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:

The Mastermind by Evan Ratliff

Mark Thatcher, son of Margaret, in Zimbabwe’%c3%a9tat_attempt

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:

Christian marxism – 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:

Reinhold Niebuhr, theologian and intellectual loved by strivers:

The Tupi cannibals of Brazil:

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:

Balts, Lithuanians converted in 1300s, 1400s:

Neretvians / Narentines – Croatian pagan pirates converted 1300s:

The Mari / Cheremis people:

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

Invasion of Athens by a Celtic tribe in 200BC:

“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:

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:

Athens imported Scythians as police:

The Rig Veda, Dasas and Aryans:

“The swarthy skin that Indra hates”

Race in Early Buddhism here (scroll down a bit):

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:

also mentions The Ninth Gate, free to watch here:

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:

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

Greeks compared to Afghans, reference to Bacha bazi:


Moldbug on Rhodesia:

Theodore Dalrymple on Rhodesia:

Rhodesia Selous Scouts:

Harry Dexter White, Soviet spy in FDR administration:

Venona papers:

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:

Casino Moscow by Matthew Brzezinksi…

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 …

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…

Erich Traub, one of many operation paperclip assets from Germany and DISCOVERER of Lyme disease…

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…,_Fascism_and_the_Falange_-_Not_One_and_the_Same_Thing/

French Integralism….Vermeule, careful what you wish for!…

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.

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…

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…

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

Argentina’s Kirchner charged with fraud, assets frozen

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.

Nietzsche Beyond Good and Evil aphorism 248


Nietzsche Ecce Homo…

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…

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…

Pierre Van den Berghe The Ethnic Phenomenon
Guru to @Steve_Sailer

The Ethnic Phenomenon F

Roger Devlin – Heartiste where are you…

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.… 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…

The Doric temple of Segesta in Sicily

Carthage colony in Sicily…

Greek Colonies of Italy…

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…

Wiki explaining the four major tribes of Greece… Sybaris of Magna Graecia

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…

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 …

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…—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…

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…

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…

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.

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…

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.

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.

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

Elijah del Medigo on The Divide between the Ancient and Moderns

Elijah del Medigo recently wrote a longish piece about what ails modernity, in which he follows the Straussian line from NRH and the essay “The Three Waves of Modernity.”

I am going to summarize the sections of Medigo’s essay and posit a few questions about his thesis as I go. His thesis in sum: liberal political theory produces bad politics, and is in fact the progenitor of communism and fascism which are also bad. You can find his essay on his blog Thoughts out of Season.

Liberalism and the End of History & Liberalism and Nature

Liberalism is the child of modern political philosophy and modern political philosophy promotes the conquest of nature—specifically, human nature. Liberalism is pacifist and pacifism is contrary to nature. There is a “genuine struggle of war and famine” that makes history, and this struggle is overcome by liberalism. Trying to escape war and famine doesn’t sound that bad though; indeed, the desire for tranquility (a release from war and famine) sounds Biblical as well. So… there is a difference between the Biblical utopia and the liberal utopia, between the Platonic utopia and the Baconian utopia: liberalism is dishonest. It distracts men with fake wars (war on drugs, poverty, etc) and fake threats, whereas the Biblical utopia never forgets human neediness and therefore human nature. Liberalism enervates man and obscures the genuine struggle whereas the Bible and Plato elucidate human nature and orient man accordingly. Everyone’s political philosophies are aiming at a paradise, but the paradise of liberalism is fake and gay. Liberalism is the secularized return to the Garden of Eden.

Question: It’s unclear whether liberalism is anti-nature (and therefore different from ancient political philosophy) because it is trying to “immanentize the eschaton” and is “millenarian,” or because “it replaces the genuine struggle of war and famine with a purely political counterfeit.”

Socialism and Fascism

Liberalism is the father of socialism and fascism. Socialism seeks to attain the liberal utopia through illiberal means: namely, violence. Fascism “rejects both liberal ends and liberal means, and yet it is still characteristically modern.” Focusing on the volk and Fuhrer, and marrying the “corporation and state,” are modern things, not ancient things.

Question 1: Why are the volk, Fuhrer, and marriage between corporation and state specifically modern? Are there no analogues for these things in ancient political philosophy? There seem to be… Is it possible to link fascism to liberalism without its having this “distinctly modern” character that you assert? Are there really no shared aims and means? And if the “modern” link is indeed all that ties it to liberalism … why can’t there just be two or three or x-# of “modern” political philosophies, or ONE GREAT modern political philosophy of which even liberalism itself is an offshoot?

Question 2: You say, “liberalism seeks to create a simulacrum of History internal to itself, and thus avoid the trauma that accompanies actual history.” Do you mean that liberalism comes to a sort of stasis and then promulgates fake problems and fake solutions, thereby giving people something to do without meaning? Why not interpret the “war for the rights of some minority; the battle for healthcare of some other cause” as signs of decline (and encroaching communism) rather than mere “simulacrum”?

Relativism and the End of History

The basis of toleration is skepticism regarding things religious:

[T]he genesis of the liberal order consisted of the declaration that it does not matter which party is in possession of ultimate truth, which is tantamount to a declaration that for all practical purposes, there is no truth.

Call it relativism; call it nihilism; call it tolerance. However we wish to label it, relativism is built into the liberal scheme of things. This is not entirely a negative phenomenon: it allowed for a cessation of religious warfare.

People who are skeptical of religious claims will not fight others on behalf of those claims. Spreading doubt takes away the justification of violence on behalf of religion.

This relativism plays a role in spawning communism and fascism. Communism offers a more substantive standard, a more liberal liberalism: a liberalism without skepticism, which men will be willing to fight and die for. Communist ideology deepens liberalism, makes something that was largely meaningless or merely a reaction (to religious violence) into a positive political program. Communism is “liberalism more itself.” How relativism leads to fascism is more complicated.

Fascism jettisons everything liberal except for the relativism. Medigo quotes Mussolini: “From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value [the takeaway from liberal relativism], we Fascists conclude that we have the right to create our own ideology and to enforce it with all the energy of which we are capable.”

Question 1: How can liberalism be both a utopian attempt to “immanentize the eschaton” and relativist?… have an ideal and assert that all ideals are relative?

Question 2: Do fascists deny the right of other people to assert and defend their ideals? If they do, then how are they nihilist? If they don’t, same question. In other words: do they really think all ideals are equal? Don’t they really think, as you seem to think, that the liberal ideal is deceitful and therefore cowardly, whereas they are honest and therefore more deserving of recognition?

Fascism and The End of History

Fascism arises out of despair at our inability to return to nature. The liberal declared war on nature and defeated it. Despairing of a return to nature, the fascist views the state as a machine: that’s why he talks about “the Corporation and the State.” There is no internal content to fascism: the only reason it is anti-Jewish is because liberalism tolerated Judaism. The ideal of fascism, its utopia, is perpetual struggle. The obsession for struggle “nurtures an obsession with aesthetics.” This obsession and its adoption of liberal language make it a “grotesque parody” [he calls it this 4 times] of liberalism.

Question 1: What makes fascism mechanistic? You say that “fascism is the mechanistic society devised by Bacon and Hobbes … behind the façade of neo-classical building and martial Romanism.” But Carl Schmitt’s criticism of Hobbes in his The Leviathan in The State Theory of Thomas Hobbes focuses on exposing the liberal’s mechanistic conception of the state. “The idea of the state as a technically completed, manmade magnum-artificium, a machine that realizes ‘right’ and ‘truth’ only in itself—namely in its performance and function—was first grasped by Hobbes and systematically constructed by him into a clear concept.”

Question 2: Why does the promotion of “perpetual struggle” nurture an obsession with aesthetics?

The Dialectic of Modernity & Two Types of Post-Liberalism

Strauss advocated returning to liberalism but this is impossible and undesirable, because it would merely restart the unfortunate dialectic: liberalism to communism to fascism. What is needed is a genuine return to nature, which means a revival of premodern political philosophy.

Concluding thoughts:

Attempts to draw a sharp or principled distinction between ancient political philosophy and modern political philosophy suggests that modernity represents a complete break with antiquity, that something wholly new was wrought by the modern political philosophers. In Medigo’s essay, he asserts that this can be seen in the “un-Natural” principles, aims, and means of modern political philosophy as opposed to the natural character of ancient political philosophy.

However, these attempts strike me as inadequate. Every state, whether it is a massive modern state or the polis of ancient Greece looks up to ideals, seeks to succeed in war and thrive in peace, glorifies struggle and shows a concern for property, and so on. Even the charge that the modern state is “mechanistic” amounts to so much hand-waving, whether the accusation is made against liberalism or fascism … it’s not like the Romans didn’t “balance power” and seek to make institutional corrections that would cut back on mismanagement and corruption. That was the point behind the institution of co-Consuls, and the later addition of the Tribune.

Should we simply deny our eyesight, then? Isn’t the modern world different from the ancient? Don’t the modern philosophers write differently than the ancient? Doesn’t their rhetoric appeal to different passions?

These questions about modernity animate Medigo’s essay, and he illustrates various currents in modern liberal thought that certainly are anti-nature. The questions I asked and this conclusion are not meant to be a wholesale rejection of his thesis. He begins his essay saying “I fully acknowledge its inadequacy, both in terms of sourcing & in terms of coherence” … so I hope my questions and objections are not too “out of season.” In a future post I will provide an interpretation of Strauss’ “three waves of modernity” essay and in the meantime hope he responds to my questions and expands upon his general thesis.

Bolaño’s Cave

“I don’t really know how to explain it,” said Amalfitano. “It’s an old story, the relationship of Mexican intellectuals with power. I’m not saying they’re all the same. There are some notable exceptions. Nor am I saying that those who surrender do so in bad faith. Or even that they surrender completely. You could say it’s just a job. But they’re working for the state. In Europe, intellectuals work for publishing houses or for the papers or their wives support them or their parents are well-off and give them a monthly allowance or they’re laborers or criminals and they make an honest living from their jobs. In Mexico, and this might be true across Latin America, except in Argentina, intellectuals work for the state. It was like that under PRI and it’ll be the same under the PAN. The intellectual himself may be a passionate defender of the state or a critic of the state. The state doesn’t care. The state feeds him and watches over him in silence. And it puts this giant cohort of essentially useless writers to use. How? It exorcises demons, it alters the national climate or at least tries to sway it. It adds layers of lime to a pit that may or may not exist, no one knows for sure. Not that it’s always this way, of course. An intellectual can work at the university, where the literature departments are just as bad as in Mexico, but that doesn’t mean they won’t get a late-night call from someone speaking in the name of the state, someone who offers them a better job, better pay, something the intellectual thinks he deserves, and intellectuals always think they deserve better. This mechanism somehow crops the ears off Mexican writers. It drives them insane. Some, for example, will set out to translate Japanese poetry without knowing Japanese and others just spend their time drinking. Take Almendro—as far as I know he does both. Literature in Mexico is like a nursery school, a kindergarten, a playground, a kiddie club, if you follow me. The weather is good, it’s sunny, you can go out and sit in the park and open a book by Valéry, possibly the most read by Mexican writers, and then you go over to a friend’s house and talk. And yet your shadow isn’t following you anymore. At some point your shadow has quietly slipped away. You pretend you don’t notice, but you have, you’re missing your fucking shadow, though there are plenty of ways to explain it, the angle of the sun, the degree of oblivion induced by the sun beating down on hatless heads, the quantity of alcohol ingested the movement of something like subterranean tanks of pain, the fear of more contingent things, a disease that begins to become apparent, wounded vanity, the desire just for once in your life to be on time. But the point is, your shadow is lost and you, momentarily, forget it. And so you arrive on a kind of stage, without your shadow, and you start to translate reality or reinterpret it or sing it. The stage is really a proscenium and upstage there’s an enormous tube, something like a mine shaft or the gigantic opening of a mine. Let’s call it a cave. But a mine works, too. From the opening of the mine come intelligible noises. Onomatopoeic noises, syllables of rage or of seduction or of seductive rage or maybe just murmurs and whispers and moans. The point is, no one sees, really sees, the mouth of mine. Stage machinery, the play of light and shadows, a trick of time, hides the real shape of something behind the veil of camouflage, not the real shape, but at any rate it’s the shape of something. The other spectators can’t see anything beyond the proscenium, and it’s fair to say they’d rather not. Meanwhile, the shadowless intellectuals are always facing the audience, so unless they have eyes in the backs of their heads, they can’t see anything. They only hear sounds come from deep in the mine. And the translate or reinterpret or re-create them. Their work, it goes without saying, is of a very low standard. They employ rhetoric where they sense a hurricane, they try to be eloquent where they sense fury unleashed, they strive to maintain the discipline of meter where there’s only deafening and hopeless silence. They say cheep cheep bowwow, meow meow, because they’re incapable of imagining an animal of colossal proportions, or the absence of such an animal. Meanwhile, the stage on which they work is very pretty, very well designed, very charming, but it grows smaller and smaller with the passage of time. This shrinking of the stage doesn’t spoil it in any way. It simply gets smaller and smaller and the hall gets smaller too, and naturally there are fewer and fewer people watching. Next to this stage there are others, of course. News stages that have sprung up over time. There’s the painting stage, which is enormous, and the audience is tiny, though all elegant, for lack of a better word. There’s the film stage and the television stage. Here the capacity is huge, the hall is always full, and year after year the proscenium grows by leaps and bounds. Sometimes the performers from the stage where the intellectuals give their talks are invited to perform on the television stage. On this stage the opening of the mine is the same, the perspective slightly altered, although maybe the camouflage is denser and, paradoxically, bespeaks a mysterious sense of humor, but it still stinks. This humorous camouflage, naturally, lends itself to many interpretations, which are finally reduced to two for the public’s convenience or for the convenience of the public’s collective eye. Sometimes intellectuals take up permanent residence on the television proscenium. The roars keep coming from the opening of the mine and the intellectuals keep misinterpreting them. In fact, they, in theory the masters of language, can’t even enrich it themselves. Their best words are borrowings that they hear spoken by the spectators in the front row. These spectators are called flagellants. They’re sick, and from time to time the invent hideous words and there’s a spike in the mortality rate. When the work-day ends the theaters are closed and they cover the openings of the mines with big sheets of steel. The intellectuals retire for the night. The moon is fat and the night air is so pure it seems edible. Songs can be heard in some bars, the notes reaching the street. Sometimes an intellectual wanders off course and goes into one of these places and drinks mezcal. Then he thinks what would happen if one day he. But no. He doesn’t think anything. He just drinks and sings. Sometimes he thinks he sees a legendary German writer. But all he’s really seen is a shadow, sometimes all he’s seen is his own shadow, which comes home every night so that the intellectual won’t burst or hang himself from the lintel. But he swears he’s seen a German writer and his own happiness, his sense of order, his bustle, his spirit of revelry rest on that conviction. The next morning it’s nice out. The sun shoots sparks but doesn’t burn. The person can go out reasonably relaxed, with his shadow on his heels, and stop in a park and read a few pages of Valéry. And so on until the end.”

Response to Tom West

Image result for tom west political theory of the american founding

In what follows, I do not think I am taking issue with Locke’s own understanding, merely with his public teaching, a teaching that today appears incapable of accomplishing what it accomplished in former times. Also, while it is a reply to Tom West, it is not an open letter to him, but an essay meant for the blog.

Why I Criticize the West Coast

I think West agrees that Locke’s teaching, much less the founders’ view of natural rights, isn’t understood any longer. In his seminar at Georgetown Law, he even points out how little understanding there is of the natural rights theory of the founders amongst our political class.

I have watched colleagues try many times to get students to understand the Lockean and Jeffersonian meaning of equality, and to see that Jefferson was not inconsistent. I try to do this myself. What has happened again and again is a class of students goes away thinking they are patriotic for loving the founders, but who merely think the founders were the precursor to Lincoln who was the precursor to MLK. I swear, if I hear MLK mentioned as a relative equal of “Jefferson and Aristotle” one more time I am going to lose it… At the most, the students are inoculated against some of the crazier varieties of leftism. But who cares if they like the “founders,” if the “founders” they love are more left-wing than Eisenhower? They do not understand freedom of association (the right to exclude) unless you are very frank about what that means. Really, you have to be offensive or they will not follow the argument through.

They will not accept that Jefferson believed blacks were inferior to whites and should be excluded from republican society. The students I have talked to only ever really accept … they think “well, yes, the founders were consistent—but they were morally wrong to hold onto their slaves nonetheless.” Not one in ten of a West Coaster’s best students will admit that it was morally justifiable for Southerners to hold onto their slaves in lieu of being unable to repatriate them. Lincoln beats Jefferson every time, unless they simply refuse to acknowledge who Jefferson was. In other words, these lovers of the “founders” do not have that self-assertion that made the founders who they were, and do not even admit self-assertion is a virtue in the most basic concrete terms. Exclusion is inequality. Treating “the other” unequally is racist and Hitlerish. A good West Coaster will teach the students that the founders were anti-slavery, but the students will come out thinking the founders were anti-racist, and hell, even anti-sexist to boot.

In other words, the doctrine of rights and consent cannot accomplish today what it was intended to accomplish, but that does not mean the purpose of Lockean liberalism was ignoble.

The Inconsistency in Locke’s Public Presentation of Natural Rights
(aka, Tom West Accepts the Amalgam Thesis)

What I was pointing out in my post on West’s book were inconsistencies in the public teaching of liberalism—inconsistencies that West himself points out! In brief: rights are practically worthless if they do not command some respect, but under the stress of necessity no sane or reasonable man would blame another for violating the rights of a stranger—as Jefferson points out in his letter to Colvin where he talks about the ships meeting at sea, or in his letter to Holmes where he points out the plight of the Southerners.

Now, if our natural rights represent an ideal, a goal, then that’s another thing entirely—men in desperate situations at sea, or men finding themselves amidst a sea of slaves and willing agitators, can take their bearings by the theory of natural rights, namely, they can see how they should like to live if they ever escape the present necessities.[1] They should like to live in a commonwealth where everyone is good enough, reasonable enough, independent enough not to need to violate the life, liberty, or property, not only of their fellow citizens (although this would be their first goal, and usually the principal means of escaping necessity) but of anyone whosoever. So … the goal is being able to respect the rights of your fellow citizens and avoiding the need to exploit people outside of your society.

But if this is the goal… then why is it also taught by Locke as the baseline? That is, why does he teach that men who violate the rights of others are morally bad men, when that is not the case. Only men who violate the rights of others under very strict and, frankly, fortuitous conditions, are men who “fall beneath the law.” The “quarrelsome and contentious” are the bad men, not the men who violate the rights of others—but Locke is much louder about violating the rights of others than he is in discussing the vices of the quarrelsome and contentious, or the virtues of their apparent opposite, the rational and industrious. I know if you read Locke esoterically, taking into account, for example, his use of the phrase “enough, and as good left” in the fifth chapter of the Second Treatise, you can see he permits the self-assertion of a man who has no recourse but the exploitation of others if he is going to be a freeman. Yes, he permits it esoterically. But exoterically that is not the case. And it is the same game in A Letter Concerning Toleration: you are a bad man if you use the law against a religion, but only when all the religions are Lockean, that is, when all the religions are willing to teach reasonable teachings and promote the general welfare of the commonwealth rather than narrow sectarian interests. Instead of elaborating on the lineaments of the true, aka, Lockean religion, he emphasizes again and again that the bad religions use the law against their enemies. At the very least, the baseline has been the great takeaway, the “lesson learned” by readers of all backgrounds except, in some cases, the West Coast Straussian.

It is this baseline teaching that, today, produces the undesirable effect in the students, of turning them away from the virtue of self-assertion and towards the moraline drug of egalitarian anti-racism, of accelerated abolitionism, whereby they willingly permit themselves and their fellow citizens to be robbed of their property, their liberty, and yes, their lives, for fear of failing to show obeisance to the “other.”  I mean for goodness’ sake, decent citizens actually get themselves murdered because their sense of shame does not permit them to take precautions for themselves or their children. While this is of course rare, it does happen, and in any event, the lesser evils abound. White parents willingly accept the legal and social subordination of their children in education and the job market every single day. “Well Jimmy might’ve achieved more, but goodness, I simply cannot judge that black kid, whose life has been so hard because of racism. He deserves a chance to develop as well. Jimmy will be fine. He is white after all.” Someone immediately call social services on this woman!

And if anyone calls me paranoid or insecure for pointing this out… I don’t care. That is what is always said. Yes, that is the status of self-assertion in today’s America: it is almost always interpreted as neediness or petulance, while ingratitude and insolence pass for “courage” and “justice.” So I will be accused, god forbid I get doxed—but what else am I to do?

The Lockean baseline—do not violate the rights of others or you are a bad person!—has this anti-racist effect unintentionally. Locke was taking aim at different evils.

Whereas in our time, we face “the appalling problem, when one comes to actual cases, of getting men to distinguish between better and worse.” Locke faced a corrupted ruling class suffering under a different moral delusion: “That subjects or foreigners, attempting by force on the properties of any people, may be resisted with force, is agreed on all hands. But magistrates, doing the same thing, may be resisted, hath of late been denied” (sec 231).

A careful reading of the Second Treatise shows that natural rights serve the purpose of assertive but rational self-interest, in much the same way Hobbes taught a more Royal Self-Interest (I think it is time to bring back Hobbes and the Cavalier Poets!).

Let me try to throw what I mean into bold relief: for Locke, the teaching of natural rights, the natural equality and freedom of all men in the state of nature, and the necessity of consent are various ways of approximating the rule of wisdom in a time of mass society. In West’s book, the section he mentions in his comment to my post, he quotes Jaffa saying that consent “as mere acquiescence of the will” is not enough, and that “prudence” is essential to success as opposed to the merely doctrinaire view that if you get the doctrine of rights correct—if all your citizens are orthodox ideologues—you get the whole of government correct (PTAF 52). In that same section, West downplays the role political theory (the “form”) can play, to emphasize the importance that “matter”—geography, ancestry, manners and customs (mores)—plays.[2] It is at this point, and only at this point, where West will admit the “amalgam” thesis has any traction: “to the extent [that you need the “matter”] the amalgam thesis is correct.”

This weakness—and I think West agrees that admitting the amalgam thesis is a weakness, though I am guessing here—is a necessity for natural rights theory because of the Lockean tendency to promote the “baseline” I discussed earlier, rather than the Jaffa-West refashioning of it, that is, Jaffa & West more openly teach the elitist side of the theory whereas Locke eschewed it on account of the practical difficulties England faced in 17th century. Our founders mostly followed Locke, in their combat against certain religious superstitions and, obviously, in their Revolution against the Crown. But it is perfectly possible to have a theory of Natural Right without an amalgam, if you are willing to do the admittedly dangerous and often imprudent thing of openly saying “the absolute rule of wisdom” is the best form of government, as Locke knew full well. Then your theory can take into account the excellencies of men, however varied those may be, and provide a very full description of the “cycle of regimes,” over which the enlightenment philosophers are relatively quiet as compared to the ancient.


In sum: Locke esoterically teaches the rule of wisdom, but promotes a baseline teaching about consent and the rights of life, liberty, and property. In this public teaching, consent approximates wisdom by going some way to ensuring the rulers have the best interests of the commonwealth in mind, and the natural rights approximate wisdom, by going some way to ensuring that moral vanities do not cloud men’s thinking about politics. But this public teaching—the baseline teaching whereby it is morally wrong to violate the rights of others, rather than “not ideal”—suffers from the need for an amalgam, a need that can easily be overlooked in order to produce egalitarian moral blindness and accelerated abolitionism.

In a future essay, maybe … (I should really be writing “professional” articles to advance my “normie” life…) I will explain how to read Locke esoterically.

[1] West points this out when he says “The founders (and Lincoln) looked up to the laws of nature and of nature’s god. In this sense, the founders’ America was defined in 1776 by its anti-slavery principles, in spite of the fact that slavery was then legal in every state.” (PTAF 65)

[2] It is indeed a “based” section, for those of you wondering: (PTAF 50-54).

A Comment on Proverbs 9

Proverbs 9 King James Version (KJV)

1 Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars:

2 She hath killed her beasts; she hath mingled her wine; she hath also furnished her table.

3 She hath sent forth her maidens: she crieth upon the highest places of the city,

4 Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him,

5 Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled.

6 Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.

7 He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot.

8 Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.

9 Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

11 For by me thy days shall be multiplied, and the years of thy life shall be increased.

12 If thou be wise, thou shalt be wise for thyself: but if thou scornest, thou alone shalt bear it.

13 A foolish woman is clamorous: she is simple, and knoweth nothing.

14 For she sitteth at the door of her house, on a seat in the high places of the city,

15 To call passengers who go right on their ways:

16 Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: and as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him,

17 Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.

18 But he knoweth not that the dead are there; and that her guests are in the depths of hell.

This is an interesting Proverb, because the place of the simple is unclear. Are they good or wicked or what? Both the goddess Wisdom and the temptress call to them, using the same words, and as simple men how are they to know which is which? This conundrum is reinforced in 7-9.

The opposite of the one who scorns is clear enough: it is the one who does not scorn. The opposite of the wicked, however, is twofold: the wise man and the just man.

We are told what wisdom is for and what lacking wisdom brings. Wisdom is for oneself and lacking wisdom is its own punishment, “thou alone shall bear it.”

It is difficult to imagine how a deficiency of this sort would not spill over into injustice towards others, but that seems to be the claim here. If you lack wisdom you suffer for it. But wouldn’t others suffer for it as well insofar as you affect them in any way?

Possibly what is meant is a denigration of justice. Maybe the simple man can also be a just man because he simply never harms others. He may not have the wisdom to benefit them, but at least he doesn’t harm them. Justice would be half or only need half, whereas wisdom would be whole, namely, the knowledge of what is good and bad. The wise man can not only avoid injuring others, he can benefit them as well because he knows what is good for them and what they should avoid.

This denigration of justice must be a concession to the simple. You can be a just man if you remain innocent in the eyes of others.

But can you remain innocent in the eyes of others if they think you’ve helped them but have indeed harmed them? Even with the best intentions, a simpleton or fool trying to help can do harm. Every son trying to help his father with some difficult task has, at some point or another, been the cause of some disaster, minor or otherwise. But there are other examples. Say you make a man rich who shouldn’t be rich.

“Well if they never know they’ve been harmed–you made them rich and this made them worse but they never realized it and therefore thanked you until their dying day.” Can men remain invincibly ignorant of their own deficiencies? The researches of Plato would suggest, yes, they can, but something as insignificant as a gadfly can rouse them. And everyone with eyes can see that Time herself is capable of revealing many deficiencies to people who did not feel the error at first or for a long time.

But this is, in a sense, beside the point. Certainly there are men who are both simple/unwise and completely powerless to bring harm to others.

Tolstoy longed to be such a man, but unlike his simpleton Platon Karyatev, he took it upon himself to write and give advice–he used the power in his tongue and pen to move others thereby negating his ideal. This might make you think of the philosopher who only pointed at things, forsaking speech, but that is another matter entirely.

So Proverbs 9 leaves room for the powerless simpleton. He too can avoid falling into wickedness if he chooses the goddess instead of the temptress and thereby count himself among the Just, though he won’t be of use to anyone.

“Oh but there is always a benefit in a just man!” That will be said. “Perhaps he smiles and warms the hearts of others. Gives hugs.” Well then, as you are keen on elevating him, you also show the rarity of Justice without wisdom, because even the simplest man will exercise some power over human beings.