BAP is not a nihilist. Nietzsche isn’t either and Anton should know better, but I focus on BAP.
Anton might say that BAP merely contradicts himself when he talks about justice, which he does talk about. He did in his latest bapcast: the way some stupid men are treated by the law, which makes them quite literally into wage slaves for biologically intact families of other males, families that grew out of their own cuckoldry. BAP not only spoke of injustice there, but he displayed nuance when speaking of the extremes of injustice and lesser forms of injustice.
And when he spoke of Conradin in BAM, we learned that what Charles of Anjou and the Church did to that beautiful young prince was unjust, and we learned that there were this-worldly wages for their injustice: the rule of the Church was discredited. BAP even says that the trial they gave him was unjust.
“He [Conradin] was unjustly killed in Italy by usurper Charles of Anjou with the contrivance of a corrupt Pope. … Conradin embarked with his few but powerful knights to reclaim his rightful throne in Rome. He defeated the usurper and then entered the city. … He was captured by treachery and then Charles of Anjou, with the help of corrupt jurists, found a legal pretext to put him on trial and behead him and a friend. … His execution was so absurd and unjust that it permanently discredited Charles of Anjou, the usurper.” (149-150)
How could Anton have missed this?
He either missed it, or is hoping that BAP will try to make these discussions of justice square with his more popular statements on justice, statements which fall much closer to the category of injustice or amorality as Anton claims to see it, namely, justice as cleansing.
BAP talks about how mutant reptiles will cleanse an overdense pond, of the Flood, and Aeschylus’ lion (7-8). Near the end of the book he makes Big Statement: “Here is my vision of the true justice, the justice of nature: the zoos opened, predators unleashed by the dozens, hundreds… four thousand hungry wolves rampaging on streets of these hive cities, elephants and bison stampeding, the buildings smashed to pieces, the cries of the human bug shearing through the streets as the lord of beasts returns” (174).
Maybe BAP is busy. Maybe such responses are below him, or maybe that wasn’t his concern in his first reply to Anton. Whatever the case, I have no doubt that he is able to make these two views of justice consistent, both of which he clearly holds dear (he truly likes Conradin)—I have no doubt he can because I have no doubt they are consistent. Or let me put it this way: I think I can make them consistent and I think BAP is on a level higher than me, so I assume he can as well. I divine as much.
The two views of justice can be reconciled if we take as our starting point one other moment where BAP discusses justice, namely, the Conquistadors and Bob Denard: “Alvarado was a nemesis to civilization, and this is right and good. … It isn’t right to judge such people by the ‘justice’ of their cause. Some of you spergs and almost all of the half-educated class think when Nietzsche talks about ‘beyond good and evil’ that he’s making some grand proposition about there being no possibility to evaluate men or events. Morality is absolute necessity for the people. There is the other morality, that reveals a biological hierarchy. Just the same, a different standard applies to huemans, and a different one to true men who are willing to live in danger, and who don’t care for their animal lives. … They should be judged by what they were willing to risk in their spirit—and also by the unequal rush they all must have had, inside them, as they pursued their high aims” (156; 159-160).
The conquistadors are a cleansing force, and the cleansing is not only right it is beneficial or good. Alvarado could only be one thing and was one thing, how could it be unjust to be the only thing you can be? Certainly you cannot be blamed for that. But the justice that Conradin brought with him, and which was meted out on Charles and the Church after his murder, will not be brought by Alvarado. Alvarado was nemesis and nothing more: he was unfit for rule or governance—and he was unfit for ruling because he couldn’t govern well (157). He did not have the blood of a prince. To this extent he was an exemplar of a certain type, but not the highest type, and his actions will always appear unjust to the common man who asks merely to be left unoppressed, a request that means the suicide of Alvarado if he were to respect it.
Nevertheless, Alvarado did not merely perform a self-service. What he did was more than merely “good,” it was “right and good.” The civilization that went up in flames was corrupted—the rulers were psychopaths and mystics (I think BAP might call them Mandarins) and the ruled were shameful slaves. Even the lovely and very just Eva Brann praises the Conquistadores and blames the Aztecs along similar lines (see Homage to Americans).
The discussion of justice attached to Bob Denard is more thorough. BAP simplifies for his audience: he distinguishes between two types of life. There is yeast life and higher life, namely, the life of the immortal gods (32). Men are more likely to be of the yeast variety, or to slouch down to it, but can strive to resemble the immortal god/guides in body and mind (32). The mind of an immortal god is even more rare than a beautiful body (32). Ignoring, at least here, the difference between 2 forms of Man set down in aphorism 62 and the implied sliding scale that BAP erected in aphorism 15, we see that the higher is governed by a different justice than the lower. It is unjust to treat unequal things equally. Not only are the projects of these greater men greater (unequal) to those of the common man, but their self-interest is different as well, they have an unequal rush, i.e., they are more full of life.
I have not yet shown the consistency—and BAP does not take pains to show it either. He shows the superiority of the one to the other, but can they be consistent?
The sperg and half-educated do not think they can be consistent, because they spout off shit like the Joker did about how things are subjective. What is funny to the joker is not funny to decent people, and vice-versa. Jokers inhabit the perspective of the low and do not see how the interests of the high and the low can be commensurate. They do not even talk about high and low, but the meek and the vicious, or, as our new contributor points out, between the reasonable and the vainglorious. They cannot see life from the other perspective.
When Strauss says things like “we cannot judge the Greeks before we understand them the way they understood themselves” or “it is impossible to understand someone and explain the causes of their actions without understanding how they understood themselves” or “we have to return to reading the great books so that we can see the variety of regimes” he is always criticizing the half-educated and sperg that BAP discusses above, who has bugman eyes because he has a bugman’s heart and brain.
From the higher perspective the common man’s view of justice is incredibly malleable because he can be excited (agitated) or soothed—much of his anguish is merely psychological and can be eased if good men, men approaching the gods and striving evermore, are the rulers. This is not always possible, but it is possible. Sometimes some men must choose themselves over other men—and there is nothing to be done about that. But there are times when the godlike men choose themselves and bring about the happiness of a people. Alvarado was not such a man. He was much closer to the man of “exalted psychosis” BAP exhorts his readers to be (it being in them already), but at which he does not stop himself. That is, BAP experiences the exalted psychosis but has sought to be more than a psychotic. Alvarado accepted his condition and became single minded. A single-minded man cannot understand nature but he can resolutely cling to his lot in nature. One more formulation: for Alvarado, what he did was good. For BAP, what Alvarado did was right and good.
No, not Alvarado, but Conradin is the type who can rule because his rule redeems the misery of the masses. BAP explicitly distinguishes between good and bad rulers on this basis. “In nearly all other parts of the world but the West, the misery inside civilization was universal and the elite, such as it was, didn’t redeem this misery: they themselves remained servile” (75).
Different men are given different natures or portions of nature; either they are different, or possess different amounts of the same thing. Those who are less fortunate will live a constrained existence; and much for them, almost everything for them, depends on their rulers. If their rulers are also constrained and servile, the misery of the poor knows no redemption. “Redemption according to whom?” Redemption according to the poor themselves as well as in the sight of the gods. The gods smiled on Rome in its glorious epochs and abandoned it after a long period of decline. Likewise for the people of Rome, the common men.
BAP calls for a rejuvenation of rule in today’s world—a regime change. He calls for a regime change in science as well as in politics, and along similar lines. Consider this passage:
“It’s not even the substance of science that is the problem because it could be of great use, as much as any other popular religion has been: the problem is the frame of spirit that it puts the acolyte in. It makes him think he has power over the processes of nature which are at present actually very poorly understood. By removing the primal fear—the only kind of awe that drives the many—it injects a toxic mix of complacency, arrogance, brutality, fanaticism that is all just under the surface so long as times are good” (40-41).
Science like ruling can be used for the projects of the gods—understanding the magical hormones—as well as popular religion. But today it does neither! And it does neither precisely because it is imprisoned by a shit morality (lactation rooms and safe spaces in laboratories) and serves a shit purpose.
Anton takes the side of the bugmen in his reply to BAP. It is the first time I have ever seen him clutch pearls. “What will happen if you teach that!?” That is the accusation he has fought off countless times. Countless times he has refused to permit the more noble self-interest to be made taboo and Scolded out of existence because some asshats and psychos will misinterpret it and go off the rails.
BAP is against needless cruelty, to humans and animals. He is against reducing politics and science to power alone. He is not a nihilist. A nihilist is the Sperg described above. That faggot Joker is a nihilist: everything is subjective and he is sad and how dare you not give his wretched view a hearing, and watch him shoot this guy. That is a nihilist. The last men are nihilists. BAP and Nietzsche have to appear unjust because they have to shout. Machiavelli appeared unjust because he had to shout—people were misreading Xenophon. Now people are misreading Machiavelli. Anton himself has made this point and praised Machiavelli’s republican spirit.
It is possible to disagree with the prudence of BAP’s rhetoric. Maybe it won’t give us victory and victory is what we need. But Anton and company don’t criticize him along those lines, though I seriously think Anton knows better and is trying to elicit the higher justification he senses lurking under the BAPian exterior. And after all, if Anton did think BAP’s rhetoric were the problem, he would expose himself by arguing against it as rhetoric—he would betray an inner agreement with it, or lead men to suspect an inner agreement.