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!

Contradictory Detachments in Yarvin’s Gray Mirror #1


In his new project, The Gray Mirror of the Nihilist Prince, Curtis Yarvin says that, at the present moment, everyone is either a collaborator or a dissident. Some possess and use power and others seek to dispossess those with power in order to claim it for themselves. Everyone, so to speak, is engaged. His key questions: is there a way out of this dichotomous conflict? Can we turn the whole thing off?

The disposition that Moldbug sees as indispensable for escaping the current contest for power is one of detachment. In one way or another, this is a theme that Moldbug has always been intensely interested in. In Unqualified Reservations, detachment seems to be latent in what he calls political sanity or non-idealism. His key concern was liberating readers from a pernicious attachment to mysterious universals like Democracy and Equality. To turn away from democracy and equality was to be “red pilled.”

UR points to the necessity of trying to rip out the Borg implants that constantly shoot the Whig (progressive) view of history into our blood stream. To state the obvious, it was a right-wing blog. To be on the Right is to take a side, to be against the Left–not just to understand the Left, but to see it as an enemy. Red-pilling makes one passionate and if one becomes dominated by this passion, he will inevitably make mistakes when he observes the world, since he will be motivated to see the world in the terms dictated by his “team.” To be on a team entails telling stories that describe this team as noble and good while claiming that the other team is vicious and bad.

Enter the Clear Pill–tasteless unbelief. This is the chill pill; it drains you of passion, and allows you to see the world as it is, to the extent that this is possible (and Yarvin admits there is a LOT we can’t know). This is a step away from the red pill. Yarvin meant to show, in his unfinished series, how progressivism, constitutionalism, and fascism all rely on destabilizing lies that activate thymos (what he says is the desire to matter or to be important), albeit, in differing ways. They all count on people believing in ideals, and these ideals are always at risk of running into conflict with good governance. The ideals, or those under their thrall, will inevitably make a policy that promotes progress, reverence for the founding, or love of the nation, at the expense of doing what is best. In other words, there are always cracks in the stories that are projected onto the reality dome walls. Yarvin wonders if it is possible to think beyond or outside of ideology altogether. To put this another way: can political life function without the noble lies that Plato thought were required in even the best conceivable regime?

The Rub: Conflicting Modes of Detachment

In GM, Yarvin describes two kinds of detachment and I don’t think that they fit together–or, at any rate, he needs to do more to show how they fit together. First, I’ll put it in Yarvin’s words, then I will try to elaborate.

A) “Detachment is a hard spiritual task in which no one can succeed perfectly. It is not a fact or even an idea. Detachment, like Zen, is a practice.”

B) “A pure subject has no emotional relationship with power. Power demands nothing but physical compliance. Minimal compliance is nonaggression plus taxation: le libertarian paradise. While real history was never so pure, this abstraction is a normal civilized condition that we can call natural detachment.”

These are both from GM #1 and the italics are Yarvin’s. Can you see the difference? In the first case one intentionally takes on a difficult spiritual task. Common sense would dictate that only the few, the excellent, are capable of hard spiritual tasks. The second case, natural detachment, is different. It is natural and without effort, achieved by anyone living in pre-civilized regimes. It is a detachment that is possible for the many.

Let me try to put the contradiction differently, using examples that Yarvin provides in the Unregistered interview.

1) Philosophic historian detachment. He says in the Unregistered interview that it would be weird if a historian wrote a book about the War of the Roses and was passionately partisan; we would think that he was a weirdo. Yarvin seems to counsel that we obtain this level of detachment in real time. It is not clear that this is possible for most people. I.e., this kind of detachment is reserved for Thucydides. This detachment flows out of a deep vision and acceptance that all peoples pass away. Thucydides imagines what the ruins of Athens and Sparta will look like to future observers. Or think of Nietzsche’s statement that there are heights from which the tragic ceases to look tragic. Or Socrates saying that philosophy is learning how to die–meaning that a core task of philosophy is reconciling oneself to one’s mortal condition. This is a standpoint reserved for the few.


2) Peasant/hedonic narrow vision detachment. Yarvin’s other example from the interview is this: when you travel to a South American country, you don’t care about voting there, you don’t want political power, you don’t strive for influence. Rather, you just want to be safe, have fun, and just generally avoid anything painful. Yarvin suggests that this is how we should feel about our own country. You don’t need deep vision to want to have a safe and pleasant time. This seems to me to something that is more achievable for the many.

Is this contradiction resolvable? Maybe. Presumably, Moldbug writes for the few. Most people find themselves too feeble or too constrained by contemporary standards of respectability to read and take his thought seriously. Only someone who already has some distance from these standards will have the ears to hear Yarvin. Perhaps, at the crucial moment of collapse or near collapse, these types will be in a position, with their nice regime textbook, to provide the kind of governance that Yarvin will articulate in detail in subsequent installments. At this point, the many who are more disposed to natural detachment will fall in line. This is the only way to reconcile the two detachments; for, as Yarvin points out, the person who is detached does not try to change public opinion, indeed, he does not try to change the world at all.

Can Care and Detachment be Reconciled?

But can Yarvin really claim to be detached? Isn’t someone writing a textbook for how to properly rule, someone who is engaged? To put this another way, or to raise another Platonic question, why would the detached person want to rule at all? In the Republic, philosophers are compelled to rule. Admittedly, in the Hermitix interview, Yarvin claimed that he does not want to rule…fine. But why spend so much time thinking about how to do it? I think that Yarvin cares a lot about humans, and wants to help them live in a better world (i.e., consider the tears he shed near the beginning of the “Leather Jacket” interview). How does he reconcile his idea of detachment with his deep care and concern for others? That is, he seems moved by his awareness that most governments today do a bad job providing good things for their citizens; Moldbug wants to re-design government so that it can deliver on its promise of benefiting the citizens it rules over. It is crucial to point out that the disposition of caring for others is a very different disposition than detachment, indeed, it is directly opposed. Our attachment to others or wish to care for them, can sometimes come into conflict with coolheaded detachment or sobriety. Yarvin must show how this concern for others is compatible with detachment.

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.”

On the Original Meaning of “Red Pill”

To have been “red-pilled” has come to mean that one has experienced a change in one’s political orientation. More often than not, the expression, as it is used in popular discourse, is meant to signify that a person, man or woman, has come to realize that certain dogmas of Leftism or Progressivism rest on falsehoods. One can claim to be “red-pilled” after having come to see that the Left’s critique of free-market capitalism is inadequate. To be “red-pilled” might thus be understood to entail an unthinking acceptance of what the “Right” thinks. To which doxa of the Right might one ascribe? The unsettling quality of the new meaning of “red-pilled” is that it culminates in the acceptance of any dogma of Conservatism Inc. What is most characteristic of the new meaning of “red-pilled” is that it is a rejection, a “moving away from.” To be sure, the so-called “red-pilled” are correct to wish to distance themselves from the false views of the Left. But these individuals run the risk of undergoing a false or incomplete liberation from untrue opinions.

To put it succinctly, the so-called red pilled have set up a simplistic disjunctive syllogism.

 Premise 1: Either the Left or the Right is correct.

Premise 2: The Left is wrong.

Conclusion: The Right must be somehow correct.

The truth of the matter is that, in reality, the syllogism above is presented in the form of what modern logicians call an “enthymeme.” In other words, the first premise is hidden and never stated explicitly. The so-called red pilled actually make the following argument. The Left is wrong. Hence, the Right must be correct. It can be no question that this signifies a deterioration in what the term “Red Pill” means. The “red-pilled” know of no other place to go than to the Right. (It goes without saying that by “the Right” I mean the mainstream Right.)

In its original usage the term “Red Pill” meant primarily the acceptance of specific, unsettling truths about human nature. Of course, the acceptance of these truths also entailed a rejection of what one previously thought. But there was never any guarantee that one would conform to a common political ideology after the acceptance of newly discovered truths. For one would be irreparably severed from the horizon in which one is able to see the simplistic disjunctive syllogism described above as a genuine way to deliberate about the world. In other words, to take the Red Pill, in its original sense, would necessarily entail not only seeing the Left as wrong but also seeing that the first hidden premise of the above syllogism, either the Left or the Right is correct, must be rejected. In this respect, the original meaning of Red Pill has been fittingly lifted from The Matrix. If both the mainstream Left and Right are part of the “Matrix,” then how could one ever believe that either of them is true after taking the Red Pill?

What, then, were the truths about human nature that were said to sever someone completely from his earlier horizon? These truths concerned human sexuality. It was the disclosure of essential, natural differences between men and women. Among these truths was the harsh fact of the phenomenon dubbed “hypergamy.”* After one has come to see this aspect of female sexuality, one might very well become a proponent of traditional sexual morality. But the ground of that defense of traditional sex roles is essentially different from that to which a typical conservative might appeal. The individual who accepts the truth of hypergamy will come to recognize the necessity for strict regulation of human sexuality. Accordingly, he will not see marriage or strict sexual taboos as a divinely granted sacrament or commandment but as stern political necessities which every healthy body politic must uphold with institutions and inculcated senses of shame.

Hypergamy, the name for the fact that women ineluctably, to put it literally and politely, “marry-up,” brings to light the ugly consequences of the Left’s teaching about sexual mores. For instance, the sickly groups of men known as “incels” or “men going their own way” are consequences of unfettered hypergamy. While I have no sympathy for incels, their existence makes manifest the fact that marriage is becoming an untenable endeavor for many men. Even men who, unlike the incels, are quite able to attract the opposite sex cannot have any great confidence that their wives or girlfriends will remain faithful to them. The institutions and mores that used to provide some modicum of confidence that one’s children would be one’s own have ceased to be.

My intention is not to complain or be angry about the present state of things. My intention is merely to recover an unfortunate truth in order to face it squarely and act accordingly. Despite the fact that we live in an undesirable time, one can still benefit from the sexual chaos. For one thing, men should find it easier than ever before to climb to the top of the sexual hierarchy (most men today are, after all, quite low on the sexual totem pole). Hypergamy, of course, means that the men at the top will get the attention of the vast majority of the women; the unfettering of hypergamy has restored the sexual aristocracy. Thus, the lack of restraints on hypergamy can provide an incentive to men to become better. You don’t have to just want to become a philanderer. If you want more than mere sexual gratification, e.g., to get a wife and start a family, then you are compelled to create the security a healthy society would afford by your own means. How do you do this? Lift. Read. Become better. Don’t date feminists. Keep lifting. In short, never be a schlub; always be a man.

Next time you hear someone misuse the expression “Red Pill,” remember what it really refers to. Then, act accordingly.

*Note: For the best account of hypergamy, see Roger Devlin’s “Sexual Utopia in Power.”

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

The Beneficence of Necessity

All human beings want the good. More precisely, every man wishes to be better than he already is, to become the best version of himself of which he’s capable. Despite this innate drive, we are fickle creatures. We are frequently unable to bring the objects of our desires into being. Why? We lose sight of our clear-sighted view of the good. We become enslaved to our low, unreflective appetites. This shameful lack of willfulness arises whenever we think that things can be otherwise, whenever we tell ourselves, “I don’t have to lift today” or “Why can’t I just spend my time scrolling through social media?” or “There’s no need for me read a serious book.” On the other hand, whenever we clear-sightedly grasp that something cannot be otherwise, we act far more prudently. Whenever it’s necessary for me to wake up at 5:00 in the morning, I do it. No questions asked.

So: use necessity to your advantage. In those moments of clarity when you genuinely see what’s good for you, make it impossible to act otherwise. I’ll provide a more concrete explanation below. But first, three historical examples are in order. I was inspired by three books I’ve been reading recently: Leo Strauss’s Thoughts on Machiavelli, Xenophon’s Anabasis, and Julius Caesar’s Gallic War. I take an example from each work.

In the third chapter of Thoughts on Machiavelli, Strauss briefly discusses Machiavelli’s praise of what “some moral philosophers have written.” Strauss writes, “The philosophers in question had understood ‘the virtue of necessity’ or they had realized that necessity is the mother of the highest virtue. Their insight agrees with the thesis of the chapter that necessity makes men obstinate and hence excellent fighters. The wise captain or ruler will therefore use every artifice to liberate his enemies from such salutary necessity; he will deceive the enemy populace by making large promises to them and by claiming that he has no quarrel with them but only with the ambitious few in their midst” [1].

Strauss is discussing here Chapter 12 of Book III of Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy titled “That a Prudent Captain Ought to Impose every Necessity to Engage in Combat on His Soldiers and Take It Away from Those of Enemies.” As the chapter heading indicates, Machiavelli is drawing a universal conclusion. He solidly grounds that universal on a phenomenon he has observed in both the ancient and the modern world. It is a recurring phenomenon that discloses a permanent truth about human nature. Machiavelli argues that if a captain is going to capture a city, he ought to look at the necessities constraining its inhabitants. If the inhabitants are compelled by necessity to defend themselves, then the captain should know that capture will not be easy. Similarly, if the captain’s own men are constrained by necessity to fight, they will do so; and they will do so with vigor.

As he is wont to do, Strauss divulges an impious conclusion that Machiavelli quietly points to: “The last of [Machiavelli’s examples] shows how the Romans drove the Volsci, led by Messius, into extreme obstinacy. Machiavelli quotes in Latin a part of the speech with which Messius exhorted his soldiers; in the part omitted by him, Messius says: ‘Do you believe that some god will protect you and carry you away from here?’ Here we are meant to see how an enemy of Rome was driven by necessity into ‘operating perfectly’ precisely by his subjective certainty that he and his army will not be saved by any god” [2]. Machiavelli’s impiety is not especially important for my present purposes. What is important is that Messius’s disclosure of the fact that his soldiers were under necessity caused them to operate perfectly. Necessity proscribes imperfection. It makes weakness impossible.

This lesson is not a Straussian or Machiavellian quirk. Machiavelli was right to draw this universal conclusion. For instance, in Book VI, chapter 5 of Xenophon’s Anabasis, Xenophon recounts an episode in which he and his men were running low on provisions and needed to procure some from nearby villages while contending with an enemy. As Xenophon’s army is marching forward, they come to a large ravine that is difficult to cross. Sophaenetus, an older general, tells Xenophon that they should not even discuss crossing the ravine. It would be too dangerous. Moreover, before this episode, the Greeks had struggled to acquire propitious sacrifices. So Sophaenetus is likely also worried that the Greeks have lost the gods’ favor.

Xenophon interrupts the old man’s shameful words with a speech that is worth quoting in part: “Now this is the situation: it is not possible to go away from here without a battle, for if we do not attack the enemy, they will follow us and fall upon us as we retreat. Observe whether it is better to go against these men with our weapons thrust forward or to behold our enemy following us, attacking us from behind, with our weapons facing away from them. You know, certainly, that retreating from enemies is like nothing noble, while following them implants confidence even in the bad…. As for putting a difficult ravine in the rear by crossing over, is this not even a situation worth seizing for those who are going to do battle? It is for the enemy that I would wish every path to seem easily passable—so they retreat! But for us, we need to be taught even by the place itself that there is no salvation unless we are victorious” [3].

In this truly remarkable passage, we find Xenophon putting into practice the very same principle articulated by Machiavelli, and this is not even one of the examples to which Machiavelli referred in the Discourses. Xenophon uses necessity to his advantage. He knows that his men have become too timid and are overly apprehensive about crossing the ravine. They need to have the ravine behind them so that retreat is not an option. Necessity will compel them to fight well. Necessity will make them operate perfectly. The episode concludes in the following way: “The enemy rushed against them, both the horsemen and the line of Bithynians, and they turned the peltasts to flight. But when the phalanx of hoplites, marching quickly, came up to meet them; when the trumpet sounded and they sang the paean and then shouted the war cry; and when at the same time they lowered their spears—then the enemy stood up to them no longer. Instead, they fled. And Timasion pursued them with the horsemen, and they killed as many as they could, though they themselves were few in number. The enemy’s left scattered at once, with the Greek horsemen against it.” The next chapter begins, “After this, the enemy kept busy about their own [affairs], and they took both their households and their possession as far away as they could” [4].

This passage from the Anabasis is an example of a necessity that wasn’t consciously brought about by a human being. Xenophon did not wish for his men to come to a ravine. He simply made the best out of a tricky situation. My final example, however, is a necessity created by human deliberation. In the beginning of Julius Caesar’s Gallic War, he retells the deliberations behind the Helvetii’s decision to leave their homeland behind. They were persuaded to desert their homeland by a man named Orgetorix who told them that they could easily take over the whole of Gaul and rule it themselves. Orgetorix’ efforts at persuasion were facilitated by the inferior geographical position of the Helvetii. As Caesar puts it, their geographical situation “limited their ability to move far and wide and hampered them in attacking their neighbors. This galled them enormously, since they were a people keen to wage war” [5]. The story hitherto would have been sufficient to include this example in my discussion. What Caesar tells us next, however, is utterly incredible. After the Helvetii had resolved to leave their homeland (and after the rhetorically skilled Orgetorix had died), the people guaranteed that they would stick to their plan: “After Orgetorix’ death, the Helvetii did not give up their efforts to realize their intention to migrate from their country. When they thought they were ready to go, they set fire to all their towns, around twelve of them, as well as roughly four hundred villages, and all their other private buildings; furthermore, they burned up all the grain beyond what they were going to carry with them—all this in order to eliminate any hope of returning home, so that they would be more fully committed to undergo all dangers” [6].

The Helvetii knew the nature of human beings. They knew that they would be tempted to return home because the way forward was hard. So they made it impossible for themselves to return home. They used necessity to their advantage. To be sure, Caesar did eventually trounce the Helvetii despite their resoluteness. But that was because he, being a great leader, knew more about necessity than they did.

These insights taken from military history don’t have to be limited to captains on a campaign. You can use necessity to your advantage in everyday life. Do you see things that are likely to drag you away from your goals? Are you constantly tempted to turn away from the merciless path of excellence by trivial distractions? Then burn down your temptations. You don’t have to literally burn them down, but you have to get rid of them. Do you have trouble waking up in the morning? Put your alarm on the other side of your room, or get an app that prevents you from constantly hitting the snooze button. Do you play too many video games? Get rid of your console. Sell it and spend the money on protein powder. Do you spend too much time mindlessly scrolling through useless social media? Delete your Facebook account and read Caesar’s Gallic War. Was that not enough? Get rid of your smart phone. Are you constantly tempted to eat that ice cream in your freezer? Throw it away and celebrate the victory over your slavish desires with vanity lifts. Do you have trouble working out every day? Make a pact with your friend to shame one another whenever one of you fails to lift. (Shame, of course, can be a kind of necessity.) If your friend doesn’t go to the gym with you like he promised, call him what he is: an object worthy of your contempt. If he’s a true friend, he’ll do the same for you when you act like human-shaped pond scum.

Modern man hates necessity because he loves softness, vice, and wretched contentment. Don’t become a victim of the siren-song of modern depravity. Love necessity, virtue, and shame. If you make vice impossible, you have no choice but to pursue virtue, excellence, and beauty. Make excellence a necessity and it will become a habit, i.e., a second nature.


[1] Leo Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli, (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1978)119.

[2] Ibid., 220.

[3] Xenophon, Anabasis, trans. by Wayne Ambler (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008) 6.5.14-18.

[4] Ibid., 6.5.26-28 and 6.6.1.

[5] Julius Caesar, Gallic War, in The Landmark Julius Caesar, (New York: Pantheon Books, 2017) 4-5.

[6] Ibid., 6.

The Rhetorical Puzzle of Bradley Thompson’s Nietzschean Pajama Essay

What is the intention of Bradley Thompson’s mysterious pajama essay? Late in the article, he says: “Careful readers of [my book] America’s Revolutionary Mind will no doubt see its kinship with Harry V. Jaffa’s A New Birth of Freedom.” He tells us we must read his work carefully at the same time that he classes himself with the famous founder of West Coast Straussianism. He intentionally links himself with Straussians–known for esoteric reading and sometimes for esoteric writing–and he selects an impish title for his essay. Both deeds prepare the reader to think that Thompson’s rhetorical strategy will be more complex than meets the eye; and, indeed, he does not disappoint!

The surface of his essay is designed to promote a “philosophy of Americanism” based on what he takes to be the intention of the American founders. After concisely stating core tenets of the American project, he turns his attention to laying out and dismissing “the aims and tactics of the reactionary Right.” I say that this is the exoteric surface of the essay, because Thompson fails so spectacularly in his attack on the post-liberal Right. When an intelligent writer manifestly fails to accomplish the goal he explicitly sets out for himself, we are compelled to ask: is he foolish, OR, is he trying to accomplish something else? Taking Thompson not to be a fool, I will attempt to disclose the hidden esoteric core of the essay. Thompson’s hidden intention is not to refute the thinkers he discusses, but, rather to encourage conservatives and lovers of liberty to pay closer attention to them so as to be able to harness their insights for the sake of civic renewal. Thompson needed to write in this manner in order to avoid persecution for admiring such unorthodox thinkers.

For the sake of brevity and my own greater familiarity, I will turn most of my attention to his accounts of Mencius Moldbug and Bronze Age Pervert (BAP). 

Mencius Moldbug

One major clue that alerts the reader that Thompson is up to something strange is his consistent failure to try and refute the ideas of those whom he opposes. When he turns his attention to Moldbug, he briefly summarizes a couple points from the first part of “A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations.” At the conclusion of this summary, he exclaims: “You can’t make this stuff up!”

One doesn’t require a deep knowledge of forensic rhetoric to see how facile of an objection this is. Indeed, those who think that contemporary conservatives lack the moral courage required to face up to the dire character of our present situation would expect nothing less than a toothless hand wave from a man like Thompson. By expertly meeting this expectation, Thompson conceals his admiration for Moldbug. He signals to other conservatives that: “there is nothing to see here.” But, the attentive reader who has not yet encountered Moldbug, who reads the article with an open mind, will be encouraged to find out who this strangely named man is. Thompson points the attentive reader further down the road while also protecting his reputation as a good establishment conservative academic.

Bronze Age Pervert

Thompson’s approach to describing and dismissing BAP is even more puzzling than his dismissal of Moldbug. It appears that he draws his account of Bronze Age Mindset (BAM) almost entirely from Michael Anton’s review of it (he even describes the position he carves out as: “Anton’s BAP”). That is to say, he almost gives the impression that he has not read the book (he does though, eventually quote BAP’s dismissal of rights in the American founding). This is perfectly consistent with what we have seen so far. Thompson maintains the appearance that he is keeping his distance from BAP in such a way that careful readers might be enticed to learn more about BAP; they will wish to see the fire that has caused so much smoke.

Here is perhaps the most striking claim from Thompson’s article:

“Unwittingly (no doubt) and rather quite tragically, Michael Anton is the super carrier who brought the virus of the reactionary Right into the bloodstream of the conservative intellectual movement. To be more precise: by giving a platform to BAP and various other BAPsters, the CRB and TAM appear to have forgotten or abandoned the founders’ classical liberalism and sanctioned (at least indirectly) the deviant views of the Pajama-Boy Nietzscheans.”

We cannot take this passage as straightforward either, insofar as it massively undercuts its own intention. He claims that the CRB and TAM have betrayed their core values–and yet, what else will his article accomplish other than to bring more attention to Moldbug and BAP? Indeed this attention will be intensified precisely because Thompson did so little refutative work. Admittedly, he took on a rather large task by commenting on so many authors, but this was his decision. And, by making this choice, Thompson was compelled to write a provocative piece that serves the purpose of rousing controversy which can only brighten the spotlight on Moldbug and BAP. As far as I can tell, this must have been his cleverly concealed purpose all along. 

Concluding Remarks: Why We Should Read Moldbug and BAP

Undoubtedly, there will be readers who take Thompson’s essay completely at face value. For those who do, I implore them to take seriously the possibility that there is enormous value in studying Moldbug and BAP, even or especially if they are concerned with promoting civic renewal along the lines of classical liberalism.

Moldbug is an outstanding diagnostician. He points out that it is a very strange thing that universities, newspapers, and massive NGO’s all seem to effortlessly coordinate to make the world more progressive (his idea of the Cathedral). There is no one person in charge of this decentralized apparatus, but it keeps moving Left, gathering immense social authority. This is especially the case since the only acceptable allegedly non-partisan source of knowledge “science,” has given its blessing to the Cathedral–or was it the other way around? The election of Donald Trump has done nothing to slow this down, though it has potentially helped some people see the situation more clearly. At any rate, Moldbug’s blog, Unqualified Reservations, is a vast reservoir of incisive anti-progressive thinking. It truly will help the open minded progressive purge himself of many fallacious teachings. Moldbug’s ebullient (though admittedly lengthy) prose encourages readers to deepen and widen their political imaginations. Even if most conservatives would reject the constructive side of his project, they can profit from encountering it, for it presents a renewed opportunity to think through the fundamental tensions between necessity and law as well as between wisdom and law.

BAP shows us how ugly and small many of our souls have become. For those with the ears to hear, his exhortations have produced fires in many young men who feel that they inhabit a world that is constrained and that has loudly said: we don’t need you anymore. He stands against the religion of our time, equality. If that puts him at odds with the founders, so be it. Why wouldn’t conservatives benefit from re-thinking whether or not natural inequalities should matter politically, instead of just churlishly saying, “muh, tyranny”? BAP has been accused of having no positive project and of only seeking to destroy. But what do you find when you turn to his suggestions for action in BAM? He calls on men to become friends, to study, and to grow beautiful under the regime of Sun and Steel. He calls on us to create associations at the local level that will strengthen our communities. He steers us away from poison. He wonders why on earth bloated parasitic bureaucrats have been allowed to take away so much of our freedom. Even if one finds himself terrified at some of BAP’s claims about justice and nature, the vast majority of what he calls on good men to do will only make those men better citizens and human beings, by the standards that the founders themselves established.

However these things may stand, I thank Thompson for his provocative article.

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…

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

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…

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.

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…

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.

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…

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.

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…

Rousseaus “Confessions” (enteral discretion is advise!)

The Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau: 9780140440331 | Books Widely regarded as the first modern autobiography, The Confessions is an astonishing work of acute psychological insight. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78)…

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.

“Hero of our time” by Mikhail Lermontov

A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail Lermontov – Reading Guide: 9780143105633 – 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…

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 …

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.

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…

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

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…

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.

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.

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…… —

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:

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



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:

Moïse Tshombe:

Mobuto Sese Seko:

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.

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:

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:

                                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:

Good Man Edward Luttwak

Conversations with History with Edward Luttwak:

Luttwak’s “The Grand Strategy of the Soviet Union

Luttwak’s “Coup d’Etat

Michael Ledeen, boss level neocon propaganda. Not a shill.

Friedrich Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Distribution of the R1A Haplotype:


The Elamites, Bronze Age Civilization:

Sintashta Culture, Bronze Weapons manufacturers:

Elena Kuzmina, Russian Archaeologist:

A little bit on Zoroastrianism:

On the “Transvaluation of Values”:

Episode 21

Street Game and HBD

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

  1. Gregory Cochrane 10000 Year Explosion:
The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution

2. Razib Coon:

3. The Kikkuli Text, an ancient manuscript of training manuals for chariots:

4. Semitic Aryan race the Hyksos:

5. The coming of the Greeks by Robert Drews:

6. A write up of Marija Gimbutas:

7. Original HBD thinker Arthur Gobineau:

8. Useful translation of Nietzsche’s The Gay Science (get head out of gutter, is good book):

The Gay Science by Friedrich Nietzsche

9. The Tuvan culture:

10. A primer on the so-called Red-Brown Alliance:

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

History of Venice by Julius Norwich:

A History of Venice by John Julius Norwich


Byzantine General Narses – “I will spin her such a skin that she will not find the end of it in a lifetime.”

The Gothic War:

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”?

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:

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:

Luc Montanier – French acknowledged discoverer of AIDS:

PD Mangans website…:

Peter Duesberg, PHD. Professor of Cell Biology at Berkeley and HIV dianlist:

Nobel Prive winning scientist who invented PCR Kary Mullis…AIDS skeptic:

BAP’s earlier mention of how AIDS model is induced in mice:


Link to the website the screen shot is from:

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:

Elizabeth Warren and her “anti-corruption” racket:

Wagner, Gotterdamerung: Siegfried’s Funeral March:

Write up of Barry Lyndon:

AFter his adventures, Mike Hoar wrote several books of his explts including the Congo Mercenary:

Mike wrote a down the middle account of the Cathars (tough luck Catahars)

The Last Days of the Cathars

BAP discusses the Simba rebellion:

Paraguayan dictator Alfredo Stroessner:

Movie about the Wild Gees:

The Seychelles affair by Mike Hoar:

9781581606577: The Seychelles Affair

James Burnham, The Suicide of the West:

Bob Denard, mentioned in BAM:

Mad dogs fighting other peoples wars by Vinter:

Africa Addio, a mondo documentary:

The Kogamato, and the thrill of the hunt:




The Brotherville School of Economics…… YOU GIVE ME DAT