Top 15 Bronze Age Pervert Quotes

The salvation and training of this biological type that provides ‘raw material’ for both the philosopher and the tyrant is Plato’s fundamental political concern. The production—the breeding—and training of this biological specimen—the production of genius—is the original and fundamental function of political philosophy on the one hand, and of tyranny on the other.

Nietzsche's rejection of a rational morality is based on his rejection of a utilitarian morality; it is precisely the binding of man to arbitrary, even absurd laws, to laws which serve no particular benefit, that is the character of morality. Religion, premodern polytheism then, cannot emerge out of a utilitarian morality as in the model of Hume. Peoples themselves are the result of the founding acts of creative prophets; much as in Rousseau, Nietzsche believes such prophets or founders—legislators in the highest sense—are the origin therefore of mores and conventions by which peoples live. In this task the founder uses religion, but the religious experience of such founders, and by extension religious experience in general, is therefore not reducible to calculation of benefit or of self-interest.

As Strauss points out, Nietzsche does not believe in "a science of morals which teaches the only true morality," and this specifically includes rational or utilitarian morality: rather for Nietzsche what is natural is only the binding or burdening of man to precisely unnatural and unreasonable laws. "Over and against the ruinous permissiveness of anarchism, Nietzsche asserts that precisely long-lasting obedience to unnatural and unreasonable nomoi is the ‘moral imperative of nature.' Physis calls for nomoi while preserving the distinction, nay, opposition of physis and nomos.

It is telling that in the language of Homer there are quite a few ways to express that one man is better than another. But none of these refer to the virtue of piety or ability to tell divine laws. The most legitimacy and honor are received from objective and manifest qualities or virtues: ... personal courage in battle, and ability to give good counsel in the assembly of armed men.

To speak of superior and inferior ways of life is necessarily to deny that every form of life has dignity or meaning. But, in particular, the net effect is to deny that mere life has any worth.

Who wins in the sexual market as it is formed in a particular society, who gets to breed, is closely related, nearly identical to the question of how the next generation in that society is to be constituted. The question of the sexual and breeding laws is therefore identical to the question of regime, constitution, or foundation as such.

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 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.

The sexual market is the pinnacle of every other market. Men in particular are motivated to do only what it takes to secure sexual intercourse with mates of their choosing, and in many cases certainty over the issue of intercourse, which is offspring.
...Knowledge of this fundamental not-so-secret about human nature was the cornerstone of every great and lasting state, religion, or order from antiquity. (Indeed,) Cecrops, the divine half-snake founder of Athens, who rose out of the earth, is said to have first of all created its laws of marriage.

And so eventually the truth about the meaning of “nature” really was obscured. When eugenics is obscured there is good chance that you get dysgenic results. And dysgenics as opposed to eugenics combined with modern technology —another product of Socratic-Alexandrian scientific civilization—leads to mechanized and universalized dysgenics. I am trying to explain some of the implications of the work of Nietzsche for a world in which he is still the only prophet, and will remain so for some centuries.

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?

In ancient Greek cities, only the citizens were allowed to lift weights and work in the gym: slaves were forbidden. It's no wonder that the robots of Babylon seek to ban gyms for men in our time.

The purpose of all such "political action" should be the same as memetic samizdat, which is to make the enemy look ridiculous. You must show them for what they are, which is, dour, old, sclerotic, ugly, pedantic; it's good if you show yourself in the opposite light, although not necessary.

Women, on the other hand, must be absolutely excluded from such groups, and rather encouraged to have their own. The presence of women in any group like this will totally destroy its social function, by introducing sexual competition, and by the fact that it's in their blood to play on men's misplaced chivalry to cause friction for their own advantage.

I assure you this frightens them, and is many, many times more effective than marching in public and playing the clown they want you to play. The long game of persuading the public is far from won. Keep the eye on the task, far from accomplished: to discredit authorities, to mock all public pieties, to show the leaders of government, bureaucracy, finance, corporations, big tech, and media for the pathetic ghouls they are. Many gains have been made lately, but their dishonor in the eyes of the normies is far from accomplished. When they try to make you expose yourself and to make positive claims, they win. Keep up the pressure of true samizdat.