“Corruption is merely a nasty word for the autumn of a people.”Autumn is harvest time. It is when the fruition of labor, nature, and time ripens and falls to the earth, ready to become life-giving sustenance or to reseed the next crop. Aphorism 23 in The Gay Science is about “the signs,” conditions, disadvantages, and opportunities that prevail amid times of corruption, when a predominant faith and morality begin to crumble. This aphorism helps explain our strange times.
It is necessary that a prevailing faith will eventually become corrupted. Politically, the old faith that has prevailed among us is not that of the old fashioned American founding—no, that was corrupted a long time ago—but the comfortable liberalism of the 70s-80s-90s-00s. This moral order arose out of a détente from elites on both Left and Right, and this faith is now being abandoned on both ends by those who were left out of the deal. The increasing decay of this faith has led to the rise of the most unexpected characters. Who would have foreseen the popularity of people as batshit crazy as AOC, Ilhan Abdullahi Omar, Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, or Kanye West? Furthermore, who is more inconsequential today than all other top-rank GOP candidates from 2016? Plus no one—no one—loves or hates passionately Joe Biden. He is not capable of arousing such a degree of feeling in anyone.
And what of Bronze Age Pervert? How to explain the rise of such a character in our day? What is happening, and what might happen?
In aphorism 23, Nietzsche asks his reader to consider the signs (die Anzeichen) of corruption that signify the disintegration of an old faith. He describes four.
First, the rise of superstition (Aberglaube). Superstition will begin to prevail over the existing faith (Gesammtglaube). This is a good condition for those who will become Individuals. They are born in this environment, for here they begin to exercise a wider range of thinking and choice beyond the limitations imposed by the old morality and faith. In fact, those who describe this phase as “corruption” are always the defenders of the old religion.
Consider how old liberals used to mock socialists like Bernie and how the GOP establishment mocked Trump. The old guard in their own Parties considered them highly immoral.
Second, national energy is directed inward. When corruption sets in, a people lose all will to fight a foreign threat. They may still want war, but they will not fight. They desire all the comforts previously secured from winning a war and all the honors that usually accrue from victory. The “ancient national energy”—a “national passion”—that once was visible when a nation went to war is now transformed into energy for “private passions.”
Consider how all the energy and passion we could muster before against real foreign threats is now directed inward, at ourselves and our fellow citizens. No serious country is more concerned about the mistakes its dead ancestors made than the real threats is present enemies pose.
Third, surprisingly, times of corruption are more cruel than times of the “older, stronger age that was more given to faith.” “Cruelty,” Nietzsche says, “becomes more refined” in days of corruption. Gone are the days of tar-and-feathering: “the art of wounding and torturing others with words and looks reaches its supreme development in times of corruption.” Why? Because “it is only now that malice (Bosheit) and the delight in malice are born.”
Consider the intense hatred citizens have for one another today. Here is a strange irony: many Americans today bear a greater hatred for fellow citizens whom they consider “racist” than did ever a truly racist people feel for a race they considered inferior. Genuine racism is characterized more by a confident apathy than a consuming hatred. Cancel culture is far crueler, is felt with greater hatred, and intended with greater malice than anything that Americans used to feel for foreign enemies.
Fourth, in times of corruption strange, new figures arise, tyrannical figures. These pushy personalities are the “precursors and as it were the precocious harbingers of individuals” (Vorlaüfer und gleichsam dei frühreifen Erstlinge der Individuen). As the corruption continues, these tyrants vie with one another for supremacy, and eventually one will emerge who brings an end to the struggle, a Caesar. Oddly enough, these are the times when great Individuals emerge, and culture therefore is “in its highest and most fruitful stage,” not because of or for the tyrant, but because of and for the Individuals.
Consider that small-souled men like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio and harpies like Stacey Abrams and Gretchen Whitmer arise, sensing that the time is ripe for them to bitch and scream and thereby cow any challengers into submission. Happily Trump overcame the first two in 2016, but the struggle is not yet over, and Trump has no guarantee of victory for the future. Will he arise as Caesar? Will another, hitherto unknown?
Nietzsche’s point is that it doesn’t matter. What matters more than these are the Individuals who will rise from the space created by the breakdown, the corruption, of the old faith. These are the free-spirits. They include famous men such as Elon Musk, who are escaping the normal ways of thinking and charting a path to Mars. But they also include men like BAP—who must remain less famous in order to remain free—who ridicule the old pieties and inspire young men with the whisper that it is beautiful to pursue greatness.
These are the Individuals whose opposites are “herd men” (Heerden-Menschen). These are Individuals, Nietzsche explains, who attach themselves to violent men (Gewaltmenschen), not because they are filled with hatred, but because they likewise consider themselves capable of actions that herd men do not understand and cannot forgive.
None of us asked to be born in these times of corruption. Nonetheless, let us choose to consider ourselves fortunate to live at a time when the old, tired faith is being shaken, when a greater plain of choice lies before us, and let us work to shape the opportunities that fall out to us into a noble form.
“The times of corruption are those when the apples fall from the tree: I mean the individuals, for they carry the seeds of the future and are the authors of the spiritual colonization and origin of new states and communities. Corruption is merely a nasty word for the autumn of a people.”
(all quotations are from Walter Kaufmann’s translation)
Firstly let’s get the ‘poast physique’ retort out of the way. Here it is unadulterated, no IG filters or post production gimmicks.
Not great, but then I have a myriad of other hobbies and life activities going on. You see aesthetics aren’t everything, in fact at their worst they are indicative of an unhealthy obsession. Modern life is full of unhealthy obsessions – the cargo cult that is physical fitness of the Dissident Right has done much to pull modern men away from such obsessions. Yet it is not a new or radical idea. Physical Culture as a concept has existed for a long while, look at the Muscular Christianity movement, read up on Bernarr MacFadden. BAP poasting is the modern version of this. Where MacFadden created his own magazine and posed nude in the late 1800’s to mog, BAPists now quote tweet blue checkas with their own impressive physiques or reply to fat lesbians.
There is truly nothing new under the sun.
Some of us who have been around for a good while remember BAP’s first iteration. It was a simple exhortation, and even in the modern iteration it is also a simple exhortation.
Beauty shall conquer the world.
Yet I fear the BAPist physeek frogs are floundering somewhat – the online memetic culture of poasting is all too trite. #HandsomeThursday at its worst can appear nothing more than an advert for underwear from the mid 90’s. The Cult of Strength is all too real outside of the Right. Like anything in this clown world of piss earth as well we can be sure that it will bend ever more leftward. Don’t believe me? Venture outside the bubble – strong ggrrls are still present. Sculpting your physique is as modern as it gets. The Bench Press was only developed around the 1940s…
That is one side of it – but the truth does remain. Beauty shall conquer the world – or should that in fact be the beautiful shall conquer the world?
BAP talks of space and the necessity of it. Man’s desire to expand. To leave the matriarchial longhouse and conquer. In truth we lack space. Space is forever shut to the white man today. Anarcho-tyranny means only the leftist anti-fa sperg will experience the thrill of confrontation against the System that bred him without fear of arrest and destruction.
The world is made small by bugmen, wahmen and their smartphones. The world is made even smaller by Men who only pursue their own physique.
Lifting weight, being fit, being strong. These are necessary components of being a Man. Mastery of your body and knowledge of it is important but they fold into the rest of life. An endless obsession without competitive pursuit is masturbatory. By all means enter powerlifting competitions but enter to win. This isn’t about participatory trophies, and it never has been. Engage in the physical for the love of it but the memetic rhetoric must expand. New space must be conquered.
Beauty for example – what is beauty without true art? What is beauty without dressing well? Where are the serious considerations of fashion or art? They lurk beneath the surface but are not yet brought to light. It seems we are trapped in a small, infantile form, of rebellion. Mastery of the body in the gym that takes time, energy, but does not present space in which to truly expand.
Skills are what we must learn. A multitude of them. Maybe you think like me the dark times are coming (or are already here). What are you going to do when they dox you and you’re fired? In an absence of the Space we crave what fire can we nurture?
As a friend said though:
“Why are people not generative? I think because its too fucking hard”
It is fucking hard. What do we create? It is hard even for a man to create and build a strong family today let alone teach himself skills. But I do not despair. I say that BAPists must step away from the political. They must look more towards WrathofGnon. Ancient skills, woodworking, thatching, sewing, blacksmithing. Much of modern western men have been robbed of chance to learn and engage with such things.
We have been bred to become consoomers.
It is prevalent in any ‘masculine’ hobby. Guns, bikes, motorsports. Most of these hobbies however offer at least some degree of ‘space’. Space for innovation or to create your own. The tragedy of the 3D printer is that most of us don’t have the creative and generative nature to build things because we have everything we need. It is only adverts and the eternal psy-op of consooming that leads us to new purchases. This must change. We can’t pretend to be fully escaped from this clown world, certainly we can’t if we engage on Twitter!
Aesthetics for men can’t become like plastic tits for whores. We don’t just want to get in the door or get a free meal. They’re a compliment to the substance that follows. The beginning of cultivation of complexity. We love the BAPisms because it confounds our enemies to look good and be able to discuss complexity. You know this to be true. This concept is nothing new, the cultured thug. But the thug doesn’t just look dangerous – he knows how to fight, when to fight.
I hope we are on the cusp of more creative, generative content. Of a discussion of wider skills and knowledge. Too often people become parodies of the identity they seek. It is critical for Revolt Against Modern World to engage in this in more of a fashion than simply pumping iron. The next step involves fraternity as well – getting a good physique can be done alone, solo, by lonely men who hide in the gym. This is not good enough. You must take steps to expand, to meet other men, build relationships. Not everyone must bend to your political will from day one. Online relationships are ultimately not real.
The path forward is never easy – you may enter institutions if you wish, but there are steps in between from physique to that. Those steps involve reclaiming generative power of yourself. As mastery of the body helps the mind so to does mastery of skills. Learning something and becoming valuable is what the frogs must do. Do not whine about how they are shutting down thought criminals on YouTube – that is not valuable content. That could never help you rebuild your house or fix your car. You must step forward from physique poasting. Generate, fraternize, document your journey of learning. Inspire others beyond aesthetics.
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.
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.
“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.”
“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.
“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.”
If we are to be honest about the experiment of refounding higher education, we must first understand the nature of the problem. In short, the priests of higher education–filled with hubris–have abandoned Nature in exchange for Utopian speculations. Their endeavors are now a curse on students and society. Most institutions of higher education are now temples to false gods, dedicated to the morality of an imagined cosmopolis that does not exist, nor can exist, in reality.
The solution to the problem of higher education, therefore, lies in a revival of an effectual truth in regard to values. The liberal arts and the study of the classics have always been useless in an economic sense. Their value, though, is evident in the flourishing of those who embraced them and who were in turn changed by them in a way that raised them up by giving them something higher to look upon and to be drawn toward. The result was civilization, societal flourishing that was evident to any honest person.
A degree in grievance studies and the whole diversity Weltanschauung–all in service to a cult of multiculturalism–does not lift one’s gaze to something higher; it beckons one to look inward, and the only way to look inward is to lower one’s gaze, to confuse thoughts with feelings, and to become a closed-circuit, incapable of action, and pitiful to behold.
We must re-found higher education, and that will be a long, difficult struggle. Phocaean and Cerberus have begun a conversation, so let us reason together.
Lest we, too, fall into hubris, we must be satisfied with a humble beginning, but do not despise the day of small things. The first step won’t be on an institutional level but on the level of friendship and the old model of a teacher and his disciples. From there, we can begin the long march through the institutions.
My small contribution to understanding the nature of the problem, for now, is just this: our universities and colleges are full of students who do not really want an education; they do not want to be formed according to something noble. What they want is twofold: first, they want access into the class of people who are college “educated” so that they can call themselves–whatever they end up doing for a career–“professionals.” Second, they want (and they think it their right to have) the “college experience,” which is basically camp for twenty year-olds, but with booze and sex.
This part of the problem suggests certain things about the solution. First, it suggests that we should drastically lower our expectation for the number of people who can be educated, for real education is only possible among those who truly desire it, and they will always be a small fraction of society. Second, it suggests that students need to learn in an environment that emphasizes the curricula more than prurient parties, but let us not forget that healthy, nurturing friendship is a vital part of education, both as a means and an end.
My proposal for a humble, yet noble, beginning takes as a model the spirit of Benjamin Franklin’s “Leather Apron” club, also known simply as the “Junto.” Franklin gathered eleven friends together weekly to discuss questions of “Morals, Politics, or Natural Philosophy.” I hold up the ethos, not necessarily the exact content of these groups as an example for us to follow. Franklin used his Junto to build bonds of friendship between individuals he believed would have an effect on public opinion, and eventually half of the members formed their own groups–each by its own name and with its own personality–and they would report back to the main group the progress each sub-group was making. This was a model for exponential growth among men interested in “mutual improvement.”
I imagine readers of this blog and others–inspired by BAP’s independent spirit–drawing strength from these anonymous, online friendships and starting their own Juntos. These initial groups should be composed of like-minded, or potentially like-minded, men, ideally those in places of influence and who are faculty in colleges and universities who need merely a taste of this kind of friendship and ethos to be inspired. Then, each member could seek to form his own group, composed of various students he finds who desire a real education, the kind that Cerberus describes in his post “The Bronze Age University: New Possibilities in a Time of Trouble.”
The first step, though, is to find friends and improve ourselves, setting the foundation from which to build higher. If we are unable to do even that, we should just give up now the aspiration to re-found higher education. We must become the models that the students we want look to with admiration. It begins, before anything else, with finding and building friendships.
This is a very practical step. It involves action, not contemplation. Read how Franklin himself describes his Junto in his autobiography as a means for transforming Philadelphia.
I should have mentioned before that, in the autumn of the preceding year, I had form’d most of my ingenious acquaintance into a club of mutual improvement, which we called the Junto; we met on Friday evenings. The rules that I drew up required that every member, in his turn, should produce one or more queries on any point of Morals, Politics, or Natural Philosophy, to be discuss’d by the company; and once in three months produce and read an essay of his own writing, on any subject he pleased. Our debates were to be under the direction of a president, and to be conducted in the sincere spirit of inquiry after truth, without fondness for dispute, or desire of victory; and, to prevent warmth, all expressions of positiveness in opinions, or direct contradiction, were after some time made contraband, and prohibited under small pecuniary penalties…
Our club, the Junto, was found so useful, and afforded such satisfaction to the members, that several were desirous of introducing their friends, which could not well be done without exceeding what we had settled as a convenient number, viz., twelve. We had from the beginning made it a rule to keep our institution a secret, which was pretty well observ’d; the intention was to avoid applications of improper persons for admittance, some of whom, perhaps, we might find it difficult to refuse. I was one of those who were against any addition to our number, but, instead of it, made in writing a proposal, that every member separately should endeavor to form a subordinate club, with the same rules respecting queries, etc., and without informing them of the connection with the Junto. The advantages proposed were, the improvement of so many more young citizens by the use of our institutions; our better acquaintance with the general sentiments of the inhabitants on any occasion, as the Junto member might propose what queries we should desire, and was to report to the Junto what pass’d in his separate club; the promotion of our particular interests in business by more extensive recommendation, and the increase of our influence in public affairs, and our power of doing good by spreading thro’ the several clubs the sentiments of the Junto.
The project was approv’d, and every member undertook to form his club, but they did not all succeed. Five or six only were compleated, which were called by different names, as the Vine, the Union, the Band, etc. They were useful to themselves, and afforded us a good deal of amusement, information, and instruction, besides answering, in some considerable degree, our views of influencing the public opinion on particular occasions, of which I shall give some instances in course of time as they happened.
This is my proposal for a beginning. It is humble, but it is noble. This is a beginning that fits–as Cerberus noted–Nietzsche’s prescription for an environment conducive to producing men who are fighters against their time, educated against all the modern fashions, who yearn to be made ripe for the heroic occasion, ready to begin the hard work necessary to re-found the noble city of higher education on the fertile plains upon which Western civilization once flourished. It begins–as one hopes it will also end–in friendship.
1. Cretino-America and the takeover of the Anglo machine by non-Anglos. BAP doesn’t mention any specific sources, but I think the classic text on this is The Dispossessed Majority by Wilmot Robertson. Cuckservative by Vox Day and John Red Eagle is also very good and more up to date. Although I have not read it myself, I hear that Samuel Huntington’s Who Are We? is a good treatment of the Anglo roots of America.
3. Dominique Venner. Two of his books have been translated into English and are available from Arktos. The Shock of History is a series of interviews meant as an introduction to his work. For A Positive Critique is an important manifesto he wrote in 1961. For those who read French there are many other works, which will hopefully be translated in the future.
Gobineau on mulattoes and Slavs: “It may be remarked that the happiest blend, from the point of view of beauty, is that made by the marriage of white and black. We need only put the striking charm of many mulatto, Creole, and quadroon women by the side of such mixtures of yellow and white as the Russians and Hungarians. The comparison is not to the advantage of the latter. It is no less certain that a beautiful Rajput is more ideally beautiful than the most perfect Slav.”
Malcolm X on white liberals: “The white liberals aren’t white people who are for independence, who are moral and ethical in their thinking. They are just a fraction of white people that are jockeying for power…They are fighting each other for power and prestige, and the one that is the football in the game is the Negro…The liberal elements of whites are those who have perfected the art of selling themselves to the Negro as a friend of the Negro. Getting sympathy of the Negro, getting the allegiance of the Negro, and getting the mind of the Negro. Then the Negro sides with the white liberal, and the white liberal use the Negro against the white conservative.
“So that anything that the Negro does is never for his own good, never for his own advancement, never for his own progress, he’s only a pawn in the hands of the white liberal. The worst enemy that the Negro have is this white man that runs around here drooling at the mouth professing to love Negros, and calling himself a liberal, and it is following these white liberals that has perpetuated problems that Negros have. If the Negro wasn’t taken, tricked, or deceived by the white liberal then Negros would get together and solve our own problems.” https://blavity.com/malcolm-x-bill-maher-white-liberals?category1=black-history&subCat=community-submitted
In multi ethnic society all political life devolves to ethnic loyalties – attributed to a Lebanese politician. I can’t find the Lebanese but Lee Kuan Yew said something similar:
“Why should I be against democracy? The British came here, never gave me democracy, except when they were about to leave. But I cannot run my system based on their rules. I have to amend it to fit my people’s position. In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I’d run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them.”
Nietzsche “hic niger est”, Malus from word for ‘dark’
On the Genealogy of Morals, Essay 1, Section 5 (Kaufmann translation) “With regard to our problem, which may on good grounds be called a quiet problem and one which fastidiously directs itself to few ears, it is of no small interest to ascertain that through those words and roots which designate “good” there frequently still shines the most important nuance by virtue of which the noble felt themselves to be men of a higher rank. Granted that, in the majority of cases, they designate themselves simply by their superiority in power (as “the powerful,” “the masters,” “the commanders”) or by the most clearly visible signs of this superiority, for example, as “the rich,” “the possessors” (this is the meaning of arya; and of corresponding words in Iranian and Slavic). But they also do it by a typical character trait: and this is the case that concerns us here. They call themselves, for instance, “the truthful;” this is so above all of the Greek nobility, whose mouthpiece is the Megarian poet Theognis. The root of the word coined for this, esthlos, signifies one who is, who possesses reality, who is actual, who is true; then, with a subjective turn, the true as the truthful: in this phase of conceptual transformation it becomes a slogan and catchword of the nobility and passes over entirely into the sense of “noble,” as distinct from the lying common man, which is what Theognis takes him to be and how he describes him—until finally, after the decline of the nobility, the word is left to designate nobility of soul and becomes as it were ripe and sweet. In the word kakos, as in deilos (the plebeian in contradistinction to the aga-thos), cowardice is emphasized: this perhaps gives an indication in which direction one should seek the etymological origin of agathos, which is susceptible of several interpretations. The Latin malus (beside which I set melas) may designate the common man as the dark-colored, above all as the black-haired man (“hic niger est—”), as the pre-Aryan occupant of the soil of Italy who was distinguished most obviously from the blond, that is Aryan, conqueror race by his color; Gaelic, at any rate, offers us a precisely similar case—fin (for example in the name Fin-Gal), the distinguishing word for nobility, finally for the good, noble, pure, originally meant the blond-headed, in contradistinction to the dark, black-haired aboriginal inhabitants.
“The Celts, by the way, were definitely a blond race; it is wrong to associate traces of an essentially dark-haired people which appear on the more careful ethnographical maps of Germany with any sort of Celtic origin or blood-mixture, as Virchow still does: it is rather the pre-Aryan people of Germany who emerge in these places. (The same is true of virtually all Europe: the suppressed race has gradually recovered the upper hand again, in coloring, shortness of skull, perhaps even in the intellectual and social instincts: stincts: who can say whether modern democracy, even more modern anarchism and especially that inclination for “commune” for the most primitive form of society, which is now shared by all the socialists of Europe, does not signify in the main a tremendous counterattack—and that the conqueror and master race, the Aryan, is not succumbing physiologically, too?
“I believe I may venture to interpret the Latin bonus as “the warrior,” provided I am right in tracing bonus back to an earlier duonus (compare bellum = duellum = duen-lum, which seems to me to contain duonus). Therefore bonus as the man of strife, of dissention (duo), as the man of war: one sees what constituted the “goodness” of a man in ancient Rome. Our German gut [good] even: does it not signify “the godlike,” the man of “godlike race”? And is it not identical with the popular (originally noble) name of the Goths? The grounds for this conjecture cannot be dealt with here.—”
Rome imported slaves from Libya and Syria:
Greek heroes all blonde – from Who Were The Greeks? by Sir John Linton Myres
Fair Hair Among Heroes and Classical Greeks
Now Bacchylides in the fifth century describes the Spartans as fair; and alludes also twice to blond athletes at the Nemean Games. If Apollo was in any specific sense a “Dorian god,” his “golden” and “uncropped” hair, celebrated by Pindar, would support the testimony of Bacchylides, the description in Herodotus of the Spartans combing their long hair before the last fight at Thermopylae, and the Homeric epithet trichaikes, which may mean “with waving hair,” on the one occasion when Dorians are mentioned in the poems. But Laconia, like all eastern Peloponnese, had been “Achaean” before it was “Dorian”; there were blond leaders among the Achaeans in Homer, and Menelaus king of Sparta was one of these; Pindar speaks collectively of the Homeric Danaans as “fair-haired” and Apollo, though not on the Achaean side in the Trojan War, was a great and well-known god. Clearly it was not the Spartans who introduced blondness into Peloponnese; though if they were themselves blond in Pindar’s time, their strict inbreeding after arrival makes it certain that they were already so when they came.” “How far back can this blond strain be traced? When did it appear, and whence did it come? Pindar,” as we have seen, describes the Danaans of the Heroic Age as xanthokomoi “golden-haired,” in the war between Argos and Thebes traditionally dated late in the thirteenth century. This is the only ancient passage in which the word is used of a heroic people in general; and it is in retrospect, seven hundred years after the event. But there was reason for Pindar’s belief. In the Homeric poems, individual heroes are described as xanthoi, Menelaus, Achilles, Odysseus, Meleager, and also one woman, Agamedé, and one personage, Rhadamanthys, two generations earlier. In view of the significance of red hair as evidence of blond parentage, we must note here the name of Achilles’ son Neoptolemus, who was also called pyrrhos “red-head,” like his namesake and descendant in the third century; perhaps also Achilles’ friend Phoenix, for the epithet phoenix is applied to a bay horse and to the orange-flowered palm tree, as well as to “redskin” seafarers. Such epithets are only likely to be given when this kind of hair color is exceptional. We may therefore be sure (as we are already encouraged to be by the occurrence of red hair at all) that around these blond hero-families there was a predominant element that was dark, for example Eurybates, the herald of Odysseus, was “stooping at the shoulders, dark-skinned and curly headed,” in implied contrast with his lord. “Only once is a hero described as dark-haired, and that is on the occasion when Athena’s divine magic destroyed and then restored the manly beauty of Odysseus, but whereas he was xanthos before the double change, he becomes “dark-skinned” after it, with “blue-black” beard, like that of his divine enemy Poseidon, or the hair of Sappho, long after, which Alcaeus described as “violet-dark.” Pindar later still uses the same word of the Muses.”
The Dorians, the people from whom the Spartans were descended A comprehensive source on the Dorians, also referenced by Julius Evola, is The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race (2 volumes) by Karl Otfried Müller https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/author/36581
Greeks saw Socrates refuted by his ugliness – See Nietzsche, “The Problem of Socrates” in Twilight of the Idols
Socratic severing of the kaloskagathos (the Beautiful and Good) – See Hans F.K. Gunther, The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans https://archive.org/details/TheReligiousAttitudesOfTheIndo-europeans_621/mode/2up “The might or power of which the Indo-Europeans had a presentiment, this unity of the deity was split up by thinkers in the realm of human experience into the trinity of “The Good, the True and the Beautiful”, but in such a way that these ideas or words remained close neighbours in Hellas. Here and there with the later Hellenic-Roman thinkers the true could easily be understood as the good and the beautiful, aletheia could signify both intellectual truth as well as moral truth, and in the kalok’agathia the ideal of sifting and selection, of eugeneia or human disciplined, choice bodily beauty and moral fitness, and virtue (arete) became linked with one another. Since Plato’s Banquet, Indo-European thinkers have recognised truth, beauty and virtue as life values which pointed beyond the realm of experience to the divine, to the brahman, or the concept of Das Gott (neuter) — to a deity which through truth rendered the thinking man capable of knowledge.”
“The morality of human dignity is not inspired on account of the prospect of a reward in heaven, but for its own sake: nihil praeter id quod honestum sit propter se esse expetendum. This was how Cicero understood the Roman religiosity and morality (de officiis, I, 72-75, 94-95, 106, 130; III, 23-24, 33; Tusculanae disputationes, V, 1), which both originate from ancient Italic and hence Indo-European nature. Such aims as the Hellenic kalok’agathia (beauty and fitness), and that of the Roman humanitas — humanitas being understood in the era of the Roman aristocratic republic as a duty or ideal of full manhood, of human wholeness, or of Noble nature40 — such goals of heroic perfection are therefore particularly expressive of Indo-European religiosity which offers the worship of a resolute, heroic heart.”
There is some related insight on this in the books Shadow Men by Anthony Napoleon, and An Age for Lucifer: Predatory Spirituality and the Quest for Godhood by Robert Tucker. Shadow Men deals more with the psycho-sexual aspect, while Tucker deals more with the predatory aspect.
With the recent renaissance of new mindsets, politics, philosophies, ideologies, identities, theories and praxis, why do we need, once again, to go over this boomer dichotomy? Because after you signal your trendy new ideology that Alcibiadean pirates require open space lebensraum for their will to power, some Tara Isabella Burtonite will try to understand, “So what you’re saying is… you’re ‘right wing’?” facepalm.jpg. Although my online bros are totally based, I still live in the normie world. But what kind of fake fascist has the egalitarian balls to stoop down the hierarchy to the unwashed masses?
The fundamental 3 dimensions of Right and Left
1. Hierarchy vs Equality 2. Tradition vs Progress 3. Technology vs Globalism
Hierarchy vs Equality
Anti-egalitarianism is the first redpill from which all other redpills are derived. Moldbug style Anti-Democracy? Why does he bully protestants so much? It’s all advanced anti-equality, so we may want to ease you into it with some lower doses, big guy. I am tempted to label this section “Freedom vs Equality,” because this tension is how we start to derive the Dark Enlightenment. But these are not true opposites. Hierarchy, vertical structure, is the opposite of Equality, horizontal structure. But Freedom and Hierarchy do have a relationship, tho: hierarchy is what naturally develops in an uncontrolled, FREE environment. If you’re so damn obsessed with freedom (why do you think BAP loves open space so much?) then you got no problem with hierarchy. Allow us a digression into the story of freedom…
For every left wing person, fundamentally, equality is the most important value. All other good things come from it. If there’s inequality, i.e. hierarchy, there’s oppression; which, I suppose, means no freedom, I think? see, they’re logical just like you. What’s more, when they signal their egalitarian virtue, how can your rhetoric even compete, you mean and selfish coward? So where the hell does this Right Wing even get off? Enter Robespierre. He (as an object or event) is the archetypal womb that births the REACTION(ary). He’s my favorite Revolutionary for this reason. Your dialectics didn’t stand a chance. To paraphrase Bezmenov: when the revolutionary kicks a useful idiot in his fat bottom, then the idiot will see. What are we seeing? This egalitarian revolution was never about freedom. Hear any calls for shutting down free speech or taking away your private property, e.g. guns, lately?
We are Reactionaries (Reaction against the Egalitarian Revolution). Fundamentally, freedom is the most important value. Since egalitarians got no problem with authority taking away freedom as means to an egalitarian end, we reject, or subordinate, equality as a flawed value. We want our freedom. Wait–but why, again? I just want to wake up, go to work, come home, see my family, fuck my obedient wife in the missionary position with no concern for her pleasure and then fall asleep. What do I need to be free for? Spoiler alert: (slightly altering a Thomas Carlyle quote:) History is but the account of innovation. Freedom is necessary for innovation. More on this in “Technology vs Globalism.”
So I’ve gone pretty far off into shilling for freedom in a section about hierarchy. But I was trying to point out how equality sucks! Fuck off egalitarians–freedomfags only. But it looks like this hierarchy has naturally occurred in our free state. What to do, what to do…Oh shit–and will you just look at this!: the CEO of Hierarchies, Jordan Peterson, once said something like: you don’t see a homeless person and say, hooray! the hierarchy is working! Hierarchy is the hardest sell of the right wing or the reactionary. (see above: the part about innovation necessarily needs freedom with its side effect, i.e. hierarchy.) It’s the wild untamed undomesticated wild tiger that came with our purchase of true freedom, COMPED! As a lead in to our next section, it looks like we need an operator’s manual, maybe even a kind of culture, perhaps codified in a tradition, that can help us to Ride the Tiger.
Tradition vs Progress or, How to Ride the Hierarchy
Hierarchy vs egalitarian, i.e. vertical vs horizontal structure, was pretty straight forward. From here on in we may use particular meanings for the terms. Being around for quite a while, humans have, possibly through trial-and-error, stumbled upon praxis that seemed to yield positive results, e.g. a society of friendly neighbors does better than a community of dishonest sketchy sell outs. Does that mean God wants you to be a friendly neighbor? who cares! Its just more effective. Practical praxis has been codified in Tradition. And this happened a while ago.
But the olden dayz wuz when the patriarchy enslaved muh 6 million POCs! It’s tainted! Problematic! REEEEE. It’s the current year and women can do stuff now. The current year was achieved through Progress. And Future Progress will show that you are on the wrong side of Progress. Now do you see why they use these words and phrases? Maybe doing the right thing is tyranny and I’m allowed to break down trad social structures. You figured it out, fedora tipper: Satan won’t own your soul for eternity. But as you Progressively explore ways to not do the right thing, GNON will sure as shit kick you down the hierarchy. Well, we’ll just to have a revolution to overturn the hierarchy. And so on and so…
So that’s how I describe the left. Is it a straw man? No. Fuck you. Of course, this right wing trad demand for doing the right thing leaves you will this problem: what is the right thing? I am actually a scum bag. But at least I go to confession. For the right thing, I’m going to point you towards Bronze Age Mindset and 12 Rules for Life. That’s a start. The right is defined by having a will to Ride the Tiger, the left wants to jump off and have a fist fight with a tiger.
Technology vs Globalism
Right away I have to mention these are Peter Thiel’s terms in Zero to One. Thank you Peter, very cool. So we’re Trad Reactionaries Riding the Tiger up the Holy Hierarchy. Why? So I can show the world how big my dick is? Back to our cyborg Carlyle idea: History is but the account of innovation. But since I already mentioned that, let’s start with how the left wants you to eat bugs and live in pods instead of embracing the future as God intended.
Bannon likes to point out that you can tell the political ruling class is the aristocracy of the USA because the suburbs outside of DC are the wealthiest in the country; More than, say, silicon valley, which is generally understood as where innovation is supposed to happen. So will the whole globe some day look like a DC suburb? Even if there was some how just enough resources, as Thiel points out, this creates extreme competition for those resources, namely, war, namely, this is going to end in nuclear holocaust.
When I say “the fall of the Roman Empire” I am talking about an untergang, a downward movement, a fall. If I say “western enlightenment,” that is upward movement, civilization goes “Up.” And attempting to spread equality globally is a sort of side-ways movement, not really up, and with mitigated risk, we try not to fall; arrogance in the face of the Tyler Durden hypothesis: “On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.”
There’s only one way to prove Tyler wrong. And the good news is, it is the very meaning and being of humanity: technology that comes from innovation, which drives civilization upward, the very actions of history. And thank God the right wing secured us that freedom and open space that allows this innovation. Right Wing is interested in this upward technological movement. Of course passing this shit side ways is nice too, but we must be focused on going up. As in the previous section, this text is not a “how to” innovate, I am merely defining right wing and its goals and values. Best I can say is ride the tiger up the hierarchy towards the singularity, beyond the horizon of upward movement. Is that completely theoretical and idealistic? Totally. I guess I could point you towards Zero to One as a start. Go off, king.
We are proud to host @CypressRevival ‘s threads on the Bronze Age Pervert’s Caribbean Rhythms! He compiles references to books, articles, musics, pieces of art, and just about anything else BAP discusses.
BAP likes to remind us of the inscription on the tomb of Aeschylus, the father of Greek tragedy: “Beneath this stone lies Aeschylus, son of Euphorion, the Athenian, who perished in the wheat-bearing land of Gela; of his noble prowess the grove of Marathon can speak, and the long-haired Persian knows it well.” No mention of his poems.
BAP also has said that the only free people are warriors. So did Homer. According to Homer, Achilles and Odysseus embody the two essential types of man.
Achilles and Odysseus—The Essential Men According to Homer
Of course, Homer did not write a thesis stating as much. Homer shows, he does not tell. So what does Homer show? In the Trojan War, no two men contribute more essential, decisive acts for the Greeks than Achilles and Odysseus. Crucially, and among other things, Homer shows Achilles killing Hector, which effectively saves the Greeks from destruction. He also states that Odysseus executed the Trojan Horse tactic, which gives victory to the Greeks and destroys the Trojans.
Homer also shows how important Odysseus was to his kingdom, Ithaca, revealing him as a better leader or, at least, administrator of homelands, estates, and households, than Agamemnon. And Odysseus’ desire for a homecoming is the most powerful drive illustrated in the Odyssey, while the drive to glory and its attendant issues, embodied in Achilles, is the central psychological problem of the Iliad.
Homer depicts Achilles and Odysseus as providing the essential actions for the Greeks’ survival and flourishing. For Homer, Achilles achieves eternal fame through battle. And Odysseus achieves eternal fame through a combination of battle, cleverness, and an uncompromising will to live and return home. Unlike many other Greek chieftains, Odysseus is honored by his wife, son, dog, and many of his subjects, despite his absence. Thus, Achilles and Odysseus are the essential men according to Homer.
The Characteristics of the Essential Men
Though he “detest[ed] the doorways of Death,” Achilles forsook returning home in favor of pursuing immortality through glory in battle. Conversely, Odysseus is a warrior who wishes to live and return home. Most precisely, Odysseus has a will to outlive himself through means other than solely through glory. This distinction is key to understanding how both are, in their own way, the two fundamentally essential men.
Achilles is the warrior par excellence. He is not afraid to die. He would rather die a hero and pour all of himself into killing his enemies. He holds none of his spirit back, he is fully committed to battle, and he does not keep an eye out for worsening odds so that he might choose survival over glory. Returning to domestic life is not a factor in his decision making.
Achilles is an essential type because, if your group has this type of man, or more of this type than the group on the other side of the ledger, then your group takes the field. Literally, your group will be able to drive off other groups from fields—i.e., terrain where “other things are equal” or close to it. Your group can occupy and own space. You cannot always outsmart your enemy. Your group needs killers to clear and hold space.
But “other things” are not always equal. Uneven terrain, or other circumstances, may create advantages for your enemies. And around the time of the Trojan War, a new military technology developed—high-fortified walls. Thus, you could not always destroy your enemy by simply taking the field. With the emergence of fortifications beyond the capability of infantry to easily scale, the Achilles-type was no longer sufficient to destroy enemies. Ingenuity became necessary. Men like Odysseus became necessary.
Odysseus is not as extreme as Achilles in his love of glory. At some point, he wants to survive and go home. But he is far from indifferent to honor, and he is an excellent warrior. He wrestled Telemonian Ajax to a draw. The Greeks regarded Odysseus as Telemonian Ajax’s equal in bravery, just below Achilles. In Book VII of the Iliad, after Hector marauded through the Greek ranks (as Achilles pridefully excused himself from the fighting because of Agamemnon’s disrespect) and challenged the Greeks to select a champion to fight him, Odysseus (somewhat reluctantly) volunteered along with eight others to meet Hector’s challenge.
Yet Odysseus’s love of glory is tempered by a will to live and return home, which is established by the extraordinary return trip as told in the Odyssey, in which he killed or evaded vicious monsters, refused riches, and turned away from settling down with new women, including a Phaiakian princess, a beautiful sorceress, and a goddess. His survival instinct manifests in a variety of ways, most especially in a will to seek clever and ingenious solutions, including what some might call “unfair” advantage. He will scheme, as when he tricks and uncovers Achilles from under the disguise Thetis put on her son to prevent him from going to Troy. He will employ strategy and tactics, as when he wrestles Telemonian Ajax. He will kill people in their sleep, as when he leads an ambush of the Thracians in Book 10 of the Iliad. In short, he will seek almost any advantage in conflict so that he might win, live, and ultimately go home victorious. One can easily imagine that it was an Odysseus-type that thought to incorporate lying and stealing into the curriculum for Spartan youth. Thus, naturally, Odysseus came up with the idea for the Trojan Horse.
But is Odysseus Homer’s second essential type only because occupying the field is not sufficient to destroy one’s enemies? No, if the Odysseus-type is essential only for that reason, Homer would not have needed to write the Odyssey. Instead, Odysseus is essential because he is a warrior who possesses a will to survive and, in a way, outlive himself through means other than solely through glory, and this kind of will produces benefits abroad and at home.
Abroad, this will manifests in finding easier and ingenious ways to overcome obstacles to killing enemies. But at home, properly directed, this will aims to cultivate loyalty and order. Homer shows that Odysseus managed his personal relationships, his estate, and his kingdom of the Greek Ionian Islands (Ithaca, Cephalonia, Zakynthos, Corfu, and Lefkada) with exceptional skill. Odysseus, among the many Greek chieftains, cultivated a love in his wife, son, dog, many of his fellow men, and some of his servants, that survived his absence for 20 years, even against their own apparent self-interest. Those relationships are not cultivated through the sole and unrelenting pursuit of glory, but through some tender moments, and charm and social graces of which Odysseus is a master but which Achilles disdains. (Achilles: “For as I detest the doorways of Death, I detest that man, who hides one thing in the depths of his heart, and speaks forth another.”) Thus, Odysseus embodies the traits necessary for keeping one’s home.
But focus on Odysseus’s cleverness or charm should not obscure that he was a cold-blooded killer and “sacker of cities.” What did Penelope pine for most? For Odysseus to overcome the suitors and take back his estate. She loved him as a warrior and a source of order. At the assembly of the men of Ithaca in the beginning of the Odyssey, Odysseus is spoken of as “gentle and kind” and “one whose thought is schooled in justice,” but that the suitors who were abusing Odysseus’ home were wagering or “lay[ing] their heads on the line.” That prediction proved true. Thus, crucial to keeping one’s home on both the individual and group scale includes not only charisma, but to be a warrior, ruthless to enemies but “schooled in justice” among friends, and the ability to inspire faith that one is not dead or dying, but rather a crucial part of the future or history.
Both Achilles and Odysseus, the two essential men who are different in their own ways, share a fundamental common trait: They are, at base, superb warriors.
Warriors as the Foundation of the West
Recall the inscription on Aeschylus’s tomb lacks any mention of his poems. That omission is not to say that the Greeks thought—or that we should think—that poems are worth nothing. The Greeks held contest after contest for the best recitals of Homer and Hesiod. But it is to say that the warrior is the foundation of any group that wishes to cultivate civilization. Without the warrior foundation, no group can own space. And without space and “breathing room,” one cannot cultivate the extraordinarily time-consuming arts that comprise high civilization.
Conflict is the essential condition of life, for both individuals and groups. Reflect on any individual and it becomes clear that his life has meaning in relation to the conflicts he has faced—his “overcomings.” No story is complete without a conflict. The Greeks understood this, and that is why so much of their life revolved around competition—the singing of songs, dancing of dances, all athletics, argument and philosophy, etc.
BAP says that the ownership of space is the fundamental conflict. That conclusion follows easily from the fact that our world is one of limited resources, and that we are limited beings. And because, as Aristotle said, all men are members of polities (unless you are a monster or a god), the most fundamental conflict in politics is your group’s ownership of space versus another group’s ownership of space.
The West cannot exist without its warriors. Without warriors, a civilization cannot defend its honor. Thus, it has no honor which any other group is bound to respect. And so, without honor, it cannot have any form of self-worth that does not involve obeisance to outsiders (to the extent this counts as self-worth at all). In other words, unless it is a warrior society, it will have no honor, it cannot have genuine self-respect, it is cucked.
Thus, there is only one choice: Revivify the ancient warrior foundation of Western civilization or lose everything. That requires mass retraining in individual hand to hand combat, infantry tactics, piracy, a new (yet rather old) understanding of “justice” and a corresponding set of norms, and beyond. So lift, learn to box and ground fight, read Homer and listen to BAP, among other things.
Homer depicts Achilles and Odysseus as, of all the Greeks, the most capable of overcoming the limitations of mortality. Achilles and Odysseus’ actions, their way of being, lead to them owning physical space—battlefields and Troy itself, and, in the case of Odysseus, his wife and home more than, say, Agamemnon. In addition, they, more than any other Greek in the Iliad and Odyssey, own space in the hearts and minds of the Greeks depicted in those poems, and in the history of the West. The fact that they own so much space gives further proof that the warrior—both the warrior par excellence and the clever, survivalist-warrior—is the key to longevity for any civilization that wishes to outlive and overcome its own contemporary existence.
Putting those two at the center of Western man’s imagination, and reorienting Western man toward his most ancient archetypes, is the only way forward. It is the only way that the West will survive through the ages.