On classic pederasty

I have moved this article
to the main site: here.

Advertisements

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://caesartort.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/on-classic-pederasty/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

17 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. As a former James O’ Meara fan, allow me to make a few comments about the content of his work and writing style.

    First off, he’s exceedingly literate which could explain his popularity at Counter Currents. CC values articulation over quality when it comes to homosexuals and other marginals. Weaving verbal tapestries of masculine Western men and current “cultural” references is his talent.

    James uses the Mannerbund (a legitimate concept) to further acceptance of disgusting figures like William S. Burroughs. Homosexuality is snidely attached to otherwise solid essays on Julius Evola’s Traditionalism. Another classic trick works like this: find a masculine historical figure, accept gossip about their sexuality, and use this as proof that homosexuals constitute some elite.

    The self-styles “Wild Boy” makes some relevant points about the need for an anti-bourgeois, martial Western Elite. So does everyone else. Counter Currents publishes a text entitled “Revolution From Above” by Kerry Bolton. Ironically a duo (possibly trio?) of homosexuals are attempting this with Counter Currents.

    I’m fairly tolerant of homosexuals that keep quiet and don’t frustrate efforts to form the White Republic. If an afterlife exists I await the chance to watch James O’ Meara be rebuked by every teacher whose ideals he subverted.

    • It is true that James overstates his case. But what concerns me is his editor.

      Johnson has said that when he was asked to be editor of The Occidental Quarterly, he accepted on the condition that homosexuality would not be criticized under his watch.

      Johnson does not admit either serious criticism of James’ articles now that he’s editor of Counter Currents. (The post advertising James’ book for instance admitted no comments.)

      Like Ned May (“Baron Bodissey”) at Gates of Vienna, a gentile who has Jews as a protected minority in his blog, Johnson has a protected minority too: homos.

      And just as May is not honest when Fjordman stated at Gates of Vienna that only Jews or half-Jews like Larry Auster and Takuan Seiyo can criticize Jews objectively (because when I linked to the Jew Albert Lindemann’s  treatise they still shunned me), so Johnson shunned even respectful criticism when I used the above-mentioned homo authors, Dover and Boswell, to rebut Counter-Currents’ stance on homosexualism when I sent him a link to my “Gitone’s magic” earlier this year.

      Johnson’s attitude gives me the impression that, just as Ned May places Jewish interests above white interests, so Johnson places homo interests above our interests. And what is worse: Johnson recently published another James article bashing 1950s family values (exactly what we’ll need in the ethnostate—cf. the work of Roger Devlin, also at Counter-Currents).

      Johnson and May are liberals in this sense. Real traditionalists would allow, with no censorship, criticism of both the homo movement and criticism of Jewry. When my grandma was young it would have been unthinkable to tolerate editors in our societies that forbade these topics. How much has the culture changed! These people are not traditionalists at all, although Johnson likes to republish the articles of traditional authors who died long ago.

      Johnson has just received more than 40 grand in donations for this year. With that money I’d do a better job insofar as, unlike he and Ned May, I’m not attached to neocon, liberal or lefty ideas. I’d do a better job in spite of the fact that English is not my native language, and that I discovered white nationalism in 2009.

      • Excellent input, Chechar!

      • Great job!

        IFA

      • Thanks. I wish Johnson allowed at least respectful criticism of his editorial policies regarding homosexualism, as those in the above piece, but I doubt he will…

    • Excellent presentation. You are absolutely right.

      It is interesting, but the fact is, that those who ‘claim’ to be White Nationalists, and especially when they are, in fact, intelligent and articulate, is something that was bound to happen. In the 60’s this happened as well with Rockwell, and the hanger’s on who were drawn to what was happening, no matter their real agenda. Then, of course, you have your provocateurs and government involvement to saturate, and disseminate falsehoods, thereby misdirecting the ‘true believers’ and followers.

      I watched in amazement, as money poured in. Why did it? To date, there is not any as good in the marketing end, as GJ and his associates – no one can hold this against them. The other side to this phenomenon, is that while everyone was seeing something strange, there are enough ‘good’ writers, to make the Site an asset to our folk-community. Whether the ‘homo’ element is, in fact, the very source of CC, remains to be seen.

      I still have links to this site, and will continue, even if only to highlight those individuals that I honestly believe are doing something good, for now as well as the long-term.

      White Nationalism is bigger than any one man, or small group of men, but we must carefully, and at every opportunity, bring those who would derail, or defame us, to account.

      Good luck.

      • Johan: Your blog merits attention. When I find some time I’ll take a more serious look at it.

        It’s different that a Rockwell fan was accused of homosexuality that a well-known CC writer boasts transvestite behavior openly and out of his closet. If these guys were more discreet I’d not have bothered with these articles.

        Keep your link to CC. But also keep in mind that, just as quite a few nationalist sites, these are flawed people too.

  2. Interestingly, I have rarely heard of the male-female imbalance in the classical world, which goes a long way to explaining that behavior. Still, it’s incredibly difficult to understand that psychology. The idea that every young male had no real choice in becoming an eromenois is disturbing.

    Sometimes I wonder if particular authors have fiddled with the ancient texts (considering all we have are copies) in order to further an agenda.

    • The imbalance in the classical world is referenced in Lloyd deMause’s work.

      I am no expert on the subject but I gather that, obviously, not all adolescents had lovers in the classic world. My guess is that only some of them had. Dover’s is a Harvard published book with lots of scholarly references. Perhaps he read the originals in Greek.

      (My obvious objective in quoting these guys is to refute Counter-Currents’ homophilia.)

      • “…lots of scholarly references. Perhaps he read the originals in Greek.”

        I may be wrong but I don’t think any of Plato, Aristotle etc exists in its original form post medieval times. That is, all their works were transcribed/rewritten by the monk/scholastic system in the 15th/16th Century. Just a couple people in high places (with an agenda) could easily have ‘adjusted’ these writings.

        I don’t necessarily subscribe to Fomenko Chronology but it does present a host of important information.

  3. Symposium must be read within a certain context. First, one should understand the order of the speakers, the arguments they present, along with their intent. We must ask ourselves why Plato has certain characters speak certain arguments, and why the particular order of presentation (to include the deliberate substitution between the physician or artificer Eryximachus, and the comic poet Aristophanes)? These are not trivial questions.

    The arguments over Eros range from a rather self-serving eroticism (Phaedrus), based on overcoming shame and promoting hubris, to the higher spiritual love of wisdom and beauty (Socrates). This natural hierarchy explains the telos, or the end of Eros, which should be the end of man, and is contrasted aptly by Eryximachus’ distinction between the base and vulgar muse, Polyhymnia, with her heavenly (transcendent) sister, Urania.

    And it is very instructive to understand that the highest manifestation of Eros is explicated within Socrates’ speech. In order to approach his speech, a discourse on the highest form of love, we must consider the characters, and who teaches whom. The young Socrates learns from a “woman wise in this and many other kinds of knowledge.” Socrates was in fact schooled by a priestess of Zeus. Why Plato would choose a woman to initiate the philosopher into the highest form of love is a question we ought to consider closely, especially in the context of pederasty, and the question of a larger homosexuality.

    The true nature of Eros is presented as the daemon of desire–neither god nor man, but an in-between, a striving for wisdom and truth, or divine knowledge–again, the end, or final cause of man. Also, immortality, through generation, which can only manifest within heterosexual love.

    When Dionysus finally arrives (in the form of the hapless lover, Alcibiades), the god must necessarily crown Socrates the winner of the speaking contest, while at the same time angrily berating him for refusing drunken, homosexual intercourse.

    We can also mention this in the context Plato’s discussion of homosexuality in his Laws, through the words of the Athenian stranger.

    From a practical standpoint, the question that must be asked today is what social benefit is gained by open displays and pubic support of homosexuality as one of many competing equal “alternative” lifestyles? The goal of liberal society is to somehow discover, or if it cannot be discovered, then to simply arbitrarily decide, that homosexuality is both natural and normal in the psychological sense, equal in right in a political sense, and socially compatible (or even beneficial) within the overall context of civil society.

    But these arguments can never be supported, because homosexuals are not normal, psychologically. Politically, homosexuals are really looking for spoils, and their general unchecked behavior within civil society undermines the very order that offers a normal citizen the possibility to progress toward his natural end. One need only view a “gay rights” parade in any large city to understand the end of homosexuality, and what they are up to. In fine, unchecked homosexuality is a grotesque freak show.

    • …and how could James & Greg being taken seriously among us —they, who live in cities of grotesque freak shows and purport to defend white interests (that to my mind can only mean heterosexual marriage)— is beyond me. James in particular seems to be an example of the ultraliberal type that Roger Devlin describes in “The revolt against marriage and childrearing.”

  4. Great work Chechar.

    I am pleased to have refrained from making a donation to CC, which I was on the verge of doing recently. The promulgation of homosexual elitism does nothing positive for the 14 Words, or WN in general, IMHO. My money is best employed elsewhere.

    • And tonight I am still debating Greg but this time at VNN forum: here.

      • Great response. The Jutes buried homosexuals in bogs; so much for reclaiming the “pagan West”…

      • And now the first part of today’s Jim Giles’ show featutes Linder and Griffin talking about homos. Hilerious!

  5. Greg and James O are fags, are they not?

    They have nothing to add, why do you tolerate them?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: