Bill Weintraub

Re: an attack on men being together

2-23-2008

Thank you Ed.

Another excellent post from Ed, which, like his previous post, Wonderful Site, raises some important questions.

Ed is right that the woman he met at the party is, simply, doing what the culture tells her to do;

which in this case is making the assumption that a man whose body language so much as hints at intimacy or affection with another man -- must be "gay."

By which is meant a person whose erotic feelings and actions are limited *exclusively* to those of his own sex.

And Ed is almost certainly right also that when his woman friend says "gay," she means a male who engages in anal penetration.

And it's very likely that if Ed affirmed her suspicion that he might be "gay," she would eventually ask him if he's "a butt-fucker or fuckee" -- that is, "a top or a bottom."

Because that too is assumed -- that any "gay male" is either one or the other.

Now, what we need to be clear about is that ALL of these assumptions, which are widely shared assumptions within our culture, are the result of heterosexualization.

And we need to be clear that heteroseuxalization is an historical process.

It's not a belief system, an "ism," like heterosexism or analism.

Rather it's an historical process, similar in that respect to a process like industrialization -- to which it is indeed related and in fact both a consequence and an outgrowth.

Here's how I describe heterosexualization in AGOGE Reply III: The Longing for Masculinity:

Heterosexualization is an historical process which

1. eliminates same-gender environments and replaces them with mixed-gender environments;

2. creates and then imposes upon men a false definition of masculinity, in which "real men" are constrained to be, both affectionally and sexually, exclusively heterosexual; and

3. medicalizes and ghettoizes same-sex affection, intimacy, sex, and love; while dictating that all same-sex sexual expression be played out within the heterosexual paradigm of male and (pseudo-)female -- thus, the gay male categories of top/bottom, active/passive, dominant/submissive, butch/bitch.

Crucial to this process is the denigration, curtailment, and dismissal both of the male's natural male aggression; and of his natural male attraction.

So: under heterosexualization, the male is steadily divorced from contact with other males, and forced into constant contact with females; while the two key attributes of Natural Masculinity, male aggression and male attraction, are forbidden him.

And we can see the various aspects of heterosexualization at work in Ed's friend's perfectly innocent question.

For example, she and Ed met at a mixed-gender social gathering -- a mixed-gender party.

We're used to such gatherings -- they're common.

But for most of human history, they were rare or non-existent.

The two sexes spent most of their time in single-gender spaces, like the all-male longhouses so prevalent among "primitive" tribes; and the all-male messes of the Greeks, such as the syssition among the Spartans and the andreion of the Men of Crete -- who were closely related, by the way, to the Spartans.

And as I discussed in my reply to Robert Loring's excellent She Didn't Understand -- which is related to Ed's post of today -- as late as the 19th century, most environments in America were single-gender.

As Ibson puts it in Picturing Men:

A bachelor subculture, with enclaves of singleness flourishing in street-corner gangs, boardingschools, the YMCA, rooming houses, colleges, the workplace, lodges, saloons, pool halls, and sporting events, was another manifestation of gender segregation, of particular importance in the late nineteenth century when bachelors were so numerous -- more than 40 percent of all men over the age of fifteen in the United States.

And of course there was the military, which was also all-male.

And as Ibson says, as a consequence, in 1880, fully 40% of American men spent their entire lives as bachelors -- they never married.

But then society "heterosexualized."

And by 1940 the percentage of never-married men was down to 33% and by 1950 down to 25%.

So that as society heterosexualized, the pressure on men to marry -- became greater and greater and greater.

At the same time, there slowly began to emerge, in America as well as in other industrialized countries such as England and Germany, aggregations of males, usually in the big cities, who thought of themselves as "homosexual."

It's important to note and remember that the word "homosexual" wasn't coined until 1869 -- and when it was coined, it was by a doctor who sought to describe what to him was a medical condition, or disease.

Prior to 1869, same-sex intimacy, affection, sex, and love, was thought of as an activity -- in which anyone might engage.

Following 1869, and as the concept of "the homosexual" gained increasing currency, same-sex intimacy, affection, sex, and love became associated with a condition -- and a disease -- "homosexuality."

Which, it was increasingly believed, was restricted, like any other disease, to a relative handful of sick individuals.

So -- and to repeat, because it's important -- under heterosexualization, "homosexuality" changed from an activity -- to a condition.

And that's made a tremendous difference.

We can literally see the difference by looking at some photographs.

The first two are from Professor Ibson's Picturing Men: A Century of Male Relationships in Everyday American Photography, which we discuss at length in Warriorhood and Male Intimacy.

Both pix are of college athletes; and both date from the first decades of the 20th century.

Here's a football team ca 1910:

And here's a wrestling team in a formal portrait ca 1918:

As you can see, these guys have NO FEAR of male-male body contact.

Nor are they afraid to show some affection for each other -- which is particularly apparent in the pic of the football team, in which many of the guys have assumed postures which suggest intimacy.

But the guys on the wrestling team too look very comfortable with each other.

Compare those pics from an earlier America to this contemporary photo of frat boys at what looks like a hazing:

As I said, this looks like a hazing, and these boys were probably told to take that pose.

But you can see that, even liquored up, their body language is incredibly stiff.

They're clearly not comfortable touching each other, and are doing their best, within the pose they've been forced to assume, to avoid body contact.

Now, I don't have a date for this picture, but it was probably taken around 2000, or a little later.

So what you can see is that over the space of LESS than 100 years, there's been an enormous change in male body language --

and in the culturally-mandated MEANING of that language.

No one, in 1910, seeing this pic

would have accused these boys of being "gay" or "homosexual."

They're just clowning around -- and/or being affectionate.

Their being in those beds together doesn't say anything else about them.

But by 2000, a group of adolescent boys could be easily embarrassed and made very uneasy by being forced into a pose which suggests that they might enjoy or just be comfortable with the touch of another man's body.

Because only "gay" males are supposed to enjoy or be comfortable with such touch.

And that's why Ed's completely natural gesture of having his hand around another man's upper arm as they spoke, was interpreted by a woman who saw it, as "gay."

Because under heterosexualization, and since same-sex feelings are thought of as a condition, to exhibit any sort of same-sex affection is to invite placement in the "homosexual" box.

And that's where Ed's new friend -- placed him.

Now: Ed rightly observes that this sort of labeling is rife in our society, and that "Gays are some of the worst offenders in this."

Why would that be?

Well, clearly, because without such labeling, "gays" themselves would not exist.

Instead they'd just be guys.

They don't want to be guys.

They want to be "gays."

Because that confers certain in-group privileges.

And I'm speaking here as an old-time Gay Liberationist, who was taught and believed, in the early 1970s, that "heterosexuals" had privilege and that "homosexuals" were oppressed.

And while that was to some extent true in 1972, let's say, one can also argue that even then, and especially so today, each group had and has privileges within its own group.

While its freedom of action outside the group -- was and is very limited or non-existent.

Thus, as my foreign friend has pointed out,

The heterosexual[ized] society cares only for women. It sees men only as a problematic group that comes in the way of what is called women's rights.

Gay men are one of the most ardent supporters of heterosexualisation. They represent the dust bin created by the heterosexualised society to contain the mutilated/ negativised remnants of male-male sex that survives after the intense oppression of them in the mainstream...

Gay men (when I say gay men I mean feminine identified males who like men) derive immense power from the heterosexual society. In fact they owe the heterosexual society their existence.

Why does my friend say that "gay men ... owe the heterosexual society their existence"?

Because:

If there is no heterosexual society there would be no homosexuals. And no heterosexuals either. Male-male sex is isolated only because in the western society, its spaces and its customs are completely heterosexualised (i.e. made mixed gender with pressures to be heterosexual). But heterosexual spaces are themselves unnatural --- and it was only through financial and technological power brought by industrialisation that the western society could create such an artificial unnatural heterosexual environment.

So -- it has been financial and most particularly *technological" power which has enabled the West to create and sustain the completely artificial heterosexual environment.

Technology, of course, is simply applied science.

Which brings us to the next point, which Ed quite brilliantly made, and which I was thrilled to see:

Generally, I think we are living in a time when there is little sense of the sacredness of people and the mystery of their lives. Probably scientism has had a lot to do with this, the idea that everything can be analyzed, quantified, labeled, and known rationally. It's a totally materialistic view of reality and probably makes certain people feel safe in a world fully sterilized of the unknown.

Ed is EXACTLY right.

He says, "we are living in a time when there is little sense of the sacredness of people and the mystery of their lives. Probably scientism has had a lot to do with this, the idea that everything can be analyzed, quantified, labeled, and known rationally."

That is EXACTLY correct.

Once again, heterosexualization is a result of the industrial revolution, which has conferred huge wealth and other benefits, first upon people in Europe and North America, and now throughout the world.

That revolution of course, which has enormously increased our standard of living -- enormously, and that must never be forgotten --

that revolution was and is based upon science, and the scientific method or way of "knowing" reality.

Thus it's not surprising that most people in the West today, no matter what they may say their religious affiliation and belief may be, actually belong intellectually and emotionally to what we might call the Church of Scientism, which teaches, as Ed says, "that everything can be analyzed, quantified, labeled, and known rationally."

And that, as a consequence, "there is little sense of the sacredness of people and the mystery of their lives."

That's correct.

And it's a great problem for Men like ourselves, because what scientism is striving to do to us -- is to confirm the consequences of heterosexualization, by confirming that there are two discrete groups of Men, one "gay," and the other "straight."

Which are genetically determined.

So: where originally heterosexualization was made possible by science;

now science SERVES heterosexualization.

Once again, science is now being used, in this matter at least, to confirm the objective and, it will be claimed, eternal reality of categories which DID NOT EXIST a century and a half ago.

The fact is, that for millenia, Men got along just fine without these categories.

Now they are regarded as necessary for the smooth functioning of society -- and as intellectual constructs whose existence MUST be "objectively" confirmed by science.

Now, remember that Ed said that "Gays are some of the worst offenders in this."

And that I responded, per my foreign friend, that gays depend upon these categories for their social identity --

and I should add, increasingly, their political privileges.

That was brought home to me recently and very forcefully when I received an email from "gay Episcopalian."

"Gay Episcopalian" is a guy I discussed in AGOGE: The Spear-Points of Young Men Blossom There -- he's a gay-identified, gay establishment male, a stalwart of the gay Episcopalian organization known as "Integrity" -- who, he says, is not into anal, but dislikes our putting forward of the "warrior image and fighting."

That's his constant complaint.

He doesn't like Warriors and Fighting.

Just like the New York Times, he doesn't approve of Warriors and Fighting.

Fighting
The NY Times and Gay Episcopalian
don't approve

This, again, is a constant complaint.

He doesn't like Warriors:

or Fighting:

He doesn't like images of Warriors and Fighting:

Even though, at some point in his own, long life -- "gay Episcopalian" is about 70 years old -- he himself beat up some fag-bashers -- and thus, I suspect, saved someone's life.

Doesn't matter.

He's always looking for a nit to pick about this and that -- because of our "warrior imagery":

And I'm not kidding -- that's always what sets him off.

And, sure enough, he sent me an email a few weeks back with the subject line "NOT TRUE!!"

What had upset him so much, on our Alliance sites, that he had to label it "NOT TRUE!!" --?

Turns out he had come upon, he claims, an obscure post, somewhere on this board -- he, naturally, didn't bother to say where -- which questioned the link between genetics and "homosexuality":

According to one of the posters on the frottage site, it is impossible for homosexuality to be genetic. The argument is that if it were, it would cease to exist. That is not true!

The fact is that there are genetically determined conditions which preclude the possibility of reproduction. One of them is Tay Sachs disease. It invariably results in death within a few years of birth, and yet it continues to exist. Not being an expert on the subject of genetic diseases, I am unable to recall any other examples, but I assure you that they do exist.

Of course this does not mean that homosexuality IS genetically determined. Rather, it merely proves that it could be genetically determined.

I have no ax to grind on the matter; I'm not much concerned about the etiology. Rather, I am concerned about wiping out the discrimination that those of us who are same-sex oriented must face. I'm particularly concerned about what negative attitudes do to youth who are same-sex oriented.

So that's his beef:

Someone, he says, posted on the site -- once again, I don't know who because gay Episcopalian didn't bother to tell me -- daring to question that article of faith of gay scientism -- "it's all genetic."

Fine.

Let's take a closer look at what "gay Episcopalian" -- whose name, by the way, is Frank -- said -- and my response.

Here's "gay Episcopalian" aka Frank:

According to one of the posters on the frottage site, it is impossible for homosexuality to be genetic. The argument is that if it were, it would cease to exist. That is not true!

The fact is that there are genetically determined conditions which preclude the possibility of reproduction. One of them is Tay Sachs disease. It invariably results in death within a few years of birth, and yet it continues to exist. Not being an expert on the subject of genetic diseases, I am unable to recall any other examples, but I assure you that they do exist.

Bill:

Who cares?

Look Frank, let me suggest to you that A GENETIC GHETTO IS STILL A GHETTO.

Let's repeat that:

A GENETIC GHETTO IS STILL A GHETTO.

Isn't it?

And that's what you and the gay establishment are busily building.

Another ghetto.

Which you think you need to justify your existence.

I DON'T.

Because I know the historical truth about MEN and about WARRIORS.

Which is that they have loved each other for millenia.

When you buy into the argument that "homosexuality" has to be explained, genetically or otherwise, you buy into your own oppression.

You become your own oppressor.

You do the work of the homophobes -- for them.

Why is the gay establishment so hot for a genetic "explanation" for "homosexuality?"

Because it justifies making "homosexuals" into a privileged and protected class.

"Served" by politicians and who in turn are served by political patronage jobs -- and monies.

POWER, in other words.

But as I point out on my site, there was a time, not very long ago, when sex between people of the same sex was an activity -- not a condition.

And when love, affection, and intimacy between Men was honored.

FOR ITSELF.

Not to make some political point, but because people saw same-sex affection for what it is -- WORTHY.

At heart, you and your friends do not.

Instead, you continue to treat "homosexuality" as a pseudo-medical condition, which has to be explained.

How is the genetic "explanation" different from the psycho-analytic?

Both treat same-sex love as -- different, odd, abnormal, and diseased.

It is NOT.

Frank:

Of course this does not mean that homosexuality IS genetically determined. Rather, it merely proves that it could be genetically determined.

Bill:

Uh huh.

But I lived through all the bullshit of the various explanations for guys getting it on with guys.

Here's the easy one -- they do it because it FEELS GOOD.

For the same reason that dolphins and whales and bonobos and all the other mammals do it.

Because it FEELS GOOD.

And because it answers a MALE need:

The need to BOND PHALLICALLY with another MAN.

Do you remember "situational homosexuality" Frank?

That was the theory that "normal" men -- unlike "homosexuals" per se, who were deemed to have a "personality disorder" -- would, in same-sex environments such as prison and the military -- have sex with each other.

But when released back into the mixed-sex world, they'd cease.

That theory is bunk.

It was once considered the gospel truth.

No one today believes it.

Because: truth is that guys in prison etc have sex with each other -- and then continue to have sex with other men even after they've gone back into heterosexual milieus.

They do it -- no matter where they are.

DUH.

Sex between males is a normal, Natural, and common behavior.

Even in our society, in which a great deal of opprobrium is attached to it.

In societies which lack a divine prohibtion against it, it's virtually universal.

So why medicalize or geneticize it?

That's dumb.

Frank:

I have no ax to grind on the matter; I'm not much concerned about the etiology.

Bill:

Nonsense.

If you're not concerned about it, why get so worked up about it?

"Not true!!" you say, with not one but TWO exclamation points.

You most certainly do have an ax to grind.

You're concerned about it because you believe that you're "different."

That's been the premise after all of your entire life.

But you're not different Frank.

You were told a lie and you believed it.

That's understandable.

We all -- or almost all -- believed it.

Gore Vidal, to his very great credit, didn't it.

And said so.

But most of us did believe it.

And said so.

But now -- you go on defending it.

That's perverse.

Fact is, you're a Man.

And that's all you are.

And that's the truth.

Frank:

Rather, I am concerned about wiping out the discrimination that those of us who are same-sex oriented must face. I'm particularly concerned about what negative attitudes do to youth who are same-sex oriented.

Bill:

So's a majority of the US Congress -- that's old hat nowadays.

I sent you a link -- from the gay press no less -- showing that attitudes towards civil unions have significantly shifted.

Something else you don't want to talk about.

You're mired in the past Frank.

You're still fighting the last war.

Frank:

Regarding ending the tyranny of anal sex, I am in total agreement with you although, as I have previously stated, I am somewhat put off by the warrior imagery.

That's your loss.

You would have been far better off in your life if you'd embraced your Masculinity.

How did you feel after you successfully and physically defended the "shy guy" who'd been attacked by the bashers?

How did you feel?

[Guys, Frank won't answer this simple question, which I've asked him before, because if he did, he'd have to admit that physically defeating some other males -- felt GREAT!

This is what Frank doesn't want to own up to.

It is, for him, a conundrum.

He behaved like a Warrior -- that is, he physically defended someone too weak to defend himself -- and was victorious.

And it felt -- GOOD.

He doesn't want to acknowledge that.

And that's why he won't answer my question -- because the answer would, he knows, present too many problems for his effeminized ideology.]

Frank:

Many of us

Like who?

Or is that just the royal we?

who are not into anal sex don't relate to the warrior imagery.

Bill:

A quick rejoinder is -- then you shouldn't visit the site.

You'd be happier somewhere else.

But the truth is more brutal.

Which is that because you've self-identified as "gay," you've separated yourself from your Masculine identity and from Masculinity itself, which you won't permit yourself to experience.

Again, doing that presents ideological problems for you which you don't want to face.

But you need to face them.

Our sites and my work are about MEN and MASCULINITY.

And the WARRIOR is the MASCULINE archetype.

That's the way it is Frank.

Furthermore Frank, that Warrior imagery is enormously popular.

I was surprised and to some extent continue to be surprised by the depth of feeling the word Warrior evokes in Men.

I've always known that it mattered to me.

Truth is, it matters tremendously -- to virtually all Men.

You don't like the word because the feminists and effeminists have told you it's a bad word.

They can get over it.

Feminism is an ideology by and for a minority of power-obsessed women.

Effeminism is an ideology by and for bottoms.

You're a Man.

You have far more in common with Men than you do with feminists --

or bottoms.

Frank:

Like many, I am totally fed up with the pressure to conform to the obviously mistaken, dangerous, and oppressive idea that anal penetration is the only way for two men to have sex; I well remember when it was not that way.

Bill:

Me too.

What are you doing about it now Frank?

Aside from sending me hectoring letters?

It's pathetic.

You obviously spend a lot of time on the site.

You've clearly benefitted by hearing your anti-anal views supported.

Yet you've donated exactly once -- more than three years ago.

If, as you say, you're "totally fed up with the pressure to conform to the obviously mistaken, dangerous, and oppressive idea that anal penetration is the only way for two men to have sex;"

then you should put your money where your mouth is.

You no doubt donate handsomely to your church.

What does your church do to protest analism?

NOTHING.

To a group like Integrity, Frank, analism is holy writ.

Why do you give money to your church?

If you're like most people, it's to buy admission to the afterlife.

I know, no one puts is that way -- but that's what it's actually about.

Buying your way into Eternal Life.

Yet Jesus himself said that couldn't be done.

People do it anyway.

They try to buy admission to the afterlife.

Even though there's NO proof that the afterlife exists.

Our work, by contrast, Frank, is concerned with this life.

With the here and now.

We're working to make Life better in this lovely world -- for all Men -- and Women too.

Frank:

For many years, I hoped that I'd find a suitable life partner, but now that I'm almost 70, I realize that it is unlikely to happen. Suitable prospects probably exist, but locating them is unlikely.

Anyway, I hope that you will continue to oppose the anal tyranny, but again, I simply cannot relate to the warrior imagery.

No.

It's not that you "cannot."

It's that you don't want to.

That's entirely different.

And it's your LOSS.

As I've said to you before, Men who are into Men -- which is to say ALL MEN -- are attracted to Masculinity.

Masculinity.

If you'd embraced your Masculinity Frank, instead of eschewing it -- maybe you'd have had a partner by now.

You've been out for a long time.

At least 40 years -- right?

Maybe that's why you don't, despite all your high-church principles, want to acknowledge that I've been in two strong male-male relationships.

Decency dictates, after all, that you voice at least one conventional sentiment about my husband's illness.

But you don't.

In your eagerness to chastise me for having a post on my site which dares to take exception to the gay establishment's line on genetics, you put aside the human niceties.

I'm not impressed Frank.

Bill Weintraub

So, guys, what you see here, is a typical statement of sentiment from a gay-male who's been oh-so-well acculturated by heterosexualization into the categories of sexual orientation.

He gets upset when we challenge the status quo -- or better put, the DOMINANT PARADIGMS -- about "genetics and gays" -- and about "masculinity and gays."

Because those two paradigms work together.

If "homosexuality" is "genetic," that explains why so many "gay males" are "effeminate" and "need" to take it up the butt.

It's genetic.

And calls for MEN to reclaim their WARRIOR birthright -- by reclaiming their MASCULINITY -- can be rejected.

Instead, "gays" can move into a tighter and tighter ideological and communal embrace with the "transgendered."

Where the issue is not one of guys being free to love and be affectionate with and have sex with other guys --

but one of identity politics:

"I'm gay and I IDENTIFY with the transgendered because I'm genetically different and need therefore to imitate a woman during sex."

And:

"I'm closer genetically to a male who wants to become a female -- than I am to other Men."

And that's how this argument, conducted in the name of scientism, as Ed so well puts it, is being played out.

That's why the "gay male community" is increasingly, as I said, embracing trannies.

Rather than Men.

Yet what did Ed say?

I think we are living in a time when there is little sense of the sacredness of people and the mystery of their lives.

He's right -- it's a point which Frances has made also -- and it's crucial.

Here's what Frances said in Agoge Reply III: The Longing for Masculinity -- and I'm going to return to her points in the near, I hope, future:

Christianity and secularism are at war with the natural world and are natural allies in that struggle. They play off each other, but they are both as violently opposed to phallus as the violent yahoo mobs [of monks] who knew nothing of virilis, who attacked the hated representation of what they lacked [-- the statues of the gods in the Greek temples]. They've been attacking it, and those that have it ever since.

Frances is right.

"Christianity and secularism are at war with the natural world"

And they're at war with the Natural World of Men -- the World of Natural Masculinity -- and its two poles of aggression and attraction.

Christianity and secularism "play off each other, but they are both as violently opposed to phallus as the yahoo mobs who knew nothing of virilis, who attacked the hated representation of what they lacked"

The monkish mobs "knew nothing of virilis" -- manliness or masculinity -- and consequently "attacked the hated representation of what they lacked."

What they lacked was Manhood.

What they attacked were the temples of the gods -- who were Men.

They pulled down the temples; they hacked the statues of the gods to bits; and if they couldn't destroy the entire statue, they went for the genitals and mutilated those.

So: the attack was against Manhood.

"They've been attacking it, and those that have it ever since."

Or, as Emerson said:

Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members ... The base doctrine of the majority of voices usurps the place of the doctrine of the soul.

Basically, then, MEN today are caught between the forces of a false religion and its insane religiosity -- the Christian right -- and that of a false scientism -- which presents itself as objective even as it seeks to destroy "the sacredness of people and the mystery of their lives" while championing the ideological position of those secularists who are "violently opposed to phallus."

And who disguise their violence -- as science.

Guys, for your own sake, I ask you to remember that in the days to come.

When you will almost certainly be assaulted with "genetic" explanations for "homosexuality."

That will be for you a test of Faith.

Not of the false, man-hating, faith of the religious right;

and not of the faith of life-denying scientism;

but of YOUR FAITH IN MAN.

MAN.

The Greeks, as I will be posting about soon, again I hope, believed in MAN.

I believe in MAN.

To survive -- you'll need to believe in MAN --

too.

You'll need to have Faith in the Primordial Truths of your own Manly Body and your own Manly Heart.

Primordial Truths.

I post pictures of fighters because for me they express those Primordial Truths.

Manly Primordial Truths.

As I've said before, the guys we see fighting aren't ancient Greeks, so their expression of those Truths isn't perfect.

But it comes closer than anything else we've got in present-day society.

Two Men decide to Fight.

They elect to conduct a strenuous struggle -- in which one Man will seek to overcome the other.

One Man will win and the other will lose.

But they'll each and still respect the other.

As Warriors.

They respect each other.

That, believe it or not, is a holdover from that pristine Homeric world, that world of Warriors, of which Bill G spoke so many years ago.

In the Iliad, the Warriors respect each other -- even as they try, in the case of the Trojan War -- to kill each other.

As we'll eventually discuss, they respect each other's "excellence."

Even as each strives to be more excellent than the next.

It's that mutual striving which creates the mutual respect.

And that mutual respect in turn is a crucial part of their code of honour -- which had a huge influence on the subsequent development of Greek ideals and ethics.

But, and then, the Greeks saw the world as it is.

Here's a vase painting by Euphronios -- very famous.

First we see guys arming.

And it's the typical hoplite panoply -- helmet, shield, greaves, spear.

Genitals exposed.

Then we see the result of that arming.

This is a scene from the Trojan War.

Sarpedon, who fought for the Trojans, has been killed, and Hermes, the messenger of the gods, who was also, as E M Forster has said, the conductor of souls to a not-too-terrible hereafter, is directing Sleep and Death -- Hypnos and Thanatos -- to take Sarpedon's body to Hades.

Here's a close-up.

Sarpedon fought.

He fought bravely.

He was defeated and killed.

But the Greeks respected Sarpedon.

He was both brave -- the Greek word is "agathos" -- and beautiful -- "kalos."

The word agathos -- brave -- also means good.

While the word kalos -- beautiful -- contains within it the idea of nobility as well.

So Sarpedon was beautiful in his nobility; noble in his beauty.

It's a Greek idea and perhaps difficult for us to grasp.

But it's the way they thought.

Which brings us back to the present day, and our own "agonists" -- mixed martial arts Fighters.

Ideally these Men should Strive -- should Fight -- for nothing more than a crown of leaves -- and the praise of their fellow Men.

In our society, not surprisingly, they get paid.

Nevertheless, if we at least conceptually strip away the money, we can see that --

The Fight expresses Truth -- Truth which is primordial and pure.

Now -- I need to make a little aside here.

That painting of Sarpedon you just saw appears on a very famous vase called the "Euphronios Krater."

Very famous.

And the New York Times just adores the Euphronios Krater.

It creams its collective jeans at any mention of the Euphronios Krater.

Which, as you just saw, depicts the bloody aftermath of a fatal fight.

A fight to the death.

The Times approves of the Euphronios Krater.

But the Times doesn't approve of this:

Fighting
The NY Times and Gay Episcopalian
don't approve

Why not?

It's essentially the same deal.

If Sarpedon is brave and beautiful --

why isn't this guy brave and beautiful?

Of course the comparison isn't exact --

but actually we have many paintings of bloody fighters from the Greeks.

Is it okay if a Greek does it, but not if an American does it?

I don't think so -- I don't think intellectually you can get away with that.

Well, you might say, Euphronios depicts a fictional and distant event.

Possibly, but the armament and wounds are based upon the artist's experience of war in his own day.

Maybe it's that Sarpedon was an aristocrat -- he was the king, actually, of Lykia and the Lykians;

while most present-day mixed-martial-arts fighters are the equivalent, in Homeric terms, of peasants.

But hey, then the Times would be demonstrating a bias against guys who work for a living and who dare to dream of rising above their current station in life -- through excellence.

I'd hate to think the Times would show that sort of class bias.

So we'll just put that out of mind.

Is it the blood then?

If the blood, and presumably, the viewer's enjoyment of the blood, is wrong on the American fighter -- who after all, hasn't been killed and isn't likely to be killed in his sport -- why isn't it wrong on Sarpedon?

Conversely --

If Sarpedon is beautiful and noble and good and brave --

then so is this guy.

On some level.

Here's what he looks like without the blood:

He's handsome.

So, it's like I say:

If Sarpedon is beautiful and noble and good and brave --

then so is this guy.

Like I say -- on some level.

Is he truly noble?

I don't know.

I don't know him.

But I know what the Greeks would say.

If he devotes his life to excellence, and strives to excel above all others, and if that striving finds its ultimate expression in self-sacrifice --

he achieves nobility.

You know guys, NW has an article on this site titled aggression and the beauty of guys.

And as I said to him recently, NW's use of the word "beauty" in that article is a lot closer to the ancient Greek meaning of the word -- than it is to our contemporary and certainly to the "gay male" use of the word.

For NW, the beauty of guys is connected to their aggression in the Fight Sports.

That's to say, it's connected to their desire to excel in that strenuous physical struggle of one man to overcome another.

Which makes them "beautiful" in the Greek sense -- which starts with Homer and continues through Tyrtaeus and then Pindar and then Plato -- who says, of a young man at the palestra, that he's

"not less worthy of praise for his goodness than for his beauty"

And that idea is then developed further by Aristotle -- Plato's pupil and the tutor of Alexander the Great.

So that beauty and goodness and bravery and excellence and nobility and honour -- are all connected.

I'll say more about that in a future post.

For now let's be clear just about this:

The Fight expresses Truth -- Truth which is primordial and pure.

Because it speaks to that which is Beautiful and Brave.

Look:

Look:

Beautiful and Brave.

Primordial Truths.

You need to hold fast to those Truths.

Because you're surrounded by lies.

The title of Ed's post is "an attack on men being together."

The Fight Sports, paradoxically, bring Men together.

A genetic "explanation" for "homosexuality" -- will separate Men.

And that's the purpose, no matter what they may say or think, of those who seek such an explanation:

it's an attack on men being together.

Remember what Frances said:

Christianity and secularism are at war with the natural world and are natural allies in that struggle. They play off each other, but they are both as violently opposed to phallus as the violent yahoo mobs who knew nothing of virilis, who attacked the hated representation of what they lacked. They've been attacking it, and those that have it ever since.

"Christianity and secularism are at war with the natural world and are natural allies in that struggle."

You may think I'm silly to waste so much time on "gay Episcopalian," but if we look closely we see that he combines in one person the forces of both Christianity and secularism which are -- both -- at war with the natural world.

"Gay Episcopalian" is a secularist -- he longs for a "genetic explanation" of "homosexuality" -- because that will justify his life-long self-imposed exile from the world of Men;

while at the same time he's a Christian -- who deplores "warrior imagery" -- that is, images of aggression.

Natural Male Aggression which he, confusedly and mistakenly, thinks is morally wrong.

Now I know that most religious right "Christians" don't consider Episcopalians of Frank's ilk to be "Christians."

But I assure you that he is a Christian and that, more to the point, he believes he's a Christian.

Frances: Christianity and secularism "are both as violently opposed to phallus as the violent yahoo mobs who knew nothing of virilis, who attacked the hated representation of what they lacked. They've been attacking it, and those that have it ever since."

But wait, you'll say --

Is "gay Episcopalian" aka Frank opposed to phallus?

Isn't he anti-anal?

Yes, he is anti-anal.

But, in point of fact, he's never said that he's into Frot, and he never uses the word.

Or any of its synonyms -- like cock2cock.

And, you may remember, he refers to our little corner of cyberspace as "the frottage site."

My guess is that he does oral.

That would fit with his age, and his very conservative temperment.

Oral is what guys of his generation did.

If he's 70 now, he would have been born in 1937 or 38, and come out in the late 1950s.

When oral ruled.

And for whatever reason, he didn't make the switch to anal in the late 1970s.

Which is good, and which is why he's alive.

But that doesn't mean that he's a great and free thinker.

He's not.

Aside from his distaste for anal, he has the typical grab-bag mind of the gay-identified male.

And despite being at least 40 years older, gay Episcopalian's thinking is not all that different from that of a young gay-identified guy's like JK aka gearhead -- who still sends me letters defending effeminacy.

So, as I said above, and I'm going to repeat it because it's important, MEN today are caught between the forces of a false religion and its insane religiosity -- the Christian right -- and that of a false scientism -- which presents itself as objective even as it seeks to destroy "the sacredness of people and the mystery of their lives" while championing the ideological position of those secularists who are "violently opposed to phallus."

And who disguise their violence -- as science.

Once again, guys, and for your own sake, you're going to need to remember that in the days to come.

When you will almost certainly be assaulted with "genetic" explanations for "homosexuality."

That will be for you a test of Faith.

Not of the false, man-hating, faith of the religious right;

and not of the faith of life-denying scientism;

but of YOUR FAITH IN MAN.

MAN.

The Greeks believed in MAN.

I believe in MAN.

To survive -- you'll need to believe in MAN --

too.

You'll need to have Faith in the Primordial Truths of your own Manly Body and your own Manly Heart.

Someone got upset with me for saying just that in my second reply to Ed's Wonderful Site, when I observed that you don't need scripture -- to tell you about Phallic Bonding.

But you don't.

The Truth of this lies within.

Within YOU.

You know what you want and what you need -- as a MAN.

Stay True to that -- and you'll survive and eventually, thrive.

Deny it -- and you'll die.

Like, dare I say, Heathcliff Ledger.

Ultimately, the sacred and holy Love of Man for Man, which governs the lives of All MEN, is a Mystery.

Frances is okay and at home with that:

I like what many American Indians apparently believed: that this world is not ultimately knowable by man. It is a great Mystery. Doesn't science prove that one solved mystery just uncovers many others, in a series of neverending unknowns? I am comfortable with mystery. I like mystery. I don't want some sleazeball, or self-appointed holy man trying to explain what he does not know, and probably knows less of than someone who has no such fantasies or conceits. A dog has more of an understanding of divine truth than a man like Haggard, and so many others like him can ever hope to know.

While Ed recalls us to our sense of "the sacredness of people and the mystery of their lives."

That is to say, the Mystery of OUR Lives.

The Sacred Mystery of Our Lives.

The Sacred Mystery of YOUR Life.

If you think of your life that way -- not as a meaningless jumble of genetic machinery -- but as a great and holy mystery which only YOU can understand --

you'll have a chance.

A Fighting Chance.

Thank you Ed and Frances.

True Warriors.

Bill Weintraub

February 23, 2008

© All material Copyright 2008 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Michael

Re: an attack on men being together

2-25-2008

A sad story Ed, I had a similar experiance last summer. I was at my neighbor's graduation party (mainly did it to be polite, never been a party guy) and was standing around listening in on conversations. I picked up on a girl who was talking with my neighbor and pointed at two men who were in friendly conversation with each other. The girl asked my neighbor if they were gay.

Needless to say that made me do a double take. I looked back at the guys, who were still conversing, and wondered how the hell she reached that idea.

Apparently, not only are guys not supposed to touch each other; they can't even speak to each other in a friendly manner without being labled gay. Sadly, we seem to be reaching a point where a guy can't even so much as look in the general direction of another guy without being labled gay.

Unfortunatly, men seem to be weak these days. They've been weakened by social and political forces beyond most of their comprehensions. Feminism (as it is now), Effeminism, scientism, queer theory, fundamentalism, and other forces I can't think of at the moment.

Another thing that weakens them is their portrayal in the media, especially sitcoms. Men used to be portrayed as strong and capable, especially in stories (ancient and not so ancient) and early cartoons. Now, men are portrayed as incompetent and insensitive and jokes that debase masculinity are seen as humerous while if that same joke was demeaning femininity it would be considered misogynist.

Another problem is that women don't generally see this as their problem. What they fail to realize is that the problems that men have in society affects them as well. If a man is not allowed to express his natural male aggression and attraction it can quickly turn to violence. If women really are interested in trying to reduce the violence in society, they can start by allowing men to express their natural aggression and attraction instead of treating both as if they were a disease that needs to be cured.

Another problem is that while society views two men together with suspecion, it hardly ever does the same thing with women. I've seen a lot of women on campus engaged in friendly conversation and showing affection to one another. Does anyone voice the idea that they might be gay? No, they don't. Why, because women's relationships aren't viewed with the same kind of scrutiny as men's relationships are. If it's two women, people barely give them a second thought, if it's two men, accusations are made.

I have hope for Man, but they really must take off the yoke society has put on them.

Michael

Robert Loring

Re: an attack on men being together

2-26-2008

Ed I know what you're talking about because I've encountered similar circumstances. I think it important to understand that CONTRARY to what our lost, upside down society might think otherwise YOUR life is NOT an open book. For some reason people, including strangers, think that everyone's life must be an open book. They have no regard for one's privacy. And, as you point out, they have little sense of sacredness of people and the mystery of their lives.

Society pushes that we must analyze everyone and everything to the point of the insane. To analyze something is to take apart something BUT the other half of analyzing is to put all those parts BACK together again. Most people can analyze very well BUT FEW can but all the parts back together again into a whole.

I've often wondered just where people, especially strangers, get off thinking that you must answer any question they have about you no matter how private or personal. They assume that you are NOT a human being at all but something like just another book to open, glance through, and then throw away. And, THAT is what many people do today. THROW OTHER PEOPLE AWAY! That's one reason our society is so SCREWED UP.

In today's heterosexism/homophobic society ANY little show of affection between two males is automatically judged as being "gay." This is how psychotically obsessed our society has become. In the past the "norm" was the other way around. Men who touched each other, slept with each other, showed affection to each other were the NORMAL males. Those who did not do these things were deemed to have SOMETHING WRONG with them! Yet another example how our society has been turned upside down and how right has been turned into wrong and visa versa.

Honestly, I no longer tolerate people who assume my life is an open book. I used to have patience with such people and I used to tolerate them but I DON'T any longer. I got so SICK of people and their little comments every time they "noticed" something that they thought might made them think I was "gay." They immediately assumed that I was a butt-pirate even though I was not and did not fit in with gay culture at all. Of course we all know what happens when we assume something right? You make an ASS- out of U and ME. Sadly, most people don't make the connection!

People might THINK they dwell in a safe little sterilized world but they deceive themselves. NOTHING in life is safe and NOTHING on this planet is completely sterilized. Life is a chance, a risk, always has been and always will be no matter how much we deceive ourselves. People with a "warrior" mentality know this and understand and accept this FACT of life on Earth. The WEAK, FEARFUL, AND DEFEATED DO NOT!

And here we come to a crux of the societal problem which is FEAR. We are living in a society in which Fear is King of the day and it is a primary motivation behind many people and their behaviors. We send our loved ones off to work or school each day and we have NO CERTAINTY that they will be coming home that evening. We fear that our loved ones might get killed in an accident on the way home or that some crazed maniac with a gun might kill them...fear...fear...and more FEAR. We might deny our fears but that DOES NOT make fear go away. Fear will always withstand human denial.

We fear others so we try to analyze them and get them to be an open book. We can focus on someone else and ignore our own selves and misery for awhile. But, more than that we can focus on "them" and thus not have to confront the thing we are MOST FEARFUL of and that is our OWN SELVES! And there is the ROOT OF FEAR. Found WITHIN our ownselves because most fear themselves MORE than they fear anything or anyone else.

Last night I watched a major national TV show and was shocked during the entire show. A woman admitted that she was still in love with an ex-boy friend. She admitted right in front of her husband to having had sex with someone else during their marriage. She admitted that she'd leave her husband and hook up again with her ex-boy friend if that ex wanted to marry her. The husband was sitting right there on stage the whole time and you could see that what she was saying was devastating him. Basically, this woman admitted on national TV to be nothing more than a TRAMP and you could see the tears well up in her husband and family's eyes. She was then asked if she thought she was a good person and she said yes. A good person? No the lady is a TRAMP with NO loyalty to her lover/husband AT ALL. She's already betrayed him and she is continuing to betray him. That is NOT a sign of a good person! But, she has managed to deceive herself into thinking she's a good person out of FEAR OF HER OWN SELF. Many today are in the SAME BOAT. When you are married or with someone you DON'T betray them behind their backs. Good people DON'T continue to lust after their ex's. The heterosexualized society we live in promotes promiscuity and secret, behind their backs, whoredom! But, it promotes the deception that you are still a "good person". That's double speak CRAP and hetero society has a lot of CRAP!

A BIG part of that CRAP is that men being together and touching each other is "wrong" and/or "gay." This is how society is destroying the INNATE BROTHERHOOD that has existed between MALES for AEONS. Some males are so homophobic, so FEAR FILLED, that they will not even look another male in the eyes for fear of someone thinking they might be GAY. That's CRAP!

Not so long ago people had a sense of the sacred and mystery. The lives of not only self but of others was deemed SACRED. People were polite and paid attention more to their own business than to every one else's business. Only the old maid BUSY BODY down the street was into everybody else's business. Today, however, the whole damned neighborhood IS like the old maid nosy down the street. People have NO sacredness for life because they really have no sense of the sacred for their own lives. The only mystery they know is that they are not happy. Maybe they should start paying attention to their own lives a bit more and BUILD HAPPINESS (contrary to popular belief it does not come along automatically).

People used to have a basic respect for other people. They used to honor the privacy of others but today we pillage it and we do so out of FEAR. Fear of our own selves and what we might feel, for real. These things were true when human society was still a society of honor. Today it is a society of dishonor. Fear now rules supreme and everything has been turned upside down and inside out. We must analyze everything and everyone because we FEAR. Problem is most of us can't put all the pieces back together again into the whole. We've been brainwashed into thinking human life is cheap and expendable. Well I guess it is with that kind of mentality and thinking!

The lady Ed speaks about is a nosy old biddy (that's what they used to be called). She should have been set back into her place and told that "it" was NONE OF HER BUSINESS because, guess what, IT WAS NONE OF HER BUSINESS. If Ed wants to touch another man or anything else it is STILL none of that strangers business! Ed or somebody could have done her a real long-term FAVOR by telling her, "It's NONE of your business!" Hopefully someday, someone will do just that.

People don't know how to handle people who still have a sense of sacredness and mystery for human life. They don't know how to handle people who draw lines at where their live beings and your's ends. They don't know how to deal with being told, "My life is not an open book to you so screw off and pay attention to your own business." BUT, it's time they LEARN TO DEAL WITH IT!

I appreciate Ed's post and Bill's reply but this only adds fuel to the fire of just how far down the SEWAR Western society has gone and, believe me, Western society IS living in the SEWAR right now! Men who touch other men or show affection to other men should not be immediately assumed (ASS-U-ME) to be gay. They should not be automatically assumed to be Butt-Priates or Shit-Surfers. In fact, they are just being NATURALLY MASCULINE MEN! Because that IS what most ARE.

Ed, the next time just tell the person to SCREW OFF and pay attention to their own business. In doing so they might conquer their own FEAR and be a little more happy along the way.

Ed

Re: an attack on men being together

2-26-2008

[Note from Bill: Ed's reply arrived in my inbox before Robert's reply had been posted.

So Ed hadn't had a chance to see Robert's reply when he wrote this one of his own.]

Thanks, Bill, for the men-together photographs and educating me on the late 19th century. Those statistics on bachelorhood. Who would've guessed! They are a real eye-opener. I have felt for a long time that men are supposed to have the socialization of running in packs. Their masculinity becomes stronger with intimacy, and it bonds them and also empowers them for sex with women. Sexual attraction has so much to do with "otherness". That's the spark we need to leap across and that draws us. When men are alienated from each other, as is the case in our present-day culture, and become "the other" to each other, strange things begin to happen. Differences in looks, build, ethnicity and other things between men become highly sexualized along a male/female polarity. Or it can be as subtle a factor as a psychological difference.

This begins with our education system, boys crammed into little desks alongside girls, forced to sit still for much of the day, then diagnosed by some effete psychologist as having a "disorder" and medicated into submission. They are ruining the lives of our boys! (All the while these boys are growing up they are scrutinized for signs of "being gay" because it is so much a part of the landscape today. And gays want to "help them" by putting them into special gay classes. Boys themselves are embattled, defensive, confused. Any signs of liking another boy -- then you are GAY. Admit it GAY GAY GAY. How about this? FUCK YOU -- SHUT THE FUCK UP. Leave boys the fuck alone!) Some boys will not allow themselves to be boxed in like this. They rebel. The won't accept the mantra that "education" (as defined by the feminist educationculture) is the key to future happiness and success because it so sucks TODAY. So they become the criminals. Society has no other use for their energies. If they're lucky they get into a sports discipline and are then lionized as icons of masculinity that others yearn for, if they make it big.

Bill, I'm glad you mentioned transgenderism. In my view this is another bogus area. Man trapped in a woman's body. Woman trapped in a man's body. Is this some kind of transmigration? The psychiatrists have given it their imprimatur, so it must be right. Other physicians have given "restless leg syndrome" the "disorder" tag, and prescribe meds for it, so you know where these medical guys are coming from. What we have is people wishing they were the opposite gender for whatever reason, even identifying as the other gender. We have psychiatrists then ok'ing them for cutting out their genitals by other doctors. I guess it's a lot like a large-breasted woman trapped in the body of a smaller-breasted woman. The solution is cutting slits in her breasts and stuffing bags of filler in.

This gets back to the thought of the sacredness of our lives and the mystery. We aren't objects to be used in this way. Our gender, our bodies, this is what we have to express out deepest soul desires. How corrupt is our elite, how far from any wisdom, mired in the materialistic view, and making lots of money off of it to boot. They are all in it together, the educators, the shrinks, the surgeons, the mass media, all buttressing the same flawed core beliefs that become the conventional knowledge of our era. And when suddenly someone questions the very foundations of it all THEY are the ones who are out of step, suspect, controversial. Much of this has to do with lazy thinking, like the doctor who prescribes whatever the pharma companies are pushing. There is no desire to truly heal, but just to get by the way most do. If you're depressed you have a "mood disorder". Nothing wrong with this society or your life. Don't look into that. Take some pills and get hooked. It's legal, after all. Trapped in the wrong body? OK, we'll just cut off your dick for you. Have you heard one person in the media questioning any of this? Why is that? Isn't there the slightest doubt?

Thanks, Michael, for sharing the story of the graduation party. It helps to understand how widespread this disrespect of men is. I guess I really do need to educate people when I see this happening. Wonderful venue you have created for us, Bill. Where else can these thoughts be expressed, discussed, and understood?

Bill Weintraub

Re: an attack on men being together

3-2-2008

Wow!

Thank you Michael, Robert, and Ed!

Three great posts!

Michael says,

I have hope for Man, but they really must take off the yoke society has put on them.

Right.

Men have to free themselves.

The liberation of any oppressed group can only be the work of the members of that group.

No one will do it for you.

It's fine to have allies.

In this case, Women.

Many Women recognize that there's a problem.

But ultimately, Men will have to liberate themselves.

Robert:

In today's heterosexism/homophobic society ANY little show of affection between two males is automatically judged as being "gay." This is how psychotically obsessed our society has become. In the past the "norm" was the other way around. Men who touched each other, slept with each other, showed affection to each other were the NORMAL males. Those who did not do these things were deemed to have SOMETHING WRONG with them! Yet another example how our society has been turned upside down and how right has been turned into wrong and visa versa.

...

When you are married or with someone you DON'T betray them behind their backs. Good people DON'T continue to lust after their ex's. The heterosexualized society we live in promotes promiscuity and secret, behind their backs, whoredom! But, it promotes the deception that you are still a "good person". That's double speak CRAP and hetero society has a lot of CRAP!

A BIG part of that CRAP is that men being together and touching each other is "wrong" and/or "gay." This is how society is destroying the INNATE BROTHERHOOD that has existed between MALES for AEONS. Some males are so homophobic, so FEAR FILLED, that they will not even look another male in the eyes for fear of someone thinking they might be GAY. That's CRAP!

Right.

These are all instances of heterosexualization turning the world on its head.

Robert:

In the past the "norm" was the other way around. Men who touched each other, slept with each other, showed affection to each other were the NORMAL males. Those who did not do these things were deemed to have SOMETHING WRONG with them! Yet another example how our society has been turned upside down and how right has been turned into wrong and visa versa.

Right.

Affection and intimacy between Men was the norm.

And not just intimacy.

The male body was displayed proudly and openly.

This is something we've often discussed, in posts such as from longhouse to hidey-hole and Masculinity Slowly Losing Options To Femininity.

For example, guys used to shower together.

That was the norm.

Showers were communal; and schools didn't tolerate boys who wouldn't shower post gym class or post after-school participation in a sport.

Everyone had to take a shower.

If a kid refused, the coach would tell the other boys to grab him and throw him in.

Now many teenagers are phobic about taking showers together -- and they're allowed to skip the showers.

WRONG.

Males need to learn and experience that it's normal and natural for guys to be naked together; and they need to be able to look at each other's nude bodies.

Particularly in adolescence, when there's huge curiousity among them about the changes which are taking place.

There's also a question of hygiene.

The prevention of disease through the simple use of soap and hot water -- is one of the triumphs of the modern era.

What's weird is to see homophobia trump hygiene.

A number of school kids have now died from MRSA.

Is that a hygiene problem?

That's what we're told.

Robert:

People used to have a basic respect for other people. They used to honor the privacy of others but today we pillage it and we do so out of FEAR. Fear of our own selves and what we might feel, for real. These things were true when human society was still a society of honor. Today it is a society of dishonor. Fear now rules supreme and everything has been turned upside down and inside out.

Right.

"a society of dishonor"

This is very important, and it's something I was trying to get at in the Heath Ledger post, and to which I'm going to return.

Among the middle-class and particularly among middle-class males, "Honor" is today considered an outmoded concept -- like something out of the Middle Ages.

And even within the Men's Movement, there's a widespread feeling that concepts of "honor" are often part of "social" or what we call "pseudo-masculinity," and are therefore suspect.

I don't agree -- and that's something I've talked about before, in posts like Death Before Dishonor.

Because the fact is, that in Warrior societies, Honor is a hugely important concept and motivator.

Here's the brilliant German classicist Werner Jaeger, in his magisterial work Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, talking about the Homeric concept of Honour -- he uses the British spelling so I will too:

We can find a more natural clue to the history of Greek culture in the history of the idea of arete, which goes back to the earliest times. There is no complete equivalent for the word arete in modern English; its oldest meaning is a combination of proud and courtly morality with warlike valour. But the idea of arete is the quintessence of early Greek aristocratic education.

An essential concomitant of arete is honour. In a primitive community, it is inseparable from merit and ability.

So -- Jaeger begins by talking about "arete."

I've avoided introducing that term here because it so often becomes complicated by discussions of social class.

The important thing to remember about "arete," which is usually translated as "excellence," and which we can think of, for now, as "warrior excellence" -- a combination, as Jaeger says, "of proud and courtly morality with warlike valour" --

the important thing to remember is that over time, the word and the concept becomes a gift from the Greek aristocracy to ALL of Greek culture.

So arete does not remain the property of the aristocracy alone.

Rather, this idea, which combines excellence and courage and idealism and valour, comes to belong to all of the Hellenes -- all of the Greek-speaking peoples.

And note what Jaeger says:

"An essential concomitant of arete is honour. In a primitive community, it is inseparable from merit and ability."

Honour.

Honour is "an essential concomitant of arete," and "is inseparable from merit and ability."

To paraphrase:

Honour is an essential concomitant of warrior excellence, and is inseparable from merit and ability.

Jaeger:

The philosophy of later times bade man obey an inner standard; it taught him to regard honour as the external image of his internal value, reflected in the criticism of his fellows.

...

Homer and the aristocracy of his time believed that the denial of honour due was the greatest of human tragedies. The heroes treat each other with constant respect, since their whole social system depends on such respect. They have all an insatiable thirst for honour, a thirst which is itself a moral quality of individual heroes. When the Homeric man does a great deed, he never hesitates to claim the honour which is its fit reward.

,,,

Christian sentiment will regard any claim to honour, any self-advancement, as an expression of sinful vanity. The Greeks, however, believed such ambition to be the aspiration of the individual towards that ideal and supra-personal sphere in which alone he can have real value. Thus it is true in some sense to say that the arete of a hero is completed only in his death. Arete exists in mortal man. Arete is mortal man. But it survives the mortal, and lives on in his glory, in that very ideal of his arete which accompanied and directed him throughout his life.

So look at what Jaeger says:

Honour is "the external image of a man's internal value, reflected in the criticism of his fellows."

Honour then is a reflection of the man's internal value, expressed as a communal value.

Remember what my foreign friend says in Natural Masculinity and Phallic Bonding: the masculinity of men flows from the male group.

Honour is a masculine value which exists, usually, within a group context.

Jaeger speaks of "criticism" -- to which I would add "praise":

Honour is "the external image of a man's internal value, reflected in the criticism and praise of his fellows."

Jaeger:

Honour means that "the heroes treat each other with constant respect, since their whole social system depends on such respect."

Honour breeds respect -- respect breeds honour.

And, to the Homeric Greeks, "the denial of honour due was the greatest of human tragedies."

That's what happened to Ajax -- as again, I discussed in the Ledger message thread and which I'll discuss again here.

So: Not in the Iliad, but in what's known as the Epic Cycle, which tells the entire story of the Trojan War, we learn that after Achilles is killed, Ajax fights hardest to save his body and return it to the Greek camp.

And Ajax is well-equipped to do that.

Because after Achilles, he's the mightiest Warrior in the Greek army.

In addition, Ajax is Achilles' cousin.

After rescuing the body -- which again is a point of honour -- Ajax asks that he be given Achilles' armour, which was created by the god Hephaistos.

But Odysseus too asks for the armour.

This creates a dilemma for the Greek leadership, since it needs the services of both men.

There are at least two different versions of the story, but ultimately and in both, the armour is awarded to Odysseus -- who's clearly less deserving of it.

Ajax is infuriated.

And after slaughtering some sheep, which the goddess Athena has led him to think are Greek soldiers, he kills himself.

Why does he kill himself?

Because he's been denied Honour -- which he deserved.

And, as Jaeger says, to the Homeric Greeks, "the denial of honour due was the greatest of human tragedies."

Now, I brought this up in the Ledger thread because, in an article in the NY Times which looked at homicides and fatal accidents among US veterans of the war in Iraq, the Times said that

In an online course for health professionals, Capt. William P. Nash, the combat/operational stress control coordinator for the Marines, reaches back to Sophocles' account of Ajax, who slipped into a depression after the Trojan War, slaughtered a flock of sheep in a crazed state and then fell on his own sword.

Is that accurate?

NO.

Though no doubt well intended, does it make sense for someone like Capt. Nash to attempt to apply contemporary concepts about depression and post-traumatic stress disorder to an ancient Warrior like Ajax?

NO.

Ajax isn't suffering from flashbacks, he's not concerned about the number of civilians he's killed -- nothing like that.

To someone like Ajax, the point of the war is to retrieve Helen, who's been taken from her husband, and to kill and enslave as many Trojans and their allies as possible --

while covering himself in glory.

Glory.

Let's apply to that Jaeger's formulation:

Honour is "the external image of a man's internal value, reflected in the criticism and praise of his fellows."

Ajax becomes upset when his fellow Warriors, who share his value system, deny him an Honour which is clearly his due.

That's his tragedy.

He can't get past it.

It's similar to what happens to Achilles, from whom Agamemnon unjustly and dishonorably takes a slave-girl.

Achilles can't get past that, and his anger at honour denied leads eventually to Patroclus' death -- and Achilles' own death.

So what happens to both Achilles and Ajax happens within the context of their own value system.

And to "deconstruct" Ajax, who, again, is one of the great Warrior heroes of the Iliad, and claim that he suffers from some contemporary version of depression or PTSD --

when in reality what afflicts him is "the denial of honour due":

to deconstruct Ajax in that way is to not so subtly deconstruct the entire Masculine code of Honour --

a code which boys learned for more than a millenium in the ancient world -- and then again in the modern world following the Renaissance.

Again, in the Iliad, it's Glaukos, Sarpedon's fellow countryman and beloved companion, who makes a famous statement of the Homeric Warrior creed of arete -- which is dependent upon Honour:

to strive always for the highest excellence, and to excel all others
~ Iliad VI, 208

Jaeger notes that that creed used to be taught to every schoolboy;

at least every schoolboy who learned Greek;

but that now -- and he's writing in 1935 -- "modern educational 'levellers' have ... abandoned" it.

And that's very serious.

When you deny boys their natural urge to compete and excel -- to compete and excel among their fellows -- you do them great damage.

Because, says Jaeger, the desire, the thirst, for Honour, "is itself a moral quality of individual heroes";

while the "ambition" to Honour is "the aspiration of the individual towards that ideal and supra-personal sphere in which alone he can have real value."

Honour is a *moral* quality and an aspiration towards the ideal.

An ideal and "supra-personal" -- more than and above personal -- "sphere in which alone he can have real value."

So -- the claim to Honour, the claim to excellence, is for the Greeks, the aspiring of the individual to an ideal and more than personal sphere -- and only there can he have real value.

Translation:

Honour -- Honour among Men -- matters -- a lot!

To the Group -- and to the Individual.

Can the concept of Honour be peverted -- into what we might call "social" or "pseudo-honour?"

Sure.

But so long as the concept of Honour works to encourage "great deeds" -- deeds which are great because they're morally worthy, involve both great danger and great prowess, and require, as we'll see, self-sacrifice -- it's to the benefit of both the individual Man and the male group.

So -- if we look again at those two paintings by Euphronios, here's what we see:

These guys are, in Greek terms, both Beautiful and Brave.

And, following a Warrior Code of Honour, they'll go into battle determined to "to strive always for the highest excellence, and to excel all others."

That's what we see them preparing to do.

They put on their armour -- but leave their genitals exposed.

They'll fight honorably.

As Men.

Naked and unashamed.

And with respect for their foe.

And if they die, they'll die -- honorably.

And as Men.

Sarpedon has fought bravely.

He's been defeated and killed.

But the Greeks respect him.

And he's depicted, even in death, as Beautiful and Brave, and worthy of the gods' attention.

Now notice, as is always true for the Greeks, that while arete and honour may flow from the commune or group, they're about the individual.

Just as the agon, the athletic contest, is about ONE Man's strenuous physical struggle to overcome another --

So, on the Homeric battlefield, generally speaking, ONE Warrior faces Another.

In war as in athletics, it's one on one.

And ideally, it's a contest of two equally-noble beings.

As is FROT.

Ideally.

Remember that I said earlier in this thread that the Greek idea of Beauty contains within it the idea of nobility.

The Beautiful and the Brave.

For the Greeks, Beauty is only Beautiful -- if it's Brave.

That's the difference between looking at a pic of a male model;

and of a pic of fighters fighting:

The fighters are exhibiting a BRAVE BEAUTY.

Which is the only TRUE BEAUTY.

Brave Beauty is True Beauty.

And it's honorable.

Indeed, in the Oxford Classical Greek Dictionary, when you look up the word "honour," the first entry you see is -- kalos -- the word for beautiful.

And this is an idea we're going to revisit -- I hope -- in a few days.

Because these ideas -- that beauty can be and should be honorable and honor beautiful -- are not easy for us.

Yet they're core ideas for the Greeks.

For now, just remember this:

Brave Beauty is True Beauty.

And it's honorable.

Which can be expressed in this way:

Brave Beauty is Beauty rendered Honorable by Aggression.

That's an idea, I know, which will drive most feminists, effeminists, analists, and pansexualists, insane.

It will make them rage.

It's an idea which someone like "gay Episcopalian" will never accept.

Too bad.

Beauty, Bravery, Honour -- all are related to and linked with Aggression.

So, if we look again at some pictures --

Here's the model:

And here's a UFC fighter at the beginning of a bout:

To me, the Fighter exhibits a Brave Beauty.

The model does not.

The Fighter demonstrates what NW has spoken of: aggression and the beauty of guys who assert that aggression.

As I said earlier in this thread, NW's concept of the "beauty of guys" is far closer to that of the Ancient Greeks -- than it is to our modern concept of beauty -- which tends, ultimately, to be effete.

The Greek concept says that true Beauty contains the Brave, true Beauty contains the Noble -- and the Good.

In that sense, True Beauty is Honorable.

Now, once again, let me caution that I don't know the individuals depicted in these pictures.

What I've been told is that there's a huge amount of money connected with the UFC these days.

And that's not good.

Because money corrupts.

Nonetheless, I think it's fair to say that the guys who fight in these bouts are displaying a Brave Beauty.

They may not conform to the Greek Ideal -- in many ways.

But the Brave Beauty -- is there.

So, and once again:

Beauty, Bravery, Honour -- all are related to and linked with Aggression.

And Honour -- matters.

Because Honour flows from Honour.

So that it matters, as one of our Warriors said years ago, whether you Honor The Phallus.

And it's not surprising therefore, in a society like our own, which dishonors honour -- that phallus too is dishonored, and turned away from.

And that sex ceases to be about genitals.

Which brings us to Ed.

Ed says that the turn-of-the-century photographs and the statistics on late-nineteenth-century bachelorhood in this message thread are "a real eye-opener."

Right.

And for that reason I've put Ibson's book on the Reading List.

Lotsa pictures and other eye-opening information.

You owe it to YOURSELF to see that book.

At the very least, borrow it from your local library.

Like Ed says, it's an eye-opener.

And you need your eyes opened.

You've been blinded by the present and its incessant heterosexualized propaganda.

Men used to live very differently.

And it wasn't all that long ago.

You don't have to go back to ancient Greece.

Though in terms of values, that's the place, in my view, to be.

But all you have to do is go back a hundred years -- and you find Men very happily, as Ed says, "running in packs" -- and not caring who sees them there.

We have two posts up which look at Ibson in some depth -- Warriorhood and Male Intimacy; and She Didn't Understand.

If you haven't already, check em out.

Because what Ibson demonstrates is how impoverished -- how really incredibly impoverished -- are the lives of Men today -- compared to the lives of Men a mere hundred, to a hundred and fifty, years ago.

That's not a long time.

Yet the loss to Men -- has been enormous.

So, if you feel that your life today as a Man is wanting;

if deep in your manly soul you feel that there's something terribly wrong and lacking in your life today --

you're right.

And Ibson will show you you're right.

He'll show you a Male Intimacy which has been completely and utterly destroyed -- in just a hundred years' time.

Now, and speaking of which, Ed brings up "transgenderism."

This is, sadly and unfortunately, an important topic.

It shouldn't be, because the "transgendered" are a tiny and anamolous group.

Tiny.

Anomalous.

Way, way, way, way, way outside the human norm.

But they've been turned, by their gay establishment allies and, as Ed says, a compliant and complacent press, into a cultural phenomenon.

Which is stunning for someone like me, who's old enough to remember when the transgendered and transvestites were on the very fringe of even "gay" society.

Again, thirty years back, tgs and tvs were a fringe phenomenon existing at the edge of "gay culture."

And "gay culture" itself was marginal.

"Homosexuality" was deemed "deviant."

So trannies were a marginal group existing on the margins of another marginal group.

A deviancy -- at the edge of another deviancy.

Not any more.

Thanks to decisions made by a feminist and elitist gay establishment -- which never put the matter up for a vote -- what was "gay" culture is now the "LGBT" community --

and the transgendered in particular are front and center in "gay male" life.

I'm not just talking about all-gay venues like the cable TV station Logo, which is featuring a show called

Transamerican Love Story

Love is a many gendered thing

Alec Mapa hosts this groundbreaking and frolicsome elimination dating show. Our transgender bachelorette, Calpernia Addams, finds herself in a modern day fairytale as she's being wooed by eight dashing men. With the help of her trans best friend Andrea and a parade of challenges and dates, Calpernia whittles down her group of suitors in hopes of finding her prince charming.

And doesn't that sound just great?

I'm not just talking about venues like Logo;

I'm also talking about the mainstream press.

Here, for example, is a bit of an article from the NY Times about Muslim "LGBT" folks in Berlin:

Berlin Journal
Gay Muslims Pack a Dance Floor of Their Own

By NICHOLAS KULISH

Published: January 1, 2008

BERLIN -- Six men whirled faster and faster in the center of the nightclub, arms slung over one another's shoulders, performing a traditional circle dance popular in Turkey and the Middle East. Nothing unusual given the German capital's large Muslim population.

But most of the people filling the dance floor on Saturday at the club SO36 in the Kreuzberg neighborhood were gay, lesbian or bisexual, and of Turkish or Arab background. They were there for the monthly club night known as Gayhane, an all-too-rare opportunity to merge their immigrant cultures and their sexual identities.

European Muslims, so often portrayed one-dimensionally as rioters, honor killers or terrorists, live diverse lives, most of them trying to get by and to have a good time. That is more difficult if one is both Muslim and gay.

...

"Depending on which part of Berlin I go to, in one I get punched in the mouth because I'm a foreigner and in the other because I'm a queen," said Fatma Souad, the event's organizer and master of ceremonies. Ms. Souad, 43, a transgender performer born in Ankara as a boy named Ali, has put on the party for over a decade.

Ms. Souad came to Berlin in 1983 after leaving home as a teenager. She studied to be a dressmaker and played in a punk band, but discovered Middle Eastern music through a friend and began teaching herself belly dancing. Ms. Souad started Salon Oriental, her first belly dancing theater, in 1988, and threw the first Gayhane party -- hane means home in Turkish -- in January 1997.

...

[emphasis mine]

Etc etc.

You'll notice how oh-so-respectfully the Times refers to Ali as "Ms" Souad -- whom it describes as "a transgender performer."

It's a new job category -- you know, doctor, lawyer, transgender performer.

I for one wonder what the gay-identified Turkish men who attend those events think of "Ms Souad."

Doesn't matter.

He/She's front and center -- at the event -- and in the article.

That prominence of the transgendered in a "homosexual" community is bizarre.

Yet a logical consequence of analist thinking about sex and sexuality.

Which seeks what I call the divorcement of genitality from sexuality.

And I encourage you, if you want to understand that phenomenon, which has a HUGE impact on YOUR life, to read that article.

Now, it's important to understand and remember, as I said, that the transgendered constitute a tiny and anomalous group.

The individuals within that group have been diagnosed with "gender identity disorder" -- and that too is important to remember.

To American psychiatry, "homosexuality" is NOT a disorder, and has not been since 1973.

But "gender identity disorder" -- is a disorder.

That psychiatrists support hormone therapy and what we might call the ultimate in genital mutilation to "treat" this disorder -- should not blind us to its being -- a disorder.

And, as a matter of fact, the AP just happened to have a story out the other day on a transgendered prisoner who's demanding his/her rights to "treatment":

Sex-change inmate says treatment stopped

By DENISE LAVOIE, Associated Press Writer

2/26/2008

BOSTON - A killer who sued to have a sex change claims her body is becoming more masculine again because she's being denied treatment in prison as she awaits a ruling in her bid for the surgery. Michelle Kosilek, formerly known as Robert, said that for months she has not been allowed to have court-approved hair-removal treatment or access to a specialist to discuss her testosterone levels.

"My breasts have shrunk, genitals have regained previous size and function, facial hair is thicker and scalp hair is thinner, all related to an elevated testosterone level," Kosilek said in a handwritten letter submitted to the court recently.

Robert Kosilek was sentenced to life in prison in the 1990 murder of his wife. Kosilek said the slaying was self-defense after she poured boiling tea on his genitals.

Kosilek, 58, who legally changed her name to Michelle in 1993 and has been living as a woman, first sued the Department of Correction in 2000, saying its refusal to allow her to have sex-change surgery violates the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

In 2002, U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf ruled that Kosilek was entitled to treatment for gender identity disorder -- including hormone treatments, laser hair removal and psychotherapy -- but stopped short of ordering sex-reassignment surgery.

Kosilek sued again in 2005, saying the treatments were not enough to relieve her anxiety and depression.

"I would not want to continue existing like this," Kosilek testified in June 2006.

The trial lasted on and off from May 2006 until March 2007, with expert testimony from 10 doctors, psychiatrists and psychotherapists. An Associated Press review last year found that the corrections department and its outside health care provider had spent more than $52,000 on experts to testify about the surgery, which would cost about $20,000.

Though testimony ended almost a year ago, Wolf has given no indication when he will rule in the case, which is being closely watched nationwide by advocates for other inmates who want to undergo a sex change. Transgender inmates in other states have sued prison officials, but none has persuaded a judge to order a sex-change operation.

The Department of Correction claims Kosilek's surgery would create a security quagmire and make her a target for sexual assault. Department spokeswoman Diane Wiffin would not comment on Kosilek's recent claims that her treatment is being neglected, citing the ongoing litigation.

In court papers filed last month, Kosilek claimed that prison officials have stopped following the treatment plan outlined by Wolf in 2002, causing a "serious revision" in her attempts to complete her transformation into a woman.

Kosilek said she has not received any laser hair removal or electrolysis since May 2006, and that prison officials have refused to let her see an endocrinologist since October 2007. She said she has repeatedly told prison authorities that the testosterone blocker Lupron has stopped functioning effectively.

In a written response, lawyers for prison officials said Kosilek has continued to receive adequate treatment for gender-identity disorder. The Correction Department also said Kosilek met three times in December with a nurse practitioner to discuss her concerns about her suppression treatment.

Kosilek, however, said prison officials have denied her repeated requests for a follow-up visit with the endocrinologist.

Prison officials said Kosilek received extensive laser hair removal treatments, then asked in January 2007 for electrolysis to remove hair that was too light for laser treatments. They said the department's mental health provider is currently reviewing the request for electrolysis to determine whether it is "appropriate or necessary treatment."

Kosilek's lawyer, Frances Cohen, said the surgery is a medical necessity for Kosilek, who has twice attempted suicide.

"We hope that the Department of Correction wouldn't use the amount of time that it necessarily takes the judiciary to resolve this to allow her treatment to move backwards," Cohen said.

Hmmmmmm.

Kosilek killed his wife, he says, because she poured boiling water on his genitals.

Now he's demanding that the state pay a doctor to cut off his genitals.

Does he want them or not?

He also claims to be anxious and depressed -- in part because his "testosterone blocker" has "stopped functioning effectively" so that his "breasts have shrunk [and] genitals have regained previous size."

Right.

Here's a picture and a caption which, in this case, are indeed worth a thousand words:

Robert Kosilek, now known as Michelle, is seen in this Jan. 15, 1993 file photo, in Bristol County Superior Court in New Bedford, Mass., where Kosilek was on trial for the May 1990 murder of his wife. Kosilek, who was convicted of the murder and who is living as a woman in a Massachusetts prison, won a federal lawsuit to receive sex-change therapy in prison. In court papers filed in January 2008, Kosilek claims the state isn't keeping up with required treatment and she's starting to revert to manhood. (AP Photo/Lisa Bul, File)

"she's starting to revert to manhood"

The confusion of the age would appear to be summed up by that statement.

But it begs the question:

Can a male who demands that the state castrate him --

be said to have ever had "manhood" -- to which he could revert?

Now, let me make clear and explain, that I have no doubt that most trannies are sincere in their belief that they are inhabiting the wrong sexual body.

That doesn't mean they're correct.

Most Holocaust deniers and Flat-earthers are sincere too.

And I understand also that psychiatry has decided that "sex re-assignment surgery" is sometimes the solution.

Though I would point out, as I always do when this comes up, that psychiatry used to support lobotomy -- too.

My concern about the transgendered is simply this:

That the transgendered, aided and abetted by the political muscle of the gay and feminist establishments, are attempting to make their anomalous disorder the rule for all of the human race.

What I mean by that is simply that the transgendered and their advocates posit that every man and every woman born on the face of this earth is born with a "core gender identity" which is separate and independent of their biological sexuality -- their genitalia.

Is there any reason to believe that's true?

NO.

There is not.

If that were true, it's reasonable to assume that there would be far more instances of "gender identity disorder" -- that it would be common -- and that all human societies would have made elaborate accomodation for dealing with the disorder.

That isn't the case.

Fact is, that most Men and Women are very happy with their sexual identity and with their genitalia -- and wouldn't part with either -- for the world.

Or a million bucks.

Would you let someone cut off your cock and balls -- for a million dollars?

No.

And neither would the vast, huge, and overwhelming majority of other Men.

Nor would the vast majority of the world's Women consent to a similar form of mutilation.

And yes, while some traditional societies still perform types of genital mutilation upon their Women -- the intent is not to change their sex.

The intent is to control their sexuality.

That mutilation of Women is heinous -- but not the same as seeking to change their sex.

Again, seeking to change sex is, in terms of human behavior, rare, anomalous, and bizarre.

Nevertheless, advocates for the transgendered have concocted a theory, and in the name of this bizarre and topsy-turvy "gender theory," the world is being turned, as Robert might say, upside down.

For example, in its last session, the US Congress took up some amendments to what's known as ENDA -- the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

The idea, originally, was to extend protections already extant on the basis of race, religion, etc -- to "sexual orientation."

But then the "LGBT establishment" persuaded its allies in the Democratic Party to add to the language in that act, not just "sexual orientation," but "gender identity" as well.

Needless to say, that caused a lot of problems for legislators whose constiuents might have tolerated the addition of "sexual orientation" but went ballistic over "gender identity."

Ultimately, the Democrats rejected the inclusion of "gender identity", though the issue is supposed to be revisited in the coming months.

Should the transgendered by protected by ENDA?

I don't know.

If they have a disorder, it seems to me, the protection should come via the ADA -- the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Otherwise, and obviously, I think, the intent of adding "gender identity" to ENDA is to legitimize and mainstream folks with anomalous and rare gender identity disorders -- in order to make those disorders seem just a natural, normal, and *common* part of the human condition.

Because doing so undermines traditional views of Masculinity and Femininity -- and as such advances a feminist agenda.

In the meantime, confusion about sexual desire and gender -- reigns -- sometimes with tragic results.

Earlier this week, a fifteen-year-old boy in Oxnard, California was shot and killed by a classmate.

The boy had recently "come out" as "gay" -- not unusual nowadays, when the median "coming out" age is 13.5 years.

But then the boy began wearing mascara, lipstick, jewelry, painted nails, and what's described as "feminine clothing," including high-heeled boots, to school.

At which point, a fourteen-year-old classmate shot him in the head.

Which will result, no doubt, in even more propaganda about "gender disorder" being stuffed into the heads of defenceless children:

Call For Tolerance Courses Following Teen Murder

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff (Ventura, California)

California, which has some of the most gay inclusive school legislation in the country, could get mandated tolerance classes in the wake of the slaying last week of a 15-year old student.

Assemblymember Mike Eng (D) says he will introduce a bill that would require schools to implement a mandatory tolerance class as part of the curriculum. The legislation also would provide training for teachers to help them identify "symptoms of hate".

...

So, there will be mandated tolerance courses; and, I bet, following those, even more cases of "gender identity disorder" being discovered.

Because, you see, I wonder if the kid who was killed was wearing women's make-up and clothes -- because he thought of that as a "gay" thing to do.

Kids are impressionable after all.

If a gay-identified kid is told over and over and over again about the LGBT community and about women in men's bodies -- he may begin to think that he's one of those people.

And behave accordingly.

Now let me make clear that I'm all for tolerance.

But at some point there has to be tolerance for boys being boys and Men being Men.

The cultural currents can't always run the other way.

There was another article in the Times recently called The Vanishing Point, about a trend in fashion-modeling which features males who are "thin to the point of resembling stick figures."

The article included this pic and caption:

NOW YOU SEE THEM
Sascha Kooienga, left, and Artem Emelianov represent
the current silhouette on the men's wear runway.

"The Vanishing Point"

It's a good title -- because Men are rapidly reaching the vanishing point.

But the world needs MEN.

Not stick figures.

When I look at a photo like that one, I don't see any sense of the sacredness of people -- or the mystery of their lives.

What I see is a perverse hedonism -- perverse because it at heart hates the flesh.

We started this discussion with Ed talking about "the sacredness of people and the mystery of their lives."

To me, Men and Masculinity are Sacred.

To me, Masculinity is a Mystery -- a Mystery to be celebrated.

This is a famous Greek statuary group found at Delphi, the extensive temple complex and sanctuary sacred to Apollo:

These are two brothers, Argive Warriors and Athletes, known as Biton and Kleobis.

The statues are big -- more than 7 feet tall -- and were created circa 600 BC as a gift from Argos to the god.

Here's a closer look:

The figures are typical of guys from the Peloponnese -- which is where Sparta was too -- sturdy, stocky, farm boys.

Men.

When I look at a figure like this, I'm filled with a sense of awe and wonder at the Mystery of Man.

Look at the Joy, the Certainty, and the Pure Male Power in this face.

This is a Man from a race which worshipped Men.

And which believed in Men.

I too believe in Men.

I believe in Manhood.

I believe in MAN.

In his mystery and sacredness.

It is that sense of Mystery, and of the Sacred, which we as Men must regain about ourselves and our lives.

Look at this creature, which killed the Feminine -- in the form of its wife -- and is now demanding that the state kill the Masculine -- in itself.

The caption said that it "was reverting to manhood."

How can it revert to something it never had?

Look at these other creatures -- that starve their male bodies in the name of fashion -- and sacrifice their manliness -- to fulfill the wishes of effeminized couturiers.

And then look at these images of Men who were Gods.

The World was once filled with THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of these statues.

THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS.

Only a few have survived.

Survived the attacks of those who, as Frances said, "knew nothing of virilis, and who attacked the hated representation of what they lacked."

Only a few of the thousands upon thousands of statues and murals and mosaics and vase paintings -- of Men who were Gods -- have survived.

The rest are forever lost.

The World was once filled with THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of MEN -- who trained and competed and went into battle NAKED and in the FULL GLORY OF THEIR MANHOOD.

Proud of themselves, respecting their foes, and seeking only "to strive always for the highest excellence, and to excel all others."

Are any of those Men left?

Do any of you still carry the Divine Spark of Manliness -- within?

Biton, says Robert Graves, means Wild Ox, Kleobis, Glorious Life; we know their story because it was related by Herodotus, and it goes like this:

The very rich and very vain king of Lydia, Croesus, asked the visiting Athenian lawgiver and poet Solon, to tell him who was the happiest of mortals.

Solon first named an Athenian called Tellus, who had fathered sons and died gloriously in battle.

Croesus then asked Solon, says Herodotus,

who, after Tellus, seemed to him the happiest, expecting that at any rate, he would be given the second place.

"Kleobis and Biton," Solon answered; "they were of Argive race; their fortune was enough for their wants, and they were besides endowed with so much bodily strength that they had both gained prizes at the Games. Also this tale is told of them:- There was a great festival in honour of the goddess Hera at Argos, to which their mother must needs be taken in a car. Now the oxen did not come home from the field in time: so the youths, fearful of being too late, put the yoke on their own necks, and themselves drew the car in which their mother rode. Five and forty furlongs did they draw her, and stopped before the temple. This deed of theirs was witnessed by the whole assembly of worshippers, and then their life closed in the best possible way. Herein, too, God showed forth most evidently, how much better a thing for man death is than life. For the Argive men, who stood around the car, extolled the vast strength of the youths; and the Argive women extolled the mother who was blessed with such a pair of sons; and the mother herself, overjoyed at the deed and at the praises it had won, standing straight before the image, besought the goddess to bestow on Kleobis and Biton, the sons who had so mightily honoured her, the highest blessing to which mortals can attain. Her prayer ended, they offered sacrifice and partook of the holy banquet, after which the two youths fell asleep in the temple. They never woke more, but so passed from the earth. The Argives, looking on them as among the best of men, caused statues of them to be made, which they gave to the shrine at Delphi."

~ History, I, 31.

The statues, by the Argive sculptor Polymedes, were eventually buried -- they were dug up in 1895, which is why we have what we do of them.

Solon says these youths were the happiest of mortals because they had enough -- not too much, but enough -- for their wants, had great bodily strength, had prevailed at the Games, and had demonstrated honour for their parents and honour for the gods.

Which earned them the praise of their fellows, and the gift of a gentle death.

How had they demonstrated honor for their parents?

By pulling their mother in a chariot.

In our heterosexualized day, a boy who yoked himself to his mother's chariot would be called a momma's boy -- a sissy.

Look at Biton and Kleobis.

They're not sissies.

They're strong, confident, powerful, athletic, young Men who glory in their Masculinity and Manhood.

Happy and proud to have been able to help their mother -- who wanted to worship at the shrine of her goddess.

I point this out because this is another way heterosexualization has made life unnatural -- by punishing Men for showing ordinary human feeling and emotion towards their parents.

Yet, says the story, "the Argive men, who stood around the car, extolled the vast strength of the youths; and the Argive women extolled the mother who was blessed with such a pair of sons."

That's a pre-heterosexualized and very human response to both manly strength and filial devotion.

It also illustrates the ancient concept of Honour.

Which, to paraphrase Jaeger, "is the external image of the Man's internal value, reflected in the criticism and praise of his fellows."

Kleobis and Biton are praised by their fellows -- the Argive Men -- in a way which would be very gratifying to two adolescent boys -- because it's their "vast strength" and filial devotion which are extolled.

And they've been praised before -- for winning at the Games.

Here's Jaeger again:

Christian sentiment will regard any claim to honour, any self-advancement, as an expression of sinful vanity. The Greeks, however, believed such ambition to be the aspiration of the individual towards that ideal and supra-personal sphere in which alone he can have real value. Thus it is true in some sense to say that the arete of a hero is completed only in his death. Arete exists in mortal man. Arete is mortal man. But it survives the mortal, and lives on in his glory, in that very ideal of his arete which accompanied and directed him throughout his life.

And we can see this illustrated by the story of Kleobis and Biton, who die not on the battlefield, but in their sleep.

They've behaved honorably, and heroically, and in so doing, have expressed "the aspiration of the individual towards that ideal and supra-personal sphere in which alone he can have real value."

For: "the arete [excellence] of a hero is completed only in his death. Arete exists in mortal man. Arete is mortal man. But it survives the mortal, and lives on in his glory, in that very ideal of his arete which accompanied and directed him throughout his life."

In pulling the car to the festival, the two boys have performed a great and selfless deed.

It's a deed which expresses their "arete" -- their great moral worth, their excellence.

Their arete, which, remember, is a concomitant of Honour, "survives the mortal, and lives on in their glory, in that very ideal of their arete which accompanied and directed them throughout their lives."

So what you see when you look at these statues, is "the ideal of their arete," their excellence

"which accompanied and directed them throughout their lives."

That's what you see in these great works of art:

the arete -- the excellence -- of Men --

and of Man.

And that's what they gives these statues their incredible power.

It's not just that they're naked guys.

In the West, during the Renaissance and afterwards, artists tried to emulate these Greek masterpieces.

And invariably, in my view, failed.

Because they couldn't reproduce or capture the *spiritual* content of these works.

Why?

Because the West had lost what the Greeks had -- the sense of Man as Sacred.

In that sense, not only has the art and culture of ancient Greece never been surpassed -- but it's never been equalled.

That's the power of Greek Warrior Culture -- a culture which viewed Men and Manhood as sacred -- and we've only begun to look at it.

In a future post, I'll talk in more depth about Homeric arete and Honour -- and where those ideas led the Greeks, ethically.

And where they might lead us -- ethically.

For now, guys, look at Biton and Kleobis and think about it.

The trannies

and the femmies

are running your life.

They're not trying to -- they're doing it.

If you believe in Man, if you believe in Masculinity, if you believe in Manhood -- you need to STAND UP -- and say so.

You need to Fight.

You can see that Biton and Kleobis were fighters -- very sucessful says the myth at the Games -- and you can see it.

The athletic contest is the Agon -- the Fight.

If you want to live again as MEN -- you'll need to FIGHT.

Just as they did.

Thank you Michael, Robert, and Ed.

Bill Weintraub

March 2, 2008

© All material Copyright 2008 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.