Saturday, March 11, 2006

Fall of Man

Someone sent me the article bellow, it is a bit long, but is definitly worth a read.

I appologise in advance if this is belong's to anyone, there was no links or names attached!

The Persian King Cyrus asked the Lydian King Croesus
what he must do in order not to have to fear the
Greeks in his kingdom rising up against him. Croesus
replied: "[T]o make sure of their never rebelling
against you, or alarming you more, send and forbid
them to keep any weapons of war, command them to wear
tunics under their cloaks, and to put laced shoes upon
their feet, and make them bring up their sons to
lyre-playing, harping, and shop-keeping. So you will
soon see them become women instead of men, and there
will be no more fear of their revolting against you."

"The age of chivalry is gone. ... The unbought grace of
life, the cheap defence of nations, the nurse of manly
sentiment and heroic enterprise is gone! That of
sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded;
and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever."
Edmund Burke

"There are [those] who, confounding together the
different characteristics of the sexes, would make man
and woman into beings not only equal but alike. They
would give to both the same functions, impose on both
the same duties, and grant to both the same rights;
they would mix them in all things -- their
occupations, their pleasures, their business. It may
readily be conceived that by thus attempting to make
one sex equal to the other, both are degraded, and
from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature
nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly
women. "
Alexis de Tocqueville.

Starting around the decade of the 60s, there began to
be observed a marked change in the character of the
White male students enrolled in U.S. colleges. This
change was commented upon by some of the more astute
professors, and had to do with the tendency of these
young men to be too soft, too timid, too lacking in
what had always been considered normal male
aggressiveness. Now, it must be said, there have
always been men who were softer, more effeminate, more
"girlish," than average; just as there have always
been women with a tendency towards masculinity, but
this was not what these professors were observing.
What they saw was a relative increase in the number of
such men, and this phenomenon has been growing at an
ever accelerated pace ever since.

Now it is an accepted commonplace among some of the
more profound thinkers, philosophers, and scholiasts
on the human condition, that there have always been --
and will always be -- two kinds of men comprising that
small percentage of individuals who've shaped history:
the first being the "spiritual" man; the second being
the "economic" man. The first, the spiritual man, is
characterized by the explorer, the conqueror, the
warrior, the poet, the priest and the monk. The
second, the economic man, by the merchant, the
politician, the money-changer, the atheist, and the
bureaucrat. Spiritual man has been the builder of
civilizations, the dreamer of dreams, the spiritual
visionary, and the conqueror of empires: the man who
lives for ideas. Economic man usually appears on the
scene after the fact, and slowly wrests the levers of
power away from spiritual man after the hard work of
nation and culture building has been done. He is the
one who figures the percentages, who knows how to get
along by going along, who believes only in what he can
see, touch, smell or hear: he lives from ideas. The
first can be exemplified by individuals such as
Socrates, Hypatia, Alexander, St. Cosmas the
Aetolian, Dr. Samuel Johnson, Feodore Dostoevsky, and
Robert E. Lee. The second by such as Thrasymachus,
Ephialtes, the Duc d' Orleans, Jimmy Swaggart,
Madeleine Albright, Henry Kissinger, GWB, and Bill
Clinton. The first produces poets like Pindar who

[In} the presence of the honored gods, all who were
wont to rejoice in keeping their oaths, share a life that knoweth no tears...[and]
whosever...have been courageous in keeping their souls pure from all deeds of wrong, pass by the
highway of Zeus unto the tower of Cronus, Where the ocean-breezes blow around the Islands of the
Blest, and flowers of gold are blazing, some on the shore from radiant trees, while
others the water fostereth; and with chaplets thereof they entwine their hands, and with crowns,
according to the righteous councils of Rhadamanthys, who shareth for evermore the
judgment-seat of the mighty Father, even the Lord of Rhea with her throne exalted beyond
all beside

While the second produces merchants who promote,
politicians who allow, and priests who tolerate the
sickening output of "poets" such as Maya Angelou,
"writers" such as Sydney Sheldon, "artists" such as
Picasso, and the culture-destroying and nihilistic
trash emanating from Hollywood. These are the
economic men who feed upon the decaying corpse of our
Western Helleno-Christian civilization. Their world
produces "music" that includes such lines in a popular
rap song by 2 Live Crew as these:

"Suck my dick ... and make it puke

Lick my ass up and down

Lick it till your tongue turn doo-doo brown."

Now, one may well ask, just what all of this has to do
with the feminization of our young White men; the
ever-growing number of "sensitized" males and outright
homosexuals we see all around us? Well, the answer
lies in the replacement of spiritual man's
aristocratic values, which foster honor, ambition,
discipline, and self-control, with economic man's
democratic and feminine values, which foster safety,
comfort, security and the home. In a democratic
society the role of the government shifts from that of
a father, who maintains order but allows for the
incentive and freedom necessary for success, to that
of a mother whose function is to provide security and
comfort to all of her children; to make sure that
their demands are satisfied.

As the role of the government changes, individual
behavior follows suit. Children begin to be raised
differently, and a disciplined environment gives way
to a permissive one. Such things as spanking or
disciplining a child become subject to censure, and
the result is a failure on the part of the child to
learn from his mistakes, to mature and grow up. This
move from a masculine idealism to a feminine
materialism leads inevitably to hedonism and
self-absorbed egoism. The young -- both male and
female -- put self-gratification as their most
important goal in life, and it is this urge to satisfy
the senses that economic man exploits and encourages.
In the case of the male, it is not the acquisition of
honor, glory or esteem that is encouraged; what is
touted as most important is indulging in whatever
happens to satisfy one physically and emotionally: if
it feels good, do it; if it's something that
discomforts you, avoid it. Honor, glory, and
self-control are not encouraged by economic man
because there is no money to be made from such things
in his world, and money, as a means to power, is what
counts for him.

As the merchant mentality dominates, and economic man
gains more and more power, the opposing ideology of
spiritual man is ridiculed, distorted, and
marginalized. Manliness, the sacredness of marriage,
the idealization and protection of inviolate
womanhood, the importance of religious belief, of
race, heritage, and tradition, and other such values
of spiritual man are scorned. Economic man realizes
that the systematic weakening of these inclinations
are in his best interest, because it is only in their
diminishment or demise that he will be able to keep
spiritual man at bay and maintain his own power.

It is therefore perfectly understandable that the crowning
achievements of spiritual man, Hellenism and
Christianity, should be considered the absolute
enemies of economic man. Hellenism and the glory that
was Greece must be removed from the curricula of our
schools; when it is allowed, it must be made to
reflect the lies and myths that are being hustled,
because the truth is too compelling, too magnetic, and
would serve to inspire a new way of thinking: would
serve to create a new kind of spiritual man. As far as
Christianity is concerned, one need only look at the
way it is portrayed by Hollywood and the television
industry nowadays to see the scorn, contempt, and fear
with which it is held by economic man in order to
understand how important an adversary, and how much of
a threat, he considers it to be to his power. It is
truly to be regretted that so many of today's church
leaders -- in their desire to be "mainstream" -- have
rejected the masculine Christianity of the past in
favor of the ultimately self-destructive feminine
Christianity so commonly seen today.

A few words about the severe damage being
caused by the feminization of the White man are in
order. Some examples will suffice, we think, to show
that even though a man may not be a homosexual, his
feminization can have dire consequences for the
society in which he lives.

A few years ago, some White employees of the Texaco
Corporation were turned in to management by a group of
their Black colleagues who'd been systematically
tape-recording their telephone conversations. During
these illegal invasions of privacy, the Whites used
the words "niggers," and "black jelly-beans." The
"Rev." Jesse Jackson saw in this another means by
which he could extort money from what he knew to be
the wimpy White management that typifies the heads of
American corporations these days, and this is exactly
what he proceeded to do. Jackson threatened a boycott
of Texaco, and, in the end, was able to grab
approximately 170 million dollars from the lily-white
management of the company who were too cowardly to
stand up to an action which, if tried by the average
citizen, would most likely land him in jail. It must
be emphasized that the use of such words --as
"honkey," "gringo," "dago," "spic," etc.-- though
offensive, are constitutionally protected by the first
amendment which guarantees free speech. But to the "go
along in order to get along," feminized, "captains of
like Texaco's "economic man" management
team, avoiding the possibility of a red bottom line on
the corporate balance sheet is more important than
standing up for the precious right -- bought with
blood, pain, and sacrifice -- of free speech.

During Mardi Gras in Seattle -- on so-called "Fat
earlier this year [2001] -- small groups of
Blacks viciously attacked individual White men and
women in an overwhelmingly White crowd. While the
Blacks punched young White women to the ground and
then kicked them senseless, and while they ripped the
clothes off other White women and pawed and probed
them, White men standing nearby just stared without
attempting to intervene. The victims were mostly
between 20 and 30 years old. They were chased, dragged
to the ground, punched severely, and kicked
mercilessly; some were sexually assaulted. Of course,
this incident wasn't reported on by the controlled
national media, but the event was witnessed by so many
people it could not be kept out of some of the local
papers. On March 12th, an article in the Seattle
Post-Intelligencer, described how White women were
being forcibly held down by gangs of Blacks while
effete White photographers took the pictures. "[T]here
are about 20 Black... hands on her body,"
wrote the
White reporter about one typical incident, without
feeling the least bit of shame for not acting to help
the victim. (Emphasis added.)

On the evening of December 14th of 2000, two Black
brothers, 20-year-old Jonathan Carr and 23-year-old
Reginald Carr, invaded a White home in Wichita, Kansas
and kidnapped the three White men and two White women
inside, all of whom were in their 20s. They then drove
them to a snow-covered soccer field outside of town
after forcing them to withdraw money from several ATM
machines. At the field, they raped the two women, then
told all five of the Whites to kneel in the snow and
shot them in the back of the head. After that, the two
Blacks returned to the victims' home, burglarized it,
and shot a pet dog they found there. One of the young
women did not die, however. After recovering
consciousness, she ran naked and bleeding to summon
police. The Blacks were arrested and, of course, the
national media clamped a total blackout on the story.
The local female district attorney repeatedly asserted
that "race was not a factor," and that the incidents
would not be treated as "hate crimes"; but the idiocy
of "Hate Crime" legislation is another matter for
another time. What is important here is to analyze the
behavior of the White victims. The degradation and
humiliation they suffered would have been resisted
most forcefully just a few decades ago. These animals
not only raped the two women, they forced all of the
Whites to put on a sex show for their amusement. They
made the White men engage in homosexual acts, the
women to have sex with each other and with the white
men before shooting them, and then ran over their
bodies with one of the vehicles they were driving. The
pistol used by the Blacks was an anemic .380 caliber
-- which does not have much stopping power. What
should be especially noted is that three able-bodied
White men let two blacks, armed only with a .380
caliber pistol, degrade their women and even took part
in the degradation. They then knelt obediently in the
snow and let themselves and their women be

Another example of the "demasculinization" of the
Western White male can be seen by anyone who visits
some of the many trendy vacation spots -- mostly in
the Caribbean -- frequented by sexually frustrated
White women, seeking to escape from the still
"straight" but flabby, limp-wristed, indecisive,
fearful and sensitive White males back home. Decades
ago, such scenarios had to do with the women from
upper-class social strata -- educated, sheltered, and
spoiled -- who would form liaisons with their White
chauffeurs, music teachers, gardeners, gamekeepers,
etc., ala Lady Chatterley's Lover. Nowadays, even
these once robust types have been "sensitized" to the
point where many can no longer satisfy the cravings of
a sexually normal woman. How many times have we heard
this complaint voiced by so many of today's young
women?: "It seems every man I meet is gay." They're
really not, of course, they're just "caring" and
"non-aggressive," and "tolerant": that is, feminized.
This has given a big boost to tourism in the Caribbean
and to other vacation spots considered by many White
women to be inhabited by men not tainted by the
castrating poison of politically correct, liberal
hate-mongering against White European males. (It
should be noted that Greece and the Greek islands get
a yearly influx of Scandinavian, English, and German
girls eager to be "hit-on" by the local "kamakia, " as

In a new book by Dial Press titled Privilege: the
Enigma of Sasha Bruce, the true story of a
blue-blooded heiress is told. She was the beautiful
and intelligent daughter of a diplomat and one-time
U.S. ambassador to France, W. Germany, and Britain.
Educated at the most exclusive and expensive schools,
she ended up being murdered at 29 by her last lover.
Prior to that, her fruitless search for a man who
would not only love her but also master her had led
her through an endless succession of Blacks, and just
about every form of degradation, humiliation, and
self-abasement at their hands imaginable; and her case
is not at all unusual. One of the more bizarre forms
this hunger to find a strong mate has taken in recent
years, is the growing migration of White women to the
jungles and shantytowns of Jamaica where they bed down
with the dreadlocked Blacks known as Rastafarians:
members of a White-hating, drug-using, Black sect. In
a recent issue of Der Spiegel, the German news
magazine, this phenomenon was written about in a
lengthy article: "When one travels along Jamaica's
north coast ... one is struck by the fascination the
daughters of White civilization have for the Black
sons of the wilderness .... One sees rows of female
eyes turn from the Jamaican sunset toward the locks of
an approaching 'dread' .... One experiences the sight
of a dozen blooming maidens following the lips of some
talking Rasta. One feels the irritation of the hotel
guests when a White girl with a Rasta shows up, she
bright and combed, he dark and ragged."
Not only
German girls, but Canadian and American, and others
have been drawn to such places as Jamaica. Some have
been murdered, raped, and robbed, but they keep going.
One woman interviewed by Der Spiegel was a 26-year-old
German university student -- and a feminist. After
seven semesters of Sociology, she left school and
headed west. looking for something. She found it in
the raw masculinity of the Rastas, "...who fought
violently over me."
The Rasta she is sleeping with is
full of rage against "White oppressors," and he
constantly berates her with tirades of his anti-White
hate. This, she says, has given her a different
perspective for her own race:
"I understand better
now, that although our race is totally deformed, it
could one day become just as wonderful
[as the Black
race] if it would only return to its original ways."
So that Black men
[having a strong consciousness of
their roots] are "simply more attractive [to me] than
White men."
(Emphasis added.)

And finally, let us remember that when Odysseus
returned to Ithaca and found his family, women, home,
and substance being wasted and defiled, he did not
concern himself with worrying about why the brutish
suitors were behaving so reprehensibly; he did not
seek to find justification for their insolence in some
real or imagined trauma they may have suffered in
their childhoods; he did not blame himself for being
richer or more powerful than they, and feel guilt
because he was the cause of their envy and resentment.
He simply made a plan, gathered his son and loyal
servants to his side, and massacred the bastards. What
has always been a source of wonderment about this
incident, was not that the suitors behaved as they did
-- there have always been and will always be such
people among us -- but that the rest of the population
of Ithaca stood by and allowed the despoilment of
their beloved King's family and property to go
unchallenged. But then again, isn't the same thing
happening today?. How many of us of White European
ancestry are making plans and gathering friends and
family in preparation for the day when we -- using all
the legal means still available to us -- " 'massacre'
the bastards" who are behind the planned destruction
of our Helleno-Christian world?

But let us turn our attention now away from the
feminized and back to the homosexual man. Such a
person, from the age of Homer -- if he were "gay" in
today's sense of the word --was called kinaithos (KIN
ay thos), which means "causer of shame" in both modern
and ancient Greek (aftós/aftí poú eíinai ó kinón tín
Aidó). The word has etymological connections to
"shame," "corruption," "disgrace" (Aidó/Aísxos), and
literally means "he who brings about the curse of Aídó
(a minor goddess who punished moral transgressors and
was a companion of the goddess, Nemesis). In Athens,
and most other Greek city-states, he would not be
allowed to take part in public affairs, and if he were
blatant in his behavior (that is, behavior such as
that characterized by homosexuals today), would be
disenfranchised, exiled, or executed by the state.

What must be kept in mind is that the ancient Greeks
were perpetually at war, either with foreign
(barbarian) or with Greek foes. War in those days was
brutal and final. There were no M.A.S.H. units just
behind the field of battle, ready to give life-saving
first-aid. No helicopters to take the wounded to
hospital. If one were captured, there were no Geneva
Conventions to ensure the proper treatment of
prisoners because there were no prisoners: All
combatants were slain, their women, children, and
non-combatants sold into slavery, taken as booty, or
slaughtered as well. Such war-like societies must,
perforce, develop a warrior code in order to survive.
This meant that there was a premium on manhood and all
that that word implied. Think of Achilles who, when
given the choice of a long life with no glory, chose a
short life with glory and honor instead. Think of
Sparta and her "wall of men," of Leonidas and his 300,
or of their Spartan mothers who said to their sons as
they left for war: "Either come back with your shield,
or on it."
Think of Socrates who chose to die rather
than bring dishonor upon himself by disobeying the
laws of his beloved city: a city he had fought for
with honor in many a battle. Think of Alexander the
Great at Opis, in Persia, and of his famous speech to
his men when he offered to strip in order to match his
wounds with theirs, all of which were on his chest and
none on his back. Such states could not afford the
luxury of the kind of weak, effeminate men we see all
around us today. The glory that was Greece was only
possible because strong men were willing to fight and
die so that their country could survive and their
philosophers and poets could flourish. Before there
could be a Parthenon there had to be a Marathon (Xoris
Marathones then ginounte Parthenones).

This concentration on the development of strong and
honorable men, upon whom the very life of the state
depended, ultimately resulted in the creation of an
aesthetical male ideal. (As opposed to the feminine
"Hollywood" ideal prevalent in the West today;
focusing, as it does, on sex, romance, and the female
form, instead.) And it naturally follows that, in such
a society, the manly virtues (aretes) would also be
the most prized. And since there were no military
academies to train young men in these virtues, this
important task was taken up by the older, experienced
males who grew to love their charges, just as these
young men grew to love and respect their elder
mentors. Such training also put a great deal of
emphasis on the importance of friendship, especially
in the need for a close companion or friend on the
battlefield. So important was this training considered
to be, that families unable to find a suitable
pedagogue for their son felt socially slighted and
disadvantaged. The aesthetical ideal of the male
mentioned above (similar in its essentials to the
idealized Christian feminine ideal, which inspires
male effort to a higher good) is delineated in
Plato's Symposium, where we are presented with the
mystical realization of Plato's famous Doctrine of the
Forms. Socrates, having been instructed in matters of
love by the priestess, Diotima, seeks to show that by
understanding "Eros" (love), we can learn to approach
the Forms, toward which our souls are oriented. This
is done initially by admiring a young man's body as a
thing of beauty. One continues this "aesthetical
by the admiration of all bodies, then on to
human institutions -- such as the state -- until,
finally, one can come to understand and love the
beauty not only of nature but of the Supreme Beauty of
God Himself: an evolutionary process that is
ultimately meant to purify one's soul, and free one
from the enslavement of the flesh.

In Xenophon's version of the Symposium (sometimes
titled, Banquet), Socrates expounds on the importance
of a love that transcends bodily desires. He tells one
of his fellow banqueters that: "My heart is set on
showing you ... that not only mankind but also gods
and demi-gods set a higher value on the friendship of
the spirit than on the enjoyment of the body. For in
all cases where Zeus became enamored of mortal women
for their beauty, though he united with them he
suffered them to remain mortal; but all those persons
whom he delighted in for their souls' sake he made
It is this love -- a love on a plane higher
than that of the merely physical -- that has come to
be known as "Platonic love" in all of the languages of
the world. And it is just this love that set the
standards of behavior that existed between teacher and
boy, as well as between adult friends in ancient

Though it never reached such lofty heights,
the admiration of the beauty of the male form was also
prevalent in the Roman world as evidenced by such as
St. Augustine of Hippo (arguably Christianity's most
heterosexual saint), who said that the body was
obviously created for more than mere utilitarian
purposes; it was also meant to be admired for its
beauty. As an example, he cites the beard which has no
functional purpose but was given to men to make them

So that we have the combination of the need in the
Greek world to develop strong, honorable, and
physically capable men, coupled with a male aesthetic
of the beautiful that was universally admired and
sought. Add to this the aforementioned custom of
putting the schooling of young boys in the manly arts
and virtues into the hands of older men, and one
begins to see that such a mix could be potentially
explosive. For this reason, although these friendships
were encouraged, there were -- according to many
sources such as Xenophon, Plutarch, Plato, and others
--tough restrictions imposed by custom and law. As an
example, an older man (Erastis) might take on the
training of a young boy (Eromenos), but under no
circumstances was intimate touching allowed. The
difference between homo-erotic friendships, and actual
homosexual practices (in the modern sense of what it
means to be "gay"), was clearly defined. The Greek
ideal was a non-physical, purely pedagogical,
relationship. That some, if not many, may have
strayed, cannot be denied, but what is important here
is to understand that those who did risked serious
legal penalties such as banishment or death, and that
such behavior was most emphatically discouraged and
forbidden by custom and law.

Proof of this can be found through an observation of
Greek vase paintings having the depiction of Erastis
and Eromenos as the subject. The strong ties between
the older man and the boy he is training are easily
seen. No close bodily contact is ever depicted,
however, and one notices that all of the prohibitions
regarding these relationships are being strictly
observed. Had overt homosexual behavior been
considered acceptable, it would most definitely have
been shown -- because the Greeks were prone to
"letting everything hang out" -- but this is hardly
ever the case. Those vase paintings that do depict
what might accurately be categorized as homosexual
scenes comprise such an insignificant percentage of
the total -- something like 30 out of tens of
thousands (cf A. Georgiades, Debunking the Myth of
Homosexuality in Ancient Greece. 2002. p. 126.), that
one is perfectly justified in wondering just what the
real purpose is that lies behind the extrapolation of
this minute percentage into the absurd charge that
they represent the norm. Moreover, a percentage of
these 30 or so could have been commissioned by
homosexuals, or even by "straight" customers who saw
them as a means of ridiculing behavior they disliked
or thought to be amusing. (It is important to note
that Greek vases were a major export item and have
been found from Russia to Gibraltar, as well as
throughout Northern and Western Europe. In the
province of Attica alone -- where Athens is located --
over 80,000 have been found to date.-- cf Georgiades.
p.127.) When one compares this small number to what we
see today on TV, in ads, books, magazines, the
cinema, etc., one can just imagine what future
generations will think of us.

That such behavior was the subject of ridicule can be
seen in the disapproval voiced by Socrates, for
instance, who, as Xenophon tells us in his
Memorobilia, when he found out that Critias loved
Euthydemus, tried to restrain him by saying that such
a thing was "mean," and that it was "unbecoming" of
Critias to ask of Euthydemus "... a favor that it
would be wrong to grant."
When Critias persisted,
Socrates berates him by saying that "Critias seems to
have the feelings of a pig
[that can't] help rubbing
[itself] against stones"( Emphasis added.). And it is
Xenophon as well who tells us in his Lacedaemonian
Constitution, that Lycurgus, the great Spartan
lawgiver, "... banned the [physical] connection
[between man and boy] as an abomination; and forbade
it no less than parents were forbidden from sexual
intercourse with their children and brothers and
sisters with each other."
Spartan life was harsh, and
boys from a certain age slept in barracks with other
boys as part of their training. This fact has given
much cause for sly and cunning conjecture, but upon
closer scrutiny the effects of this practice can most
accurately be compared to what Evelyn Waugh, the
English writer, said about the exclusive, all-boys
private schools of his time. He said that though there
may have been some homosexual activity, he did not
know of one single case where a graduate, of his
school for instance, did not go on to marry and raise
a family. The same can be said of the Spartans who
were expected to give strong children to their
country, and who, according to Plutarch, in his "Life
of Lycurgus,"
were severely dealt with if they

Concerning Sparta, Plutarch, in the "Sayings of
Spartan Women,"
to be found in his Moralia, relates
some pithy but informative anecdotes about these
extraordinary females. As one reads them, it is
extremely difficult to think of the men they are
talking about as being "gay," or effeminate in any
way. One of the most famous of these is the following:
A woman from Attica asked a Spartiatisa, "Why is it
that you Spartan women are the only women that lord it
over your men?"
The Spartan woman answered: "Because
we are the only women that are the mothers of [real]
It is worthy of note that what the woman from
Attica said, in effect, was that all Greek women were
under the complete control of their men, whereas the
Spartan woman answered, in effect, that even these
dominating Greek males were not "men" in comparison
with Spartans. Another, the wife of Leonidas, of
Thermopylae fame, asked her husband what she should do
[should he be killed]. He answered: "Marry a good man,
and bear good children."
First off, it is noteworthy
that she asked her husband what she should do, hardly
a likely possibility if he were an effeminate male,
and she, not he, were the master in the home.

Secondly, his chief concern is that she marry and bear
children; something a homosexual wouldn't give too
much of a damn about. Another has to do with a Spartan
girl who is the object of some very sissified advances
by a visiting foreigner. She pushes him away and says
deridingly: "Get away from me, you can't even 'come
on' to me like a man."
This tells us, since it is
perfectly logical to assume that the girl had never
left Sparta (travel outside of Lacedaemonia was not
something ordinarily done by anyone, male or female),
that in her prior experiences with the men of Sparta,
the advances they'd made were aggressive. Finally,
when a Spartan woman was asked if she had made
advances [before marriage] to her husband, she
answered: "No, but he made them to me." And speaking
of Spartan men, we mustn't forget that it was
Menelaus, the Spartan, who waged war upon the Trojans
in order to win back his wife, the beautiful Helen.
Whether she was the actual cause of the war is not the
issue here; what is important is that the idea of a
Spartan husband -- not to mention the whole of Greece
-- going to war for a woman had enough verisimilitude
about it to be considered the natural thing for any
husband to do. Had this story contained too much of
the fantastic, it would not have had the staying power
it has enjoyed down through the centuries.

From the time of Homer, in whose epic poetry there
cannot be found one iota of a hint of homosexual
behavior, to the time of Alexander the Great, such
practices as sodomy between adults -- or between an
adult and a boy -- were considered abominations, and
were strictly forbidden and severely punished. As for
Alexander, according to Plutarch in On The Fortune of
Alexander, when the Macedonian conqueror was asked by
the lickspittle governor of one of the conquered
provinces in Asia Minor, if he would like him to send
Alexander "...a youth, the like of whom for bloom and
beauty did not exist."
he received the following
reply: "Why you vilest of men, what deed of mine have
you witnessed in the past that would make you think I
would be interested in such pleasures?"
And speaking
of Homer, the friendship between Achilles and
Patroclus has been the subject of much snide innuendo.
This malicious and self-serving commentary always
seems to ignore the fact that the whole theme of the
Iliad -- Homer's great epic account of the Trojan War,
and Achilles' heroic exploits in it -- was the "Wrath
of Achilles."
And what was Achilles so worked up
(wrathful) about? Why, it was that Agamemnon, had
taken Achilles' slave girl away from him. When
Achilles and Patroclus came back to their tent after a
hard day on the field of battle, their two captured
slave girls -- taken as booty -- were waiting for
them. When they went to sleep, they slept with these
girls. The idea that the glorification of friendship
that the Greeks so admired could have been nothing
more than an excuse for sodomy, is as ridiculous as it
is despicable and unhistorical.

As far as the classical age is concerned, a reading of
Aristophanes' great comedies (as just one source among
many) should be enough to convince any reasonable
person that, when this great artist poked fun at the
perpetual battle between the sexes, he was accurately
reflecting the ethos of an overwhelmingly heterosexual
society. His play, Lysistrata, is the perfect case in
point. The premise of the play is that the
Peloponnesian War is destroying Athens, and the women
want it to end. They decide that the best way to get
their men to stop fighting is to refrain from having
sex with them, so they go on what might be called a
sex strike. It all makes for very funny reading, but
the point we wish to emphasize here is that the men go
crazy! After all kinds of very comical goings-on, the
men finally give up and agree to stop fighting if only
their women will come down from the Acropolis, where
they've barricaded themselves, and sleep in their own
beds again. If the ancient Greeks were "a bunch of
as that paradigm of civic virtue, the "Rev."
Al Sharpton, once remarked, why did they all go nuts?
Why were all of the males of Athens running around
with "three legs," as is so graphically and comically
depicted in the play?

It is important to note that throughout the entire
written history of Hellenism (and the same can be said
of Christianity as well), erotic love was universally
presented in terms of male and female: the bride and
the bridegroom. This is true of all of the scriptural
images we possess, just as it is true of about 99% of
Greek art and literature. When one looks over the
whole of Greek literature, poetry, and art, for
instance, one sees that when the subject of erotic
attachment comes up, it is always between a man and a
women: Odysseus and Penelope (whose relationship is a
near-perfect model of a mature marriage), Hector and
Andromache, Hippolytus and Phaedra, Aegisthus and
Clytemnestra. Even among the major gods like Ares and
Aphrodite, Zeus and Hera (and Zeus' behavior can be
best described as macho and heterosexual in the
extreme), on down to the minor gods, such as Peleus,
married to the goddess Thetis, and Heracles, who took
the mortal Deianira to wife, the list goes on and on.
And this model extends as well into the Hellenistic
age, with such lovers as Leander and Hero, and all of
the couples in the plays of Menander. The same pattern
holds true of Greek art running from the Minoan,
Mycenaean, Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic ages, a
span of over 2000 years. All through this enormous
length of time, the overwhelming majority of the
sculptures, figurines, wall paintings, mosaics, and
vase paintings (something like 99%), show males and
females when the subject is erotic love. By contrast,
America went from Christian Puritanism to "Gay and
Lesbian pride," "Heather has two Mommies,"
Frank in the U.S. Congress, and "Don't ask, don't
in the U.S. Armed Forces -- with all of the
attendant decadence these nihilistic constructs have
brought us -- in just over 200 years.

This pattern of strict adherence to God's Natural Law
held true in the political arena as well. There was
not one Greek political leader -- from Homeric to
Classical times -- that was known to be a homosexual.
Prominent men such as Odysseus, Diomedes, Agamemnon,
Menelaus, Nestor, Priam, Paris, and Hector of the
Trojan War; down to the classical period, with such
men as Pericles (who, after he divorced his wife,
lived with his mistress, Aspasia, until his death),
Aristides, Phocion, Themistocles, Miltiades, Nicias,
and others, too numerous to mention, were all, without
exception, married or involved in heterosexual
relationships with mistresses or Hetairai (roughly
equivalent to the Japanese Geisha). The same can be
said of the "mythological" heroes like Perseus,
Cecrops (who first instituted monogamy among men), and
Theseus (who was the first man to abduct Helen of Troy
when she was a girl); to such heroes as the Argonauts:
men like Jason, Orpheus, and Heracles; all of whom
were involved in (sometimes stormy) heterosexual love
affairs throughout their lives. The playwrights and
poets too -- Hesiod, Archilochus, Aeschylus,
Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, Menander, and
others, were all masculine, normal men as well. And
this is true of the philosophers whose lives we know
something about, such as Socrates (who married twice),
Aristotle, and Plato.

Though Plato never married, he had much to say on what
he felt was normal behavior between the sexes: Much
that would blow to pieces the devious and self-serving
assertions being put forward by our postmodern
"scholars," and "intellectuals" today. Here is a
sample: In his Laws he states quite categorically that
"... male does not touch male for this purpose, since
it is unnatural...."
And again, in the same work, he
tells us that "... when male unites with female for
procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due
to nature
(kata physin), but is contrary to nature
(para physin) when male mates with male or female with
female, and that those ... guilty of such enormities
[are] impelled by their slavery to pleasure." Plato's
views might even be termed puritanical by many today
for in his "Seventh Epistle" he tells us that "...if
one's existence is spent in gorging food twice a day
and never sleeping alone at night ...
[then] not a
single man of all who live beneath the heavens could
ever become wise."
And Plato, who has been called the
wisest man who ever lived, was certainly wise enough
to know that compulsive homosexuality leads inexorably
to the utter enslavement of, first, the individuals
who practice it, and second, the society in which it
is allowed to flourish. For, as the Emperor Julian
(the "Apostate") -- a scholar of the first rank who
was superbly schooled in Greek paideia -- so aptly put
it in his Sixth Oration: "Then never think, my friend,
that you are free while your belly rules you and the
part below the belly, since you will then have masters
who can either furnish you the means of pleasure or
deprive you of them."

So that what we see in ancient Greece is a devotion to
the male ideal, engendered by the need to create a
warrior class capable of defending home and hearth
effectively. This self-preserving ideal resulted in
the creation of strict codes of honor on the
battlefield, and in the elevation of friendship
between men carried to what may today be considered
the extreme. A similar situation occurred in the age
of the Samurai warrior in Japan. These men were the
embodiment of heroic virtue, and their idealization
led to the cult of the male in that country as well.
These manly virtues may provide plenty of material for
ridicule for the likes of Woody Allen (who gets lots
of laughs when he quips: "I'm way beyond 4-F; I'm
categorized as 'coward' by my draft board"
); and Bill
Clinton, who famously wrote that " I despise the
and actually demonstrated against his
country while American boys were dying in a war he was
illegally evading. One more thought on Clinton: It was
because those 1500 men on the Titanic had been raised
while Helleno-Christian influence was still strong,
that they were able to muster the courage and
determination to give up their lives so that their
women and children could live. There were, of course,
a few cowards who dressed as women in order to gain a
place on the lifeboats, and you can be sure that
"Slick Willie" would have been one of these. Yet, this
man --who would not have been allowed to hold the
office of "night-soil collector" in ancient Greece --
was elected the Commander-in-Chief of the American
armed forces! What does this tell you, dear reader,
about the state of "feminine democracy" in that

What does this say about the contempt in which the
dumbed-down and misinformed citizens of that
once-great land are held by those who control that
nation's media, and are therefore able to wield the
power necessary to have the
"lickspittle-of-their-choice" elected?

It may be reasonably argued that there was something
wrong with the culture that fostered these irregular
and illegal homo-erotic relationships between some
Greek males in the 6th, 5th, and 4th centuries. What
must be repeatedly emphasized, however, is that,
unlike in America (and more and more in Europe) today,
this activity was never legalized, never encouraged,
never lauded as being perfectly normal, never part of
the Greek educational curriculum, never depicted on
the stage as something trendy and "cool." No candidate
for public office, known to be a homosexual, could
ever, by the wildest stretch of the imagination, have
been elected; no openly homosexual person -- male or
female -- could have avoided death, banishment, or, at
the very least, severe public censure. The idea of
same-sex- marriage would have been incomprehensible
and repugnant beyond words to them; and the thought of
a group such as the North American Man Boy Love
Association (NAMBLA -- whose goal is "to end the
oppression of men and boys who have mutually
consensual relationships"
) forming in their community
would have thrown them into paroxysms of
uncontrollable rage.

The philosophers and priests of ancient Greece were
dedicated to the principle of never violating with
thought or deed that which has been given to man by
the gods. This principle was encapsulated in the
much-heralded phrase, Sozein ta phenomena; which
phrase we translate as follows: "Preserve the
The acorn may most certainly be observed,
commented upon, ridiculed or revered; but it must be
allowed to become an oak tree. The idea that within
the acorn there is a weeping willow struggling to
"come out" would have been met with the ridicule and
scorn such fuzzy-minded thinking deserves. This
thinking is today encouraged and promoted by a
malignant and elitist minority, hell-bent on bringing
Western Civilization -- given to the world by White
men and women of European ancestry -- to its knees so
that it can fill the power vacuum that will result.
Some have stated that such thinking is only possible
among academics and "intellectuals"; such a belief is
simplistic and unrealistic. A more likely reason for
the collaboration of such water-bucket-carriers for
the aforementioned elitist minority, is that these
people are simply the products of a society controlled
by the "economic men" previously described. If touting
homosexuality, feminism, multiculturalism, diversity,
etc., will enhance our careers, why let's do it , and
to hell with what damage will be done to future
generations. These are the Clintons, the Bushes, the
Albrights, the Kissingers, the Friedans, the Abzugs,
the Franks, the Simitis', the Karamanlis', the
Jacksons, the Sharptons, and the Blairs of the world.
For such creatures there is no salvation, no saving
grace: everything they do is anathema, corrosive, and
self-serving in the extreme. And their most feared
common enemy is the White male of European ancestry:
It is he who must be ridiculed, marginalized,
feminized, and ultimately destroyed before he awakens.

Those of us who wish to preserve what is left of our
culture must develop a zero-tolerance attitude towards
such people. The kind of "tolerance" demonstrated by
the "diversity"-promoting leftists who demonstrate
their love for diversity by shouting down speakers who
don't toe the party line. We risk losing our
identities, our culture, and our freedoms because we
seem to think it more important to be polite than to
engage in the kind of behavior that has proven so
rewarding for our ideological enemies.

No comments: