BAP on neo-Amish

At about one hour 17 minutes in Episode 97 of Caribbean Rhythms BAP says (I paraphrase because I don’t want to transcribe.) the new hot thing on the right is to abandon the fight and move to the countryside.  They believe that having a big family is a political act, not knowing the establishment will abandon democracy if need be.  (That’s already happened – The Author)  You go and live like Amish, grow carrot, and become serfs.


Yes.  That sounds great.  The main place were BAP, who I admire, is wrong in this little aside of his is that he ignores that we are already peons.  I want serfdom.  I want harmony.

With the help of my good friend Thad, I have come to believe that the message of Plato’s Republic is that justice is HARMONY.   We now conflate retribution and attempts to restore harmony as justice.   No.  Once the court has to be used, once the force comes down, once the noose has to be tied, justice has been lost.

Justice is harmony.  I seek harmony.

I’m under no misconception that meming or really anything others are doing is effective political action.  Your opponents don’t actually care about your cartoons.  Running for office doesn’t work.  The only thing that might work short of becoming a warlord, which is not harmonious, is to build.  To go deeply into family, faith, and work.   From this a new culture will rise and bring about a new people and a new nation.

IF you were to become a warlord and gain control of some sort of territory, how would you govern it without it being occupied by your people, your nation?  The answer is you can’t long term.  Ask the Khans.  You must build.  That starts at home

I won’t live to see it.  Neither will you.   That’s OK because we don’t seek consolation from all this people stuff, all this secular stuff.  It’s ok to not see this political process as something you want to participate in.

Just be a serf.   Grow carrots.

6 thoughts on “BAP on neo-Amish”

      1. I understand. I hope you’ll tolerate my hair splitting the definitions then if only so I can think some stuff through.

        Aren’t they substantively different in an important way? Its modern normie life I see as serfdom – tied to debt instead of land sure, but forced to pay rent, nobody ever escapes because it’s impossible to come to own anything when following normie life patterns. It’s different sure: I don’t really know who my lord is, or at least I can’t locate that in one person like a serf on a manor could. But financial debt is bought and sold and along with it is me – my “labor” turned into payment. A bit like how serfs were bought and sold with the land they worked.

        I’m real inspired by you homestead folks. I’m not in a position to put down my job and pursue it full force yet. So you would be right to say I don’t have skin in that game. But we have a 5 year plan. The homestead thing as I understand it is more in line with the yeoman tradition that arose when manorialism deteriorated in the late Middle Ages and persisted with the earliest Americans.

        I had a thought the other day. Kulaks were the peasants of rural Russia and its hinterlands that became wealthy between the revolution and the 30s, when they were systematically killed. History books say the Soviets did this because Kulaks were ruled oppressors as evidenced by their accumulation of wealth. It was supposedly an ideological thing. I think that’s not true – I think it was because the small holder (yeoman) way of life viewed by a centralizing authority is the most subversive possible way to live, not because it’s categorically wrong to some particular ideology, but because it gives the person the means and therefore the option to resist the central authority. Kulaks were probably “mind their own business types”. These were folks who had MAYBE 30-60 acres and did well enough that maybe they had the luxury of walls to separate their sleeping quarters. It was a nakedly political thing. Consolidation of power through enforcing dependency.

        1. I get it. Yeomanry is in many ways more desirable. As you point out, Colonial America was mostly this. Maybe we can get it back.

          You’ve got skin in the game. Acting on a five year plan does that for you.

          I think you are right about the motivations behind destroying the Kulaks.

          One particularly good thing about serfdom is the lord has obligations to the serf.

  1. Pingback: The tater pill –

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Scroll to Top