In Warrior Blake's fiction, A Story of New Thebes, he postulates a cataclysmic illness among Women which has the side-effect of making it easier for Men to express their natural and normal Man2Man feelings.

As I said in my Afterword to Blake's story, the problem with that plot device is that it presents a scenario which some may read as validating the theory of "situational homosexuality."

That theory is very harmful to Men -- and in particular, Men who may self-identify as "bi" or "straight" and who are struggling to come to terms with their normal and natural same-sex, male-male, needs and desires.

For that reason I go to a great deal of effort in my Afterword and elsewhere on the site to explain why that theory is wrong.

So I encourage you to read the Afterword.

Because:

The theory of "situational homosexuality" posits that Men in all-male environments, such as the military or prisons, will turn to each other for sex "faute de mieux" -- that is, for lack of anything *better*.

But that once those same Men are returned to mixed-sex -- that is, male-female -- environments, they'll abandon their male partners and return to having sex with Women exclusively.

We know that theory is false.

We know for example that even in our highly heterosexualized contemporary America, in which it's virtually universally assumed that males are either exclusively "straight" or exclusively "gay" -- and the operative word here is "exclusively" -- because being of one "sexual orientation" is believed to EXCLUDE any possibility of an act or relationship in the other "sexual orientation" --

we know that nevertheless Men who are involved in male-male in prison will, upon their release and return to wives or girlfriends, go on being involved in male-male.

They leave the all-male environment, they resume having sex with Women, but they don't stop having sex with Men.

So -- it's not the "situation" that's compelling them to be "homosexual."

They seek out Man2Man because they're Men -- who have normal and natural Man2Man feelings.

That's in America today.

And then there were the ancient Greeks.

There was no shortage of Women among them.

Yet they openly and honestly loved their fellow Men -- with whom they had passionate and very public love affairs.

Recently I've been reading Xenophon's Memorabilia.

Xenophon was a fourth-century BC Athenian aristocrat who was a contemporary of Plato's.

Like Plato, Xenophon knew Sokrates.

He was not as devoted a pupil of Sokrates as was Plato, but Sokrates nevertheless made a tremendous impression upon him.

Xenophon, a soldier by profession, was overseas, fighting the Persians and others, when Sokrates was executed by the Athenian state in 399 BC.

Shocked, and in response, Xenophon, once the Spartans had given him an estate and some leisure time, wrote three books in defense and in memory of Sokrates -- of which the Memorabilia is one.

And, like Plato, he often presents Sokrates in conversation with one of his friends.

Now, at one point in that book, Sokrates is talking to a friend about the importance of Self-Control.

Self-Control, you'll remember, is one of the Five Divine Virtues:

• Piety

• Justice

• Self-Control

• Courage

• Wisdom

And Sokrates uses an example from the animal world of lack of self-control in sexual matters:

"Quails and partridges, for instance, are so amorous, that when they hear the cry of the female, they are carried away by desire and anticipation, and throw caution to the winds, and blunder into the [hunter's] nets."

"Now, don't you think it's disgraceful that a man should be in the same plight as the silliest of wild creatures? Thus an adulterer enters the women's quarters, knowing that by committing adultery he is in danger of incurring the penalties threatened by the law, and that he may be trapped, caught, and ill-treated. When such misery and disgrace hang over the adulterer's head, and there are many remedies to relieve him of his carnal desire, without risk, is it not sheer lunacy to plunge headlong into danger?"

~ translated by Marchant

So -- in Athens, Women of good birth and even not-so-good birth spent most of their lives confined to the Women's quarters.

Because they had to be virgins before they were married, and remain true to their husbands after they were married.

Which meant that there was a certain class of Woman whom no Man, other than her husband, could have sex with -- without incurring severe legal penalties and being disgraced as well.

What Sokrates is saying, however, is that given that "there are many remedies to relieve [a male] of his carnal desire, without risk, is it not sheer lunacy to plunge headlong into danger?"

What does he mean by "many remedies?"

What he means is female slaves, prostitutes, and concubines.

In other words, there were a number of classes of Women with whom an Athenian male could have sex without incurring any legal risk whatsoever.

And very little expense, since slaves were plentiful and prostitutes cheap.

We can see, then, that there were many ways in which an Athenian Man could relieve his lust.

With Women.

At Sparta, as we've much discussed, the rules were different, and Women were both treated better and had significantly more freedom than at Athens.

And the Spartans actually encouraged extra-marital sex if it might result in healthy babies who would grow up to be strong Warriors -- or Women who would also bear healthy children.

So in ancient Greece, it wasn't an absence of Women which led Men to openly and passionately Love other Men.

Such Love was, it's true, a culturally-dictated and supported behavior, but if we want to look beyond that, we can say, without a doubt, that it was also a manifestation of Courage.

Intimately and inextricably intertwined with the cultural values of Bravery, Manliness, and Manhood.

If you don't understand that, try taking a look at The Warrior Altruism of the Warrior God.

And The Manliness of Aggression.

While they're still there.

And if you do, what you'll see is that for the Greeks, Man2Man was not the result of cataclysm --

it was, again, an expression of COURAGE.

Or, if you prefer, an expression of a culture which exalted COURAGE and which equated COURAGE with MANLINESS -- and MANLINESS with MAN2MAN.

Plato:

Achilles slays Hektor to avenge Hektor's killing of his Lover Patroclus
Achilles knows that by so doing, his life will soon end

So:

Plato's words

refer specifically to Achilles' act of slaying Hektor, and thus bringing on his own death.

Achilles trades a Valour born of Manly Love -- a Fury inspired by Ares-Eros -- for length of days.

Once again, for the Greeks, Courage is Manliness, and Manliness is Man2Man.

Now:

What about in our own time?

Should we rely upon some yet-to-come cataclysm as a catalyst for societal acceptance of true Man2Man --

not the sexual orientation heterosexualized analist bullshit, but true Manly Love.

Or should we look to Courage?

Courage -- our own.

Well guys, cataclysm may be okay for a short story, or a TV-movie, but I've had the misfortune to live through at least one cataclysm, and I can tell you it's not a pleasant experience.

Nor is it necessary.

The cataclysm I lived through was called HIV / AIDS.

Worldwide it killed and continues to kill many millions of people; in the US alone we're approaching the 600,000 mark -- according to avert.org, to date 597,499 have died -- most of whom were "men who had sex with men" (MSM).

Their deaths were not gentle or easy.

They were prolonged and full full full of suffering.

And they left behind an army of mourners.

HIV / AIDS, then, was and continues to be, a cataclysm.

It was a cataclysm brought on, among men who have sex with men, by two behaviors:

anal penetration;

promiscuity.

Indeed, a recent report in The New York Times tells us that SIV -- the monkey form of HIV -- had been present in Africa for millenia -- 32,000 years, actually.

But that some scientists hypothesize that it didn't spread in Africa among humans until the growth of cities in the colonial era and with them red-light districts and prostitution.

Prostitution.

In the 1970s, gay-identified males used to refer to their many and passing sexual partners as "tricks" ---

the same word that prostitutes used for their "clients."

"Tricks."

Like prostitutes, gay-identified males of the era practiced a form of promiscuity known as "concurrency."

They had multiple partners -- within a very short space of time.

Sometimes as many as five or even ten -- in one night.

The combination of anal penetration and concurrent promiscuity is what enabled HIV / AIDS to devastate the "gay male community."

But, it must be noted, the "sine qua non," the "without which not" of the "gay" epidemic, was anal.

At least 90% and probably 99% of the infections were transmitted anally.

With the rest orally.

Once again, the sine qua non of MSM HIV infection is anal penetration.

You could do a circle jerk with ten guys -- not that I recommend you do but you could -- and not get anything.

Do anal with ten different guys -- and the chances are high you'll get HIV.

So:

It was anal which enabled HIV / AIDS to devastate the lives of MSM.

In what was a genuine cataclysm.

Did that cataclysm have the effect of curtailing anal among "gay" and otherwise identified MSM?

You would think it would have, wouldn't you, since it was anal which led directly to all those deaths.

But it didn't.

HIV / AIDS had the paradoxical effect of enormously strengthening the identification of "gay" with anal -- and thereby making anal far more prevalent.

And of course the more anal, the more HIV.

If the virus could think, it couldn't have come up with a better strategy.

And yet, the virus can't think.

People can think.

And in a sane world, people would have turned away from anal.

But this isn't a sane world.

So -- that cataclysm, which should have resulted in a turning away from anal, instead resulted in a strengthening of anal.

Which today has enormous cultural cachet.

As one law professor pointed out in The New York Times,

A few decades ago these people were cultural pariahs. It was taken for granted that gay people are mentally ill, contaminated and unclean. Now the cultural valence has flipped -- it is that view of gay people which is itself stigmatized.

And that stigmatization includes criticism of anal penetration.

Oh yeah.

It most certainly does.

Criticism of anal is stigmatized.

Which is why it's so easy for our opponents to censor and silence us.

So -- the cataclysm did not succeed in doing the obvious -- stigmatizing anal.

It did the opposite -- it propped up and glorified anal.

While stigmatizing its critics.

Again, before you wish for some lovely cataclysm to raise you effortlessly from your misery, understand that cataclysm is not predictable -- nor controllable --

nor will it necessarily lead you to your desired destination.

Now -- did the cataclysm known as HIV / AIDS have any beneficial effect?

Yes -- in the sense that it forced MSM to come out, and thus ended their, per the NY Times, pariah status.

As we in Gay Lib had said, from the early 1970s forward, would happen.

Not that HIV / AIDS would happen -- we were totally blindsided by that -- but that if guys would only have the *Courage* to "come out," the weight of social prejudice against them would not stand.

And HIV / AIDS proved us to have been 100% correct.

But -- at a tremendous cost.

A cost which was TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY.

So -- here's what went down:

All through the 1970s and into the early 1980s, a relative handful of "gay" activists, of whom I was one, urged their fellow gay-identified males to "come out":

That is, to tell the world -- including their families, their fellow congregants at church, and their colleagues at work -- that they were Men who Loved Men.

They refused.

They also refused to support organizations which were attempting to better the status of MSM;

and they told those of us who were publically involved in such efforts that we were "crazy" to do what we were doing.

Why did they consider us "crazy?"

Because the primary impact of being "openly gay" in the 1970s and 1980s was financial.

Many employers -- most -- would not hire openly gay people.

Whereas, a closeted "gay man" who didn't make waves at work was in a very good position.

Indeed, he was sitting in the proverbial catbird seat.

Because, you see, in the 1970s and 80s, most Women still did not work.

The average corporate salary was intended to be paid to and meet the needs of a Man, a married Man, who would use the money to support his wife and kids.

Since most gay-identified males didn't have wives and kids, and since they were being paid the same amount as the married guys, they had a LOT of disposable income.

And they could live well.

Very well.

The efforts of us crazies in Gay Liberation and then the gay movement didn't do much, outside of San Francisco, for gay people legally.

But our efforts did intimidate those police who'd been preying on gay people, and they also emboldened gay entrepeneurs to open gay bars, gay sex clubs, and gay bath-houses.

So -- closeted gay men in the 1970s and 1980s suddenly found themselves with lots of money, with little to fear legally, and with lots of opportunities for promiscuous sex -- which after all, was what "gay" was supposed to be about -- promiscuous sex.

Were they to "come out," they reasoned, they'd lose that money, and with it the ability to live high off the hog.

And why should they do that?

Give up all that lovely boodle for a matter of principle?

Why do that?

So they all went on, determinedly closeted, voting for anti-gay politicians like Ronald Reagan who promised them tax cuts and thus even more money, and spending their money on real estate, porn, travel to gay-sex-tourist destinations like Key West and Fire Island and the Russian River -- and while at home, having memberships in gay gyms, gay bathhouses, gay discos, and gay sex clubs.

Where they could party party party until they dropped.

And drop they did.

Starting in 1981, they started dropping like flies.

And in ever greater numbers.

Till the "gay community" was faced with a full-blown cataclysm.

Yes, yes, a cataclysm.

For which all too many of you seem to long.

And yet -- cataclysm kills.

And, in the case of HIV / AIDS, before it killed, it "outed."

Outed.

ALL those gay-identified males who'd been so determinedly closeted in the 1970s and, I might add, so nasty to those of us who hadn't been -- now found themselves forced out of the closet by a vicious disease which left them first disabled, then very visibly and identifiably disfigured, and then deceased.

Most of the MSM who were outed and died were middle class -- or higher -- in social status.

Of course there were poor MSM and those people died too.

But most were not poor.

Most were comfortable or affluent.

Didn't matter to HIV / AIDS.

They all died.

And again, that's what happens in cataclysms, folks -- people die, including those who've spent so many years so ardently feathering their nests.

Look at someone like Liberace, for example, whose "museum" in Las Vegas, it was recently announced, is closing.

Liberace was immensely popular and immensely wealthy.

He got there through a mix of talent and of turning his "homosexuality" into a bizarre sort of minstrel show in which his highly effeminized take on male-male was never mentioned.

But always present.

He didn't "come out" because it would have cut -- significantly -- into his income.

Yet if he had -- he could have lived openly and honestly.

He would have lost dollars.

But he would have gained something far more precious --

Courage.

And those who truly mattered would have esteemed him for it.

Instead, he died closeted -- as The New York Times put it,

one more turning point in the nation's perception of that disease and homosexuality.

The Times is actually being too kind.

I would say not "one more turning point" but one more footnote.

And that's what, at best, Liberace will be.

A flamboyant and very closeted performer who traded and grew rich on his castrated form of male-male -- and who then sickened and died ignominiously of a "homosexual" disease.

Is it a surprise that his museum is closing when those of folks like Elvis and Frank Sinatra remain open?

I don't think so.

Liberace's life was a lie.

He died closeted and ashamed.

And that's how the vast majority of you will die -- closeted and ashamed.

Recently I received this letter.

Dear Bill,

My boyfriend and I were both virgins when we decided to take it to the next level. So we tried, you guessed it, anal. Well that hurt like a bitch and as soon as he was in me, I ripped him out cause I couldnt take it!!! So we just sucked for a while. Then I google "gay alternatives to anal" and your site popped up! And boy am I glad it did!!! Ever since we found your site, our sex life has been AMAZING! We'll be getting "married" in two months :) THANKS!

(if you happen you use this story anywhere, please exclude my name!)

Sincerely,
[name excluded]

"Nothing will work unless you do."
~Maya Angelou

This was my response:

Hey -- we'll call him -- "Joe,"

Thank you for writing to me and for your kind words about my work and our sites.

I'm glad they've resonated and been meaningful for you.

Let's take a look:

My boyfriend and I were both virgins

Okay.

How do you define "virgin?"

Because as we say on the site, Men don't have virginity.

They don't have vaginas -- so they don't have virginity.

I understand that if you're coming out of "gay culture" aka analism --

you may be confused about that -- since analism tries to treat the anus as a vagina.

But an anus is not a vagina.

And you guys were never virgins -- nor did you ever have virginity.

Why does this matter?

Because by persuading you to use terms like "virgin" and "mangina" and "pussyboy" and "bottombitch" to describe yourself, the dominant culture of analism seeks to effeminize you and thus prepare you to be anally penetrated.

Which act will further effeminize you.

The way to protect yourself against that is to reject those terms.

To recognize that you're a Man, as is your Lover -- the guy you call your boyfriend.

To recognize that while neither of you have virginity, you do have Manhood.

Manhood.

Manhood which you should celebrate and exalt.

And that's what Frot does -- it celebrates and exalts the physical symbols of your Manhood in the act of Phallic Bonding.

when we decided to take it to the next level.

Yeah.

Again, "take it to the next level" is an analist phrase.

In reality there is no "next level."

There's true Man2Man sex.

Mutually and directly genital sex.

And there's all the other stuff which masquerades as sex.

But which isn't.

So we tried, you guessed it, anal. Well that hurt like a bitch

Right.

It's supposed to hurt.

The pain is your body's way of telling you that you shouldn't be doing it.

and as soon as he was in me, I ripped him out cause I couldnt take it!!! So we just sucked for a while.

Then I google "gay alternatives to anal" and your site popped up! And boy am I glad it did!!! Ever since we found your site, our sex life has been AMAZING!

Good!

We'll be getting "married" in two months :)

Good too.

THANKS!

(if you happen you use this story anywhere, please exclude my name!)

Why?

Joe, what are you afraid of?

What precisely are you afraid would happen if you posted under your own name on our Man2Man Alliance site?

It's not illegal after all for guys to have sex with guys --

nor is there any law that says you must like or do anal.

So what precisely are you afraid of?

What do you think will happen to you if you post on our Alliance site, which has been so helpful to you, under your own name?

And that was my reply to "Joe."

I signed the letter with my real name -- as I always do -- and sent it off.

And of course I got no response.

Joe says he and his bf are going to get married.

Okay.

But all they're doing is going from one closet to another.

Certainly getting married will "out" them as "Men who Love each other."

BUT -- their friends, their families, their colleagues at work, the folks at church -- and of course their "fellow gay men" -- will think they express that Love -- anally.

Which means that one will be the top and the other the bottom.

One the male and the other the pseudo-female.

I wonder which one?

And so will everyone else.

Will that perception impact Joe and his bf?

YES.

Definitely and inescapably.

Just as being in the closet impacted "gay men" in the 1970s, so will being in the closet about not doing anal -- impact Joe and his bud.

Inescapably.

And they're closeted, you'll notice, for the same reason.

In the 1970s, the stigma was being "gay."

Today the stigma is "not doing anal."

They're AFRAID of the stigma.

They're AFRAID.

Well, dear boys, you can't go through life being afraid --

without paying a terrible price.

COURAGE.

COURAGE or Cataclysm.

Will you depend on some outside social force -- such as a cataclysm -- a force you cannot control, and which will inevitably be destructive -- to "free" you?

Or will you take your destiny into your own hands, and find the Courage to TAKE AND MAKE YOUR OWN FREEDOM.

For that's what you have to do.

Fortune favors the bold, says Virgil.

He's right.

Recently I heard from Warrior Brian Hulme.

In his email he referenced the UK sci-fi show "Dr. Who," in which an old police call box serves as a sort of time-and-space machine:

My first time on the Alliance website was as a link from a naked wrestling site, then I saw that the Alliance was concerned with issues like faithfulness and the SPIRITUAL side and of course the wrestling/fighting parts and soon it became obvious that I needed to make contact and so my E mail to you "time to be a Warrior" and your reply assuring me that I could be "a MAN and a Christian" and the rest as they say is history: 3 years in November, since I stepped in through the doors of that old Police box and was transported to a new and better world, a world where I can be FREE, where I can be ME, where I can be WARRIOR Brian and HAPPY. Thank you Warrior Bill, for all that you have done for me.

With Warrior Love,
Brian.

So -- Warrior Brian Hulme isn't sitting around waiting for some cataclysm to remedy his situation.

Instead, he's taken control of his own destiny.

He tithes to the Alliance because he understands that keeping the Alliance alive and healthy helps keep him alive and healthy.

And because he knows that the Alliance holds the promise of "a new and better world, a world where I can be FREE, where I can be ME, where I can be WARRIOR Brian and HAPPY."

And he's correct.

That's the world we're working towards.

In such a world, says Brian

I hope one day to be able to be Warrior Brian with another Warrior Man, the way you did with Warrior Brett, and do with Warrior Patrick. Then I will be lucky enough to have many days filled with Warrior Love, blessed by the Warrior God in a state of Eros.

"to have many days filled with Warrior Love, blessed by the Warrior God in a state of Eros."

That's beautifully said, very beautifully said, and sums up the Warrior Ideal of Warrior Love:

Interestingly, Warrior Brian Hulme, like Warrior Patrick, is quite pious.

Warrior Brian worships the Warrior God, often in innovative ways -- such as naked.

He stands Naked before the Warrior God and worships him.

Xenophon and Sokrates were also quite pious.

And they took it as a given that you had to pray to the Gods and serve the Gods not just when you were in need, but when you were doing well.

Something all too many of you fail to remember.

You write to me -- and maybe send a few dollars -- when you're in need.

If and when things improve -- you skeddadle.

Xenophon tells us, in that same Memorobilia which I mentioned earlier, that when Sokrates prayed,

He asked simply for good gifts, "for the Gods know best what things are good."

Though his sacrifices were humble, according to his means, he thought himself not a whit inferior to those who made frequent and magnificent sacrifices out of great possessions. The Gods (he said) could not well delight more in great offerings than in small -- for in that case must the gifts of the wicked often have found more favour in their sight than the gifts of the upright -- and man would not find life worth living, if the gifts of the wicked were received with more favour than the gifts of the upright. No, the greater the piety of the giver (he thought) the greater the delight of the Gods in the gift. He would quote with approval this line [from Hesiod]:

According to thy power render sacrifice to the immortal Gods,

and he would add that in our treatment of friends and strangers, and in all our behaviour, it is a noble principle to render according to our power.

Which is exactly what Warrior Brian does.

He renders -- in this case, gives back -- according to his power.

Something almost NO one else does.

In addition, he posts frequently -- there are more than twenty posts on the site from Warrior Brian -- and in posting he seeks not merely to express his opinion, but TO HELP HIS FELLOW WARRIORS.

Again, something VERY FEW of you ever think of doing.

But you could.

You don't, but you could.

While in both word and deed, Warrior Brian consistently acts to better his Warriordom and his Warriorhood.

As a result, and not surprisingly, he's benefitted enormously from the Alliance in a way that very few others of you have.

Some of you want to blame that on me.

Or some other force outside of yourself.

NO.

It's the male in the mirror -- as it always is.

"Joe" doesn't want his name used on the site.

He's *afraid* of the stigma -- the stigma attached to not being "into anal."

I "came out" thirty-eight years ago.

At a time when, according to our great nation's paper of record, "[gay] people were cultural pariahs. It was taken for granted that gay people were mentally ill, contaminated and unclean."

You know what?

I didn't care and I WASN'T AFRAID.

I threw myself body and soul into the gay movement and that's how I met Brett Averill.

After Brett died, and I had thought long and hard about the cultural forces which KILLED HIM, I WASN'T AFRAID either.

I founded the Frot Movement, I poured myself body and soul into the Frot Movement, and that's how I met Patrick.

I've been slandered, I've been libeled, I've been taken roundly to the woodshed by the buttboys and their slimey brood.

So what?

I wasn't afraid thirty-eight years ago, I wasn't afraid when Brett died, and I'm not afraid now.

And I have contempt.

Contempt for those who would seek to make me afraid -- and contempt for those who are afraid.

Because fear is a useless emotion.

Years ago, guys, there was a movie about a major league baseball player who was beset with anxiety.

It was titled Fear Strikes Out.

It starred, appropriately, the "bi" and very closeted Tony Perkins, who, of course, died of AIDS.

And who, before dying of AIDS, portrayed, in homophobe Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, Norman Bates -- the ultimate neo-Freudian oedipally-obsessed and "homosexual" momma's boy.

So we can say, accurately, that Perkins both bought into and perpetuated his own oppression.

To his very great cost.

For, in its obit of Perkins, the NY Times quoted him as saying:

I have learned more about love, selflessness and human understanding from the people I have met in this great adventure in the world of AIDS than I ever did in the cutthroat, competitive world in which I spent my life.

And isn't that a shame?

Because, you see, I could have told him something.

If he'd come out in the 1970s -- as we in Gay Lib asked all like him to do -- he would have learned about "love, selflessness, and human understanding" -- many many years before he did.

He wouldn't have been as rich.

But he wouldn't have wasted his life in the cutthroat, competitive, and utterly false world of American entertainment.

Yet that's where the vast majority of you who visit this site still live and waste your lives -- in the glitzy and ditzy world of That's Entertainment.

A thoroughly heterosexualized world of immutable sexual orientation and unrelenting analism.

Top bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom top bottom.

A world in which all "sex acts" are equally "good" and all human beings are to be "gender neutral."

Yet in an article on the genetics of human reproduction, The New York Times says we're not "gender neutral":

[There are] differences between male and female brains and differences in a mother's and father's contributions to social behavior.

. . .

The maternal genes stand to gain if the woman is as selfish as possible and focuses just on her and her children's welfare. But since the father is related to everyone else in the village, the father's genes will gain from altruistic behavior.

. . .

Natural selection, say [evolutionary biologists] in an article in the current issue of Evolution, will favor the activation of paternal genes that underlie altruistic behavior and maternal genes that promote selfishness. "Your paternal genes want you to be nicer to your neighbors than your maternal genes do," Dr. Gardner said in an interview.

Of course that doesn't mean that any individual Woman will be more selfish than any individual Man; nor that any and every Man will be more altruistic.

But what the article points out -- and which has been much discussed in evolutionary biology and sociobiology -- is that there are profound differences between Men and Women based upon differing genetically-determined reproductive strategies.

And given that that's true, "gender neutrality" is just another dopey genderist and pansexualist lie.

And it also means -- to the extent that altruism is characteristic of Men -- that most of you are NOT Men.

Because you're not capable of altruism.

Look at "Joe," who says the Alliance has enormously helped him and his Lover:

Ever since we found your site, our sex life has been AMAZING! We'll be getting "married" in two months :) THANKS!

Followed by:

if you happen you use this story anywhere, please exclude my name!

He won't allow his name to be used on the site.

So:

He's been helped -- but he won't help others.

Specifically, his fellow Men.

That's not Manly, to put it mildly -- actually, it's so cowardly it's nauseating -- and it doesn't bode well for him.

But you know, "Joe" isn't unusual.

Sometime back a guy named Jason posted under the header I'm so grateful this resource is available because it has changed my life.

Here are just some of the things he said:

In my case, I've spent almost ten years up till now not totally feeling like I fit into the gay community because of how much weight is put on anal sex: it was a HUGE point of dissent for me. And I have to say that I really felt the grips of "anal tyranny," which fucked with my self-esteem a good amount. I always felt so childish because time passed and time passed and I never, never got over how off-putting anal sex was. The pain, the pressure, the smell, the soreness, the sick feeling it gave me, the way it made me feel afterwards -- unfulfilled, used, let down, filthy, ashamed.

I've been the victim of good deal of head games. I spent almost four years in a relationship with someone who I think pretty clearly resented me for never wanting to have anal. So often I got messages that not doing anal was not enough, that there was no satisfaction unless the holy, manmade pinnacle of homosexuality was practiced. "We don't have sex!! You don't see that as a problem?!" (We don't have ANY sex??) "You'll like it." (Not likely.) "It'll be so hot once you like it." (Sure.) So great: there was one point of contention and source of distress in that relationship, not to mention what a huge weight it was to always have that expectation hanging over me. In my eyes, my aversion to anal also had plenty to do with his desires to date other people while we were doing long-distance. To my knowledge he didn't do this, but the implicit rationale was still crystal clear for me. And it messed with my head.

. . .

Now, I only wish that the frot movement was more culturally visible. Not only would there be, as I imagine, TONS of men who are suddenly comfortable with themselves -- a revolution on its own -- but there would also be a great impact on STD/STI transmission rates.

Nice sentiments, huh?

Do you know how much Jason has donated over the years?

NOTHING.

Not a dime.

Not a single red cent.

If the Frot Movement has so benefitted him -- and has so much potential, he says, to benefit others -- why won't he help?

If he's "so grateful this resource is available," why won't he do anything to keep it available?

The likely answer is that he was grateful "the resource" was available for *him*, he got the information *he* needed, and he doesn't give a flying fuck about what happens to anyone else.

What's wrong with Jason?

And with "Joe?"

Something simple but profound.

They lack MANHOOD.

They may have penises, they may even have testicles, but they don't have Manhood.

And like I say, that doesn't bode well for them.

Nor does it for you.

Because without Manhood -- you're not a Man.

And because without Warrior Altruism, you can't be a Warrior.

And if you're not a Warrior -- once again -- you don't have Manhood, you're not a Man.

The Warrior God is Manhood.

Manhood is the Warrior God.

And Warrior Altruism is a manifestation of the MANHOOD of the Warrior God.

You can't be a Man without Manhood -- nor without Warriorhood.

Nor without Warrior Altruism.

So:

No donations, no sites.

You need to find your Courage, and you need to open your wallet.

Cataclysm won't get you there.

COURAGE will.

Fear strikes out.

COURAGE ALWAYS WINS.

As Warrior NW says,

Even if you lose, it's a victory just to have FOUGHT.

And in my experience, that's true.

I've often said to you that based on the hierarchies of the so-called gay community, I shouldn't have had two *Men* like Brett and Patrick in my life.

I was never pretty, I was never rich, and I was older than both of them.

Old, ugly, and poor.

Not, allegedly, a winning trio.

But I WON --

because I had Courage -- Manliness -- Masculinity -- Manhood.

You don't.

And you'll never get where you want to be based on your present stance of irrevocably stingy and irredemiably stupid.

Not to mention irremediably selfish.

Selfish, stingy, and stupid.

That's the losing trio.

Not old, ugly, and poor -- but selfish, stupid, and stingy.

Try, for just once in your life, being less of a capitalist stooge --

and more of a MAN.

DONATE

FIGHT BACK

SAVE YOUR LIFE

Because if you don't --

the next time you need this site --

it won't be here.

Bill Weintraub

September 30, 2010

© All material Copyright 2010 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

PS

Look at this picture.

It's Spartan.

Notice how in this picture, and so many of the others, the Men are CARRYING THEIR FELLOW MEN.

That's what a MAN is supposed to do.

That's what a MAN is supposed to do.

You may say to me, But Bill, the guys they're carrying are dead.

To which I respond -- Right.

And which is worse -- to be physically dead -- or spiritually dead?

You're spiritually dead.

But -- you've been shown the way back to Life.

Think of Jason -- and "Joe."

Once they've been shown the way back to Life, they have an obligation.

And so do you.

To lift the souls of your fellow Men who are still spiritually dead -- to shoulder and show them the way.

There's NO escaping that.

Reply from

Warrior Brian Hulme

Re: COURAGE or Cataclysm

10-4-10

Recently over here in the UK we remembered 70 years since The Battle of Britain when those courageous RAF Men went up into the skies to take on the greatly outnumbering Germans and what did Winston Churchill say?

"Never before in the field of Human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few"

If they had not bothered then I would not be FREE to send you this reply or to look at the Alliance web site, and definitely I would not be FREE to go into the town centre to buy some dollars and take them to the Post Office and send them in support of the Alliance. So if it was not for the COURAGE of those RAF pilots there would have been a cataclysm, politically speaking.

Thank you Warrior God for providing MEN when needed (in 1940), and I pray that they can still appear now for our cause and to save the Alliance.

For as long as there are brave MEN to FIGHT for FREEDOM then we will have a FREEDOM worth FIGHTING for. Leonidas and his 300 Spartans thought so, in 1940 the RAF thought so, and I know I think so today.

With Warrior Love

Brian