"Greek civilization is the result of piratical military brotherhoods of Aryan youths who came across the Aegean and conquered the sedentary original inhabitants of Hellas. The tradition of sending bands of young men on military adventures in search of new land and more space is ancient and characteristic of most Aryan cultures; this is the männerbund, or kóryos in Greek. As a rite of passage the youths are forced to endure trials and are expelled from the adult society, from nomos, and forced to subsist as a unit far from home, as raiders and hunters. This youth ritual drove Aryan expansion further and further as bands of young men ventured forward into foreign lands. This practice inspired the grander projects of ambitious established men, who would have themselves once been part of a kóryos, and who on hearing of the success of other Aryan groups in achieving immense power and wealth by conquering lands such as Egypt, the Levant, and India, assembled great warbands to achieve their own conquests. To fall to one of these conquests was the fate of Greece, and the origin of the Greeks as we know them."
Tribes are settled communities generally dominated by elders/priests. A mannerbund/koryos is a military brotherhood of men operating outside the bounds of settled communities.
Thanks, one last question and I will bother no more. If he's advocating for the bronze age mindset, why in the last paragraph he says that it was a corrupt civilization that was wiped away?
No worries, for that Bronze Age Mindset does not refer to the sedentary civilizations of the bronze age (i.e Egypt, hittite, etc) but the large trend in that period where mercenary brotherhoods became incredibly influential, and conquered many settled societies such as Greece, North India, Levantine cities etc
I'd be interested in a deeper treatment of "no other ancient language except Greek, and as a result Latin, had a word for nature" — there may not be direct equivalents in other languages, but ideas like Dao/Prakriti share enough of a similarity that an essay parsing the differences would be instructive
It's me again, one year later after reading BAM, Selective Breeding, and immersing myself down the rabbit hole fully.
One question. If following the code/rules of the tribe is wrong... then how can we form a koryos, which certainly needs to have some kind of honor code to work? Will following its code make me a bug? I know that if a friend is being punched I'll try to help him, but in case I don't, it means I'm not following a code, and probably (and justifiably) kicked from the group. Is that code that different from the ethics, morals we criticise? Where do we draw the line?
Thanks. It was a pleasure to read this again after one year.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with adhering to laws and there are such a thing as beneficial and worthy laws, the issue is when nomos attempts to cover up and usurp physis. If the governing social mores and laws of a society demand that young men sacrifice their own destinies on behalf of a stagnant entrenched order predicated on lies, than to submit to those laws is a betrayal of all that is worthy in life. But any community requires some kind of mutually agreed upon set of rules, and these can vary in their justice and severity. You cannot escape values, morals, etc; but you can seek ones that uplift life rather than distort it.
The Spartans are in many ways the Greeks closest to their IE origins, Dorian latecomers who clung to an incredibly martial life. Nevertheless they would often boast that the power of Sparta and its military lay in the fact that Spartans recognized the authority of the law. This was an attitude found in many Greek city-states. This did not mean they were moralizing bugs. The duty they recognized in the law and in their loyalty to the state was equally connected with their rights, freedoms, and privileges as citizens. This voluntary adherence to just laws which protected and promoted their interests made Spartan citizens the owners of a powerful and wealthy commonwealth.
See the following Passage from Herodotus, from the exiled Spartan king Demaratus when describing the Spartans to the Persian king Xerxes:
"The same goes for the Spartans. One-against-one, they are as good as anyone in the world. But when they fight in a body, they are the best of all. For though they are free men, they are not entirely free. They accept Law as their master. And they respect this master more than your subjects respect you. Whatever he commands, they do. And his command never changes: It forbids them to flee in battle, whatever the number of their foes. He requires them to stand firm – to conquer or die."
Well said, but above you wrote that 'It has nothing to do with duty, pity, denial, or any of the other sapping lies of the anthropos.' Surely you meant illegitimate duty; the longhousing nanny state demanding its taxes or such like? But that reads like an attack on the concept of duty altogether.
Yes, I use duty there in the pejorative sense of an invented duty founded upon moral abstractions rather than what is good or just by nature. "We have a duty to the millions fleeing climate change". But in all honesty I think I would consider most commonly accepted duties as baseless and illegitimate.
Thanks for the response, it makes it really clear. The quote (free men but not entirely free) explains it all and makes a lot of sense.
By the way, towards the end of BAM, it promotes forming piratical gangs, koryos, group of friends with tactical virtues, almost mafias, etc. What, do you think, would be the difference with the current narcos, maras, cartels etc which we despise? (Besides the 'us vs them' factor)
The character and aims of the men which compose them. I think BAP's thought is that the Koryos, the band of free men who enter into association and aim for mastery of space, is no longer possible through legitimate means. Ancient Greeks, Renaissance Italians, Early Modern Anglos, etc etc could all participate in political associations in which they had a stake and whose ultimate purpose was to safeguard their property and ensure lawful inheritance. That just isn't an option in modern western states for young men who aspire to excellence. Not is the political sphere inaccessible to such men, but it aims to outlaw their way of being. Any legitimate public-facing organisation, like something equivalent to what the free masons were to young men of the 18th century, would be ratfucked and crushed by the state. So to whet their claws and live freely is outside the bounds of these modern states.
Mafias, cartels, narcos, etc are to opposed as injurious to health and well-being of the general polity and as foreign profiteers of generally low character, but that same general polity ought to be considered secondary before a legitimate band of men of substance committed to the preservation of higher life, the sanctity of the inner garden.
My favorite passage:
"Greek civilization is the result of piratical military brotherhoods of Aryan youths who came across the Aegean and conquered the sedentary original inhabitants of Hellas. The tradition of sending bands of young men on military adventures in search of new land and more space is ancient and characteristic of most Aryan cultures; this is the männerbund, or kóryos in Greek. As a rite of passage the youths are forced to endure trials and are expelled from the adult society, from nomos, and forced to subsist as a unit far from home, as raiders and hunters. This youth ritual drove Aryan expansion further and further as bands of young men ventured forward into foreign lands. This practice inspired the grander projects of ambitious established men, who would have themselves once been part of a kóryos, and who on hearing of the success of other Aryan groups in achieving immense power and wealth by conquering lands such as Egypt, the Levant, and India, assembled great warbands to achieve their own conquests. To fall to one of these conquests was the fate of Greece, and the origin of the Greeks as we know them."
Thanks for this. I still don't get why critizicing tribes but suggesting mannerbunds. Aren't they the same?
Tribes are settled communities generally dominated by elders/priests. A mannerbund/koryos is a military brotherhood of men operating outside the bounds of settled communities.
Thanks, one last question and I will bother no more. If he's advocating for the bronze age mindset, why in the last paragraph he says that it was a corrupt civilization that was wiped away?
No worries, for that Bronze Age Mindset does not refer to the sedentary civilizations of the bronze age (i.e Egypt, hittite, etc) but the large trend in that period where mercenary brotherhoods became incredibly influential, and conquered many settled societies such as Greece, North India, Levantine cities etc
The Hittites were an Indo-European people that loved chariots and horses.
Yes thank you, I don't why I used them as an example after Egypt rather than one of the Mesopotamian civs, I must not have been thinking carefully.
Excellent!
I'd be interested in a deeper treatment of "no other ancient language except Greek, and as a result Latin, had a word for nature" — there may not be direct equivalents in other languages, but ideas like Dao/Prakriti share enough of a similarity that an essay parsing the differences would be instructive
It's me again, one year later after reading BAM, Selective Breeding, and immersing myself down the rabbit hole fully.
One question. If following the code/rules of the tribe is wrong... then how can we form a koryos, which certainly needs to have some kind of honor code to work? Will following its code make me a bug? I know that if a friend is being punched I'll try to help him, but in case I don't, it means I'm not following a code, and probably (and justifiably) kicked from the group. Is that code that different from the ethics, morals we criticise? Where do we draw the line?
Thanks. It was a pleasure to read this again after one year.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with adhering to laws and there are such a thing as beneficial and worthy laws, the issue is when nomos attempts to cover up and usurp physis. If the governing social mores and laws of a society demand that young men sacrifice their own destinies on behalf of a stagnant entrenched order predicated on lies, than to submit to those laws is a betrayal of all that is worthy in life. But any community requires some kind of mutually agreed upon set of rules, and these can vary in their justice and severity. You cannot escape values, morals, etc; but you can seek ones that uplift life rather than distort it.
The Spartans are in many ways the Greeks closest to their IE origins, Dorian latecomers who clung to an incredibly martial life. Nevertheless they would often boast that the power of Sparta and its military lay in the fact that Spartans recognized the authority of the law. This was an attitude found in many Greek city-states. This did not mean they were moralizing bugs. The duty they recognized in the law and in their loyalty to the state was equally connected with their rights, freedoms, and privileges as citizens. This voluntary adherence to just laws which protected and promoted their interests made Spartan citizens the owners of a powerful and wealthy commonwealth.
See the following Passage from Herodotus, from the exiled Spartan king Demaratus when describing the Spartans to the Persian king Xerxes:
"The same goes for the Spartans. One-against-one, they are as good as anyone in the world. But when they fight in a body, they are the best of all. For though they are free men, they are not entirely free. They accept Law as their master. And they respect this master more than your subjects respect you. Whatever he commands, they do. And his command never changes: It forbids them to flee in battle, whatever the number of their foes. He requires them to stand firm – to conquer or die."
Well said, but above you wrote that 'It has nothing to do with duty, pity, denial, or any of the other sapping lies of the anthropos.' Surely you meant illegitimate duty; the longhousing nanny state demanding its taxes or such like? But that reads like an attack on the concept of duty altogether.
Yes, I use duty there in the pejorative sense of an invented duty founded upon moral abstractions rather than what is good or just by nature. "We have a duty to the millions fleeing climate change". But in all honesty I think I would consider most commonly accepted duties as baseless and illegitimate.
Thanks for the response, it makes it really clear. The quote (free men but not entirely free) explains it all and makes a lot of sense.
By the way, towards the end of BAM, it promotes forming piratical gangs, koryos, group of friends with tactical virtues, almost mafias, etc. What, do you think, would be the difference with the current narcos, maras, cartels etc which we despise? (Besides the 'us vs them' factor)
The character and aims of the men which compose them. I think BAP's thought is that the Koryos, the band of free men who enter into association and aim for mastery of space, is no longer possible through legitimate means. Ancient Greeks, Renaissance Italians, Early Modern Anglos, etc etc could all participate in political associations in which they had a stake and whose ultimate purpose was to safeguard their property and ensure lawful inheritance. That just isn't an option in modern western states for young men who aspire to excellence. Not is the political sphere inaccessible to such men, but it aims to outlaw their way of being. Any legitimate public-facing organisation, like something equivalent to what the free masons were to young men of the 18th century, would be ratfucked and crushed by the state. So to whet their claws and live freely is outside the bounds of these modern states.
Mafias, cartels, narcos, etc are to opposed as injurious to health and well-being of the general polity and as foreign profiteers of generally low character, but that same general polity ought to be considered secondary before a legitimate band of men of substance committed to the preservation of higher life, the sanctity of the inner garden.