The author of Bronze Age Mindset has energized US conservatives, but his philosophy will likely fade away.
In the opening of Ayn Rand’s We the Living, published in 1936, the protagonist—a thinly veiled version of Rand herself—tells her Bolshevik lover, “I loathe your ideals. I admire your methods… What are your masses but mud to be ground under foot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?” She condemns the common people as mere “puny, shriveled, helpless souls” who lack independent thought or dreams. Rand, a devoted disciple of Nietzsche’s early-20th-century interpretation, was drawn to the idea that a superior elite could dominate and shape the masses, who she saw as weak and submissive.
Rand’s admiration for such coercion echoed ideas found in early Russian thought. Figures like Anatoly Lunacharsky, the Soviet “commissar for enlightenment,” were similarly influenced by Nietzsche’s philosophy, though they twisted it to serve their own revolutionary purposes. Lunacharsky once described the people as a “lump of marble” from which the revolutionary could carve a better, more powerful species. This view of the masses as something to be molded or discarded has found renewed relevance among certain contemporary thinkers, including those who advocate for a return to a more hierarchical and aggressive model of society.
One of the most controversial figures to embrace this Nietzschean thinking today is the anonymous author known as Bronze Age Pervert, the pseudonymous writer of Bronze Age Mindset. His work has stirred interest among right-wing circles in the United States, particularly those disillusioned with modern liberalism and the perceived failures of contemporary conservatism. His philosophy, which champions a return to strength, vitality, and a more aggressive form of masculinity, has found an audience among a segment of the American right that seeks a radical break from the status quo.
However, much like the ideas of Rand or Lunacharsky, the Bronze Age Pervert’s philosophy—though it has gained traction in certain circles—is unlikely to endure. His worldview is built on an adolescent fantasy of a return to a glorious past where the weak were subjugated and strength was the sole measure of worth. This kind of thinking is compelling for a moment, especially in times of political frustration or disillusionment, but it lacks the depth and practical relevance necessary for long-term political success.
The influence of the Bronze Age Pervert may be real in the short term, but his ideas are too extreme and disconnected from the practicalities of governance to have lasting power. The American right may be momentarily invigorated by the rhetoric of strength and rebellion, but this ideology, like many before it, is bound to fade as the realities of political life take over. Just as Nietzschean-inspired movements in the early 20th century ultimately proved to be unsustainable, so too will the Bronze Age Pervert’s vision likely be forgotten once the fervor it inspires subsides.
While his philosophy may provide temporary intellectual fuel for a certain fringe of the American right, it is unlikely to serve as the foundation for a lasting political movement. The history of radical ideologies, especially those that attempt to reject the inherent complexities of modern society, shows that they often burn brightly but quickly fade. As the American right moves forward, it will need more than the adolescent idealism of Bronze Age Mindset to chart a sustainable course. The challenge for conservatives will be to find a vision that not only excites but also endures.