OUR KIND: Lusting for the horrors of war!

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2025

War with one's own people: The principle dates to antiquity—to the dawn of "European literature."

(Prepare for a somewhat arcane discussion. We think a key point is involved.)

The principle is voiced by Nestor, the seasoned charioteer, in Book IX of the Iliad. The headstrong young Diomedes is threatening to lead young warriors back home, away from the faltering siege of Troy. In council, Nestor scrambles to his feet.

Agamemnon, lord of men? The headstrong but powerful Diomedes is prepared to tell him to stuff it! Praising Diomedes for his eloquence, Nestor gives voice to the ancient principle, as translated by Professor Fagles:

Few can match your power in battle, Diomedes,
and in council you excel all men your age.

[...] 

But it's my turn now, Diomedes.
I think I can claim to have some years on you.
So I must speak up and drive the matter home.
And no one will heap contempt on what I say,
not even mighty Agamemnon. Lost to the clan,
lost to the hearth, lost to the old ways, that one
who lusts for the horror of war with his own people.

In Homer's account, Nestor "always gave the best advice." With this speech against the horrors of tribal division, he regains the allegiance of the cheering young warriors back and the siege of Troy continues.

Even then, Nestor delivered a heartfelt account of an unmistakable fact. Vast harm may await the headstrong young person "who lusts for the horror of war with his own people."

Vast harm may await older warriors too—and to our ear, we heard a call to that kind of war on at least two occasions over the Thanksgiving weekend. 

Such as it has been, the American story has often seemed to begin on this holiday. But over this weekend, the Fox News Channel seemed to be selling us war with our own:

GUTFELD (11/27/25): So Colby, we're not paying for the [construction of President Trump's ballroom]—it's being handled privately. So why are the liberals so outraged?

COVINGTON: I mean, they're just outraged because they're outraged about anything, you know? ... They're just despicable people and they hate America and they hate our country...

On Thanksgiving night, we saw that remarkable statement rebroadcast as part of a special "best segments" Gutfeld! show. Then, on Sunday morning's Fox & Friends Weekend, we saw a member of Congress say this:

JENKINS (11/30/25): I just can't get past how in the world a candidate who hates Nashville is going to get possibly elected by Nashville voters.

BURCHETT: ...It just shows you how much the Democrat [sic] Party hates this country—hates our values.

[...]

The reality is, this is the current state of the Democrat [sic] Party in this country...If you look at the Democrat Party today in Congress, this is what they represent. They want an open border. They disrespect our military. They hate our country.

For links to videotape and further context, see yesterday's report.

Colby Covington is a superlative athlete and an MMA fighter. Rep. Tim Burchett (D-Tenn.) is a folksy member of Congress who may not have meant any harm.

Neither man may have meant any arm when they made those sweeping statements! But, at least to our ear, when you issue statements like those, you've signed on as a person who seems to be lusting for the wages of war with your own people. 

Or at least, you're doing so within the context of the modern nation-state--within the context according to which we all form the aggregation called "the American people."

We heard it first on Thursday evening, rebroadcast completely by choice. We heard it again on Sunday morning. When we did, we thought we might "feel the dark encroachment of that old catastrophe," or something a small bit like that.

Within the context of the nation state, you're going to war with your own people when you issue such a sweeping denunciation of so many tens of millions of people—people you can neither name nor know. But then again, what else is new? Back in August, then again in early October, the sitting president of our flailing nation had reposted this:

THE PARTY OF HATE, EVIL AND SATAN
The Democratic Party Is Dead!

The Democrats are "the party of Satan!" To see the repost on Truth Social, you can click right here.

The siege of Troy was a full military war, fought with the military weapons of the Late Bronze Age. The Fox News Channel (joined by some others) now seems to be aggressively engaged in a type of political or culture war.

That said, enormous harm can be caused by such Red on Blue warfare in this Information Age. Plainly, that has already occurred in the current example. But now we switch to an earlier choice--a choice by General Washington.

Two weeks back, Ken Burns et al. explored the choice George Washington made at the very dawn of the American nation.

Burns broadcast a 12-hour film on PBS called The American Revolution. We liked some parts of the film a great deal. Others, perhaps not so much.

(We sometimes get the impression that Burns, a good decent person, loves the smell of napalm in the morning. It may be that's just us!)

Back to Burns et al.:

Assisted by a hive of historians, the screenplay describes an eight-year war which, as the screenplay clearly says, was in part a civil war. 

(Was it also, in part, a secession? Compare and contrast. Discuss.)

Before the week is done, we'll quote some of this film's account of the viciousness which resulted from this highly consequential piece of world history. Yesterday, we quoted Frost's poem about that same war. Today, we do so again:

The Gift Outright

[...]

Such as we were we gave ourselves outright
(The deed of gift was many deeds of war)
To the land vaguely realizing westward...

To the land vaguely realizing westward! According to Burns' scholars, that was part of Washington's thinking about his endorsement of this war. We'll briefly visit that point before the week is through.

At any rate:

In this case, "the deed of gift" was indeed many vicious deeds of war. As for General Washington himself, we've long wondered why he chose to sign on for this long, brutal conflagration—for a lengthy war with his own (British) people.

As the Burns film makes clear, he was an extremely wealthy man—and, like the 22-year-old Nathan Hale, he could imaginably have been hung by the neck until dead had he ever been captured. Why would a person so well positioned have signed on for such a risk?

When General Washington lent his support to that war, he was also, rightly or wrongly, waving the starter's flag for the many vicious acts which befell many innocent people. When the CEO of the Fox News Channel wants her millions of viewers to hear that we Democrats hate the values of our own country—that liberals hate the country itself—she's partly padding company coffers. But she's also bringing on a loss of the hearth and the old ways—a loss which can be deeply consequential.

Why did Washington choose as he did? In choosing to go to war with his own (British) people, he was endorsing a war which would, inevitably, involve vast (collateral) harm.

The Fox News Channel is walking that path as it dumbly consigns us Others to hatred and to Hell. Meanwhile, how about us Blue Americans? What are we like over here?

Leave it to sacred Thoreau! In Walden, he quotes (Sir Walter) Raleigh at one point, describing a type of error to which "our kind" may be inclined. By our kind, Raleigh meant our human kind—the way we're all inclined to be as (imperfect) people.

At present, Red America is being encouraged to walk away from Nestor's ancient advice. The Fox News Channel CEO is rather plainly pushing that line. So in this nation's highly erratic president, even as the New York Times works to avert its gaze.

Red America is being pushed toward a desire for that kind of war. How about us in Blue America? Is it possible that we Blues have sometimes been lusting for that type of civil war too?

This story goes back a fairly long time. "Our kind" is inclined to behave certain ways. 

The Fox News Channel is (unwisely) lusting for war. But how about us Over Here?

Tomorrow: Citizen Washington's choice