Bronze Age Pervert Quotes

Life has a thing inside it that reaches beyond itself. This is intergalactic worm, I can't say here, you must wait.

Friendship is a social relation of a kind that is beyond all "ethics," you see, and if you ever think of it in terms of ethics you misunderstand it. It is a great pleasure between two, very different from sexual pleasure between man and woman, but of the same species, in that it is pleasant, and never feels like "ethics," which is for cows.

In the Bible three of the Ten Commandments deal specifically with this matter: do not covet another man’s wife, do not commit adultery, and honor mother and father; the last is the first “substantial” commandment that doesn’t directly involve honoring God but that concerns human behavior as such, and for this reason among others Nietzsche believed it was the constitutive goal of the Hebrews, the striving that defined them as a people. In Judaism during the holiest day of Yom Kippur the prohibition specifically against incest at Leviticus 18 is traditionally repeated, which, as Leo Strauss mentions, agreeing with Nietzsche, is the precondition for honoring mother and father. But the language of Leviticus 18 with its list of sexual prohibitions is especially powerful, contrasting the new laws of the Hebrews with those of the Egyptians and with others who came before them, who defiled the land, and who were vomited out by the land.

these were men of conquest, exploration and adventure first. Aeschylus had on his tombstone engraved that he fought at Marathon, not that he wrote his plays. The free man is a warrior, and only a man of war is a real man.

If an average man’s natural desire were to be a good husband and father, then their work would have been easy. But in early Rome, for example, bachelorhood had to be forbidden by law. The problem with the view of the social conservative is that it assumes a man’s duty to his wife and children is more natural, and therefore more easily enforced, than it actually is. They often do not see the immense work that had to go into making men good husbands or fathers, nor the great privileges through which men had to be enticed to accept these duties; still less do they see or dare to mention the great work—some would say oppression—that had to be exerted to make women faithful wives and mothers. Social liberals and feminists make the same mistake. They assume the problem is that men desire patriarchy and ownership over the wife and family, that men desire dominion over wife and children. They do not see these are, in part, methods some civilizations resorted to in order to induce men to accept the responsibilities of father and husband. Men deprived of patriarchy have no reason to accept duty or responsibility, nor the loss of freedom that goes with family life. Social liberals and feminists make the same mistake. They assume the problem is that men desire patriarchy and ownership over the wife and family, that men desire dominion over wife and children. They do not see these are, in part, methods some civilizations resorted to in order to induce men to accept the responsibilities of father and husband. Men deprived of patriarchy have no reason to accept duty or responsibility, nor the loss of freedom that goes with family life. Modern societies are faced with men who either reap the fruits of sexual liberation through easy copulation, or men who for any number of reasons won’t or can’t put up with the stress of this chase and instead become apathetic, at least so far as women are concerned. The problem, as social liberals and feminists are finding out, isn’t that men seek by nature or education to dominate wives or children, but that men simply don’t care.

In fact everything that you hate about modern life and that makes it into an Iron Prison—and I agree it is a prison—represents a return of the endless sallow night of matriarchy. It is a return in every way, you must understand this literally! Nietzsche says that in the modern Europe you see the reassertion of pre-Aryan modes of life, the return of socialism, of the longhouse, of feminism, and that this is happening also to us internally, where the higher instincts of the spirit are being overtaken physiologically by the retrograde and prehistoric. The life of the village and of the primitive is one of utter subjection, total domestication and total brokenness. The "matriarchy" that does exist, and that exerts enormous influence and power in the social and moral realm, is only the manifestation of this brokenness of the males.

Thus everywhere we see that the very comforts and safety produced by the best men leads to the usurpation of society by those parts of the human spirit that are oriented instead toward a different kind of life, that everywhere that mode of the yeast wins out...and usually wins out very quickly.

Life appears at its peak not in the grass hut village ruled by nutso mammies, but in the military state. In Archaic Greece, in Renaissance Italy and in the vast expanse of the heroic Old Stone Age, at the middle of the Bronze Age of high chariotry, lived men of power and magnificence in great numbers. We are in every way their inferiors. Physically, spiritually and in intellect they exceed us in every way.

Critias, Socrates’ student, was the Hitler of the ancient Greek world. He and his friends established a regime based on atheistic biologism so to speak; on “Sparta radicalized,” a eugenic antinomian dictatorship. He was maybe what Hitler’s most hysterical detractors claim of him today. Critias killed more Athenians in his short rule than died in the decades of the war with Sparta. He expelled almost everyone from the city, and burned the docks, which were the perceived source of democratic power. He wasted all the priests of Eleusis for being tedious religious moralists. He saw the purpose of the Spartan constitution as the creation of one “supreme biological specimen,” and Critias sought to found a state based on such ideas. He and his friends were overthrown quite quickly. Against this catastrophe, carried out in the name of philosophy and nature (of biology) there was a predictable reaction. Socrates’ other students, most of them at least, as well as Isocrates and others, went out of their way to distance themselves from Critias and what he was perceived to stand for: “We are not like that guy. We are good boys. Philosophy isn’t actually about that. We’re doing something different. We’re socially responsible good guys.” Does this sound familiar?

I am here to save you from a great ugliness.