Sparta – XII

This specific chapter of Sparta and its Law has been moved: here.

If you want to read the book Sparta and its Law from the beginning, click: here.

Only Zeus saves

Statue-of-Zeus-at-Olympia

Can the white race be spared from extinction? If I was a billionaire, yes.

With billions I would reconstruct the temple of Zeus, probably in Greece or somewhere in Italy, or maybe in Germany since the ancient Greeks and Etruscans, as well as the original Latins and Sabines, were far more Nordish than the mongrelized whites you find closest to the Mediterranean Sea.

Just as the immigrant Jews in the 19th and 20th centuries misleadingly described themselves as “people of the Jewish faith” to the gentile Americans who accepted them, in these times of hate-speech laws throughout Europe building a movement under the umbrella of an ancient religion could grant us plausible denial that our purpose was not “racist,” but cultural.

Think a minute about it. You can only imagine the awe and wonder that a pagan temple as magnificent as St Peter’s Basilica, the legacy of Michelangelo Buonarroti, would cause in the deracinated eyes of contemporary westerners. Would it remind them of their lost heritage and true roots? As Manu Rodríguez told me in his letter:

In short, we need to create the Aryan community (ecclesia), which, for the above circumstances, we never had. The Aryan ecclesias need to thrive in our towns and cities. Our “priests” (for lack of a better word) are not experts in theology but in history, anthropology and Indo-European linguistics… They must be skilled in the various Indo-European traditions.

These days that I have been mentioning Rodríguez’s articles, the following phrase in the article I translated yesterday caught my attention:

We’ll have to start from the beginning. We have to ask ourselves who we are.

For those who have not read Pierce’s Who We Are, it’s high time to take a good look at it and see what would be taught in our temples.

If you already have read it but not any of Rodríguez’s articles, you may start with his article, “The God who Unleashes and Liberates.”

The God who unleashes and liberates

by Manu Rodríguez

You speak of the West, of the decline of the West, of the end of West… But it is the White West the only in danger of disappearing. The White West, the Aryan Nations: Europe and Magna Europe. Our West: our strength, our efforts, our work. Multiculturalism and immigration are causing the dissolution of our Nations. Our countries are filled of sub-Saharans, Asians and Africans (the most numerous), and of Chinese… In due time we will be a minority in our own lands.

Aryan Nation? We are not yet an Aryan Nation. We cannot constitute a “League” of Aryan Nations. We cannot come to our own defense. We are bound, and unarmed. First we have to free ourselves. For millennia we have been alienated peoples, alienated nations. The Jewish-Christian-Muslim and Semitic tradition dominates us completely. They are, ultimately, Semitic traditions instructing us and conforming us (or rather deforming and destroying us) since we are born—from the cradle to the grave.

We are not ourselves; we cannot speak out as long as we try to speak from that space: the Jewish-Christian-Muslim milieu. Within these traditions we are not ourselves, we disappear.

* * *

Christianity was for us a Horse of Troy, a poisoned gift, for us. It was the weapon used by the Jews to softly introduce their world into our minds and hearts and to assert their cause (they’re the “chosen” people); to undermine our confidence in ourselves and sow the doubt and bad conscience about our traditions; to dissolve our cultural identity, divide us, weaken us, deconstruct us. This was the strategy of Saul, the Apostle of the “gentiles.” Yes, it had its risks and disadvantages for themselves, but it was a worth try. They achieved their purposes. Ultimately, the Jewish tradition was imposed on our peoples.

trojan-horseWith the New Testament came also the Old Testament, the whole Jewish world—which ended up devouring us. The “good news,” the “gospel” was the “luminous” lure. Christianity is a Judaism for the gentiles: a half-Judaism, a decaffeinated Judaism, a castrated and castrating Judaism; an ideology for slaves, servants, and subordinates.

The anti-Judaism or criticism of the Jews in the gospels, or Saul, is a smokescreen. This is what managed to introduce the new Christian order in our European lands: a new and unique god, the god of the Jews; a new and unique sacred land, Israel, the land of the Jews; a new and unique sacred history, the Jewish scriptures (Jewish writings and Judeo-messianic—Christian—writings); a single sacred language (Hebrew); a single chosen people… And let us not forget that “salvation comes from the Jews” (in the New Testament). Meanwhile, our people, lands, histories, and identities were desacralized, desecrated, and banned (our ancestors, temples, sacred places, various traditions, books…).

The Christianization of our people ended up destroying our ancestral identities, our genuine signs of identity, our collective ancestral memory. It was a violent process of acculturation and enculturation. There we died—there our peoples were killed, or transformed into something else. There our alienation began, our alienated life, our alienated history.

After the several Christianizations our people ceased to exist. No more Greeks, Romans, Goths, Gauls, or Slavs: for these peoples no identity was left other that being Christians or not. The various not yet Christianized peoples of Europe were made to “disappear,” they were agglutinated and blurred out under the term pagan, which means rural or rustic. The term referred to Roman peasant cults, but also had connotations for the uneducated, the not cultivated or civilized. It was (and is) a derogatory term. Like the term goyim, also derogatory, applied to us by the Jews (or the kafir which would use the Muslims—the other Jewish offspring, the second spawn).

Incidentally, the holy book of the Jews (and Christians) is a real protocol of action regarding the Other, the goyim, the peoples, the gentiles: a strategy of domain by the Jews (and Christians) against the Other. It points out, for example, the technique of slandering and the undermining of the towns or cities’ morale, which destruction or conquest is intended; it’s about what they envy, lust after or fear: Egypt, Canaan, Jericho, the Philistines, Sodom, Babylon… Rome! (the whole West today). Furious anathemas they throw on them. See the picture they make about their populations, their customs (their decadence and everything else). It is libel and slander of the other people. The Muslims have in addition to this a supplementary text, the Koran. Both in the Old Testament and in the Koran literal and allegorical directions are prescribed to conquer, destroy, or simply how to treat the goyim or the kafir and the follow-up steps. They are “arts of war,” strategy manuals for every time and place. Such strategies of control are included in what is properly defined as “group evolutionary strategies” (MacDonald).

We, the Aryan peoples, the White West, lack such patently manifest “group evolutionary strategies” (the Semitic way). We are not, however, lacking of advice and warnings, wise judgments, illuminated books; wisdom. We also have our myths, legends, and wonderful stories, the old pre-Christian story which provides us with the weapons and strategies we need; our own language, our heroic and epic language. They belong to the time when we had group consciousness, when this feeling of belonging to a people was still alive (early Romans, Germans, Celts…); the story of threats, for example, that affects the group or the entire kingdom. Those are stories in allegorical or figurative language, and could be applied in appropriate circumstances.

The evolutionary strategy of Jews, Christians, and Muslims exists, therefore, in their sacred books. They do not need other “protocols” or roadmaps. Such sacred texts are naturally untouchable. The supremacist (megalomaniac) or cruel side implicit and explicit in these texts is usually explained away (because of their archaic and religious nature, they say). Moreover, these “holy” books are universally praised for their humanity and high morals. In certain circles they are considered no longer fashionable, innocuous, harmless.

There can be no greater confusion regarding this issue—no more self-deception. We cannot blame the enemy for his cunning. If their narratives are accepted (if we play their game) their supremacy and our submission are accepted as well. It’s that simple. And this is true for the Jewish, Christian or Muslim narratives. “I give eternal life if you leave everything you have (or you deny yourself) and follow me.” In this manner they present their claims. And so they depart, well equipped of bait, fishing and capture to see who bites, who falls. So they spend their days and survive. We cannot blame the cheater because we, or our ancestors, have fallen into their traps. In our power lies not to be tricked. It was us, the naive, the well-intentioned, the unwarned, confident and silly whites the only responsible for our clumsiness.

It must be said that in this Fall we lost our light and our freedom. That step was a mistake, a mistake that present and future generations must repair.

We were naive, stupid, indifferent, complicit, coward, venal. Everything happened in that Fall, that death, that oblivion. It is good to keep memory of this painful Fall. The cheater is not a thing of the past, he’s still among us.

* * *

Since the last century we have had a new batch of Jewish instigators (Adorno, Marcuse…) and, more recently, Muslim (Said, Rauf, Ramadan—Islam continues, since its inception, the strategy of the Jews and they even have improved it). Their drive is to criticize, censure, and undermine the economic, political, social, or cultural foundations of our contemporary world and at the same time advocate a multiracial and multicultural society in our lands. (With which right do these aliens propose any social model in our lands?) They bring both the disease and the remedy; they both diagnose and prescribe as the old Christians did (with their original sin, which affects all mankind and their restoring baptism) or the modern psychoanalysts (with their unhealthy complexes, more or less innate and universal, and their corresponding “analytic” cure): the machinations and artful trickery of the enemy. Today as yesterday. These misérables are again among us with impunity and with their venomous narratives staining, sickening our past and our present; conditioning, and endangering our future with their insidious socio-cultural proposals, their malicious social therapies (with renewed hooks).

The brand new testament that these new apostles of our gentility preach (newly reclaimed after the fall of the Ancient Regime) is a new attack adapted to the times, a new threat; a new prison, a new shame and a new exile they have prepared for us.

They are building for us a West (a home) that’s vague, diffuse, fuzzy; of open borders, tolerant, pluralistic; multiracial, multicultural, cosmopolitan. A utopia, they tell us, a paradise. They are building our ruin, our hell; they’re reducing our vital space; destroying us slowly, coldly, and systematically. In our own home, these guests.

It is a collective brainwashing what we suffer under these new narratives of “salvation”: narratives from our governments, media, and educational institutions. They have managed to capture the attention and sympathy from the population (the “good” ones, the well-intentioned Left). There are also the miserable converts (the convinced, the deceived, the confused, the unconscious traitors). Both become part of the ranks of the enemy in war against their own race, their own people, and their own cultural traditions: damaging, doing wrong, hurting their own. These rouges know well where to cast the nets. Now as then.

It is a multiple and highly dangerous attack what we suffer today—demographic and ideological. Those are the last battles of a cold war that will soon become hot and which purpose is none other than ending the ancestral, cultural and racial homogeneity of our States, nations or peoples. Undermine our continent, our ancient and millenarian human geography. Destroy us racially and culturally, turning us into a minority in this land of ours, in the land of our ancestors. It is the perfect revenge, the consummate revenge. Finally dispossessed of our lands and our skies we will have no other skies than the Semitic; we will lose everything.

We are disadvantaged before this offensive. Feet and hands bound; morally disarmed, with borrowed, alien, enemy language. The Christian or pseudo-Christian language that is imposed on us (all men are equal, universal human rights, you must tolerate and suffer, love the enemy…) invalidates us, paralyzes us, mutes us, stops us. With this language we shall never defeat our enemies, those who seek our evil. It is a language forged and still shaped for us by the enemies of our being, the “moral” weapon that they leave us to disarm us absolutely. It is the art of transforming wolves and bears into kids and lambs, the poisoned gifts of the enemy.

We cannot reproach the enemy for his strategy or will to power. He does what he can. I would only say that our strategy and our will to power, our light and our will of future must far exceed that of the enemy. Liberate us, recover us, purge us. Get rid of ’em all! Sweat them like a bad fever! Expel them!, throw them out of us; from our lands, our lives. Purify us. Deliver us from our evil! Heal.

It will not be so much an exit, an exodus, as an expulsion: a purification.

* * *

Zeus is the god father of our peoples, Zeus / Dyaus. All Aryan peoples call upon him. Zeus is the god of our genius. It is a diurnal, bright, solar god. We love the clarity, truth, justice, wisdom.

We also love drunkenness, divine intoxication: what brings joy. Zeus / Dyaus is our Soma, our Dionysus, our Balder, our Lugh. We owe him the clarity without shadow, the vigor, and the enthusiasm.

We are a people in motion, never still, never stopped. Always forward, always in progress, advancing, going. Behind we have many stories, many rebirths, many auroras. We are a people that are reborn.

We are also a people with memory, a people that does not forget the past, the former transformations since the Paleolithic to the present day: a people with a memory connected to all of our past lives. The people with the longer memory are the people with the longest future.

That memory is received as a holy gift. It is the memory of my people, of all the avatars, of all time. It is the heavens of my people; the spiritual, symbolic heritage of the Aryans. Only my people have the right and the privilege to receive this legacy. No other has the right to our history, our memory, or our heaven.

Europa Aryana. The mother earth of the European Aryans, the metropolis; our sacred land. The land of our ancestors and the spirit, the genius of our ancestors. This we must protect and bequeath for the future.

The present and future generations of Aryans have a serious responsibility. This is the harshest hand we have been dealt, the most needed for the minds of us all. In this trance either everyone is saved or none. We must reconstitute the Tree in its fullness. We cannot let down any of our peoples in the hands of the Semites (Jews, Christians or Muslims). All of us have to leave this night, this death, this abyss where we have been detained for hundreds of years.

My friend: in combat light and freedom meet. I wish you clarity, vigor, and enthusiasm. May the god who unleashes and liberates be with us all.

On classic pederasty

This article has been edited in September 2017.
For a longer version of this article see: here

 
Julian Jaynes argued in The Breakdown of The Bicameral Mind that Homeric Greeks were, psychologically, vastly different from historical Greeks. Semitic cultures were even more different. In the online edition of my Day of Wrath I refrained to reproduce this image for the simple reason that it would have meant retro-projection.

In the image we see women, presumably the mothers, trying to rescue their children from a propitiatory child sacrifice to Moloch Baal. The disturbing truth is that, in real life, the parents themselves handed over their crying children to the assistants of the priest, hence the inflammatory sentence with which I ended one of my books (“In the final book of this work I’ll go back to my autobiography, and we shall see if after such grim findings mankind has the right to exist”).

In Hollywood such sort of retroprojections are ubiquitous in movies about the historical past. For instance, Australia, a pro-aboriginals film set before the Second World War, had an upset Nicole Kidman telling another white person, “No mother would leave her child!” when in real life, as recounted in Day of Wrath, quite a few Australian abbos not only abandoned some of their babies, but killed and ate them (for scholarly references supporting this claim see Day of Wrath).
 
Psycho-classes

By “retroprojection” I mean projecting one’s own morals and frame of mind onto the Radical Other, insofar as most people are unaware of the existence of “psychoclasses.”

Westerners, and incredibly, child abuse researchers included, have not awakened to the fact that there have been very dissimilar psychoclasses or ways of childrearing in the world; and that this has had enormous implications for the mental health of a people, primitive or modern. For example, in my Day of Wrath I said that Rhea hid Zeus and presented a stone wrapped in strips, which Cronus took as a swaddled baby and ate it. Cronus represents the pre-Homeric Greeks, the archaic Hellas. After the breakdown of the bicameral, or schizoid mind, historical Greeks considered barbarous the practice of child sacrifice, symbolized in Zeus’ successful rebellion against his filicidal father. Though they still practiced the exposure of unwanted babies, the historical Greeks at least stopped sacrificing them in horrible ways: a practice that their neighbors continued. Nonetheless, if films on both Homeric and post-Homeric Greeks were historically accurate, the exposure of babies, which was practiced even in Roman times, would be visually depicted.

Recently I saw two films that I had not watched for a long time. In the 1959 Hollywood interpretation of Ben-Hur starring Charlton Heston, Tiberius’ Rome and Jerusalem are idealized far beyond what those cities looked like in the times of Jesus. Think of how, to impress the audience with the grandeur of the Roman circus in a Hollywoodesque Palestine, for the chariot race sequence the director made it look as large as Constantinople’s circus! Conversely, in Fellini’s 1969 Satyricon, freely based on Petronius’ classic, the Roman Empire is oneirically caricaturized to the point that the film’s extreme grotesqueries bear no visual relationship whatsoever to the empire of historical time. Both extreme idealization and oneiric caricature constitute artistic ways to understand the soul of Rome. One may think that an Aristotelian golden mean may lie somewhere between Ben-Hur and Fellini-Satyricon, but not even in HBO’s Rome, a purportedly realistic TV series that claimed paying more attention to historical women, dared to show that such women abandoned their babies who died on the hills, roads and the next day were found under the frozen streets: a custom approved even by Plato and Aristotle.

Growing in a “late infanticidal” culture, to use Lloyd deMause’s term, makes members of that psychoclass greatly different compared to our modern western psychoclass. (One could easily imagine what a shock for the modern mind would represent the spectacle of white babies dying on the streets of Vermont, Bonn or Florence with nobody bothering to rescue them.) So different that I believe that the hostile takeover I do of deMause’s Psychohistory to deliver it to the nationalist community will revolutionize the understanding of history once it is properly digested and understood.

In my Day of Wrath I quoted psychohistorian Henry Ebel (no ellipsis added between unquoted sentences):

DeMause’s argument had a breathtaking sweep and grandeur such as we associate with the work of Hegel, Darwin and Marx. Moreover, it seemed to be a valid response and interpretation of a series of gruesome facts that had been consistently understated or suppressed by conventional historians. “The Evolution of Childhood” has proved a morsel too large, too complete, too assertive, and in many ways too grim for the historical profession to digest. Since adult styles and roles, including the academic and professional, are mainly denial-systems erected against those early needs and terrors, the academic consideration of deMause’s argument has been, understandably enough, of less than earthshaking intelligence.

Once we integrate Psychohistory to our view of history, it is easy to notice that when Greg Johnson talks of Greco-Roman homosexuality he does it retroprojectively, as if it was similar to the mores of today’s world: consenting sex between adults. But if Jaynes and deMause are right, the peoples of the classical world inhabited an altogether distinct psychic universe, especially before Solon. So different that sometimes I even wonder if Francis Parker Yockey has a valid point when he wrote that the Italian Renaissance is sold as a link between two cultures that, according to him, have nothing in common.
 
The real Greco-Roman homosexuality: pederasty

A splendid example of such discontinuity is what André Gide called normal pederasty, the ancients’ infatuation for adolescents. Keep in mind that Gide did not condemn such customs. On the contrary, he considered his Corydon, published in 1924 and which received widespread condemnation, his most important work. However, since I can only understand the geist of a culture through the visual arts, before quoting Gide let me convey visually what “homo”-sexuality signified for the classical world through a couple of scenes of the Italian movie Satyricon (YouTube clip: here).

Cinematic experiences aside, what are scholars saying about what I call pseudo-homosexuality: pederasty (which must never be confused with pedophilia)? In the introduction to On Homosexuality: Lysis, Phaedrus, and Symposium, published by Prometheus Books, Eugene O’Connor wrote (again, no ellipsis added):

Benjamin Jowett’s introduction to his translation of Plato’s Symposium expresses prevalent Victorian, Edwardian, and even later attitudes, particularly in England and America, toward Greek homosexuality. Some excerpts from the introduction will illustrate this “clash of cultures.” Since Jowett’s day much has been done to counter and correct this willful distortion of ancient sexuality. We may now consult, for example, the more sober appraisals of K.J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality (1978), and Saara Lilja, Homosexuality in Republican and Augustan Rome (1983) to help us redress the oversights of earlier scholarship.

The composition of [Plato’s] Symposium owes much to the Greek tradition of “banquet literature,” often a collection of informal discussions (in prose or verse) on various topics, including the power of love and the delights of young men and boys. Indeed, a whole body of homoerotic literature grew up around the themes of male beauty and how one ought to woo and win a boy.

The customary social pattern was this: a boy in his teens or, at any rate, a younger man (called an eromenos, or “beloved”) was sought out by an older male (called an erastes or “lover”), who might be already married. Women in classical Athens were kept in virtual seclusion from everyone but their immediate families and their domestic activities were relegated to certain “female” parts of the house. As a consequence, boys and young men—partly by virtue of their being seen, whether in the gymnasium, in the streets, or at a sacrifice (as in the Lysis)—became natural love-objects.

Strict rules of conduct bound both parties: adult males could face prosecution for seducing free-born youths, while Athenian boys and young men could be censured for soliciting sexual favors for money. That would make them in effect equal to courtesans, who were hired companions and lacked citizen status.

This erastes-eromenos (lover-beloved) relationship, although it was sexual and in many ways comparable to typical, male-female relations, with the man assuming the dominant role, was meant ideally to be an educative one. The older man instilled in the younger—in essence, “made him pregnant with”—a respect for the requisite masculine virtues of courage and honor.

Socrates in the Phaedrus describes how the soul of the pederast (literally, “a lover of youths”) who is blessed with philosophy will grow wings after a certain cycle of reincarnations. In recent centuries, the word “pederast” has come to be viewed with opprobrium, fit only to describe child molesters. But in ancient Greece the word carried no such negative connotation, and was employed in a very different context.

Surrounded as he often was by the brightest young men of Athens, Socrates jokingly compared himself, in Xenophon’s Symposium, to a pander or procurer. These are witty, humorous characterizations of Socrates to be sure; yet, in the end, Socrates was the best erastes of all; the loving adult male teacher who sought to lead his aristocratic eromenoi (male beloveds) on the road to virtue.

I have read Xenophon’s Symposium and on chapter VIII it does look like Socrates and others had intense crushes with the eromenoi.

In his Corydon Gide shares the Platonic view that what he calls “normal pederasty” (to distinguish it from child molestation) is a propitious state of the mind to shed light on truth and beauty. In the last pages of his slim book Gide concludes: “I believe that such a lover will jealously watch over him, protect him, and himself exalted, purified by this love, will guide him toward those radiant heights which are not reached without love.” In the very final page Gide adds that “From thirteen to twenty-two (to take the age suggested by La Bruyere) is for the Greeks the age of loving friendship, of shared exaltation, of the noblest emulation,” and that only after this age the youth “wants to be a man”: marrying a woman.

But not only I need visuals to properly understand a culture. Narrative is fundamental too as a way to get into the unfathomed deeps of a bygone world. Below, a tale recounted by an old poet, Eumolpus in the first long novel that Western literature knows, Petronius’ Satyricon:

I relocated the hilarious, though rather long, quotation of the Satyricon as an isolated quote in another of my blogs: here

However, the erastes-eromenos relationship was not always as hilariously picaresque as Petronius depicts it. In my previous response to Johnson, when I added the image of a terracotta statuette of Zeus carrying off Ganymede, I included no references. Here I’ll add a couple of them. In the academic work that O’Connor mentioned above, Greek Homosexuality, K.J. Dover writes:

Ephoros, writing in the mid-fourth century, gives a remarkable account (F149) of ritualised homosexual rape in Crete. The erastes gave notice of his intention, and the family and friends of the eromenos did not attempt to hide the boy away, for that would have been admission that he was not worthy of the honour offered him by the erastes. If they believed that the erastes was unworthy, they prevented the rape by force; otherwise they put a good-humoured and half-hearted resistance, which ended with the erastes carrying off the eromenos to a hide-out for two months.

At the end of that period the two of them returned to the city (the eromenos was known, during the relationship, as parastatheis, ‘posted beside…’ or ‘brought over to the side of…’) and the erastes gave the eromenos expensive presents, including clothing which would thereafter testify to the achievement of the eromenos in being chosen; he was kleinos, ‘celebrated’, thanks to his philetor, ‘lover’. [p. 189]

John Boswell, a homosexual professor at YaleUniversity who died at forty-seven of complications from AIDS, specialized in the relationship between homosexuality and Christianity. For this reason alone it is interesting to compare his claims with James O’Meara’s on exactly the same subject. Boswell abstains to mention the word “rape” which Dover unabashedly used in his treatise published by Harvard University. But in Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe Boswell describes in less academic, and more colorful language, the legal arrangements regarding such abductions:

Apart from the abduction aspect, this practice has all the elements of European marriage tradition: witness, gifts, religious sacrifice, a public banquet, a chalice, a ritual change of clothing for one partner, a change of status for both, even a honeymoon.

The abduction is less remarkable, by the standards of the times, that it seems. The ruler of the gods, Zeus, mandated a permanent relationship with a beautiful Trojan prince, Ganymede, after abducting him and carrying him off to heaven; they were the most famous same-sex couple of the ancient world, familiar to all its educated residents. Zeus even gave Ganymede’s father a gift—the equivalent of a dower or “morning gift”. The inhabitants of Chalcis honored what they believed to be the very spot of Ganymede’s abduction, called Harpagion (“Place of Abduction”). Moreover, as late as Boccaccio (Decameron, Day 5, Tale 1) an abduction marriage that takes place seems to find its most natural home in Crete.

Heterosexual abduction marriage was also extremely common in the ancient world—especially in the neighboring state of Sparta, with which Crete shared its constitution and much of its social organization, where it was the normal mode of heterosexual marriage. It remained frequent well into modern times, and even under Christian influence men who abducted women were often only constrained to marry them, and not punished in any other way. In a society where women were regarded as property and their sexuality their major asset, by the time an abducted woman was returned most of her value was gone, and the more public attention was focused on the matter the less likely it was she would ever find a husband. And in a moral universe where the abduction of Helen (and of the Sabine women) provided the foundation myths of the greatest contemporary political entities, such an act was as likely to seem heroic as disreputable. The Erotic Discourses attributed to Plutarch begin with stories of abduction for love, both heterosexual and homosexual. [pp. 91-93]

This last sentence about the foundation myths of both the ancient Hellas and Rome is absolutely central to understand their moral universe. However, Boswell omits to say that Zeus would be considered a bisexual god with strong heterosexual preferences—Hera and many other consorts—according to current standards, in no way a “gay” god.

Furthermore, unlike the same-sex unions of today, the erastes-eromenos relationship wasn’t meant to be permanent. The continuance of an erotic relationship was disapproved. In dramatic contrast to contemporary “gay marriages” and the myth promulgated by James O’Meara at Counter-Currents, romantic relationships between adult coevals were disrespected. In fact, the former eromenos might well become an erastes himself with a younger youth when he got older. Boswell, who strove to use classic scholarship to support the so-called “gay marriage” of our times, overstates his case in other passages of Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. What struck me the most of his study was that on page 66 he misled the readers by claiming that the Satyricon protagonists, Encolpius and Gitone, are simply a same-sex couple. I have read a couple of translations of the Satyricon and it is all too clear that Boswell omitted two fundamental facts: Gitone’s age, an underage teen for today’s standards, and another lover of Gitone, Ascyltus (who also appears in my embedded YouTube clip way above).
 
Discussion

Classic pederasty did not resemble what currently is called the “gay movement,” let alone O’Meara’s preposterous claim that homosexuals have represented a sort of Western elite, in some ways superior to the bourgeoisie of the Christian world. The causes of pederasty are to be found not only in what O’Connor said above: women being kept in seclusion and men transferring their affections to younger boys. More serious was something that neither O’Connor nor Dover or Boswell dared to say: Infanticidal Greece and Rome produced a surplus of males as a result of the exposure of babies, especially baby girls. As I said in my Day of Wrath, it was not until 374 AD that the emperor Valentinian I, a Christian, mandated to rear all children. What apologists of homosexuality fail to understand is that that was a psychoclass distinct from our own, since for modern westerners it is unthinkable to expose baby girls.

In a nutshell, the Greco-Roman erastes-eromenos institution was not “gay” in the modern sense of the word.

The fall of Rome

“But the advances made by Jewish theology were more dangerous than the disorder of the streets and the robber.”

—Theodor Mommsen, in Provinces of the
Roman Empire, from Caesar to Diocletian


1.

Constantine the Great, also Saint Constantine (Emperor from 306 to 337 C.E.) has been described as a monster even for the standards of the ancient world. Catholic historian Paul Johnson wrote about him: “Constantine had no respect for human life, and as emperor he executed his eldest son, his own second wife, his favorite sister’s husband.”

The Roman Emperor inaugurated the Christianization of public life. He sanctioned with death penalty, instead of the traditional exile, those who published anonymous libels. His dispositions for death penalty were extremely severe, and I would like to know if it is true what I have read in a book: that under Constantine tortures such as pouring molten lead into the mouths of some women who had violated certain laws accompanied death penalty.

In 330 Constantine condemned the Neoplatonic School. Sopater of Apamea, a distinguished Neoplatonist philosopher was one of many who were put to death by Constantine.

Under Constantine’s reign pagans were referred to as “foolish,” “people without morals,” and their religion “a hotbed of discord,” “a fatal error,” “empire of darkness,” and “madness that has ruined whole nations.” However, while Julian said that Constantine was a “destroyer of ancient and venerable constitutions,” throughout the centuries Constantine has been much praised by Christian apologists.

Constantine was the first Roman Emperor who ordered the destruction of the intellectual work of Porphyry, the best mind of his age, whose work I briefly discussed in a recent entry. During his campaign of looting of the sculptures and shrines, Constantine did not even respect the famous tripods for the pythia of the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi. The historian Kornemann notes that this was “a larceny of works of art never seen in Greece before.”

After Constantine’s death, his sons Constans and Constantius shared the empire of their father for some time, and only aggravated the all-out, state-sponsored assault on the Hellenic culture.

Under Constans the first destructions, not only loots, of the temples themselves were perpetrated, albeit sporadically. Under Constantius, who appears well described in Gore Vidal’s novel, the most fanatic Christians attacked the altars and temples. The deacon Cyril of Heliopolis, for example, became famous with his actions. The Arethusa in Syria, the priest Marco demolished an ancient shrine. At Caesarea in Cappadocia, the Christian community razed a temple of Zeus, the patron of the city, and another of Apollo.

Under the reigns of both Constantius and Constans, Firmicus Maternus preached the looting: “Out of all pagan temples ornaments! The mint and the crucible with the metal of the idolatrous statues, melt them in the heat of the flames!” In one of his pamphlets Firmicus incited extermination of the pagan cults, including those of Dionysus-Bacchus and Aphrodite.

But most of the temples of the classical world were still upright. The Christian agitator declaimed: “Take away without fear the ornaments of the temples! Melt the figures of gods and coin your money! The Lord has called to the task of annihilate all temples!” Always invoking the god of the Jews, this Sicilian lawyer from upper nobility claimed being an heir of biblical hecatombs as no Christian had done before.

In a subsequent post we shall see what happened to our civilization after this war of cultural extermination inspired by the cult that repudiated the Greco-Roman Gods, and adored instead the zealous, “no other gods before me” god of the Jews.

(Source: Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums, Vol. I, 1986, by Karlheinz Deschner)

2.

“In discussing Barbarism and Christianity I have actually been discussing the Fall of Rome.”

—Edward Gibbon

All Roman emperors after Julian would be Christians. Theodosius “the Great” and the subsequent emperors only completed the destruction of the Greco-Roman spirit that had started with Constantine and his sons. Not only the magnificent temples of worship of antiquity were destroyed almost everywhere, irreplaceable buildings of artistic value that transmitted like nothing else the soul of Hellenic culture, but even until the tenth century the fanatical worshipers of the god of the Jews continued smashing the statues that depicted the divinity of Man like no other art before.

But the most tremendous destruction occurred in the field of education. From the time of St. Paul at Ephesus, church censorship was devoted to the burning of books. After Julian the flourishing book trade disappeared in antiquity, whilst the activity of the monasteries was purely receptive. In the universities the hypertrophy of Aristotelianism aborted any possibility of independent research. In the Middle Ages what I call “real history” was completely unknown, and the sciences were drowned.

With this knowledge I venture to answer a question that has perplexed historians since the Enlightenment: What caused the fall of Rome?

German professor Alexander Demandt published a collection of two hundred theories on why Rome fell. Everything has been postulated—from lead poisoning and environmental degradation to Toynbee and many others’ diverse economic explanations—except the most obvious explanation. The simple truth is that the spirit of an alien, Semitic god undermined the soul of Classical Antiquity. After all, Gibbon himself assigned a major portion of the responsibility for the loss of civic virtue in Rome, and the ensuing decay of the Roman Empire, to the influence of Christianity. I would go further and claim that those unfamiliar with this work, which remains a literary landmark, lack the framework to understand why the Jew-god worshipers and their secular offspring are responsible for the ongoing Fall of the West. (Yes: I am blaming the Christians and the secular Christians who tolerate the Jews far more than I blame the Jews themselves.)

It is true that Rome’s eastern half survived almost a thousand years, until the Muslim conquests. But it was already a thoroughly petrogenic culture under the Medusan spell of Christian dogma. In fact, with its mongrelized citizens the population looked very different from the Latin Rome of the Republic.

3.

“The Skin of our Teeth” was the very first chapter of Kenneth Clark’s 1969 Civilisation. About the loss of historical consciousness, in the first chapter of Civilisation, Clark said:

Civilized man, or so it seems to me, must feel that he belongs somewhere in space and time; that he consciously looks forward and looks back. And for this purpose it is a great convenience to be able to read and write.

For over five hundred years this achievement was rare in Western Europe. It is a shock to realise that during all this time practically no lay person, from kings and emperors downwards, could read or write.

St. Gregory, who looks so intensely devoted to scholarship on a tenth century ivory, is credited with having destroyed many volumes of classical literature, even whole libraries, lest they seduced men’s minds away from the study of holy writ. And in this he was certainly not alone. What with prejudice and destruction, it’s surprising that the literature of pre-Christian antiquity was preserved at all. And in fact it only just squeaked through. In so far as we are the heirs of Greece and Rome, we got through by the skin of our teeth.

(Page 17 of the printed, Harper & Row book.)

Greg Johnson on homosexuality

In the recent, colorful thread of the article “Fuck Christianity!” in this blog, I expressed pretty heavy criticism about non-closet homosexuals in the white nationalist movement: those who unabashedly and aggressively boast their transvestite-like lifestyles to the general public. Today, Greg Johnson published an apologia of homosexuality at Counter-Currentsin French!

My essay-reply will appear in a subsequent entry. For the moment let’s just reproduce the article in English, originally published at VNN in 2002 under the pseudonym of F.C.I. Clarke:





Achilles tending Patroclus’ wounds from a red-figure kylix by the Sosias Painter from about 500 B.C. in the Staatliche museum in Berlin [image chosen by Johnson].





Homosexuality and White Nationalism: Two Arguments for Tolerance

I must protest Andrew Westphal’s “Homosexuality Ain’t Cool” and other examples of queer-bashing on VNN. I have two arguments for why this is misguided and for why tolerance is a good thing for the White Nationalist movement.


First, homosexuality is beside the point.

Because of the distorting lens of the Jewish media, it is easy to think that all homosexuals are promoters of the Jewish agenda. And leftist gays really are repulsive. So it is tempting to make disparaging comments about them just because it is so politically incorrect and because it pisses off the right people. But this is a serious tactical mistake.

White Nationalism should be a one-issue political outlook. White Nationalism is for the interests of Whites and against the interests of our racial enemies. Period. Anything else is beside the point. That means that White Nationalists must work to unite all Whites into a self-conscious racial community, rallying around our common racial interests. White Nationalism has only one message for homosexuals: White homosexuals have more important interests in common with other Whites than they do with non-White homosexuals. We have to resist falling for any form of the divide and conquer strategy used by our enemies to destroy our solidarity as a prelude to destroying our race. Battles between gays and straights, men and women, pagans and Christians, Nordics and Mediterraneans, Celts and WASPs, Germans and Slavs, etc. have no place in the White Nationalist movement. These will always be used by our enemies to divide and subvert us.

Intolerance of homosexuality does not just divide the White population, it divides the White Nationalist movement. Ernst Röhm was not the last homosexual to be attracted to White Nationalism. I have met a number of homosexuals in the contemporary White Nationalist movement, and I have my suspicions about a few others. All of these people, however, are intelligent and accomplished. They are real assets to the movement. Those without families are freer to speak their minds because they give fewer hostages to fortune. They also have more free time and more disposable income to devote to the cause. Quite a number of homosexual men do not fit the effeminate stereotype. They are masculine, and appreciate masculine things like facts, logic, and forthright action. And even effeminate gay men can make a real contribution. Pim Fortuyn was ideologically a mixed-bag, but he had the potential to move the Netherlands significantly to the Right, and his fruity persona only helped his cause. The media found it difficult to paint a flamboyant old fop who fussed over floral arrangements and doted over his lapdogs as the next Hitler.

A unified White Nationalist movement does not require that all the different White Nationalist subgroups follow the same strategy. That would be counter-productive. The more different strategies pursued, the more chance that someone will hit on a winner. It does not require that all groups co-operate with one another either. It does not require that they like one another. It does not require that gays and straights share pup tents and take showers together. The minimum requirement for White unity is simply this: We all must focus our energies on pursuing our common goal by whatever path we choose, and we must resist wasting our time and energy on squabbles that divide us.


Second, intolerance of homosexuality is Jewish.

Westphal is apparently a Christian. If you ask Christians why they think homosexuality is a sin, they cannot point to any saying of Jesus. Jesus saw fit to condemn divorce but not sodomy. Christians have to turn to the Old Testament, to the record of the Jews and their wanderings, crimes, superstitions, and hatreds. There we find homosexuality condemned as a capital crime. Why? The whole aim of the Jewish law is to set Jews apart from the rest of humanity. The Jews condemned buggery because they and all their neighbors were engaging in it. Homosexual pedophilia, which still remains a taboo in our culture, was widely practiced by the ancient Aryan peoples of the Mediterranean world. The Persians, Greeks, and Romans all practiced it, including some of the manliest men in history and legend, like Achilles and Alexander the Great.

Technically, the Greeks and others were not pedophiles, who pursue children, for they focused their attention on young men who were well past puberty and ready to begin military training. The ancients regarded homosexual relationships as completely consistent with marriage and family life, and they frowned upon men who formed exclusively homosexual relationships. Homosexual relationships were also bound by a host of rules and taboos. There was nothing of the modern amoral free-for-all. But there is no question that homosexual behavior was not only tolerated by ancient Aryan peoples, it was considered normal, in some cases even ideal. It was ascribed to the gods (Zeus and Ganymede) and lauded by poets, philosophers, and historians. It is hard to maintain hateful Jewish attitudes toward homosexuality if one really understands and appreciates the greatness of classical pagan civilization.

As poisonous as the Old Testament’s moral condemnation of homosexuality may be, it is based on a realistic conception of human nature. Judeo-Christianity condemns homosexuality as a sin. A sin is a matter of choice. And nobody is immune to sin. If a heterosexual is a person who is immune to homosexual attractions, then the Judeo-Christian viewpoint implies that there is no such thing as a heterosexual. If a homosexual is a person who cannot help but be attracted to people of the same sex and has no choice in the matter, then the Judeo-Christian viewpoint implies that there is no such thing as a homosexual either. There are just people, all of whom have the capacity to be tempted by homosexual attractions and to choose heterosexual attractions. Thus there is no room for moral self-righteousness.

Matters became worse in the late Nineteenth-Century, when psychologists — some but not all of them Jews — created a new paradigm for understanding sexuality. There were no longer homosexual and heterosexual desires, which can be found in all people and can be controlled by our faculty of choice. There were now homosexual and heterosexual people, and what made a person one or the other was generally thought to lie outside of our choice and control. One’s sexual proclivities suddenly became a whole “lifestyle,” a whole “identity,” giving sex an inflated importance in the scheme of things. It was not long before Freud started speculating that the whole soul can be understood in terms of sexuality. This new and false conception of sexuality has caused immense suffering and damage to our race.

First of all, it has created a great deal of anxiety for men and women who experience homosexual attractions at one time or another. In pagan societies, these desires could be acknowledged, understood, and even expressed if one chose to. In Judeo-Christian society, such desires were repressed, but their mere presence said nothing more about one’s identity than one is a sinner and subject to temptation — just like everybody else. Today, homosexual desires cause great anxiety and psychological anguish. People worry if they fall into a small and stigmatized sexual subspecies, totally different from the rest of humanity. A young man gets aroused wrestling with a friend and suddenly has a psychological crisis on his hands. He wonders if he is sick. He feels alienated from his family and peers. He wonders if he will have to move to the city and buy a feather boa.

Second, this anxiety has chilled same-sex friendships and male bonding, and it is the bonded male group, the Männerbund, that is the foundation of all higher forms of civilization, particularly Aryan civilizations. It is amazing to read accounts of male friendships from earlier centuries, for example in Augustine’s Confessions or Montaigne’s Essays. It was possible for men to frankly express their love for one another without fearing the stigma of homosexuality, because that was an identity that simply did not exist before the late Nineteenth century. (Today, these expressions of affection are read through the distorting lens of “queer theory,” and Augustine and Montaigne and countless other figures have been “outed.”)

Third, those who decide that they do not merely have homosexual desires, but are “homosexuals” are trapped by this self-concept into an exclusively homosexual lifestyle, which not only carries health risks, but also prevents them from affirming whatever heterosexual desires they might also have. It cuts them off from marriage and family life, which could be combined with homosexual relationships openly in pagan societies and on the sly in Judeo-Christian societies.

Fourth, it has created the heterosexual, who thinks he is immune from same-sex attractions. This allows some heterosexuals to fuse Jewish intolerance with self-righteousness, turning them into queer-bashing bullies like Westphal.

All these destructive consequences could be alleviated if we freed our minds from the legacy of Jewish hatred and intolerance. Queer-Bashers are in the grip of Jewry without even knowing it. White Nationalism requires that we de-Jew our thinking, but many White Nationalists have no idea of just what a radical change of outlook that requires.


Postscript of 4 March 2012

In his article Greg does not make the distinction I made in the hatnote between discreet homos and what in some places of Latin America are called Locas: the effeminate queers who aggressively boast their queerness publicly.

When Johnson wrote: “Battles between gays and straights…” the phrase immediately reminded me a former internet friend. In a now closed forum, Daniel Mackler used the phrase “gays and straights” iteratively as if homosexuality was… healthier than heterosexuality! (Elsewhere I have debunked Mackler, a New York Jew that predicates the idea that we should have no kids.)

There are several obvious fallacies in Johnson’s article that are easy to rebut. Yes: Ernst Röhm was homosexual and I see absolutely nothing wrong with the Führer’s tolerance of him. (In fact, I like Hitler’s repentance of having been influenced by Himmler’s innuendo and ordering Röhm to be executed in the Night of the Long Knives.) But Röhm was the perfect antithesis of the Locas. We could imagine what would have happen if some Locas organized a gay parade in the Third Reich!

Johnson mentions Pim Fortuyn. But Fortuyn was no white nationalist whatsoever. When I was involved in the counter-jihad movement I was amazed with a video of Fortuyn telling his audience that he had to stop the Islamization of Holland—because it reminded him the treatment of white women by male whites in the 1950s! Like his successor Geert Wilders, Fortuyn never escaped the liberal box.

Johnson mentions Achilles and Alexander the Great. What if I tell you that these guys ought not to be examples for contemporary whites? In Johnson’s own site recently a commenter pointed out that, even before Christianity, whites had been universalists with Alexander commanding his officers and soldiers to marry Persian women!

Furthermore, understanding Psychohistory dramatically changed my mind about Homeric Hellas. Achilles was a comrade in arms of Agamemnon in the Trojan war, the very one who sacrificed his daughter to the gods. Some sources even claim that Iphigenia was to be married to none other than Achilles. The late, Judeo-Christian exordiums against sodomy, the sacrificing of one’s own daughter or son to the gods, incest, cannibalism and other practices make much more sense to our modern mind than the milieu where Achilles and Patroclus flourished.

Johnson says that “intolerance of homosexuality is Jewish” and puts the example of Zeus and Ganymede. Well, there were times in some Greek cities that the abduction of adolescents by older adults was legal—as long as the parents gave permission to the abductor! (as in the terracotta statuette of Zeus carrying off Ganymede).

Again, that was a “psychoclass” distant from ours, and Johnson and the rest of the nationalists would do well to become acquainted with psychohistorical research.

I might try to delve deeper into this line of thinking in the promised article on homosexuality. For the moment, see the index to my latest posts of my book The Return of Quetzalcoatl, an introduction to Psychohistory for the nationalist community, here.

Published in: on February 28, 2012 at 6:38 pm  Comments (30)