue is knowledge” and its corollaries are generally reasonable. But that doesn’t mean one cannot distinguish between good commands and bad commands and treat accordingly those who are unable to follow good commands. Just because someone is “innocent” insofar as they are just ignorant doesn’t mean their crazy ass wouldn’t be better off dead, or that citizens lack the right to clap them in chains and throw away the key. If East Coasters want to give a pass to cannibalism… why don’t they also give a pass to making examples out of ignorant men? I will tell you why: they believe skepticism requires toleration and maybe even affirmation because people need that.

Let’s say for the sake of argument that it is impossible to know the true religion. The East Coaster thinks this means he, as an honest and consistent man, ought to tolerate the religions of others. However, if it is impossible to know the true religion, why wouldn’t a government just choose the religion that suits it best since it’s as potentially true as any other? The East Coaster tolerates out of a sense of moral obligation. He brings a moral ought to the skeptical “there is no ought.”

This argument is not my argument. I think you can reasonably deduce that some things are preferable to others, that some character traits are better than others, etc. If people are simply unable live up to what is good… well, I hardly give myself a pass for my own failings and I don’t feel like being harried into constantly giving consideration to the “disabilities” of others as well. It’s tiring, okay? And when such “care and concern” for the failings of others is legally enforced, when they demand your respect for their failings with the force of law, well, then, it’s just insolence repackaged as justice.

In sum: the East Coast Straussians have a philosophic argument that shows the “innocence” of misdeeds and misinterpret innocence to mean “harmless” or even “equal.” This view leads them to excuse the insolence of others. Many good men have tenure and should rebuke all calls from the political commissars (Human Resources et alia) to grow more inclusive and “supportive.” If you don’t stick your neck out once in awhile…

East Coasters Malign Socrates in A Strange Way

East Coast Straussians tend to think that philosophy actually corrupts people. They think philosophy and politics are at odds, because philosophy teaches “amorality” whereas politics relies on certain prohibitions and honors.

I would contend that Socrates did not corrupt either Alcibiades or Critias, but that he made them better especially when they were around him. This is the explicit position of Plato and Xenophon. I know some snigger at the idea, but I think that’s because they think philosophy justifies base desires.

But besides the historical Socrates, there is a general question about whether or not philosophy is compatible with politics. East Coast Straussians tend to think the philosopher is a bad citizen. This is ridiculous. The philosopher is only ever a bad citizen in a bad regime, so to whatever extent a regime is bad to that extent a philosopher will be a bad citizen. Is it unselfish to be willing to fight with other men to acquire possessions? Is it unselfish to run risks so that you too can enjoy the fruits of citizenship? Is it anti-political to run the risks only so much as is necessary? Yes, I know, a political community might rely on a variety of unphilosophic speeches—“only doing the bare minimum is cowardly!”—but to whatever extent they do they are corrupted.

The best regime may not come into existence outside of speech, nevertheless every actual regime is measured by it. The philosopher is not at odds with this regime, he is integral to it.

Saying the philosopher is at odds with politics is like saying it is irrational to want leisure and all the good possessions available to men. I will admit that Socrates did, in some ways, play the woman to get his wealth. But get wealth he did, as well as a hot wife that he liked (who was perfect for the life of philosophy and therefore perfect simply), access to the most promising youths, and invitations to the best dinner parties in Athens.

Socrates was not stressed out or sad. He led a materially excellent life. I know a lot of East Coasters who are often very sad and deprive themselves of many good things. Sometimes they’ll even cope and talk about the pleasures of thought and how Socrates “lived in 10,000-fold poverty.” Please stop coping this way. None of that is true. You can’t think well if you eat garbage food, don’t have sex, and live in fear of political commissars and student wrath. How can you be philosophic and stressed or sad? Philosophy precludes such miseries. Yes, it might not even be your fault that you’re sad but that’s the rub isn’t it?

The conservative East Coasters

There are conservative East Coasters. These latch onto the distinction between the Ancients and Moderns. I am going to go through an argument I have had with a very dear friend many times.

Real Christians like the emphasis Strauss put on the quarrel between the ancients and moderns because they dislike the atheistic vibe the moderns give off. They also interpret the ancient focus on “human nobility”… they view this focus as an affirmation of community and the family, as opposed to the modern focus on “the individual.”

However, these affinities lead to bad results. Elijah del Medigo is a good example, and my essay about his view of the Ancients and Moderns is a good supplement to the critique that follows.

Community, family, God, equality… these are the values of the conservative East Coaster. I want to excise equality from that list. I want to free their souls from that error.

“The modern focus on the individual is degrading. We are not meant to be atomized units of commercialization and consumption. We are political animals. We are meant to find our fulfillment in loving relationships. Modern philosophy is dehumanizing and therefore it can never … the left can never be truly humanitarian. The leftwing is totalitarian.”

This speech is misbegotten. The things you actually revere are incompatible with your moral commitments. You revere the family. Yet, the family is based on exclusion and “selfishness.” Do you think the Left hates the family because … why? The left hates the family because it is patriarchal and self-interested (putting “your own” first) or it doesn’t exist. You revere community. Yet, community is premised on the existence of a citizen class that undergoes great labors for great benefits. Do you think the Left hates the benefits because … why? The left hates the benefits of citizenship because those benefits always require the elevation of some men over others. These benefits require what is called exploitation and discrimination. You revere God. Yet, reverence for God is based on high standards of human conduct. Whoever claims obedience to God is easy and “for everyone” belittles the divine. The egalitarian is the true atheist. Do you think the Left hates God because all men are equal in the sight of God? The left hates God because the dogmas of Christianity obfuscate its potential egalitarian and leveling tendencies: belief in the Christ, concern for Baptism and Confirmation, the Apostle’s Creed, these are things people just believe are important and have nothing specifically to do with the equal treatment of all human beings. Dogmas set a people apart. Dogmas are a sign of God’s favor. Upholding the dogmas of Christianity against the enemies of Christ is Western and not everyone can be Christian or Western. Every hierarchy, including this one, is anathema to the leftist dispensation.

The degradations of modern life are not the result of technology or “individualism.” The degradations are the result of egalitarianism. Enlightenment liberalism produced world conquest, strong communities (which are always premised either on conquest or a strong holding-action), healthy families, and the spread of belief in Christ far beyond the bounds even the Apostle Paul achieved. It was not the modern philosophers who encouraged the world you see and loath. Rawls is not the heir of Locke. Not even Rousseau was as insane as that two-bit academic philosophaster.

Aristotle is not your refuge in this argument. Aristotle bluntly stated the justice of piracy. He advocated for “natural slavery.” He taught the effect of the environment on race. He taught patriarchy. Even if these are “exoteric positions” and he “esoterically” thought piracy was evil, slavery unjust, and all races equal… even if all this is true, he thought his public teaching about these things was salutary. But really… in what world is the “secret teaching,” the truly dangerous teaching, “all men are created equal”?

Aristotle emphasized the difficulty of virtue and its sweetness. He pushed for habituation and law. Try to square an emphasis on habituation with equal rights for everyone including a slave class. Do people magically acquire virtue the day after they cease being enslaved? Are you required to share power with people who have been poorly habituated? One of Aristotle’s actual esoteric teachings is the rarity of true friendship because friendship only occurs between good men. And the same goes for politics: true politics occurs between friends or men who are approximately good. Now try to square that sense of community, of community based on virtue, with egalitarian notions about the evils of slavery. Natural slaves cannot even have friends, according to Aristotle. How are they going to be good citizens?

But the Southerners were evil. America sinned.

The West Coast

I have already criticized the West Coast in my reply to Tom West. I will try here to cover some different ground, though the opening is similar.

West Coast Straussianism began with Harry Jaffa and is carried on today by his star students, Tom West and John Marini being the clear leaders in this regard. Jaffa produced a public teaching he thought would steel American citizens against the leveling tendencies of communism, while leading promising students to philosophy.  Unfortunately it does the opposite.

I remember a debate I attended as a boy. The Creationist Dwayne Gish and some evolutionary biologist from the local university were debating Darwinism. I went to the debate because I was dragged by my childhood friend’s mother, who was an atheist so I don’t really know what that was about. In any event, I came away completely intoxicated with the idea that science proved the existence of God. The thing (science) I always assumed was the greatest danger to my beliefs turned out to be completely in my camp! I liken this youthful experience to what West Coast Straussians undergo when they hear loving equality means revering their ancestors and especially the founding generation. I thought, “you mean Christians are the real scientists!?” And they think, “you mean patriots are the real antiracists?!?!”

Well, I matured. And I will say here that neither Jaffa nor West take the antiracism morality seriously. They both distinguish between antislavery and antiracism. However… they permit the antiracism morality to linger and many of their students, even some of their brightest students, become thorough antiracists.

Keeping young men patriotic, and even making a few new patriots (I have seen it happen), doesn’t do much good when their patriotism continues to lead them down the path of communism. They aren’t even as conservative as Eisenhower. I once met a grad student who said the only statue he would defend would be Lincoln’s! And here is where I really have some problem with the public teaching of the West Coasters.

When that kid said he would only defend Lincoln’s statue another young conservative, one not trained in the Straussian school berated him. And this is what I think happens to a lot of West Coast Straussians: they go in patriotic, latch onto the “Equality Principle,” and proceed to misinterpret all the original reasons they had thought America is good and communism detestable. Imagine thinking your initial love of America and detestation of lefties was because “communism is actually more racist and discriminatory.” That turn of mind actually takes place in many West Coast students and it’s an injustice.

But let us put aside the effects of West Coast Straussianism and get down to brass tacks.

Criticism 1: anticommunism is incompatible with antiracism

Let there be several ways of getting at the definition of communism. First, communism is the attempt at ending all “discrimination” through force. Second, communism is the belief that virtue can be taught, easily, through a method. Third, communism is the attempt to acquire the benefits of esteem through force. Aristophanes mocked all this in his Assemblywomen. Strauss rejected communism in many places, but especially in his lecture Why We Remain Jews. There he refused even to use the word “discrimination” without putting scare-quotes around it.

Today we are under the boot of increasingly communist laws, even if we haven’t gone full-retard. The only way to combat these laws is to reject liberalism entirely or return to Jefferson and Madison’s understanding of liberalism. The latter can only happen in thought, considering the times and the quality of American citizens.

Jefferson understood equality to mean men had a number of equal rights, none of which amounted to a right to be included. These rights did not even, in Jefferson’s mind, demand the respect of others when those others were pressed by necessity. Southerner’s were bound by natural rights (equality) to free their slaves as soon as they were able to do so without impairing their own rights and liberties. And if ever they freed their slaves, they were under no obligation to include them in society or the political community unless they could do so, again, in a way commensurate with their own rights and liberties. Getting butthexxed by the North was not Jefferson’s idea of fulfilling the dream of the Declaration. He advocated colonizing the slave class or spreading it out very thinly over the vast expanse of America so as to disperse the burden of its political education. Neither of these things happened and we see the result in the streets today.

If you do not take Jefferson’s view, then America owes its former slaves and indeed everyone it has ever harmed in pursuit of its own independence and greatness. You cannot rest complacently with mere political (legal) equality, because the socio-economic gains of whites as a result of their ancestors is palpable. Yes, I know, you can talk all you want about “moral agency” (“we are all responsible for our actions and destiny”), but that is just a lack of imagination talking. Starting from the bottom is more difficult, and while people do still make it out… well, it remains more difficult and that matters! If things are easier for a class of people because of injustice then their enemies have a right to remonstrate against that “privilege.” America’s quest for its own independence and greatness made things easier for the citizen class and more difficult for many other classes of people. If you think that is necessarily unjust, then you are on your way to communism.  

Lincoln-worship tends in that direction in young people today.

Criticism 2: philosophy is about the right of nature, not natural rights.

Strauss points this out in The City and Man. I do not have my book handy, but the upshot is that natural rights are a democratic stand-in for natural right. The right of nature can be summed up as good men have a right to pursue their advantage. This is a reckless teaching because you tempt everyone to think they have a right to pursue their advantage according to their subjective understanding of that. i.e., you tempt bad men to think they have a right to act as good men do, to claim the advantage for themselves that good men claim.

Only the good man’s subjective understanding is “objective,” i.e., according to nature and therefore good. Everyone else’s is distorted: their desires are irrational. Even if what they want is a good thing, they want it in the wrong way, etc. The modern philosophers were more fearful of bad men taking the privileges of the good men and so produced a more esoteric teaching than their ancient forebears.

Instead of saying good men have a right to pursue their advantage, the modern philosophers decided to legitimize only a few desires outright: life, liberty, and property. All men have a right to pursue these things. They don’t have a right to pursue dominion except as a matter of strict necessity (to avoid dying or becoming slaves).

Don’t let bare speech get in the way of your understanding here… think in terms of a sliding scale: to whatever extent you are good, to that extent you have a right to pursue your advantage.

The natural rights teaching falls apart of its own accord because it too must abide by the right of nature. (Nature is unavoidable.) Let’s use Locke as an example: every man has a right to life liberty and property, unless he is a certain level of bad, in which case you can imprison or even kill him. I know Locke deploys various maneuvers to avoid the obvious fact that only people approximately good have the right to pursue life, liberty, or property. For example, he tries to always refer to criminals as subhuman (noxious things, beasts, etc). Nevertheless, the point stands for Locke: you have to be “reasonable” to pursue life, liberty, and property.  He just tries to maintain that all adult men are reasonable, because he was producing a teaching to influence natural democrats.

Hobbes deploys his own maneuver to escape the obvious: he says even the worst man has the right to try to save his life (he has a right to escape death row, or to flee battle and act the coward). But the right of nature is inescapable and Hobbes is forced to come to terms with it eventually: the vainglorious are rightfully restrained simply, i.e., he doesn’t merely say “the timid rightfully restrain the vainglorious” but that the vainglorious are just bad. In admitting this Hobbes gives way to the right of nature in the midst of his promotion of a very limited set of natural rights.

Maneuvers like these push back the demands of nature or reason a few steps. They invite the reader to question the author and keep the truth of nature out of harm’s reach. But producing salutary teachings about nature, teachings which take into account the peculiar weakness of the times, is not the only reason for “esoteric” writing. Look at Nietzsche: he very openly taught the most dangerous things about nature. But even he was forced into teaching contradictory things. The fact of the matter is that it is impossible to just “say” the truth because each man has his own weaknesses and confusions. Whatever you write requires correct interpretation. A writer with true talent acts as a sort of prophet, bringing the truth of nature into the hearts of his readers because he himself has been afflicted with their thoughts and concerns. The prophet or philosophic-writer is a timely man outside of time.

When the West Coast Straussians pretend that modern natural rights are universal and timeless guides to political life, they take the position of a specific teaching, a specific regime. The regime they support is invariably a democratic regime. Talented writers like Tom West try to show the elitism at the heart of that very democratic teaching, but … I think it is Nietzsche’s time because as I said in the previous section, Jefferson’s view of things ended at Appomattox. It needs to be said again and again: the writer of the Declaration and the drafter of the Constitution held political positions that were defeated with bullets. That the West Coasters laud the Declaration and Constitution, but refuse to give any credence or even teach the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions or Madison’s magisterial Report of 1800 is near incredible. I think they don’t do so because they recognize we cannot bring back the original founding consensus. The material (our citizens) is too corrupt and irrational.

To conclude this section: natural rights don’t make sense because men have to be good to some extent, i.e., humans as humans do not have rights. Not only is the teaching about natural rights not true simply, it is also deleterious today. Whites are legal subordinates to minorities! Teaching students that our founding generation was unjust rather than not ideal[1]—and you necessarily teach this when you elevate Lincoln above Jefferson and Madison—prepares them (the students) to accept legal subordination as penance.

If the natural rights theory is not true simply, and if it is no longer politically salutary, then the West Coasters should stop teaching it.

Mount Rushmore Post-Script

I was just told today to watch Trump’s Mount Rushmore speech. “It’s as if someone gave a Claremonter (West Coaster) the stage. The entire speech runs along the lines you reject in this essay… and that speech will do a great deal of good!” You know, I accept this line of argument. I could nitpick a few things… like how the speech praises America’s “inclusive” history but also calls for the American government to put “Americans first.” There are many of these small inconsistencies that, I think, plague The American Mind. Nevertheless, the speech probably did much good. But I ask you, which parts of the speech did more good than others? I contend that the speech was strongest when Trump was praising American accomplishments (building things, going to space, ‘forging’ great men) and not when he was touting our antiracist and antislavery history. I contend that saying those things does little more than assuage the American conscience, whereas listing our accomplishments is actually inspiring.

In any event, a message that is good for the spectators at Trump’s rally should be substantially different than the message you deliver to your promising graduate students. That’s okay!

Conclusion: Straussianism is Good

Writing this essay will not get me much “clout” on twitter. Talking about Strauss appeals to, I think, fewer than 50 of my followers. I am not trying to score points. I am using the only public platform I have to argue with Straussians about what they teach and in many cases actually believe. I will always call myself a Straussian out of gratitude to Strauss and his students.

But dear friends, it is time to act and save your universities. Universities are supposed to be where the best congregate with the best to talk and have sex. I experienced open and free debate in college. It wasn’t so long ago that you could actually have arguments about issues that make people very angry and touchy. The place I went to college doesn’t even exist anymore. Colleges are everywhere capitulating to psychopaths and moral fanatics. Moral fanaticism is not about “tradition,” it is always and forever more closely tied to “egalitarianism.” The aristocrat is the philosopher’s natural ally, not the people who promote degeneracy and skepticism. Habituation and Law, being the backbone of Aristocracy, are regime-level qualities more closely allied to philosophy than moral skepticism. You have to stop the moral fanatics from destroying the elitist quality of university life… or at least stop attacking the anons who do speak up.

[1] If you say, “no, we teach the justice of the founding generation…” Look, you know you don’t teach that. You only teach that their ideal was perfectly just. West admits this frankly in many public discussions. He doesn’t believe it in his heart though, I don’t think. You can see basically my entire argument here esoterically taught in his book. At least that is my contention.

Tocqueville on Fake Revolutionary Abstractions

“When we study the history of the Revolution, we see that it was carried out in precisely the same spirit in which so many abstract books on government are written. The same attraction for general theories, for complete systems of legislation and exact symmetry in laws; the same contempt for existing facts; the same confidence in theory, the same taste for the original, the ingenious, and the new in institutions; the same desire to remake the whole constitution all at once, following the rules of logic and according to a single plan, rather than trying to fix its various parts. A frightening sight! For what is merit in a writer is sometimes vice in a statesman, and the things which have often made lovely books can lead to great revolutions.

“The language of politics itself then took on the quality of that spoken by authors; it was full of general expressions, abstract terms, ambitious words, and literary turns of phrase. With the help of political passions which used it, this style spread to all classes and descended with unusual ease even into the lowest…

“…What is unique is that we have kept the habits we took from literature, while losing almost completely our old love of letters. I have often been astonished, in the course of my public life, to see people who never read the books of the eighteenth century nor those of any other, and who strongly despise writers, preserve so faithfully some of the chief faults which the literary mind produced before they were born.”

The Old Regime and the Revolution (1856), Book III, Chapter 2, “How Around the Middle of the 18th Century Intellectuals Became the Country’s Leading Politicians, and the Effects Which Resulted from This”  

Thanks to secret friend for this quote!

What is Straussianism?

Mutual Influence of Theology and Philosophy by Leo Strauss ...

I am posting a piece critiquing the Straussians in a few days, and thought a short companion essay explaining Straussianism would be helpful.

Leo Strauss was a German Jewish émigré who ended up spending the majority of his career teaching at the University of Chicago. From that perch, he had access to many talented youths whom he led to an interest in political philosophy. Many of these went on to become professors in prominent universities and he himself was widely praised as a talented scholar for some time. Eventually he published an essay ridiculing the sorry state of political science and the social sciences generally. After this, his work and students garnered more scrutiny and blackballing. While they did in fact make their way into many institutions and even the federal government, into places where they really did influence the direction of America, this influence is by and large spent, relegated to an increasingly small number of prominent schools. Though plenty of departments across the nation still provide ready homes for these scholars who, I would say, make up the best sect in American academia.

What did Strauss teach these promising young pupils? Strauss focused on a few principal themes that run through the Western political tradition. In this he is quite different than any philosopher to come before him, insofar as those philosophers typically spoke to a specific people about their God and their law (Maimonides and Alfarabi come to mind) or about universal truth, like Aristotle or any of the Enlightenment thinkers. (Nietzsche too, insofar as “truth is manmade” is obviously a claim to universality. Something of which Nietzsche was perfectly aware so don’t think this insight does anything substantial to his position.) Unlike these earlier philosophers, Strauss wrote books about thinkers throughout the political tradition and tried to show, contrary to an easy relativistic view, that they were not all giving different interpretations of “reality” or something like that, but that they were all talking about the same things and indeed all agreed on the essentials, that where they appeared to differ was a matter of political rhetoric in order to make the truth palatable for their time (this includes Maimonides and Alfarabi, by the way).

This attempt to attune the truth to the times, Strauss (and many others before him) called “esoteric writing.” The esoteric/philosophic writer speaks in the terms that are used and popular in his time, and tries to show how all virtue and all good things… he tries to show where these things have their ultimate source. Philosophic writing is an invitation to a discovery of the truth of things, an invitation which must be given in terms that can possibly be understood by contemporary readers. In other words, you cannot just “tell” someone the truth. It has to be discovered if it is to be “possessed” or understood.

Strauss invited his readers to this discovery by focusing on a few “tensions” or “conflicts”: the conflict between the ancients and moderns, the conflict between Athens and Jerusalem (aka Reason vs. Revelation), and the tension between politics and philosophy.

When it comes to the conflict between the ancients and moderns, Strauss teaches that the moderns are relativistic while the ancients were not. This is his baseline teaching and it was already familiar to English readers through the works of many Christian thinkers. Indeed, this aspect of Straussianism was meant specifically to appeal to Christians and especially Thomists in the fight against the leveling forces of communism (and not merely USSR Communism). The moderns openly or almost-openly taught atheism and materialism and if they appeared not to teach these things, their positions implied atheism and materialism as foundations. The moderns were teachers of evil, or were driven to foolish teachings out of “antitheological ire.” They were actually angry with God and his Church and wanted to bring these edifices down. Ultimately modern philosophers are responsible for “moral relativism,” because they taught Skepticism (atheism + materialism) in order to win the fight against religious persecution. The ancients on the other hand were interested in the promotion of nobility and they were not materialists. In this conflict, Strauss sides decisively and openly with the ancients.

When it comes to the conflict between Athens and Jerusalem, or Reason vs. Revelation, let me quote the most famous passage:

If we take a bird’s eye view of the secular struggle between philosophy and theology, we can hardly avoid the impression that neither of the two antagonists has ever succeeded in really refuting the other. All arguments in favor of revelation seem to be valid only if belief in revelation is presupposed; and all arguments against revelation seem to be valid only if unbelief is presupposed. This state of things would appear to be natural. Revelation is always so uncertain to unassisted reason, and man is so built that he can find his satisfaction, his bliss, in free investigation, in articulating the riddle of being. But, on the other hand, he yearns so much for a solution of that riddle and human knowledge is always so limited that the need for divine illumination cannot be denied and the possibility of revelation cannot be refuted. Now it is this state of things that seems to decide irrevocably against philosophy and in favor of revelation. Philosophy has to grant that revelation is possible. But to grant that revelation is possible means to grant that philosophy is perhaps not the one thing needful, that philosophy is perhaps something infinitely unimportant. To grant that revelation is possible means to grant that the philosophic life is not necessarily, not evidently, the right life. Philosophy, the life devoted to the quest for evident knowledge available to man as man, would itself rest on an unevident, arbitrary, or blind decision. This would merely confirm the thesis of faith, that there is no possibility of consistency, of a consistent and thoroughly sincere life, without belief in revelation. The mere fact that philosophy and revelation cannot refute each other would constitute the refutation of philosophy by revelation. (Natural Right and History 74-75)

In spite of that quotation, Strauss clearly sided with philosophy. So that should be taken into account. Likewise, he clearly sided with Athens. But his choice in this conflict led to a different course of action than his choice in the conflict between the ancients and moderns. He sided with the ancients and openly attacked the moderns. On this question, he sides with Athens and Philosophy but openly promotes the dignity of Jerusalem and Revelation.

Third, Strauss discussed the conflict between politics and philosophy. Athens killed Socrates and many Straussians believe that this was in a way just, because they believe that Socrates really did “corrupt” the young, that philosophy corrupts the young by turning them away from the noble pursuits of politics towards the private life of philosophy. This question is in large part what my other essay is about.

Now that I have stated Strauss’ positions as basically as I could, let me tell you what developed out of those teachings, what “the school” teaches. And I will try to do so generously.

When it comes to the atheism of the school, I am not joking when I say it is the norm. The clearest book on this was written by professor Leibowitz: An Ironic Defense of Socrates. In that book, he argues that the question of religion has been bungled by most. The question is emphatically not about whether or not god “exists,” but whether or not we—from our perspective—can actually obey commands if we think they are bad for us. He comes down on a solid “no.” You cannot obey a command if you think it is bad for you. Full stop. If you cannot obey a command you think is bad for you, then you cannot blame those people who do not obey commands. They couldn’t help it. And if you can only obey commands that you think are good for you, well, then, what do you think that means about your relationship to god? Are you obedient to him or obedient to your reason? You are only ever obedient to God when what he commands aligns with what you think is good for yourself. God(s) might exist, how can a philosopher or anyone say he definitely doesn’t? but that isn’t the point at all.  This little argument sparked off a giant debate in the Straussian world. By the way, Nietzsche belittles this argument as a Socratism in BGE—he points out that this argument makes little leftists out of halfwits. But the Straussians are hated as crypto-fascists!?! It is almost only ever other Straussians who accuse their fellows of being too leftwing. Pangle is somewhat famous for this. I add this bit about Straussians criticizing their fellows as lefties to recommend the school to you.

On the other questions, the Straussians tend to be hardly distinguishable from rather fluffy conservatives and have most definitively split when it comes to whether or not patriotism is a virtue. I recommend the essay by Anton in UNZ, which covers well the disagreement between the “East Coast” and the “West Coast” Straussians. I only add one thing:

The East Coast Straussians really do not think the “modern philosophers” were philosophers. They read the ancient philosophers for understanding and write about the modern philosophers to show that they themselves understand philosophy better than Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau among others. And look I kind of get it… when you are reading the “great books” you tend to agree or disagree with authors, but I promise you this is a low way of reading. Almost all the major authors in the canon can show you the way if only you know how to read them. Relativism is a mirage produced by nonessentials being different in different times… and people placing too much importance on those nonessentials, thereby seeing disagreement on them as signs of an inability to agree about the most profound things. Let’s take an extremely obvious example and I will be done with this essay: say in one time it was absolutely important for your people to reject clothes made of two materials because a ruinous political faction, a political faction that would betray your people over to their enemies, promoted the fashion of mixed materials, a fashion common among the enemy. So a philosopher might openly oppose wearing mixed-material clothing in his writings. Now apply that to most questions that “grip the populace” and you have a provisional but true answer as to why philosophers appear to have different “philosophies” or “descriptions of reality.”

Lee Harvey Oswald and The Double, or, Did Krushchev Kill Kennedy?

JFK Was Completely Unprepared For His Summit with Khrushchev - HISTORY

by Semmelweis

This article will serve as a brief overview of the theories of Communist involvement in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, which was mentioned by BAP in Episode 38 of Caribbean Rhythms. Whodunnit JFK theories are a cottage industry, and have been ever since 1963. I will not attempt to argue for or against this particular scenario, which could easily be a book-length study, but rather to present a guide to its proponents and some of the evidence that they cite. There are two main versions of this theory, one being that the Soviet Union was the main force behind the assassination, and the other alleging that Fidel Castro’s Cuba was the main agent.

Allegations of communist responsibility for the assassination began immediately after the event. Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade had wanted to formally charge Lee Harvey Oswald with killing Kennedy “in furtherance of an international communist conspiracy,” but was prevented from doing so because of the provocation this would have caused. Anti-Castro Cuban exile groups also were quick to blame Castro for the assassination. The DRE — a group which Oswald had had contact with, allegedly attempting to infiltrate them — quickly put out a broadsheet with photos of Oswald and Castro under the heading “The Presumed Assassins.”

Revilo Oliver, who will be known to people in right-wing circles as a classicist and staunch anti-communist, one of those purged by William F. Buckley, published an article in the John Birch Society’s American Opinion magazine entitled “Marxmanship in Dallas” in February, 1964. Oliver was actually called to testify before the Warren Commission to answer questions about his allegations of communist conspiracy.

It is now known that the Warren Commission was established by Lyndon Johnson not to find the truth of the Kennedy killing so much as to present a cover story. Earl Warren initially refused to head the inquiry, but Johnson, known for being very pushy, called Warren in for a private meeting in order to persuade him. As Johnson related it to Senator Richard Russell, who also served on the Commission, “we’ve got to take this out of the arena where they’re testifying that Khruschev and Castro did this and did that and kicking us into a war that can kill 40 million Americans in an hour.” He then told Warren “what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City.” The story of that “little incident” brought Warren to tears, and convinced him to do as Johnson asked. 

It’s telling that Johnson was not concerned with whether Krushchev or Castro actually were involved or not. As early as November 25, only three days after the assassination and one day after Oswald’s murder by Jack Ruby, and before any real investigation had taken place, Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach put out a memo stating, “The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial. … Speculation about Oswald’s motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting [the] thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too pat–too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.).”


The “little incident in Mexico City” that LBJ told Warren about was Lee Harvey Oswald’s visits to both the Soviet and Cuban Embassies there in early October, 1963, only two months before the assassination. Oswald was already known to be a professed Marxist, having given himself a very public profile as a pro-Castro street agitator in New Orleans the previous summer, where he was arrested and did interviews with the local press. He was also a “former defector” to the Soviet Union, having left the U.S. for the U.S.S.R. in 1959 after serving in the Marine Corps. He allegedly attempted to renounce his U.S. citizenship, and stated his intention to make known to the Soviets all the information he had learned in his military service. Oswald had been trained as a radar operator and stationed in Atsugi, Japan where the U2 spy planes were based, and so this threat was not insignificant.

But despite Oswald’s apparently treasonous activities, after living in the Soviet Union from October 1959 through June 1962, in the city of Minsk, he was allowed to return to the U.S., bringing his Russian wife Marina and their newborn child. He even claimed indigence, and the U.S. State Department loaned him $435 for travel expenses.

The question about Oswald’s defection to Russia has always been whether or not he was part of a U.S. operation to send false defectors to the Soviet Union to gather intelligence. Such programs are now known to have existed, but the U.S. government has always denied that Oswald was part of one — as of course they would, even, or especially, if he had been. Many early critics of the Warren Commission — the people that the CIA labeled “conspiracy theorists,” a perjorative that has been with us ever since — thought that Oswald was working for U.S. intelligence in some capacity, either the CIA or, more likely given his Marine background, the Office of Naval Intelligence. That he openly espoused Marxist beliefs while serving in the Marines, and was allowed to study the Russian language, both without reprimand, certainly raises suspicions. If he was part of a false defector program, we will likely never know, as I’m sure all records of such would have been destroyed hours after the assassination, if not before.

The theory that the Russians were behind the assassination begins with Oswald in Minsk. Did the KGB recruit and train him? Note that it would not matter whether he was a real defector or not, he could have been recruited either way. If he was a real defector and committed to the Soviet cause, he would have been a “useful idiot,” and if he was a fake, he could have been turned, through blackmail or some other means. It is known that Marina Oswald’s (nee Prusakova) uncle was in the KGB, and there has always been speculation about whether the marriage was a set-up in order to control and/or keep tabs on Oswald.

In this version of events, Oswald would have returned to the U.S. as a sleeper agent, perhaps feeding intel to the Soviets such as from the job he took at Jaggers Chiles Stovall in Dallas, which processed classified photographs from spy planes. (This again raises the question of how someone with Oswald’s background could have been hired for such work in the first place.) Then, when the decision was made to eliminate JFK, Oswald would have been “activated.”

Another theory was put forward by British author Michael Eddowes in the 1970s, who alleged that Oswald defected to the Soviet Union and never returned — the Russians replaced him with a double who was sent back in his place. Eddowes noted various discrepancies in Oswald’s appearance before and after his travel to Russia, such as his height appearing in various documents as either 5’9” or 5’11”, and, most significantly, the absence of a scar from a mastoidectomy operation that Oswald is known to have had as a child.

Eddowes published his theory in two books, Krushchev Killed Kennedy in 1975, and The Oswald File two years later. Amazingly, he was able to convince the surviving family of Lee Harvey Oswald to have the body exhumed and its identity verified. The coroner’s report of the examination said that the remains in the Oswald grave were in fact those of Lee Harvey Oswald, based on matching dental records, which seemed to mark the end of Eddowes’ Double theory. However, several years later, Paul Groody, the mortician who buried Oswald in 1963, gave a remarkable interview for a television documentary which again renewed suspicion:

“Three weeks after I buried Lee Harvey Oswald, the Secret Service came to me and they said ‘Paul did you see any scars, such as the scars on his wrist where he was supposed to have tried to commit suicide in Russia?’ And I said of course I wasn’t looking for the likes of this, and really in my own mind did not feel as though I remembered much about this, but I didn’t remember seeing any marks of that kind. And the Secret Service agent told me at that time, ‘Well Paul, we just don’t know who we have out there in that grave.’ ”

“At the time of the ’63 burial time, I put Lee Harvey Oswald in a steel reinforced concrete vault. That vault was hermetically sealed. The vault is guaranteed not to break, crack, or go to pieces, it’s heavy concrete with steel in it with an asphalt lining. And when I opened the grave in ’81 and found that that vault had been broken and the bottom of the vault was the part that was broken, the top was still intact, I noticed at that time that the casket had been disturbed, I questioned in my own mind what had been going on. When I opened that casket the first time, I sent my wife Virginia to Marina to tell her, ‘Yes, there is a body in that grave’ because that was her concern. And then we did go to Baylor, there was an examination by a medical person who was this forensic pathologist. And she determined that yes, these were the teeth of Lee Harvey Oswald, but it took two years for her to make that determination before the report was actually done.”

“Of course, I was the one that had to handle the body in the morgue at Baylor. And as we removed the body from the casket, or at least worked with the body, I could recognize that this clothing was the clothing that I had put on that body. And yet when I saw the head of this body and it was removed from the casket and removed from the body in order that they might x-ray it and take pictures, I could see that there was no autopsy on that head. When an autopsy is done and the skull is cut in order to remove the cap in order to remove the brain, there is a distinctive line of where all the fissures and all of the skull has been parted. Now, it’s going to cause a bit of a mark no matter what you try and do, it’s going to show. And knowing that I handled the body originally and there was an autopsy on that head and now to see that there was no autopsy on the head made it, in my mind, pretty clear that something had transpired that had caused this.

“I feel as though someone had gone to the cemetery, off hours, had taken the head of, really of, Lee Harvey Oswald that now was dead — how he got that way I don’t know but at least it was the head — and had brought the vault to the surface as best they could being a heavy item as it is, a tripod lifting that body. lifting the body and the vault out of the grave. In the process the bottom of the vault fell, breaking the vault causing the casket to deteriorate to a degree. Then of course, removed the head of the one that was there that had been autopsied and put this head in its place so that we would find the teeth of Lee Harvey Oswald. That’s my theory, this is what I think happened. Whoever caused that is the same faction that caused the assassination in the first place. In my mind, a cover-up had taken place.”


Cuba has always been at the heart of the mystery of the JFK assassination. One of the most popular theories has it that anti-Castro Cubans in league with elements of the Mafia and the CIA killed Kennedy as revenge for the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. There have been hundreds of books putting forward variations of this theory, and it also forms the core of Oliver Stone’s film JFK.

Less popular, though no less influential, is the theory that it was Fidel Castro who was behind the assassination. It is now well-known that elements of the U.S. government were involved in intensive efforts to kill Castro all throughout the Kennedy presidency and before. And so, when JFK was shot and the apparent assassin turned out to be a pro-Castro Marxist, an activist for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee who had been to the Cuban embassy only two months earlier, the obvious conclusion was the one that Lyndon Johnson allegedly held for the rest of his life: “Kennedy tried to get Castro, but Castro got Kennedy first.”

The most well-researched and persuasive argument for the Castro-did-it theory is the pair of books by Gus Russo, Live By The Sword and Brothers In Arms. Russo’s evidence was also presented in a documentary film by Wilfried Huismann, Rendezvous With Death. That evidence was also more recently reviewed and partially endorsed by Philip Shenon’s A Cruel and Shocking Act, which details the Warren Commission’s cover-up and failure to investigate early leads in Mexico City pointing to Cuban and Soviet involvement.

It should be noted that the Cuban and Soviet theories are not necessarily in opposition to each other except in details. Cuba was a client state of the Soviet Union and a proxy for it — Castro would not likely have taken such drastic action without Soviet approval at some level.

It should also be noted that the JFK case is filled with so much conflicting evidence that it will make your head explode, just like Kennedy’s in the Zapruder film. The counter-arguments made by researchers against the evidence of Soviet and Cuban involvement is that, as Katzenbach noted in his November 25 memo, it’s all a little too obvious, so much so that one has to wonder if it’s a ruse. Would the Russians use an American defector who openly professed Marxism as their assassin? Perhaps, if, as BAP suggested, he was never meant to be caught. Indeed, there are stories of getaway planes waiting at nearby Redbird Air Field, and other stories of high level Cuban intelligence agents allegedly departing from Dallas that day in private planes, as related by Russo in Brothers in Arms. (Review with summary here.)

But another possibility is that the evidence pointing towards the Soviets and Cubans was fake, planted by other conspirators in order to force a cover up because, as LBJ said to Earl Warren, if “the truth” got out it would lead to a nuclear war. That’s very convenient for LBJ if, as Roger Stone and others allege, it was actually he and his Texas friends who were behind the assassination.

Wat Happened?

I doubt we will ever know the truth with any degree of certainty. Too much time has passed, too many leads were never followed up, the truth was never a priority for all but a few solitary researchers, and even many of them had their own agendas or quirks. From the very beginning, the assassination and what one believed about it became an emblem of one’s politics. A large number of the earliest researchers were leftists and many were also Jewish: Harold Weisberg, Mark Lane, and Edward Jay Epstein were three of the biggest names in mid-1960s JFK research. For them, JFK was a symbol of their liberal ideals, and he was necessarily struck down by “The System,” the same System that they had all been railing against anyway. 

Epstein, it should be noted, went on to become more of a neocon, becoming a confidante of and mouthpiece for CIA super-spook and Mossad liason James Jesus Angleton. Epstein’s last book about the assassination, 1978’s Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald, is strongly influenced by Angleton’s worldview and suggests the possibility of KGB involvement in the assassination, though it doesn’t go as far as Eddowes. Angleton is a central character in the JFK assassination story, though his true role may never be known. Researcher John Newman makes the case that Angleton was manipulating Oswald’s CIA files in the weeks leading up to the assassination, either in preparation to frame Oswald or for some other, unrelated purpose. More recently, French author Laurent Guyenot argues that the Israeli Mossad had Kennedy killed in order to overcome opposition to Israel acquiring nuclear weapons, which did happen under LBJ, who was perhaps the most pro-Israeli politician in US history. In this scenario, Angleton would have been a key figure, perhaps the key figure in the American government, helping to cover up and deflect attention from the Israelis, just like the early counter-cultural “conspiracy theorists” pointing at the CIA, the Mafia, the Texas oil men — just about anyone except the communists or the Israelis.

According to the papers of Russian defector Vasili Mitrokhin, the KGB was actively engaged in promoting conspiracy theories that blamed the CIA and the American right wing for the Kennedy killing. They funneled money to left-wing activists like Mark Lane, and even forged a letter from Lee Harvey Oswald to a “Mr. Hunt,” interpretable as either CIA agent E. Howard Hunt or Texas oil magnate H.L. Hunt. The purpose of this Soviet propaganda was to sow distrust and division in American life, and it that regard, it was successful, although one can hardly attribute American decline to Soviet propaganda alone.

Regardless of who killed JFK and why, the assassination remains a pivotal moment in American history. To study it is to leave the world of mere appearances behind and to delve into the murky underworld of espionage, conspiracy, power politics, intrigue, scandal, and deception. 

By Semmelweis

Dominique Venner

In English we have 2 works of Venner’s, both brought to us by Arktos publishing. For A Positive Critique is, I think, the first book he published (1962) and The Shock of History came near the end of his life: it is a written interview (presumably done over email). So I beg your patience if you are a thorough Venner buff in the French style: From these two books and from the simple story of Venner’s life, I have great respect for the man, but I am not able to know Venner as well as I should like from the works I have.

Venner is French; I am American. His notion of cultural renewal and “a secret and more noble Europe” appeals to me because there is and always has been a “secret America.”

“Before taking part in politics, the Hindus first made a return to the source of their tradition.” The Hindu nationalist eschewed politics (as Venner understands the word) in order to focus on the secret and noble Hindu. Venner admires their focus on scouting movements and education. There really isn’t any use in fighting political battles if there isn’t a side worth fighting for, and only the secret and noble strain of a civilization is worth the fight. If the nobility of your blood or creed or race or whatever defines your nation (or whatever collection of things defines your nation) has no chance at succeeding at politics, politics is bunk for the time being. Venner turned historian in order to do his part in the cultivation of promising youth.

The historian is the ideal man in Junger’s mature theorizing: the historian achieves greatness within himself and this is what permits him to interpret the great men and their influence on history. Historians with poor eyes, impoverished souls, only bungle history and mislead young people. Such historians obscure the secret nobility of their people (supposing it exists—it doesn’t always).

Venner took this seriously and turned historian, giving up political activism as largely ineffective in the midst of so much decline. And not only decline… he recognized that the French people had terribly declined, but he also recognized that even the good men had (and have) no chance at wielding political power, an option only open to the financiers and the few statesmen who stand at the heads of independent states.

For Venner, politics involves the ability to make the most important decisions, which ultimately culminates in decisions of life and death. He follows Schmitt in this way and strikes me as a profound reader of Schmitt. Secret France had no access to this power. I do not know about France today, but I think it is obvious that good Americans do not have access to this power either. In fact, just recently, decent citizens were disabused of a long held notion that they had the right to control their police forces and lock away local criminals. The financier George Soros and others began gradually, but are quickly taking this right for themselves.

Politics must be put aside for the cultivation of the youth. “Thus a Young Europe, founded on the same civilization, the same space, and the same destiny, will serve as the active center of the West and of the world order. The youth of Europe will have new cathedrals to construct and a new empire to build.” This was his activist hope in 1962; only the immediacy of his hopes changed over time. He never lost sight of the youth of Europe: “This awakening [of Europe] will undoubtedly come. When? I do not know but I am positive it will take place.” (2012)

What to Preserve—The Hidden and Secret Elite

“Junger always distanced himself from the infamous and disgraceful acts of his time. He proved that despite the disappearance of the European aristocracy as a social class, the qualities of honour, self-sacrifice, and of conduct could survive in those of elite character who, in decadent times, constitute a sort of hidden aristocracy.” (32) (all quotes from here on out are from Shock)

“[Stefan George] even before 1914, began to outline his idea of a ‘secret Germany,’ embodied by a small elite belonging to a ‘Poetic state,’ opposed to the materialistic society of his time. His poems called for the awakening of a secret elite to protect the ancient flame.” (42)

You cannot just say what makes someone elite. If you could, it would be much easier to be “elite” and there wouldn’t be an elite. Let it suffice here to say, the exertions undertaken by the dissident rightwing are the groundwork for preservation of what is good: BAP’s Sun & Steel, the broad agreement around reading and discussion unbowed by fake morality, new projects, and a longing for real camaraderie.

I am aware that as an internet phenomenon, insofar as we are, there is no camaraderie in the old style. There is a lamentable side to this, but to be sure there is a virtue to be found in it as well. When your life is forced down certain avenues—and much of life has been forced onto the internet—you have to make a virtue of the necessity. The immense pond of human beings would in fact be much more stifling and unhygienic if we could not make the connections we are making over the internet. The groups we are forming in our locales are enriched as a result of our connection online, through which we have access to men we otherwise wouldn’t. I am not saying there haven’t been horrific consequences … our political life has been raped; you understand that. But if you’ve been injected with semen and cannot abort, you might as well bring forth new life as best as you can.

The Wordy Right: A Basis for the Hidden Aristocracy

“The first act by which we free ourselves from tyranny, by which we enter into intellectual and moral rebellion, is to free ourselves from the power of words. It is by means of words, by their seductive, corrosive, and intimidating power, that an able system captures those it wishes to neutralize or dominate, and it does so well before falling back on more dangerous weapons. … From the depths of the Gulag, Solzhenitsyn heroically reconquered his inner world, making himself a free man in spite of the barbed wire fences and guard towers that surrounded him. Solzhenitsyn said that he first had to conquer the lie that Communism had instilled within him, the lie that constituted the crux of his difficulty. Words are strategic implements. To give yourself your own words, and above all to give yourself a name, is to affirm your existence, your autonomy, your freedom.” (62)

Venner leaves the reader with that thought at the end of Chapter 6, and then starts in on a 3 chapter run discussing the history of Europe, where he seeks to provide a diagnosis to his English readers of the problems that beset Europe, specifically, the problem that a set of words has imposed upon Europe and the way out.

Venner does not like America and who can blame him. I have a number of criticisms of his view of America and of what follows, but I am saving that for a follow-up essay.

We start with what is highest: Venner’s view of the gods. Europe is currently guided by two gods and needs a return to the god Apollo. The Hebraic God and the Titan Prometheus currently are the strongest gods in Europe. Prometheus is in some sense the god imposed upon Europe by the Enlightenment and the Hebraic god was an Asian import, whose first foothold came through Plato but later, of course, through the Jews. It was good that the Olympian gods overthrew the Titans and bad that they were replaced by the One God of the Hebrews. We must return to Homer and retrieve the true meaning of Europe.

Taking things out of the realm of the gods: we have to oppose politics through abstractions and moral hypocrisy. We have to recapture the possibility of Tradition and Loyalty in our time.

“Tradition … is not the past, it is that which does not pass away. It comes to use from that which is most distant but always present. It is our interior compass, the benchmark of all the norms that suit us and that have survived all that has tried to change us. Look at the role of women…” (83)

Venner is emphatic on the role of women: the Homeric view of the ideal woman, the feminine virtues, have largely survived (as a remnant, not completely intact) since Homer’s Penelope. If Christianity had had its way, there would be no celebration of the bodies of Women in sculpture: the nude statue or painting would be forbidden. If Christianity could not eradicate this, the “North African immigrants” won’t have their way either. European women embody the truly feminine and excel the women of other traditions, which is why it is only in the European tradition that women are celebrated as they are.

Our tradition also contains a guiltless view of human life, though Christianity successfully attacked this. The truly European religions “made no pretence of being privy to a transcendent ‘truth’ and imposed no ‘morality’ from on high. Natural morals (do not kill, do not steal, honour your father and mother, respect your neighbor’s wife, etc.) were taught through tradition. Everything changed with the introduction of the Hebraic monotheism, which tore morality out of the hands of tradition and put it into those of a divine arbiter who threatened grievous punishment in the afterlife to those who broke the rules. This new ‘morality,’ according to Manent, through its often perplexing interdictions, introduced a conflict between ‘what men do and what men say.’ If we take the notion of secularism in the current sense of the word, the separation of politics from the ‘monotheistic religion,’ it may appear as though there has been an implicit return to the freedom of ancient polytheism, without the pantheon of gods.” (89-90)

So to repeat: the enemies are abstraction, nominalism, and transcendent morality (the ‘theological virtues’ if we are going to call a spade a spade). Tradition teaches “natural morality” and is, as tradition, inherently concrete and not abstract.

Our tradition teaches that we are, in a large sense, the playthings of the gods and in this life… we have the option of striving and though we hope for the best we may run up against a tragic catastrophe. This is okay because tragedy is part of the fertility of tradition: if your life is a tragic one … look, you should consider yourself lucky to be worthy of a tragic eruption. It means you were a significant part of the tradition. As for everyone else, they are only expected to be normal citizens—“do not kill, do not steal, honour your father and mother, respect your neighbor’s wife, etc.”—not tortured by unrealistic and perplexing divine commands whose violation can result in an eternity of torment.

The transcendent morality on the other hand, through its “often perplexing interdictions,” makes men into hypocrites: political action requires the violation of transcendent morality, all real striving must disregard it and you cannot keep men from striving. If you require men to turn the other cheek you just make them into hypocrites; you divorce speech and deed.

Europe toppled the transcendent morality, reasserted itself, in the person of Machiavelli—but it did so by having recourse to the Titan Prometheus, i.e., a reliance on utilitarian or techno-scientific culture. It did not regain its Homeric footing, but it did heal the division of speech and deed. I won’t go into an extensive explanation of the evils of the Enlightenment, which are well known: materialism & skepticism impoverish. If Europe is going to completely reassert itself, it must revive a respect for Apollo, either literally or metaphorically, to counterbalance the Promethean excesses.


“The metaphysic of the unlimited, which has been the driving force behind human progress, has suddenly met its limit. The question we must now ask is: how can we rediscover the Apollonian aspect of our civilization in order to counterbalance the Promethean excess?” (16)

“The European spirit ignores moderation which was a rule among the ancient Greeks, at least before Plato. Apollo against Prometheus, in a manner of speaking. At that time, before the fifth century, a number of Greek philosophers and mathematicians endeavoured to learn about nature (phusis) using reason alone.”

European man must forego his addiction to progress through technology and abstraction; he is to moderate himself which means he is to return to tradition. On the one hand technology and abstractions sever European man from concrete problems… they hide from him the primal concerns of life and death. On the other, specifically with respect to abstract notions of “the good” (a holdover from Plato and Christianity), abstractions about “Man” have plunged Europe into a fit of disloyalty to itself, or disloyalty to its ancestors and their tradition; the abstraction “man” has prostrated Europe before the interests of the refugee-profiteers.

The god Apollo would permit Europeans to be loyal to themselves again. He would orient Europeans to the concrete reality faced by every tradition. The Europeans must recognize their position in the world as a unique people, which must undergo trials and undertake adventures and exertions if it is going to survive. The Apollonian aspect would return order and limit to the “unlimited metaphysics”: Europeans will see themselves as a living tradition that can but shouldn’t permit itself to die. Europe must permit itself a moral faux pas… there is a sense in which every living thing has to face up to the fact that it has no choice but to think of itself, to see itself as a mortal creature whose only security lies within its own resources. Apollo is the god of resourcefulness, of order for the sake of life. And beyond this moral faux pas… Apollo calls upon Europeans to re-cultivate the spirit, to see that they cannot avoid the problem of man: no artificial creation can save man from himself.

“The security of peoples resides in their homogeneity, their resolution, their intelligence, and the bravery more than in miraculous weapons or treaties.” (101)

Venner’s Suicide

Venner killed himself 7 years ago today. He did so not in rejection of the Apollonian; that was not the point. You can kill yourself for the sake of life. It does not take much imagination to see how. I do not have time or the inclination to go into his justification and doubt it is even proper… if someone questions this action of his, well, he defended himself quite eloquently on this score. You can find a justification of suicide in Shock as well as his suicide letter.

But let’s briefly look at history’s two greatest suicides: Cato and Socrates. Cato despaired. He had spent his life fighting for a Rome that no longer existed and he knew no other reason for living than for the glory and virtue of the Republic. If you have no reason to live, why do so? I know there are many arguments about “you just don’t know! You cannot play god!” But I think such protests … look, try living your entire life devoted to something and then live with the realization that what you lived for is over. I myself like to think you can always make a virtue of necessity, but maybe that is not always the case.

Socrates goaded the Athenian people into killing him and in so doing protected his friends and glorified philosophy. I don’t know if you know, but he was going to die at some point anyway and was quite old when he did. What if he had run away to Sparta or wherever? Would Plato have been passed down to us? Xenophon?

All honor to Dominique Venner whose accomplishments are still unfolding.

The Lebanotarian’s Library of BAP-exandria Episodes (35-39)

Episode 35:

Rousseau and the Myth of the Noble Savage or “Castrated by Fauci”


Rousseau is considered by BAP to be the progenitor of leftist and marxist thinking with a naive view of the noble savage.

Another section from The Ethnic Phenomenon, familiar to long time fans:

The Ethnic Phenomenon The Ethnic Phenomenon book. Read 3 reviews from the world’s largest community for readers. Van den Berghe contends that intergroup relations are reducibl… https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/273461.The_Ethnic_Phenomenon

Is the Orangutan, and not the Chimpanzee, a precursor to Man? A news story

The orangutan who speaks like a human An orangutan named Rocky has become the first to mimic human speech https://www.bbcearth.com/blog/?article=the-orangutan-who-speaks-like-a-human

Jeffrey Schwartz’ book the Red Ape which explores the Orangutan hypothesis.

The Red Ape The Red Ape book. Read 2 reviews from the world’s largest community for readers. We’ve all heard that chimpanzees are our closest relatives – that, in fa… https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/1295462.The_Red_Ape

Absolute Joke Margaret Mead, follower of Rousseau,

Margaret Mead and Agenda-Driven Social Science Margaret Mead’s ‘Coming of Age in Samoa’ is a cautionary tale of the consequences of agenda-driven social science. https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/margaret-mead-and-agenda-driven-social-science/

BAP mentions by name this study on the out of Australia hypothesis.

Mitochondrial DNA sequences in ancient Australians: Implications for modern human origins DNA from ancient human remains provides perspectives on the origin of our species and the relationship between molecular and morphological variation. We report analysis of mtDNA from the remains of 1… https://www.pnas.org/content/98/2/537

Keith Windshuttle’s book on the Extinction of the Australian Pygmies

Everyone enjoys BAPs musical selections and here are a couple links of Bossa Nova from Tom Jobim and Elis Regina.

Another option Tom Jobim and Elis Regina.

Nobel Prize Winner and Ethologist Konrad Lorenz…here is book by him eight deadly sins of civilization

The best of men choose one thing in preference to all else, immortal glory in preference to mortal good; whereas the masses simply glut themselves like cattle.

Camille Paglia on opening the doors to nature…here is somewhat related essay on campus cultcha

Camille Paglia: The Modern Campus Cannot Comprehend Evil Young women today do not understand the fragility of civilization and the constant nearness of savage nature. https://time.com/3444749/camille-paglia-the-modern-campus-cannot-comprehend-evil/

The Golden Bough by George Fraser, an eye opening account of the so-called “Noble savage”

The Golden Bough The Golden Bough book. Read 305 reviews from the world’s largest community for readers. A world classic. The Golden Bough describes our ancestors’ prim… https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/408862.The_Golden_Bough

Keep the river on the right….Careful!

Keep the River on Your Right: A Modern Cannibal Tale (2000) – IMDb Directed by David Shapiro, Laurie Gwen Shapiro. With Tobias Schneebaum, Norman Mailer, Michael Rockefeller. A retired gay anthropologist revisits the native cultures he studied in his youth. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206187/

Last: Amalia Rodrigues sings Povo Que Lavas no Rio.

Episode 36:

It is time once again for Caribbean Rhythms notes, Episode 36.

The Idealist and Lowlife Rousseau. A continuation of the Rousseau discussion illustrating how he is the father of the modern left.

Cover artist @viscartes


Discussion of Gaetano Mosca (h/t @0x49fa98 ) as anti-Rousseau philosopher. His book “The Ruling Class

Joseph de Maistre book “Against Rousseau

One of Rousseaus later books “Memoirs of a Solitary Walker”

Reveries of the Solitary Walker Rousseau’s last great work, Reveries of the Solitary Walker is part reminiscence, part meditation, as the philosopher tries to come to terms with his isolation and to find happiness in solitude and n… https://global.oup.com/academic/product/reveries-of-the-solitary-walker-9780199563272?cc=us&lang=en&

Rousseaus “Confessions” (enteral discretion is advise!)

The Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau: 9780140440331 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books Widely regarded as the first modern autobiography, The Confessions is an astonishing work of acute psychological insight. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78)… https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/261117/the-confessions-by-jean-jacques-rousseau/

Rousseau’s book on the social contract (shrug)

Alizee Jacotey, Corsican chantreuse
“Why of course we can go to the beach anon, sunlight is good for your health.”

undefined undefined

Perennial Beauty Monica Bellucci


BAP briefly mentions Fichte’s belief in the “infinite perfectibility of man” which can be found in this book on the System of Ethics.

Neitzsche’s Aphorism 48 from Twilight of the Idols.


Complete translation of Twilight of the Idols.

The Avar language (harsh!)

Foreign Policy Write up on Chechen gangsters

The Making of a Chechen Hitman Russia’s best killers learned their skills fighting Moscow. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/05/24/the-making-of-a-chechen-hitman/

“Hero of our time” by Mikhail Lermontov

A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail Lermontov – Reading Guide: 9780143105633 – PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books A brilliant new translation of a perennial favorite of Russian literature   The first major Russian novel, A Hero of Our Time was both lauded and… https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/302223/a-hero-of-our-time-by-mikhail-lermontov/9780143105633/readers-guide/

Write up of the Alawites in Syria

Primer on the Alawites in Syria – Foreign Policy Research Institute The Syrian conflict has captured the attention of the world. Currently, at least 470,000 Syrians have been killed, and 13.5 million are in need of humanitarian assistance. Additionally, more than 11 … https://www.fpri.org/article/2016/12/primer-alawites-syria/

Full text of Xenophon’s Anabasis (bookmark!)

The Carduchians of Iran, tough mountain people.

Kubrat Pulev Boxer with Neanderthal or something tendencies


Absolute Cro-magnon Nikolai Valuev

undefined undefined

Episode 37:

All right Gang it’s time for Episode #37 notes from Caribbean Rhythms by @bronzeagemantis This one was a whirlwind, buckle up.

Zagreus tried several toys to distract the infant Dionysus, using an apple, top, and mirror…


Glycine the amino acid has a calming effect

What is Glycine and What Does It Do | Metabolic Maintenance Glycine has several health benefits from helping you sleep to improving memory. Find out more about this effective supplement at Metabolic Maintenance. https://www.metabolicmaintenance.com/blog/what-is-glycine-and-what-does-it-do/

Obama and the Fentanyl nation

Obama officials failed to focus as fentanyl burned its way across America In May 2016, a group of national health experts issued an urgent plea in a private letter to high-level officials in the Obama administration. Thousands of people were dying from overdoses of fentany… https://www.denverpost.com/2019/03/13/obama-officials-failed-fentanyl-america/

Very interdasting article on urban life and changes in the germline

Biologia Futura: adaptive changes in urban populations Cities represent novel environments where altered ecological conditions can generate strong selection pressures leading to the evolution of specific urban https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42977-020-00005-9

Von Stauffenberg’s plot to assassinate Hitl0r

Carl Schmitt a German Philosopher

The Traditionalist Samurai formed the Dark Ocean Party

Rudolf Hess and the Thule Society (careful!)

Rudolf Hess at the 1934 Nuremberg rally

Herodotus said “I know the secret but I’m not allowed to say it” On the Eleusinian Mysteries

Hesiod’s Theogony

A write up on the Chaos Gaia Uranus progression

Uranus | Myth & Summary Uranus, in Greek mythology, the personification of heaven. According to Hesiod’s Theogony, Gaea (Earth), emerging from primeval Chaos, produced Uranus, the Mountains, and the Sea. From Gaea’s subsequ… https://www.britannica.com/topic/Uranus-mythology

The Hecantoncheires or hundred handed beast A background on Nemesis


The Children of Nyx in Greek Mythology Nyx was a Protogenoi deity of the Greek pantheon. As well as being the goddess of Night, Nyx was also mother to many famous, and less famous, gods and goddesses. https://www.greeklegendsandmyths.com/children-of-nyx.html

The Youtube channel “Survive the Jive”

Survive the Jive Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZAENaOaceQUMd84GDc26EA

Apollo and the serpent


Artemis: What was advertised vs what was delivered


On Artemis: related


Venus of Williamdorf….pre-Aryan expansion Europe


Two quotes from Birth of Tragedy, first here


Birth of Tragedy quote 2


The entire PDF of Birth of Tragedy can be found here

The white faced villain, with a message, from David Lynch’s Lost Highway

Finally “At the Mountains of Madness” by HP Lovecraft
hplovecraft.com/writings/texts…en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakh_peop… — en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pkharmat

Episode 38 (notes by PhocaeanD)

Caribbean Rhythms Episode 38 NOTES: “Cold War Conspiracies!” I am giving a hand to the Great Faisal Marzipan the Lebanotarian (@CypressRevival)


Part 1 Funny Intro Notes

Bobby Fischer Interview about 9/11


Atlantean Heroes: Tolkien Men of Númenor

The Chaga Mushroom: Many links to studies but “no human tests so I dunno” conclusion.

Buy Chaga Mushroom!

Solzhenitsyn Cancer Ward (Chaga Mushroom survive!)

Bolsonaro Fights Baq! Thred by VLAST @Vlast__

Counterpart Show

“The Double” Dostoevsky (Urban Chimpout Psychologist)

                Pocket Pistol Essential in NWO be like Julien Sorel!

Bösendorfer Piano … Very beautiful and very expensive!

Part 2 USA and USSR, frens

Harry Dexter White (Venona Papers)

FDR & Stalin Agree in 1943: https://www.historynet.com/how-american-operatives-saved-the-man-who-started-the-vietnam-war.htm

John Birch Society: “From Mr. Jordan’s Diaries”

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCiylpzR60U&feature=emb_title

Text: https://archive.org/details/FromMajorJordansDiaries-TheTruthAboutTheUsAndUssr

US supported MAO not Chiang Kai Shek. (See Senator Joseph McCarthy’s book Retreat From Victory.) Also google “Dixie Mission”… misuse of dixie name, psyop agst Americans…


Armand Hammer: funding USSR

Was USSR military arm of banking cartel?? Crazy theory but gives ground for making good observations.

CONGO Decolonization

Patrice Lumumba: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrice_Lumumba

Moïse Tshombe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo%C3%AFse_Tshombe

Mobuto Sese Seko: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobutu_Sese_Seko

Jonas Savimbi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Savimbi

Savimbi picture: UGLY wins! undefined

Part 4 USA and USSR: secret metaphysical psychosexual unity…


Heidegger Quotation from Intro to Metaphysics.

“When the farthest corner of the globe has been conquered technologically and can be exploited economically; when any incident you like, in any place you like, at any time you like, becomes accessible as fast as you like; when you can simultaneously “experience” an assassination attempt against a king in France and a symphony concert in Tokyo; when time is nothing but speed, instantaneity, and simultaneity, and time as history has vanished from all Being of all peoples; when a boxer counts as the great man of a people; when the tallies of millions at mass meetings are a triumph; then, yes then, there still looms like a specter over all this uproar the question: what for? — where to? — and what then?”

“This Europe, in its unholy blindness always on the point of cutting its own throat, lies today in the great pincers between Russia on the one side and America on the other. Russia and America, seen metaphysically, are both the same: the same hopeless frenzy of unchained technology and of the rootless organisation of the average man.”

Heidegger Question Concerning Technology

See also, Schmitt’s discussion of Technology appended to Concept of the Political


“Technology is always only an instrument and weapon; precisely because it serves all, it is not neutral. No single decision can be derived from the immanence of technology, least of all for neutrality. Every type of culture, every people and religion, every war and peace can use technology as a weapon.”

BAP agrees here more with Schmitt than Heidegger if I read him correctly.

Nietzsche’s Zarathustra: the state is “the coldest of all cold monsters.”

William F Buckley was a traitor. Just watch this “interview” he has of Rhodesian president Ian Smith on Firing Line.


Interviewed at end of life, he was asked if he would like to be 20 again. He say “I would not do it all over again.” Wat means?!?

Part 5 Kennedy Assassination

Roger Stone Book: The Man who Killed Kennedy. https://www.amazon.com/Man-Who-Killed-Kennedy-Against/dp/1629144894

George W Bush and Kennedy Assassination.

Connection to George de Mohrenschildt

Did GWB witness JFK Assassination?

BAP view: USSR killed JFK. Bobby Kennedy (AG) mobster and Russian tool.

USSR killed JFK. Bobby Kennedy (AG) mobster and Russian tool. JFK had been soft on Russia but was becoming hard to win 1963 presidential election.

JFK vs. the Military: (The Atlantic is very proud to learn of his pro-USSR work done behind the scenes.)

Oswald arrested at Texas Theater in Dallas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8-m7-W5pJ0

Warren and VOA blame American right-wing for assassination.

Oswald was in Minsk: Belarusians Who Knew Lee Harvey Oswald Tell Their Stories

Oswald’s Apartment in Minsk:

Lee Harvey Oswald's Apartment in Minsk – Minsk, Belarus - Atlas ...

Part 6 IRAN betrayed


CIA overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister in 1953: Operation Ajax

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was Iranian Shah empowered after coup… then: Overthrown during Iranian Revolution 1979.

Mark Steyn’s Take: “East of Suez

The Barbarians are Inside and There Are No Gates.”

“What it is is an attack on the west, on the civilization that built the modern world – an attack on one portion of “humanity” by those who claim to speak for another portion of “humanity”. And these are not “universal values” but values that spring from a relatively narrow segment of humanity. They were kinda sorta “universal” when the great powers were willing to enforce them around the world and the colonial subjects of ramshackle backwaters such as Aden, Sudan and the North-West Frontier Province were at least obliged to pay lip service to them. But the European empires retreated from the world, and those “universal values” are utterly alien to large parts of the map today.”

Threat to Shah from the North (Afghanistan King Overthrown 1929):

                Threat to Shah from the South: Irving Brown in Aden (Yemen):

                                Irving Brown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Brown

                                Jay Lovestone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Lovestone

(Both men were Jews working for CIA and “former communists.”)   ICTFU

JFK forced the Shah to breakup states within Iran.

The Press and some Senator’s make trouble for the Shah.


The Quiet American” based on Graham Green novel by same name.

Hungary shows us… the vampiric financiers cannot effectively reach the people and can be thrown off with demagogic might. Read Viktor Orban’s Illiberal Democracy Speech.

Episode 39


Await the call for the signal to protect Trump at all costs!


Lord Lloyd, the Tory Imperialist, quipped, “The Jacaranda’s are in bloom, soon we’ll be sending for the gunboats. Read A Short History of Modern Egypt, by Afaf Lutfi al-Sayyid Marsot.

A Jacaranda in bloom.

The Comancheria, the territory controlled by the Comanche.


The Aryan is the cousin of the Comanche and the native European ruler.

The Watts riots, nothing really comes of these…

The jacquerie, a peasant revolt highlighted in a tale of two cities.

A recent CNN interview of former Russian Oligarch Khodorkovsky with a documentary praising his name.

BAP floats a theory of word on the street on the Minneapolis 3rd precinct…you’ll be shocked to hear this! Here is the official write up by ABC news.

The Tailhook scandal, which was used to purge all masculinity from military leadership.

James Mattis recently criticized Trump…what apps does he have on phone?

Japan has a “community policing model” which gives broader power to each policeman within his zone.


BAP discusses how foreign the idea of “warrants” are in Haiti under Doc Duvalier, in one of his favorite books The Comedians by Graham Greene.

Every company is asking you to black out your IG for BlackLivesMatter…funny joke…be carefule about the black cube of saturn (Careful!)

BAP discusses the Bergen Belsen security line of the airports.

BTW related to Black Cube….look it’s just a coincidence am promise.

When a woman turns 29 and has no children she begins to feel the St Vitus dance of Paroxysm and misattributes the cause.


a link to James O’Keefe’s infiltration of antifa.

Is it possible that the great Menaquinone 4 returns?


A write up of James Burnham’s book, Managerial Revolution.

Victoria Nuland (shrug) , the reality of our current “elite.”

Czar Nicholas the 2nd had made some missteps preceding the revolution, including the costly ban of Vodka.

Anton Chekhov’s short story entitled The Peasants.


Kurosawa had illustrated the physiognomy of the peasant vs. the Samurai in the Seven Samurai.

The “Great Leap Forward” of China…again peasants.

BAP paraphrases Nietzsche when he says, “to be good is to be bad” . Nietzsche has many iterations on this quote including below. Illustrating the complete mockery and inversion of Christianity in BLM.


The ancient god Moloch.

BAP teases the story of : Baron Roman von Unger-Sternberg.

The purifying fire of the wheel of Dharma.

Many enjoy the musics, today’s finale is Mendelssohn’s Violin Concerto…

Hilary Hahn Performs, Mendelssohn Violin Concerto E Minor OP.64 – 1st mov.

Bobby Fishers famous 2001 interview.

Ridicule is the kind of movie you watch that demonizes the upper classes…

Lebanotarian’s Library of BAP-exandria Episodes (20-24)

Episode 20:

“Neither Carrot nor Stick”

7 Days in May: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058576/

Good Man Edward Luttwak

Conversations with History with Edward Luttwak: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=7vz1BpRf3Lc&feature=emb_logo

Luttwak’s “The Grand Strategy of the Soviet Union

Luttwak’s “Coup d’Etat

Michael Ledeen, boss level neocon propaganda. Not a shill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ledeen

Friedrich Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Distribution of the R1A Haplotype:


The Elamites, Bronze Age Civilization: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elam

Sintashta Culture, Bronze Weapons manufacturers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintashta_culture

Elena Kuzmina, Russian Archaeologist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Efimovna_Kuzmina

A little bit on Zoroastrianism: https://www.history.com/topics/religion/zoroastrianism

On the “Transvaluation of Values”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transvaluation_of_values

Episode 21

Street Game and HBD

“You Look Beautiful…You look beautiful…You look Beautiful”

  1. Gregory Cochrane 10000 Year Explosion: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/10000-year-explosion-gregory-cochran/1100304466#/
The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution

2. Razib Coon: http://www.razib.com/wordpress/

3. The Kikkuli Text, an ancient manuscript of training manuals for chariots: http://imh.org/exhibits/online/legacy-of-the-horse/kikkuli-1345-bce/

4. Semitic Aryan race the Hyksos: https://www.ancient.eu/Hyksos/

5. The coming of the Greeks by Robert Drews: https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691029511/the-coming-of-the-greeks

6. A write up of Marija Gimbutas: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-06-11-tm-2975-story.html

7. Original HBD thinker Arthur Gobineau: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_de_Gobineau

8. Useful translation of Nietzsche’s The Gay Science (get head out of gutter, is good book): https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/121942/the-gay-science-by-friedrich-nietzsche-translated-with-commentary-by-walter-kaufmann/

The Gay Science by Friedrich Nietzsche

9. The Tuvan culture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvans

10. A primer on the so-called Red-Brown Alliance: https://libcom.org/library/investigation-red-brown-alliances-third-positionism-russia-ukraine-syria-western-left

An Investigation Into Red-Brown Alliances: Third Positionism, Russia, Ukraine, Syria, And The Western Left

Episode 22

Venice and Nationalism

BAP once again mentions menaquinone4 and specifically this spectacular tweet:


and this other classic from mena:


Xenophone’s Anabasis: BAP will direct miniseries https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1170/1170-h/1170-h.htm

History of Venice by Julius Norwich: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/122804/a-history-of-venice-by-john-julius-norwich/

A History of Venice by John Julius Norwich

Parmenides: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parmenides/

Byzantine General Narses – “I will spin her such a skin that she will not find the end of it in a lifetime.” https://www.britannica.com/biography/Narses-Byzantine-general

The Gothic War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_War_(535%E2%80%93554)

BAP watched Man in High Castle TV show which had heavy handed moralizing. The original Philip K. Dick book in 1962 was very good though and was a more even handed treatment on “what if the axis powers won”? https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/216363.The_Man_in_the_High_Castle

Episode 23

AIDS denialism, viruses, and Gossip Girl notes

“Yes high I would to order the Creutzfeld-Jacob Mabo Tofu!”


Manifold Destiny, about solving the poincare conjecture: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/08/28/manifold-destiny

Grigory Perelman  says If the proof is correct then no other recognition is needed. ShingTung Yau isnt so sure.

Robert Gallo, one of the pioneers of discovering HIV: https://www.verywellhealth.com/robert-gallo-at-the-center-of-the-history-of-hiv-48019

Luc Montanier – French acknowledged discoverer of AIDS: https://www.nature.com/articles/d42859-018-00003-x

PD Mangans website…: https://roguehealthandfitness.com/

Peter Duesberg, PHD. Professor of Cell Biology at Berkeley and HIV dianlist: https://www.duesberg.com/

Nobel Prive winning scientist who invented PCR Kary Mullis…AIDS skeptic: https://www.karymullis.com/

BAP’s earlier mention of how AIDS model is induced in mice: https://twitter.com/bronzeagemantis/status/1192192506810818560


Link to the website the screen shot is from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8986738

Episode 24:

Special Men of Power series featuring Mike Hoar. Some enterpising forg will put this man on t-shirts


New peter Schweizer book featured on Michael Savage: http://peterschweizer.com/books/

Elizabeth Warren and her “anti-corruption” racket: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2019/10/14/lobbyists-should-embrace-warren-anti-corruption-plan/T72YZgXcXeYCCiIzk89YgK/story.html

Wagner, Gotterdamerung: Siegfried’s Funeral March: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=a53s4jyCqqU&feature=emb_logo

Write up of Barry Lyndon: https://t.co/tcpL6I4a7W?amp=1

AFter his adventures, Mike Hoar wrote several books of his explts including the Congo Mercenary: https://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/title/congo-mercenary/

Mike wrote a down the middle account of the Cathars (tough luck Catahars) https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21087054-the-last-days-of-the-cathars

The Last Days of the Cathars

BAP discusses the Simba rebellion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simba_rebellion

Paraguayan dictator Alfredo Stroessner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfredo_Stroessner

Movie about the Wild Gees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wild_Geese

The Seychelles affair by Mike Hoar: https://www.abebooks.com/9781581606577/Seychelles-Affair-Mike-Hoare-1581606575/plp

9781581606577: The Seychelles Affair

James Burnham, The Suicide of the West: https://www.encounterbooks.com/books/suicide-of-the-west-an-essay-on-the-meaning-and-destiny-of-liberalism/

Bob Denard, mentioned in BAM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Denard

Mad dogs fighting other peoples wars by Vinter: https://www.abebooks.co.uk/9781932033090/Dog-Fighting-Peoples-Wars-Modern-1932033092/plp

Africa Addio, a mondo documentary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa_Addio

The Kogamato, and the thrill of the hunt: https://pinebarrensinstitute.com/cryptids/2018/8/18/cryptid-profile-kongamato




The Brotherville School of Economics…… YOU GIVE ME DAT

A Humble Beginning: A Noble Return

If we are to be honest about the experiment of refounding higher education, we must first understand the nature of the problem. In short, the priests of higher education–filled with hubris–have abandoned Nature in exchange for Utopian speculations. Their endeavors are now a curse on students and society. Most institutions of higher education are now temples to false gods, dedicated to the morality of an imagined cosmopolis that does not exist, nor can exist, in reality.

The solution to the problem of higher education, therefore, lies in a revival of an effectual truth in regard to values. The liberal arts and the study of the classics have always been useless in an economic sense. Their value, though, is evident in the flourishing of those who embraced them and who were in turn changed by them in a way that raised them up by giving them something higher to look upon and to be drawn toward. The result was civilization, societal flourishing that was evident to any honest person.

A degree in grievance studies and the whole diversity Weltanschauung–all in service to a cult of multiculturalism–does not lift one’s gaze to something higher; it beckons one to look inward, and the only way to look inward is to lower one’s gaze, to confuse thoughts with feelings, and to become a closed-circuit, incapable of action, and pitiful to behold.

We must re-found higher education, and that will be a long, difficult struggle. Phocaean and Cerberus have begun a conversation, so let us reason together.

Lest we, too, fall into hubris, we must be satisfied with a humble beginning, but do not despise the day of small things. The first step won’t be on an institutional level but on the level of friendship and the old model of a teacher and his disciples. From there, we can begin the long march through the institutions.

My small contribution to understanding the nature of the problem, for now, is just this: our universities and colleges are full of students who do not really want an education; they do not want to be formed according to something noble. What they want is twofold: first, they want access into the class of people who are college “educated” so that they can call themselves–whatever they end up doing for a career–“professionals.” Second, they want (and they think it their right to have) the “college experience,” which is basically camp for twenty year-olds, but with booze and sex.

This part of the problem suggests certain things about the solution. First, it suggests that we should drastically lower our expectation for the number of people who can be educated, for real education is only possible among those who truly desire it, and they will always be a small fraction of society. Second, it suggests that students need to learn in an environment that emphasizes the curricula more than prurient parties, but let us not forget that healthy, nurturing friendship is a vital part of education, both as a means and an end.

My proposal for a humble, yet noble, beginning takes as a model the spirit of Benjamin Franklin’s “Leather Apron” club, also known simply as the “Junto.” Franklin gathered eleven friends together weekly to discuss questions of “Morals, Politics, or Natural Philosophy.” I hold up the ethos, not necessarily the exact content of these groups as an example for us to follow. Franklin used his Junto to build bonds of friendship between individuals he believed would have an effect on public opinion, and eventually half of the members formed their own groups–each by its own name and with its own personality–and they would report back to the main group the progress each sub-group was making. This was a model for exponential growth among men interested in “mutual improvement.”

I imagine readers of this blog and others–inspired by BAP’s independent spirit–drawing strength from these anonymous, online friendships and starting their own Juntos. These initial groups should be composed of like-minded, or potentially like-minded, men, ideally those in places of influence and who are faculty in colleges and universities who need merely a taste of this kind of friendship and ethos to be inspired. Then, each member could seek to form his own group, composed of various students he finds who desire a real education, the kind that Cerberus describes in his post “The Bronze Age University: New Possibilities in a Time of Trouble.”

The first step, though, is to find friends and improve ourselves, setting the foundation from which to build higher. If we are unable to do even that, we should just give up now the aspiration to re-found higher education. We must become the models that the students we want look to with admiration. It begins, before anything else, with finding and building friendships.

This is a very practical step. It involves action, not contemplation. Read how Franklin himself describes his Junto in his autobiography as a means for transforming Philadelphia.

I should have mentioned before that, in the autumn of the preceding year, I had form’d most of my ingenious acquaintance into a club of mutual improvement, which we called the Junto; we met on Friday evenings. The rules that I drew up required that every member, in his turn, should produce one or more queries on any point of Morals, Politics, or Natural Philosophy, to be discuss’d by the company; and once in three months produce and read an essay of his own writing, on any subject he pleased. Our debates were to be under the direction of a president, and to be conducted in the sincere spirit of inquiry after truth, without fondness for dispute, or desire of victory; and, to prevent warmth, all expressions of positiveness in opinions, or direct contradiction, were after some time made contraband, and prohibited under small pecuniary penalties…

Our club, the Junto, was found so useful, and afforded such satisfaction to the members, that several were desirous of introducing their friends, which could not well be done without exceeding what we had settled as a convenient number, viz., twelve. We had from the beginning made it a rule to keep our institution a secret, which was pretty well observ’d; the intention was to avoid applications of improper persons for admittance, some of whom, perhaps, we might find it difficult to refuse. I was one of those who were against any addition to our number, but, instead of it, made in writing a proposal, that every member separately should endeavor to form a subordinate club, with the same rules respecting queries, etc., and without informing them of the connection with the Junto. The advantages proposed were, the improvement of so many more young citizens by the use of our institutions; our better acquaintance with the general sentiments of the inhabitants on any occasion, as the Junto member might propose what queries we should desire, and was to report to the Junto what pass’d in his separate club; the promotion of our particular interests in business by more extensive recommendation, and the increase of our influence in public affairs, and our power of doing good by spreading thro’ the several clubs the sentiments of the Junto.

The project was approv’d, and every member undertook to form his club, but they did not all succeed. Five or six only were compleated, which were called by different names, as the Vine, the Union, the Band, etc. They were useful to themselves, and afforded us a good deal of amusement, information, and instruction, besides answering, in some considerable degree, our views of influencing the public opinion on particular occasions, of which I shall give some instances in course of time as they happened.

This is my proposal for a beginning. It is humble, but it is noble. This is a beginning that fits–as Cerberus noted–Nietzsche’s prescription for an environment conducive to producing men who are fighters against their time, educated against all the modern fashions, who yearn to be made ripe for the heroic occasion, ready to begin the hard work necessary to re-found the noble city of higher education on the fertile plains upon which Western civilization once flourished. It begins–as one hopes it will also end–in friendship.

— Pelopidas (@Pelopid48189093)