Accusing the Accusers

Evola, Nietzche, and Tomboy Abs

Back to Catalog

Nietzche’s New Year Resolution for 1882 from The Gay Science:

“For the New Year—I still live, I still think; I must still live, for I must still think. Sum, ergo cogito: cogito, ergo sum. To-day everyone takes the liberty of expressing his wish and his favorite thought: well, I also mean to tell what I have wished for myself today, and what thought first crossed my mind this year,—a thought which ought to be the basis, the pledge and the sweetening of all my future life! I want more and more to perceive the necessary characters in things as the beautiful:—I shall thus be one of those who beautify things. Amor fati: let that henceforth be my love! I do not want to wage war with the ugly. I do not want to accuse, I do not want even to accuse the accusers. Looking aside, let that be my sole negation! And all in all, to sum up: I wish to be at any time hereafter only a yea-sayer!”

I think I am reaching the end of my “critical stage,” a period where I am rejecting the ideas of others to form my own.

There is nothing wrong with this “critical stage”, in fact it is good to start by being in opposition to the ideas you are given by your contemporary morality, to check what’s solid and what isn’t, rather than passively accepting them as a given. However once you know where you stand it can turn to a kind of self-indulgence that hampers your growth and wastes your time in revelries against everything around you. Revelries of contempt and smugness and laughing with the shrill laughter of children who have no hope of ever being in power.

Of course I will still probe but not with any mal-intent, mal-intent betrays doubt and fear, and if any mal-intent is directed my way I’ll just look aside. Perhaps to really see the good in things, I first needed to see the bad and the ugly as well, so I wouldn’t be defending something which doesn’t exist.

However, to make a definitive break with the accusers, I’ll have to “accuse the best accusers” and then I’ll be able to look aside. Maybe this is a mistake but I can’t resist the temptation, also it feels like otherwise I would be leaving some loose ends.

Every deconstruction must be followed by a reconstruction, as L the Fox says, and it is very easy to deconstruct everything, or in other words to cast something in a negative light, and that kind of destructive self-righteousness is satisfying too because as a self-appointed judge and condemner of reality, it gives you a feeling of power over the reality which you can’t change, but that “self-righteousness can never touch the sincerity of others.(1)”

Then let’s go over a deconstruction to show this. A few weeks ago I was on a livestream responding to Academic Agent’s video on Tomboy Abs which he desperately claims was not about tomboys or women having abs.

What was Academic Agent, AA, as I shall call him, responding to? A twitter thread where some men were jokingly, though a bit too desperately, lusting over a picture of a woman who posted a picture of her abs.

AA took a few choice responses which may or may not be representative of the thread and claimed that this represented a cultural trend of collapse caused by fantasies of gender role reversal.

He finished his video by saying that anyone who does not agree with him on this issue is basically antifa. If his primary goal was to cause some drama and get some views then he did succeed and you have to respect the hustle.

If his secondary goal was to provoke some thought then he succeeded too, because it was a reminder and wake up call to those sleepwalking towards his position or against it. AA claims to be well-versed in the ways of narrative story-telling of pro-wrestling and it shows here for better and for worse.

Why would AA insist his video was not about women having abs but just the reaction the men had to it? Perhaps because saying that women should be this or that on YouTube is a riskier business than telling men what they should and shouldn’t do.

Besides, as AA correctly observes, the optics of blaming women, that is to say blaming someone else for the ills of society than yourself, are bad anyway. Then by blaming you, as in what you really are, not the “reactionary”, “rightwing”, “Traditionalist”, “Catholic”, “Lutheran”, “Christian” or whatever labels you call yourself, he attempts to restore some agency to his audience of young men by putting the blame the blame on them in a situation where they feel like they have no agency to change things, which is laudable in that sense.  

AA quotes a long Julius Evola passage in his video. Evola was a Perennial Traditionalist, that is to say, he believed in socially conservative social norms backed up by finding commonalities between the religious and cultural traditions of the world which fit his socially conservative social norms. Through this Evola created a meta-Tradition and a meta-Traditionalism, a purely referential form of traditionalism which was not shy of mixing up religious concepts from different religions in a way that the adherents of those religions might not do or might even consider sacrilegious.

Evola believed that the Traditions of the west, such as Christianity, had atrophied so much they were irrecoverable and of no use alone any longer in isolation from other traditions.

By the act of quoting Evola, AA wants to overcome the divisions on the reactionary right between Christians, Pagans and other atheists, by finding something they have in common they can all agree with and aim towards.

The points which Evola’s quote makes affirm some basic trad-con talking points about how men need to be men and women need to be women respectively if they want to find happiness, which is all well and good for now.

These points, as AA observes, could have easily been made by quoting some research by evolutionary psychologists like Jonathan Heidt. So why did AA quote Evola instead?

AA claims that if you’re looking to justify traditional gender roles then you need to listen to a traditionalist, that is to say someone who is well versed in religions like Evola, but why? Because you need to take the past’s values on their own terms rather than put a modern spin on them if you want to talk about real Traditionalism. Putting aside that Evola puts a modern spin on it himself by not adhering to one tradition but mixing them up like ingredients, this is coherent enough.

But if you're going to take the past on its own terms and judge it by its own values then is AA going to judge the present by its own values only? No. Why not? He doesn’t say. He doesn’t seem to judge all things on their own terms so there must be a reason I am not privy to.

To put it bluntly, he says, just listen to the original source rather than justifications or criticisms given for it later but do it only for this thing and not these other things which are inconvenient to me. For example he wouldn’t say to just listen to feminists when judging feminism or judge Marxist economics only based on what Marxist economists say.

Furthermore Evola doesn’t argue with empirical evidence like statistics so AA doesn’t have to worry about it turning into an endless argument about the numbers. I suppose that’s one reason to pick Evola over the evo-psychs. It’s easier and more effective rhetorically to speak in terms of grand historical narratives where you can’t look at the factors in isolation and so can assert things more easily and confidently.

Evola has both bad and good optics. Just on the livestream I was, Evola was dismissed as someone between a fascist and a nazi. He is sort of a spiritualist and he got made fun of, even by the Nazis, for his interest in the occult.

But what might appear as a weakness in optics might actually be a strength, starting with the occultism, the fedora-tipping atheism of years gone by and the bad optics of the progressive left (Drag Queen hour and the like) have given a new lease on life to the optics of religion. The atheists today are not exactly Voltaire and David Hume or even Christopher Hitchens who can all be retroactively dismissed for having led to the bad optics of the west today.

Besides, there’s something undeniably cool about things like the black cloaks that Orthodox priests wear, the military parades in Moscow and even Peiking, the beautiful wholesome traditional families, the warriors of antiquity, and yes of course the Hugo boss uniforms too don’t look that bad either aesthetically speaking.

Good optics are not everything but you can’t ignore the optics because they are a sign of health and sickness, and if you can’t accept that then at least you should see it as a strength rather than a weakness.

So far so well, what is the problem then? In one of the follow up videos, AA rightly complains about the left’s tendency to deflect their opposition’s arguments by psychologising, or in other words speculating about the opposition's real motives by coming up with all sorts of nefarious motives about why the right believes something rather than take on the right’s arguments seriously, at their word, head-on and on their own terms.

This involves trying to see the problem with the other side’s own terms and maybe even coming up with a compromise, a give-and-take position, even when you are on the side with more power and even when you are not totally convinced, in recognition that after all we’re all in this together. Instead what actually happens is a denial there is a problem at all, “look these totally non-partisan academic bodies say that there is no problem so there is no problem, screw your feelings, the real reason you have a problem is because you suffer from this phobia, see this non-partisan academic paper quoted by this non-partisan press media organisation says so.” Or in other words “you just don’t understand,” or even “the real problem is what I think is a problem (e.g. economic/racial inequality)” which is really just another way of saying “you’re the problem, stop getting in our way.”

And yet, despite seeing all this, despite asking that his position be regarded on its own terms rather than be psychologised, what does AA do?

He psychologised, speculated about all the nefarious motives, the “copes,” to use the worst modern 4chin lingo he has adopted (despite looking down on 4gag) any reason people might have to oppose his view. This I tried my best to ignore for my fondness and partiality for him but the spell broke when this very same psychologising spirit turned towards ascribing the motives of those slightly pathetic men who were basically just simping for some woman with abs on twitter.

The implication of what AA said was that obviously these men, who posted memes about wanting to lick this woman’s abs (a pathetic attempt at courting, I know), wanted to suck this woman’s schlong and be castrated and this will lead to the collapse of western civilisation. How does he know what they think? Did he ask them? No, because he wouldn’t believe what they said, he wouldn’t take their word for it, he wouldn’t take them on their own terms and yet he wants to be taken on his own terms.

Furiously banning anyone who pointed any of this out including myself, he disappointed me but I am thankful for it, for it clarified what I had hitherto suspected, that I had outgrown him and needed to overcome him, as I had earlier outgrown and overcome other groups like anti-theists, feminists, socialists, anti-sjws, mgtows and so on. Therefore I will not hate or despise the instrument of my growth, I will have a fondness for it, sure, but I will look aside.

This behaviour must be familiar to some of you. Do you remember Steve Shives, the human block-bot? Perhaps AA’s memory is too short to remember him, another henpecked husband. To be fair to Mr. Shives, I haven’t heard any rumours that he has been pegged by a woman yet.

All jokes aside, I do not want to get stuck in a rut accusing the accusers whom I have outgrown anymore.

That was the mistake of the anti-sjw movement, it did not create anything new and just coasted on the shrill laughter of children who had no power until even the laughter grew hollow and the children grew up and they couldn’t coast on it any longer. Just as the anti-theist movement before coasted on the “smile of reason.”

Despite his inability of taking his opposition seriously on some issues as we have seen, I do commend AA’s attempt at trying to take himself seriously at least by trying to build something which can weather the current epoch, and that for the sake of it he needs to erect some golden figures of holy calfs impervious to irony is understandable. But what will he do when the tablets have been broken?

Then again that is a question for all of us who are not exactly in the good graces of the current regime which tolerates us but might not at any moment. I understand he hopes to be ignored until his side might be relevant again when some kind of collapse he predicts will happen because he wishes it to happen. Banning people after all is a good way to be ignored by ignoring others.

This article was just about looking aside from the accusers but towards what is outside the purview of this article, suffice to say it will be doing what AA was trying to do correctly, or setting out how to.


(1.) A Stepmother’s Marchen Chapter 70.

By Otaking, or The Good Student


Back to Catalog