Why do Men Fight in Wars?–Thoughts on All Quiet on the Western Front

The Argument of All Quiet on the Western Front

Erich Maria Remarque’s novel, All Quiet on the Western Front, has been hailed by many, especially critics writing for large Western newspapers, as “the greatest war novel of all time.” In the United States, you will find it on almost any middle school’s or high school’s reading list. We must suspect, then, that it contains within it a teaching that is largely supportive of the liberal world order; and indeed, it does not disappoint our rightly founded suspicion.

The novel is tightly organized around one central theme or argument: war must be abolished, forever. There are three main ways he tries to establish his claim. First, he lingers on the genuinely morbid, ugly, and heart-wrenching parts of war. Second, he claims that war necessarily turns men into depraved animals. And finally, he claims that wars do not occur between peoples; rather, cruel elites dress their young men up in arbitrary uniform colors and compel them to kill over petty disagreements.

In this first part, I will try to sympathetically bring to light Remarque’s core contentions; and then in the second part, I will try to show why, despite his humanitarian hopes, the world is better off morally and spiritually if war between peoples remains a potentiality.

Morbidity: Suffering and Death

One of the earliest scenes in the book features the narrator, Paul Baumer, watching over his dear friend Kemmerich, who is slowly and painfully dying after having his leg amputated. That might be hard enough to bear, but the ugliness is intensified by the callousness of those around Kemmerich. His friend Muller waits impatiently for Kemmerich to bequeath him his boots. The doctors wait impatiently for him to die so that his bed can be used for someone else; they have to be bribed in order to give him pain-killers. Remarque wants us to think: how could we possibly put young men in a position where necessity presses upon them with so much force that they must wait like hyenas for a dying friend’s boots?

Remarque’s own words from a passage characteristic of the book:

We see men living with their skulls blown open; we see soldiers run with their two feet cut off, they stagger on their splintered stumps into the next shell hole; a lance corporal crawls a mile and a half on his hands dragging his smashed knee after him; another goes to the dressing station and over his clasped hands bulge his intestines; we see men without mouths, without jaws, without faces; we find one man who has held the artery of his arm in his teeth for two hours in order not to bleed to death. The sun goes down, night comes, the shells whine, life is at an end.” (pg 134).

Similar statements are common throughout the book, though they come out most starkly while the narrator recovers from a ghastly wound in a Catholic hospital; indeed the remarks there may be even more gruesome than what I have quoted above. No one can deny to any veteran of a war like this that men suffered such things. And such details should surely make any leader hesitate or at least approach any war in full awareness of the costs that are demanded of his people. In this way, Remarque makes his strongest argument, though below I will show why it is not sufficient.

However this may be, Remarque suggests that such morbidity is not by any means the only cost associated with war.

Depravity: War Turns Men into Animals

All Quiet on the Western Front is replete with comparisons of men to animals. The narrator insists that such comparisons do NOT remain within the realm of simile or likeness; rather, he holds that men BECOME depraved and undignified through participating in war and thus BECOME animals through no fault of their own. Brave men and cowardly, just and unjust, noble and base, all alike are compelled to become less than human through war.

The narrator brings this theme out early in the book, gently at first, and with repeatedly more force as the novel progresses. The first mention: “At the sound of the first droning of the shells we rush back, in one part of our being, a thousand years. By the animal instinct that is awakened in us we are led and protected” (56). This passage almost makes it sound as if the return to instinct is a kind of enhancement of our ordinary capacities. But later, the narrator interprets things differently: “We have become wild beasts. We do not fight, we defend ourselves against annihilation” (113). Note that he does not say he is like a wild beast, rather he IS a wild beast. The crushing pressure of external circumstance has begun to transform these men:

it has transformed us into unthinking animals in order to give us the weapon of instinct–it has reinforced us with dullness, so that we do not go to pieces before the horror, which would overwhelm us if we had clear, conscious thought–it has awakened in us the sense of comradeship, so that we escape the abyss of solitude–it has lent us the indifference of wild creatures, so that in spite of all, we perceive the positive in every moment, and and store it up as a reserve against the onslaught of nothingness” (274).

Here the narrator describes the awakened animals instincts as self-protection against the worst possible circumstances. I wonder though, if he goes too far in his description of what it is like to be as an animal. That is, he seems to think animals live terrifying lives with precious moments in between existentially torturous moments. This, I think, is a mistaken view–it cuts against another mistaken view that Nature is just a beautiful and peaceful place where nothing bad happens. But the narrator forgets that animals play and joyfully develop their inborne powers that they feel in their blood. He forgets as well, that the capacity to be a warrior is an inborne potentiality of man, that some men feel in a need to pursue in their blood.

War is Arbitrary

After making his case that war is excessively morbid and that men become less than human, Remarque tries to intensify the power of these claims by saying that the suffering caused by them is utterly needless and indeed, arbitrary. The narrator suggests that no one who has actually experienced war would advocate for it. Those, like the narrator’s old teacher, Kantorek, become cheerleaders, and tell boys to go to war in a way “that costs him nothing” (12). Prior to the experience of war, the narrator associated Kantorek and those of his generation with “great insight and a more humane wisdom. But the first death we saw shattered this belief” (12). The horror of war shattered their belief in the wisdom and therewith the authority of older generations.

It is this reflection on the fallibility of their forebearers which prepares further assaults on the integrity of any political leader who sends young men to die in war. The narrator and his friends agree that the wrong men do the fighting. They suppose that the generals and ministers of two countries ought to fight things out with clubs, with the survivors claiming victory (41). This naïve argument makes some false assumptions about war. It assumes, like Immanuel Kant (in Perpetual Peace) and Woodrow Wilson (see his WWI “War Message”) that war is fought between the rulers or leaders of states, not between peoples. Furthermore, the thought experiment assumes that states are not trying to gain very much through war. That is, if Germany wants to control all of France’s territory, will the French suddenly give up Paris now that a few ministers are dead? Or will they will they just go back on their word and defend their territory with the full force of their army? The thought experiment depends on an abstraction from the reality that space is owned by those with the physical power to hold it. Killing a few generals doesn’t significantly alter this reality. The thought experiment is childish or naïve.

Much later, after the narrator and his friends have much more experience of war, they permit themselves to ask: why do wars start at all? One man ventures the answer that one country offends another—to which a cheeky character responds: “I am not offended. Perhaps I shall go home” (204). The group rallies around this answer and elaborates: “Now just why would a French blacksmith or a French shoemaker want to attack us? No, it is merely the rulers” (205). This answer would be at home with men who have been habituated to seeing themselves principally as consenting individuals. That is, they feel they have a right to not have any obligations or duties placed on them contrary to those they have actively chosen to take on. They don’t see that they are born with an obligation to defend their nation. And furthermore, as the last quotation suggests, these individuals will find their fulfillment through economic or commercial activities. Political life is reducible to economic life. And this assumption leads to the idea that borders and peoples are arbitrary expressions of power designed to benefit the ruling class.

To briefly restate what I take the argument of the book to be: the horror of war, the depravity it induces, and the arbitrary reasons that bring about these evils, lead the narrator to claim that he will devote his life to doing anything he can to put an end to war (263). Remarque intensifies the emotional punch of this argument through having his narrator die on the last day of the war (296).

Why Do Men Fight in Wars?

I will try to make my case against Remarque’s argument as concisely as possible, and I may expand on why war needs to remain an option and perennial possibility in a future piece.

Another sub-argument that Remarque employs to demonstrate the arbitrariness of war is his suggestion, that, once you get to know them, all peoples are pretty much the same. This is not true. That is to say, different and unique ways of life emerged throughout the world as various responses of certain types of peoples to varying external conditions. These ways of life are for the sake of some good, and we know well that the goods valued by one people are often at odds with the goods valued by another. The narrator seems to suggest, then, that some kind of universal understanding or agreement on the good is possible if selfish rulers lose the power to declare war, and hand over power to “the people” who are essentially good, or at least not vicious, and who would be rational enough not to send themselves to war.

In this way, the narrator points to something like universal liberal democracy as the key to ending war. That is, it is the form of government that is the fundamental cause of war. This is a mistake. Something Remarque ignores, and something that most liberals and conservatives ignore today, is that the cause of many wars and new ideologies, is the desire to DESTROY liberalism. From its very inception, different groups have assembled to oppose liberal democracy. The Holy Alliance, that is, European monarchs, got together to try to snuff out democracy after the horrors of the French Revolution. Communism appeared as another moral response to what Marx and others saw as the moral depravity (even if a necessary stage) of liberal capitalism. Fascism appeared when young men in Germany and elsewhere looked around in horror at the thought that liberalism and communism might try to extinguish the seriousness of the world by eliminating the very possibility of a fatherland or a people. And in our day, we have seen Sayyid Qutb write a pamphlet on “The America I have Seen” in order to encourage the Islamic world to oppose modernity and the US, in a spiritual and military struggle.

All that is to say: serious people from the Right and the Left, from religious fanatics to secular nihilists, have opposed the promotion of liberalism so vehemently that they have risked and sacrificed their lives to prevent its spread. As Carl Schmitt and others have pointed out, liberalism attempts to remove the friend/enemy distinction from political life. Schmitt seems to think that, if such a thing is possible, then moral seriousness will vanish from life, and reduce life to a bug-like quest for entertainment.

Aren’t you most proud of your accomplishments that required you to expend all of your effort? That is, we admire accomplishments that require struggle, that require the defeat of mighty obstacles. We call those who regularly endure and overcome such mighty trials heroes. To extinguish war is to prevent the excellence of one of the highest human types, the warrior, from expressing his excellence. And, as the Son of Sorel (@LazyRadical1) has brought out, warriors are the foundation of the West.

I will cast one final arrow at Remarque. The logic of liberalism as it is presently conceived, is to bring about a world state. Bug men like Alexander Wendt have written articles and given youtube talks on why a world state is both inevitable and desirable. But we know that a homogenized world state will be a technocratic slum-world. Most political communities are what Moldbug would call “adaptive fictions.” They accommodate their stories and actions to changing circumstances in order to persist indefinitely if possible: just think of woke capital as a primary example. The US just absorbs potential enemy ideas and incorporates shallow toothless versions of them into its existing institutions. A World State, not wishing to perish, will naturally not allow powerful dissenting ideas to get off of the ground. And technology will allow new and more powerful forms of surveillance to take place. The Han Plague has already led the West to consider putting microchips in people… A World State of this kind would not only extinguish war, but perhaps even the possibility of philosophy in the strictest sense, as the quest to understand nature.

There will be more to say about this soon, but suffice it to say: Remarque does indeed make helpful arguments for why we ought to be cautious in choosing our wars. The costs are very real and shouldn’t be dismissed. But, he doesn’t fully think through the big picture and the many deep spiritual and moral costs that would attend the extinguishing of war from the world.

A Humble Beginning: A Noble Return

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Pelopidas (@Pelopid48189093)

Semmelweis’s Library of BAP-exandria (1-5)

Episode 1: Pilot

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.

2. Hadamar Asylum. BAP mentions this in passing.

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.

Venner was a member of the OAS

The Pied-Noir in Algeria

4. Karl Haushofer. BAP mentions him in passing as another example of someone who, like Venner, committed a kind of Western seppuku.

5. Pink Panther scenes, Inspector Clouseau fights with Cato.
Many different scenes, collected on YouTube.

6. John Podesta taunts Julian Assange with lobster risotto

7. Emmanuel Macron and the Benalla Affair

Episode 2: Angola, Angola!

Luanda, capital of Angola, most expensive city in the world

Jeffrey Epstein – a cat’s paw operation, but for who?
I think one of the best sources on Epstein is Whitney Webb’s reporting
Ryan Dawson has also done very good research on this

Lucky Luciano and the CIA
Good video overview here:

Various occult groups and sects mentioned in passing
Rosicrucians, Ismaili sect, Frankists, Carpocratians, Cathars
Cathars – see Episodes 19 and 32

The underworld runs the show since at least 1950.
See the works of Peter Dale Scott (inventor of the term “Deep State”) many books and articles
Also journalist Daniel Hopsicker who has done much good research on govt links to drug trafficking and organized crime and has a forthcoming book called Gangster Planet
Hopsicker interview on Gangster Planet here:
Scott and Hopsicker are both leftists but they have some good information.

“We need capable scoundrels.” – Reminds me of Byron’s ideal of the cultured thug, as quoted by Jonathan Bowden.

“Truthfully, in this age those with intellect have no courage and those with some modicum of physical courage have no intellect. If things are to alter during the next fifty years then we must re-embrace Byron’s ideal: the cultured thug.”

Paul Le Roux: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Le_Roux

The Mastermind by Evan Ratliff

Mark Thatcher, son of Margaret, in Zimbabwe

Demographic projections are bullshit – I don’t have any sources on this. I seem to recall Second City Bureaucrat posted something on this but I don’t have it.

Penis disappearance hysteria Sudan


Carnation revolution in Portugal

Congo civil war after Mobutu in Zaire

Angolan civil war after decolonization

MPLA – Angolan faction supported by Soviets, pretended to be cosmopolitan internationalist

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.”

Portuguese, oldest colonialists, most devious of all, miscegenation as policy. Rhetoric: we are all mixed. Reality: racial hierarchy (same is seen in Cuba)


Cape Verde, one of the first colonies, created mulatto middleman class

Amilcar Cabral, Marxist rebel, criticized this Portuguese policy

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.”

Chinese involvement in Africa from 1960s on, in Angola and South Africa, Unita party in Angola


BONUS: Condensed malk around the world, Hong Kong malk tea

Episode 3 – What Ancient Grek Look Like?

Pope Francis in Argentina: https://www.globalresearch.ca/washingtons-pope-who-is-francis-i-cardinal-jorge-mario-bergoglio-and-argentinas-dirty-war/5326675

Christian marxism – Liberation theology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

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.”


John Murray Cuddihy – The Ordeal of CivilityNo Offense. Books on Amazon and online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murray_Cuddihy

Reinhold Niebuhr, theologian and intellectual loved by strivers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhold_Niebuhr

The Tupi cannibals of Brazil: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupi_people

Jonah Goldberg “look at his face” – g00gle search at your own risk

Survival of nordic paganism in Eastern Europe:
Shamanic use of hallucinogen and urine drinking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanita_muscaria https://www.oocities.org/hot4guano/otrhog/urine.html

Balts, Lithuanians converted in 1300s, 1400s: http://piereligion.org/baltic.html


Neretvians / Narentines – Croatian pagan pirates converted 1300s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narentines

The Mari / Cheremis people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mari_people https://www.thevintagenews.com/2019/03/18/mari-people/

Goths=People of God, see Miguel Serrano, The Resurrection of the Hero

Invasion of Athens by a Celtic tribe in 200BC: https://www.ancient.eu/article/1401/the-celtic-invasion-of-greece/

“Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders” – Camille Paglia

Upper classes of Greece and Rome were blonde or red haired and light eyed

Indo-European Origins: The Anthropological Evidence by John V. Day

Article summary here: https://www.toqonline.com/archives/v2n3/TOQv2n3Day.pdf

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.”

Thracians were red haired: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracians

Athens imported Scythians as police: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian_archers

The Rig Veda, Dasas and Aryans: https://en.dharmapedia.net/wiki/Dasa

“The swarthy skin that Indra hates”



Race in Early Buddhism here (scroll down a bit): https://web.archive.org/web/20100704190803/http://attan.com/alpha2.html

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

Pelasgians, the pre-Aryan people of Greece

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
“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.”

Episode 5

Roman Polanski Apartment trilogy

Repulsion, Rosemary’s Baby, The Tenant: https://insanemoviegeek.blogspot.com/2012/02/apartment-trilogy-by-roman-polanski.html

also mentions The Ninth Gate, free to watch here: https://tubitv.com/movies/300169/the_ninth_gate

Buttigieg and the psychology of the gay top

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.

The reality of Greek homosexuality

Against Timarchus by Aeschines


PDF here: https://archive.org/details/speechesagainstt00aescuoft/

See also Eros: The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality by Bruce Thornton, on Amazon and online

Greeks compared to Afghans, reference to Bacha bazi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi


Moldbug on Rhodesia: https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/08/country-that-used-to-exist/

Theodore Dalrymple on Rhodesia: https://www.city-journal.org/html/after-empire-12420.html


Rhodesia Selous Scouts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selous_Scouts

Harry Dexter White, Soviet spy in FDR administration: https://spartacus-educational.com/Harry_Dexter_White.htm


Venona papers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project

Communism as global conspiracy as claimed by the John Birch Society



Mueller and Comey derp state prosecution of Steven Hatfill for Anthrax mailings


The 3 Dimensions of Right Wing and Left Wing or, Lets Go Over the Right and Left Dichotomy. Again.

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.

– Cyberstein the Hiernetic Saganarch

The Lebanotarian’s Library of BAP-exandria (25-29)

Episode 26:

BAP discusses the history of Russian Oligarchs
Only Russians have Oligarchs don’t you know

First a youtube of Rachmaninff Preludes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7koDS7aVfdk&feature=emb_title

Casino Moscow by Matthew Brzezinksi simonandschuster.com/books/Casino-M…

Godfather of the Kremlin: Looting of Russiaby Paul Klebnikov

Spy Game with Robert Redford and Brad Pitt. Old school CIA versus new school

Spy Game (2001) – IMDb Directed by Tony Scott. With Robert Redford, Brad Pitt, Catherine McCormack, Stephen Dillane. Retiring CIA agent Nathan Muir recalls his training of Tom Bishop while working against agency politics … https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266987/

Operation Gladio , a CIA operation in Italy and throughout Western Europe


Armand Hammer | American businessman Armand Hammer, American petroleum executive, entrepreneur, and art collector. The son of a doctor, Hammer had made his first $1,000,000 through his enterprising ventures in his father’s pharmaceutica… https://www.britannica.com/biography/Armand-Hammer

Erich Traub, one of many operation paperclip assets from Germany and DISCOVERER of Lyme disease spitfirelist.com/for-the-record…

Write up on the relationship between Franco and the Falange in Spain

Franco, Fascism and the Falange – Not One and the Same Thing by Norman Berdichevsky (Sept. 2008) The long term misunderstanding and simplification of RIGHT vs. LEFT terminology in political discourse is responsible for the misconception that “The RIGHT” with i… https://www.newenglishreview.org/Norman_Berdichevsky/Franco,_Fascism_and_the_Falange_-_Not_One_and_the_Same_Thing/

French Integralism….Vermeule, careful what you wish for! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_Fr…

Finally the rogues gallery, starting with Boris Berezovsky

Boris Berezovsky: An Oligarch Dies Boris Berezovsky was a man of grand, Shakespearean scope. And Putin’s Russia is no country for grand personalities. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/boris-berezovsky-an-oligarch-dies

I present Masha Gessen, neolib mouthpiece. Will not link anything. Physiognomy speaks a thousand words


Anatoly Chubais: “reformer” that liberated Russia of it’s wealth and natural resources

Anatoly Chubais | Russian economist and politician Other articles where Anatoly Chubais is discussed: Yury Luzhkov: …particularly First Deputy Prime Minister Anatoly Chubais. Luzhkov frequently squared off against Chubais over the handling of the pri… https://www.britannica.com/biography/Anatoly-Chubais

Interesting news item out TODAY related to Mikhail Khodorkovsy, who Putin PUNISHED

Dutch Court Reinstates Order For Russia To Pay $50 Billion In Yukos Case A Dutch appeals court has reinstated an international arbitration panel’s ruling that Russia must pay $50 billion in compensation to shareholders in the former Russian oil giant Yukos — a ruling… https://www.rferl.org/a/dutch-court-to-rule-in-50-billion-yukos-case-involving-russia-khodorkovsky/30441112.html

Christina Kirchner of Argentina, small potatoes criminal compared to the Clintongs

Argentina’s Kirchner charged with fraud, assets frozen https://www.businessinsider.com/afp-argentinas-kirchner-charged-with-fraud-assets-frozen-2016-5

Episode 27:

“Finally some Nietzsche”
BAP & particularly Bronze Age Mindset has been referred to as “Beach Nietzsche” even though insiders know the reading list is far longer. Here we have a Chill Beach-side chat with BAP.

Goethe wearing a cape


Reputed pollster Rich Baris

Richard Baris | Big Data Poll Richard Baris is the Managing Director of Big Data Poll (BDP) and has been the Director of the PPD Election Projection Model since it debuted in 2014. https://www.bigdatapoll.com/team-members/richard-baris/

Nietzsche Beyond Good and Evil aphorism 248


Nietzsche Ecce Homo gutenberg.org/files/52190/52…

From Camille Paglia’s Sexual Personae referring to Goethe (above) Tiresias, the blind Greek Prophet


Tiresias the Blind Greek Prophet: Britannica.

Nietzsche : The Gay Science; section 356


Nietzsche: The Gay Science; section 361


Nietzsche: The Gay Science; section 362 (Napoleon)


Georg Christoph Lichtenberg:

Georg Christoph Lichtenberg | German philosopher and physicist Georg Christoph Lichtenberg, German physicist, satirist, and writer of aphorisms, best known for his ridicule of metaphysical and romantic excesses. Lichtenberg was the 17th child of a Protestant pas… https://www.britannica.com/biography/Georg-Christoph-Lichtenberg

New Contribution from @Semmelweis7: Gobineau on male and female peoples


Episode 28:

Colonialism Mindset
Movie about South Boston “The Town”

The Town (2010) – IMDb Directed by Ben Affleck. With Ben Affleck, Rebecca Hall, Jon Hamm, Jeremy Renner. A longtime thief, planning his next job, tries to balance his feelings for a bank manager connected to an earlier he… https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0840361/

Pierre Van den Berghe The Ethnic Phenomenon
Guru to @Steve_Sailer

The Ethnic Phenomenon https://products.abc-clio.com/abc-cliocorporate/product.aspx?pc=E3580P F

Roger Devlin – Heartiste where are you goodreads.com/author/quotes/…

Russian play Olbomov

Oblomov: A Play in Three Acts ebook by Frank J. Morlock – Rakuten Kobo Read “Oblomov: A Play in Three Acts” by Frank J. Morlock available from Rakuten Kobo. Based on a novel by the Russian writer Ivan Goncharov, this dramatic comedy features his eponymous hero, Oblomov.… https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/oblomov-a-play-in-three-acts Theo

Vinneman author of Europa Visconia, Europa Semitica

George Borjas video on Immigration. @CityBureaucrat has links to more:


The Unheavenly City The Unheavenly City book. Read 3 reviews from the world’s largest community for readers. A discussion of the nature and fture of the urban crisis focusin… https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3640842-the-unheavenly-city

The Doric temple of Segesta in Sicily en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segesta

Carthage colony in Sicily en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_C…

Greek Colonies of Italy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Gra…

Jacob Burkhardt the History of Greek Culture

History of Greek Culture History of Greek Culture book. Read reviews from world’s largest community for readers. This monumental work by a distinguished European scholar presents… https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/345718.History_of_Greek_Culture

Wiki explaining the four major tribes of Greece en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaeans_… Sybaris of Magna Graecia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybaris

Emperor Hadrian of Rome who larped as a Greek.

Hadrian Hadrian was Roman emperor from 117 to 138 CE and he is known as the third of the Five Good Emperors (Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius… https://www.ancient.eu/hadrian/

Finally St Patricks day, who does it better?


Finally last one do you know of someone who suffers from FECAL AlCOHOL SYNDROME ?


Episode 29:

I bring to you notes from Episode #29 of #CaribbeanRhythms

Quarantine preparedness stack Elderberry: PipingRock.

NAC, which raises glutathione levels , reducing inflammation.

Chaga Mushrooms: Healthline.


Chaga and coffee products:


Roasted Octopus Salad with Chilli Mayo (WHOA)


Levi Strauss on cuisine:


Epicharmus, a Greek Poet: Britannica.

Sappho 2, a fragment from the Greek Poet.

Athenaeus 3rd century Greek poet.

Pindar’s Olympic Odes.


Jeff Gannon – rent boy past?


Middle ages Greek comedy is written up here.

Write up on the Greek Symposium.


Shibuya Businessmen…is this how you contain Coronavirus?


I bet you can’t find this anywhere else, Sancocho edition: 1. Columbia 2. China


I bet you can’t find AUTHENTIC beans and rice: 1. India 2. Afreaka 3. Columbia 4. Louisiana


The Lebanotarian’s Library of BAP-exandria (30-34)

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.

Episode 30:

#CaribbeanRhythms Episode #30 Against Roastie Supremacy. In this episode many personal anecdotes and fewer notes, a poolside chat #BAPcast#BAPcast30

Cats claw: found at PipingRock.


Passionflower Extract. Careful your vitality will catch the attention of border guards.


The Troisgros family of France, first family of cooking, and alpinid…


Episode 31:

Timoleon and the siege of Syracuse


Interesting book on the topic of Timoleon, by Plutarch.

A List of the tyrants of Syracuse, you can think of them as “bosses.”

Episode 32:

Cathars and the Noble Lie St Corbinian and the Bear:


Reinhold Neibuhr and the Noble Lie.

A section from Popper and Leo Strauss in wiki entry on the Noble Lie.

Plato’s Republic book 3 with a quote on the Noble Lie: Perseus Selection.

Write up on Eric Jan Hanussen: The Jewish Psychic who Tricked Hitler.

The Albigensian Crusade: Britannica Article.

Cathari and write up on the Perfecti: New World Encyclopedia Article.

Otto Rahn the original Indiana Jones: Otto Rahn Openly Homosexual SS Officer.

A little about the Cathars, their castle stronghold: Sekhmet Goddess of Healing.

A chapter from Hillaire Belloc’s books on the Great Heresies entitled “The Albigensian Attack” The Albigensian Attack.

The Persian prophet Mani: New World Encyclopedia Article.

The Troubadours of France: Britannica Article.

The Paulicians, a gnostic sect which may have persisted into the Cathars: Britannica.

A write up on the Bogomils, another Gnostic sect: Daily Sabah.

Steven Runciman’s book: the Medieval Manichee: Amazon Store.

The Waldensians: Britannica.

The Cagots, an “untouchable” caste in France: Independent.

St. Corbinian: Wikipedia.

The Gallic Empire, one of three breakaway empires from Rome for a short period: Wikipedia.

Queen Zenobia of Palmyria. Not related to Xenophobia: Britannica.

Finally BAP has wild speculation on the cult of Moloch….careful! The True History of Moloch.

Episode 33:

Key themes: The Longhouse; and what should Trump and the boys do about Ch1n4?

BAP discusses the shadow war between Gnostic and Saturnian Illumanti and mentions David Icke: Icke article

Frank Luntz–why does he have a two story basement that is soundproofed? Luntz article

BAP offers qualified praise of: Bannon’s War Room

Maoism and Marxism are a twisted reading of Hegel: related article

A lovely dish of Cantonese Ginger Scallion hot pot

We must strive to re-energize Manchu Shamanism!

Two books from Ernst von Salomon (patriotic German who was against Hitlor from the right win in a sense: Der Fragebogen and The Outlaws

In his youth, Salomon was a member of the Freikorps, a band of militia volunteers that fought German Communists following WWI.

Salomon also directed a Pro-American Movie in the height of WW2 probably called the Endless Road.

Credit to @PatrickTrad for the cover photo above.

Episode 34:

Bronze opens on current events and discusses how the virus is used as cover to attaq nationalists such as Bolsonaro and BoJo. Will Queen Ann Save us?


Horrible reporter Fabulosa Santiago.

The Georgia Governor opening up the government…must subbort!

Georgia gov defends plan to reopen gyms, nail salons, says state ‘taking a measured step’ Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp has defended his plan to reopen some businesses in his state, including gyms and hair salons, later this week after facing strong backlash for what critics say is a premature … https://www.foxnews.com/media/georgia-gov-kemp-reopen-gyms-measured-step

The Phoenician (ahem) Masters of the Sea

The Phoenicians – Master Mariners Driven by their desire for trade and the acquisition of such commodities as silver from Spain, gold from Africa, and tin from the Scilly Isles, the Phoenicians… https://www.ancient.eu/article/897/the-phoenicians—master-mariners/

The Phoenicians required tin to make Bronze, they traveled far and wide for this.

Colin Renfrew….The Celts developed all world history and language (“who knew”)

A link with maps on Bronze Age Collapse

The city of Ugarit:

Ugarit | ancient city, Syria Ugarit, ancient city lying in a large artificial mound called Ras Shamra (Raʾs Shamrah), 6 miles (10 km) north of Latakia (Al-Lādhiqīyah) on the Mediterranean coast of northern Syria. Its ruins, abou… https://www.britannica.com/place/Ugarit

The Mycenaean Civilization

Mycenaean Civilization The Mycenaean civilization (c. 1700-1100 BCE) flourished in the Late Bronze Age, reaching its peak from the 15th to the 13th century BCE when it extended… https://www.ancient.eu/Mycenaean_Civilization/

The rise and fall of the Hittites

Anatolia – The rise and fall of the Hittites Anatolia – Anatolia – The rise and fall of the Hittites: The first suggestion of the Hittites’ presence in central Anatolia during the Middle Bronze Age is the occurrence in the Kültepe tablets of In… https://www.britannica.com/place/Anatolia/The-rise-and-fall-of-the-Hittites

The Hattusas Civilization

Hattusa: The Cursed City of the Hatti and the Hittite Empire Hattusa was the cursed powerhouse of the ancient people called the Hittites. https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/hattusa-cursed-city-hatti-and-hittite-empire-005670

The Minoans on Crete:

Minoan | people Minoan, Any member of a non-Indo-European people who flourished (c. 3000–c. 1100 bc) on the island of Crete during the Bronze Age. The sea was the basis of their economy and power. Their sophisticate… https://www.britannica.com/topic/Minoan

The Pilum and attack strategies

Achilles…fleet feet were highly prized in this era.

Achilles | Myth, Significance, & Trojan War Achilles, in Greek legend, the greatest warrior in the army of Agamemnon in the Trojan War. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Achilles-Greek-mythology

King David and the Iron Age era…
Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me.

Map of Troy, Greece, Ephesus…


I’ll end with Ramses II quote here…his horses were like falcons amid a flock of tiny birds…


BAP mention derp state loon Evelyn Farkas…look who provide financial subbort !

Donors to Top Fundraising Democrat in New York Congressional Race Include John Negroponte, George W. Bush’s Intelligence Chief Evelyn Farkas’s campaign has received at least $100,000 from the defense industry, a host of lobbyists, and prominent Republicans like Negroponte. https://theintercept.com/2020/04/23/evelyn-farkas-congress-donors/

Moldbug Calls on The Bronze Age Pervert

Mencius Moldbug: The Deep State vs. The Deep Right

No one can touch the ruling class directly, through legitimate or illegitimate political action; but indirectly through art disruption is possible. The art-right is the way forward. The Brietbarts, the populists who started this revolution produced hackneyed and not real art. Real art aims at what is highest in man and isn’t concerned with an audience… art isn’t mere propaganda.

Nevertheless, art is dangerous and everything dangerous is a weapon. Every regime is also an aesthetic—i.e., every regime relies on the dangerous weapon—and currently the only weapon in town is the democratic aesthetic.

Bolshevism was an aesthetic experience. Nazism was also an aesthetic experience. And democracy remains one. To play in this league, to compete on this historical scale, requires aesthetic gestures of great power: strong gods.

The way an aesthetic break is established… an aesthetic break is established when the old aesthetic becomes incapable of telling the truth: post-ossification, there are vested interests, long devoid of any vital power, which continue to believe in their right to dominance, but find themselves in need of increasingly massive, indeed infinite, financial resources to reproduce their lies, to get their lies into the heads of the populace. Spending massive amounts on false narratives is a sign of desperation. The legacy elite are afraid and this is a sign of coming change. [This inevitability of regime change is the closest Moldbug comes to saying the world is essentially Just. I at least have always felt a devious optimism when reading his persuasive descriptions about regimes that cease being able to tell the truth.]

In this war, there is no room for compromise: everything old must be burnt off so that what is alive can grow. The sculptor is not here to compromise with the politician. The painter isn’t producing a paint-by-numbers… his paintings are not predetermined by the lines and boundaries of a focus group. The writer isn’t trying to persuade academics and pundits. Art must be an action that subdues the opponents only incidentally… i.e., art must exude dominance.

The world cannot be won by force. She must be seduced by greatness.

BAP is good at burning, but has no positive program. He is like Nietzsche and is setting fire to everything—necessary, but not sufficient. In time this will no longer be enough. In time, every “no” will have been said. A “yes” will be required.

A Response:

Moldbug says there is no way to act politically or violently against today’s oligarchs. I completely agree. So then, why isn’t BAP’s “sun and steel” program, with its promotion of male camaraderie, not a “positive project”? It gives men something to do. Does a “positive project” have to encompass a whole society? I doubt it. If we don’t even have a Club Tropical Excellence, how can we aim at reforming all of society?

In any event, the Bronze Age Pervert isn’t interested in offering guidance to mass society but the war-band, the assembly of armed men, and the small brotherhood… none of these groups need to be told what they want. BAM was a necessary book because of how much the obviously good things are mendaciously attacked today. The Pervert does offer compelling and interesting descriptions of model men, but most importantly he clears the way for a naturally healthy young person to follow his actual desires rather than be slowly crushed by fake moral claims.

As far as Moldbug’s hoped-for institutions… I imagine institutions grow up out of a great burst of life and that talking about the “art right” is, in a sense, useless; the great artists come of their own accord. Moldbug recognizes this in his essay. He both calls for the creation of institutions and notes their basic nullity when it comes to producing great art. Great art requires telling the truth about nature, and is therefore not always producible by just any regime: great art can only be produced by the regime that can tell the truth given the present circumstances. Great art is always consonant with the regime of the future, or an impending modification of the present regime. There was a time when art supported democratic regimes, because it was the democratic regime that could tell the truth. This is no longer the case. Moldbug therefore focuses on BAP, who represents the best thing we’ve got, the closest a new regime has come to finding a voice.

The writers at The American Mind decided to ignore the focus of Moldbug’s essay. They decided, each writer in his own way, to passively suggest to Moldbug that they would prefer he write about Christian things instead. With the exception of Haywire’s petulant essay, none of the writers even mention the Bronze Age Pervert! This is an embarrassing mistake. Moldbug did not write the essay because he wanted to explain the power of art on politics–that is kid stuff. Everyone and their mother knows about the power of art. Moldbug wrote the essay because he wanted to draw attention to BAP and goad him onto another book.

Zero HP Lovecraft: The New Tlön

Lovecraft argues that everything will be new but it will still be Christian. You won’t even recognize the new church. That’s the basic gist of his essay and it is in line with the Christian Philosopher Arthur de Gobineau’s observation about the Christian religion:

We do not find that Christianity has ever given the world a unique type of civilization to which all believers belong. The Church adapts itself to everything.

Lovecraft doesn’t mention BAP, but he passively suggests that BAP’s aesthetic, the aesthetic Moldbug wrote to promote, is compatible with the Cross.

Readers and listeners of BAP know he has indeed defended Christianity. He calls for its reformation. He defends the passion of Christ against the usurpers of that passion.

They had a chance and still do, to take on the idolatry of the holocaust and the idolatry of slavery. These idolatries do everything they accuse me of, but a thousand times bigger, and yet they say nothing. This imagery of the holocaust of slavery, have been used to appropriate Christian concepts and imagery of the passion story… Explicitly appropriated it. This NYTimes 1619 project… They twist it now into this new religion that serves the passive-aggressive, feminized, pagansim or gnosticsim of the modern state. It wears this garb one day and calls it ‘liberal democracy’ the next day. And these self-righteous faggot trads who put on the garb of religion themselves … they dare say not one word against it.

Caribbean Rhythms #19

Meadowcraft & Keegin: Resurrection Aesthetic

Meadowcraft & Keegin argue that the old world died at the Somme. It is time for something new. Although it is time for something new, we should borrow from Christian civilization. This requires an anthropology of the “whole human person.” Modernity is individualistic so it doesn’t see the whole human person because it doesn’t look for God. Understanding the “whole human person” means subordinating Athens to the Gospel, seeing man as a “frightened, doomed animal, adrift in a hostile and chaotic cosmos.” I know they say this view of man is from Athenian tragedy… but it isn’t and they give no evidence for their position—they like the idea that man is broken and in need of salvation and so they attribute their more perverse desire to the Athenians and save the optimism for the Gospel.

Look, if this is your kind of thing, there is always Flannery O’Conner. But this “whole human person” thing… it’s ugly. By “whole” they mean to say you aren’t allowed to ignore the ugly; the broken are saved by God so surely they have a demand on you as well. You cannot just love good people, you have to love “whole” people, i.e., all the people, without discrimination. It’s an egalitarian essay and as such stands as a passive-aggressive rejection of Moldbug’s view of art which doesn’t care for the “whole” person but what is best in man.

Rachel Haywire: Who Owns Vitalism

Rachel implies that Moldbug is ripping her off: she claims to have come up with the term “the Art Right.” I mean, it just isn’t that impressive of an accomplishment to turn the phrase “Alt Right” into “Art Right”… I wouldn’t be surprised if more than two people had the idea on their own. I doubt anyone cares who came up with the phrase. There is no substantive argument in her essay: she asserts that Moldbug lacks credentials. She takes some baseless swipes at BAP too, after pretending to be hardly aware of who is; that is, she resents him and wants to display that, but also needs you to know she is way too important to take notice of him. Haywire is a harpy, nothing more. I have a hard time understanding why they actually published this essay. [Maybe she and Moldbug are old friends, and her tone is a kind of aggressive-banter. I don’t know.]

James Poulos: I Know Why the Caged Man Tweets

Poulos argues that better men will learn to be content. He ends the essay on that note anyway.

And after a while, many of them [men who have tried very hard to be perfect] will fall deeply in love what surrounds them—even, or perhaps especially, if it isn’t strictly beautiful.

The reason men must learn to be content with less is that the “problem” of man is insoluble: nothing can be done that will give a truly ambitious man what he wants and so he has no choice but to humble himself and accept the constraints placed on him by nature and God. I wonder why he thinks the problem is insoluble if it is possible for man to humble himself before nature and God—if it were truly possible to so humble oneself before these pillars, then wouldn’t you expect that humility to be the solution? He says religion won’t do it: perhaps he means “religion” like those people who say “It’s a relationship with God not a religion” I don’t know, that could be what he means… but he seems pretty adamant that there is no solution whatsoever.

I assume Poulos is taking on BAP indirectly, when he writes:

But it has pushed men into feeling as if the dam that must soon burst, spilling big male energy back into the world, will create a mighty river on which the right kind of helmsman can take a shortcut to sweet relief from the ugly aesthetic experience of being trapped and knowing it. An aesthetic will rise, hoisted aloft by a Cosmic Chad… so commanding a command performance will be performed that the trap will be sprung, men will be able to be men again, justified by their role in completing a fitting, pleasing whole!

Even if this quotation is not aimed at Bronze Age Mindset… I believe it is, but it doesn’t matter to my argument whether it is or not. (However, it does speak to the dishonesty of this reply and the others: why write responses to an essay about the Bronze Age Pervert and resolutely refuse to recognize him or his work?)

There seems to be this notion that men shouldn’t aim for “perfection” because it doesn’t work for all men all the time, that men inevitably become dissatisfied even if they get what they want. I mean, what is the evidence for Poulos’ claim that the problem of man is insoluble? Maybe the problem of society or mass society is insoluble, but why is that the case for every man everywhere? Maybe it is just very difficult to solve the problem of man and most people fail?

Poulos’ claim is not unlike the sophistical claim that there is no “human nature” because, unlike fire that burns hot everywhere, man is variable.

If there is a human nature then the problem of man is not insoluble… his problems would arise from ignorance of that nature, from aberrant desires rather than good desires. Or to put it another way, if we take Poulos’ view, man is in the unenviable position of having to fight against his desires; he appears more miserable than every other animal; he is irremediably confused, divided, and at war with himself. Contentedness under great constraint or after exhaustion is his only option.


The aesthetic of BAP’s Bronze Age Mindset and Caribbean Rhythms isn’t Christian, but Christianity is malleable and can be reformed. Perhaps Zero HP Lovecraft aims at something like that. As for Meadowcraft, Keegin, and Poulos … I want to ask if it is okay to try to be beautiful, to try to go after the beautiful things, to ignore and avoid the ugly and unsavory things, and above all seek independence from the fake moral claims of others? The point of their responses strikes me as only tangentially about art and primarily about putting makeup on egalitarian moral constraints, on the same moral constraints conservatives have been laboring under unsuccessfully for decades. Whether or not these had their heyday is beside the point: they are dead; we do not want them resurrected. Readers and listeners of BAP are interested in how to improve, not how to avoid being bad. That desire is the fertile soil Moldbug sees and BAP is the cultivator to whom Moldbug appealed. Why didn’t the responses take Moldbug seriously?

The Essential Types of Men According to Homer

Written by: Son of Sorel aka That Ol’ Lazy Boy

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.

— Son of Sorel, aka That Ol’ Lazy Boy

Thoughts on Nationalism: A Review of Mystery Grove’s “Mine Were of Trouble” by Peter Kemp

Thoughts on Nationalism

Mystery Grove’s new release, Mine Were of Trouble, by Peter Kemp, is an exhilarating book. It is also an informative book, helping the amateur and the experienced alike, when it comes to understanding the Spanish Civil War. Both of these dimensions, on their own, make the book worth reading. More importantly, though, the book provokes a number of helpful thoughts.

The first thought that emerged for me while reading Mystery Grove’s new volume is: why does Peter Kemp, a lover of England and its way of life, leave his family to fight on the Nationalist side of the Spanish Civil War? Why would a man sympathetic to nationalism risk his life for those who are not his own? These questions become especially pressing when we see numerous examples of how much he loves his family.

From this thought, I was led to think: how or in what way does it make sense for someone like the Bronze Age Pervert to be a rootless cosmopolitan nationalist, seemingly supporting all sorts of varieties of nationalism in most places they appear? Aren’t nationalists supposed to love one nation?

Further reflection easily justifies both Kemp’s and BAP’s decisions. What is nationalism? It is a people making themselves distinct from other peoples or from other masses of human beings. Nationalism is brought into stark relief when compared to universal ideologies like Communism (and Liberalism as it is understood today) which seek to make the whole world somehow one–which is to say, amorphous, bloblike, and yeasty. Thus, the nationalist fights so that the world may remain in distinct parts. The nationalist wishes for there to be vital wellsprings of particularity. The world profits through there being healthy, vital, and genuinely diverse parts that remain in competition with each other. Such competition does not always necessarily mean war–though it can–but it can also be competition in cultural refinement or art. This is what makes the world serious. Thus, the nationalist finds himself allied with other nationalists in the face of universal yeast ideologies like Communism which threaten the very possibility of there being peoples for which we may care and devote ourselves to. For something to be beautiful it must be rare and distinct from other, uglier things. A universal homogenized world will not be beautiful. It will be like a big brutalist Shell gas station.

I don’t mean to suggest that Peter Kemp had these exact thoughts. But one doesn’t need to think too hard to know that loving one’s own nation is good and that ideologies like Communism are ugly. Let’s turn, then, to the text itself so that Kemp can explain why he fights.

Why Peter Kemp Goes to War

Kemp writes Mine Were of Trouble about 20 years after the war began. Some writers who put together memoirs so long after an experience might be tempted to offer some kind of fancy or grand reason justifying their actions, giving their past self thoughts they would have never had at the time. Admirably, Kemp does not fall prey to such a temptation. Indeed when asked on two different occasions by others why he chooses to go to Spain, he reports that his response was: “To fight” (4, 13).

To his friend, Daughleigh Hills, he provides a more significant justification. Kemp admits that he was much farther Right than the Conservative Association at Cambridge, but says: “My reasons aren’t entirely political” (7). “Above all,” Kemp continues, “it’s a chance to learn to look after myself in difficulty and danger. Up till now I’ve never really had to do anything for myself” (7). Such a statement is scarcely imaginable from the college students of today who use words like “adulting.” Rather than learning how to pay the bills, Kemp wants to reveal to himself who he really is under the harshest conditions.

Kemp provides an additional motive, when he describes the ugliness of Communist actions that were reported before news agencies were infected by propaganda: “mob violence…wherever the Reds took control,” and “Priests and nuns were shot simply because they were priests and nuns, ordinary people murdered because they had a little money or property. It is to fight against that sort of thing that I am going to Spain” (7). My initial impression of this reason was admiration. Many us know about “that sort of thing,” but few of us stand up against it. Surprisingly, Kemp says of his response: “Reviewing them now, I find my words embarrassingly naive; perhaps I really was trying to justify myself, to convince myself for the last that it was the right one” (7). Strikingly, then, Kemp takes his renewed attempt to provide reasons as a kind of embarrassing lack of resoluteness. Perhaps Kemp suddenly realizes that it was not, in the first place, arguments that led him to want to go to war. He must be in possession of, or possessed by, a desire he lacks the words to express.

Peter Kemp’s Honesty

One of the great pleasures of reading this volume is Kemp’s refreshing honesty. Kemp does not portray himself as some kind of based warrior god destroying enemy after enemy. In one of his first major engagements, a defensive action, Kemp says of himself during the height of it: “my hands were shaking as I feverishly loaded and fired my rifle. With a great effort I pulled myself together and began to fire more slowly, checking my sights, resting my elbows on the parapet and taking careful, aimed shots” (61). The warrior must remain psychically integrated in order to succeed; Kemp has to “pull himself together,” indicating he is in separate pieces before, perhaps divided between a mix of unstated passions, not the least of which might be fear.

During a badly handled offensive against a heavily fortified Republican (Communist) position, Kemp “tried to look as though this were the one thing in life I enjoyed, but with dry throat and thumping heart I doubt if I succeeded” (117). It is one thing to die in war–it is another to feel that one’s life is being wasted on something that is impossible to accomplish. Nonetheless Kemp does as much as he can until his unit is called on to retreat. But again, you see that he is divided; his being is not unified in its action, though he is able to compel those parts of him that resist to endure the danger.

I don’t say these things to present Kemp as some kind of wimp–he surely isn’t one. I just mean that, if Kemp is willing to give us a glimpse into these less than flattering moments, it stands to reason that we can trust the rest of his account. It makes us able to completely believe Kemp when he describes his internal state when he is quite sure he is going to die defending a hill he has been told to “hold at all costs.” Kemp says:

“In a few moments–minutes at most–the enemy would close and that would be the end. As I unwound the tape from a grenade and slung it across the clearing I understood that at last I was face to face with death; that there was nothing I could do about it. With that realization there came over me an extraordinary sense of freedom and release from care” (142).

Kemp does not despair, he does not panic, he does not resent his commander for giving a difficult assignment; indeed, he does not even pray. Rather, he resigns himself to his fate, knowing that it almost cannot be otherwise. What does it mean to feel free here? I wonder if Kemp feels completely psychically unified and at home in himself. He may feel that sense of levity that attends a man who has shown to himself, in the face of the harshest teacher, that he is indeed a real man.

Concluding Remarks

I hope in showing a few of these revealing moments that you can get a sense of what kind of man Peter Kemp is. And all this at the age of 19! But there is much more in this powerful yet slender volume. I therefore invite you to join Kemp on his journey. His conversation with Generalissimo Franco, his struggle for life after being grievously injured, and many other exciting moments await the intrepid reader.

Throwing Out Nature With A Pitchfork: What COVID-19 Discloses

The present outbreak shocks us. Why? Our experts claim that it cannot properly be called a “plague.” We cushy moderns have been jolted from the slumber of our artificial, globalized mode of existence. Having been reared as citizens of the technological world, we expected, nay, demanded that the world, that necessity itself, bow before our will. 

But our will lacks force. Although we have willed a mere life of comfort and tranquility, we have not had the stomach to guard our last man existence. For to guard something is to recognize the possibility of losing what one has; we cannot endure this prospect. “Let us remake the world in the image of our cowardly desires,” we decided. If all goes well, we thought, we will never even have to think anything genuinely horrifying. “Thou shalt not fear” is the only categorical imperative to which we cling (shame, of course, is a species of fear). We want nothing more than to pass through existence without confronting the awareness of that cruel necessity, the awareness that ever lurks beneath the surface of the waves of our thoughts: you will die.

This outbreak discloses the impotence of our human, all too human will. It discloses that our impositions on nature have never been, and can never be, permanent. It discloses that nature lacks the intelligibility we wished to ascribe to it.

For all our mockery of teleology, we have ourselves unwittingly and unconsciously imposed a teleology on nature. Hence, we exclaim, “This should not have happened.” It is a stern, terror-inducing reminder that the world is not our oyster. 

Confronted with this fact, whether we want to face it or not, we are currently presented with a choice. Do we take flight from the truth nature has so cruelly revealed? Or do we dare to look at the horror at the heart of existence, a horror of which we are always dimly aware but which elusive nature has now permitted us to glimpse? How we choose indicates our own nature; it brings to light that piece of nature we are. When we are afforded the opportunity to contemplate nature herself do we flee from an enemy whom we can never defeat? Or do we recognize her as kin?