Yes, welcome Caribbean Resilience episode 75. Welcome to Trash World. Please stop up the ears of your children. Send them away from room if they enrange. Don't let them listen to this show or the next one, because very unsavory topic, the gay movement, its history, meaning I will have to get into some very untoward facts about the mechanics of what it is that team cock gets up to, because you know a lot of the subterfuge of these movements is in the ignorance and the innocence of middle-aged liberal white woman who has no idea on the habits of this team cock. But you talk to anyone, for example Thomas, he used to work as a bouncer, or if you yourself have been around underworld types, I'm not talking about genteel lounge, but the real

real-ish nightclubs that they go to if you know about these places. I'm not talking about the Pete Beauty gig and this, I mean who knows what he gets up to in private of course, but he seems to represent gays in his outward persona about as little as Obama, Dorcoloid represents the Black Hood lifestyle. In any case, I'll have to get into some of the mechanism in order to argue against people like Foucault or others who obfuscate the really magnitude of problem with their half-truths and their fake histories about how this so-called identity came to be. And I will need two shows to do it, this and the next one. It became too long, so two-part show. I believe the danger mankind actually faces from this movement very great, both as it

it is, and because it's part of something much bigger and much worse, which most gays themselves are probably not aware of it, this so-called transhumanist idea. And what this transhumanism, it's not something I ever took seriously. I found it a bit like science fiction, and in large part it is, but consider it maybe as another attempt to deny nature, maybe the craziest, most far-ranging attempt to denial of nature, to stop up the ears and eyes, to receptivity to nature by any means, this kind of cowardice, stupidity, is the purpose of all modern political derangement, whether you look at classical communism, which you all know about Lissenko, right, and how under Stalin geneticists were murdered, and this completely fake biological science of Lissenkoism

was promoted instead, complete with mythologies like you'd find in East Bloc even quite late by 1970s or so stories how, oh, we found a man in such and such village, he has an extra set of molars, and this is evidence that the new man predicted by future socialist state is arriving. The state of socialism is just around the corner, the workers' corner. But in the West, people like Levantine, they have the same role Lissenko did under Stalin. It's only that repression and the mentally ill coercive measures were a bit delayed in in America, and so on. So you look now at California Department of Education in Mathematics, and they put announcement that they do not believe in natural talents and gifts, right? I believe that is exact wording, part of their announcement this last week.

And it's very interesting, if you read a little further down, they add, and I'm paraphrasing, they add something about the Gauss-Galois five-year plan. What is this? the California Department of Education, that's right, they say that since there are no such things as natural gifts and talents, and also no natural desires, that they intend to form five million Gausses and Galois by 2025. Genius mathematicians will be created by whatever means necessary. One hundred thousand hours of enforced supervised practice will form millions of math geniuses out of the Los Angeles and New York public school systems. Please gather around, ladies and gentlemen, for this show's amazing ambition of California educational department. Galois is French romantic mathematician.

He died in a duel over a girl, I think, at age 18 or 19. But by that, age had already formed Galois theory, which is foundational part of modern algebra. Not like high school algebra, but foundation of all higher kinds of math. So you know, it is a big task. He did it by 18 or 19. He obviously did not have any inborn talents, gifts, or desires, you know, orientation toward math. So it must be that he just randomly decided to practice, you know, 22 hours a day for many years. So this also must be repeated, it must be enforced by the California school system with police officer enforce hundreds of thousands of hours of practice on BIPOC children to prove the justice of the American way because otherwise the existence of Galois is a slap

in the face to this public philosophy of our time, obviously. So of course, yes, I joke, they will not do this. This is rather their justification for cutting all advanced math programs and not even teaching, For example, calculus in high school now. So you know, their answer to natural differences is of course they do know these exist and unfortunately for liberalism, they are distributed by historical, national and racial groups and not just by individual variants, but so the answer is always to lobotomize in some way. If they can't lobotomize your son by telling him he has no future in school because if If you're a white parent, this is where they are very much going now. You have to protect your children, especially your sons.

They're trying to humiliate him in school and denying him opportunities and trying to get him addicted to drugs or pornography, but if they cannot lobotomize and kill spirit in that way, they will eventually, as sure as I lie here on this couch, like lazy oriental, but they will surely eventually literally lobotomize in some way, whether it's chemical because the existence of natural distinctions is like I keep telling you for so long it's intolerable to them. So many idiots they comment in my reply sometimes on Twitter regarding Nietzsche or this word recentement, I guess French word for resentment but it means something specific in Nietzsche but some idiot always replied to me with this and I want to ask them are they aware that

That Ressentiment in Nietzsche isn't just a slur you can apply to your enemies, or to call them jelly haters, or simply that you can apply to someone who opposes the government or a tyranny in a particular place, right? Harmodios and Aristogaiton, in essence, were not driven by Ressentiment against the tyrant, I am sorry to tell you. This word is different. Actually, it can describe even someone who has political or social power. Are people aware of this, who use it? Because it refers, rather, to the subterranean and secret desire to besmirch and destroy, to degrade what rankles your pride or ego, because it's higher than you, usually especially by virtue of some natural distinction like beauty or strength or intelligence, or a carelessness

in character of a certain kind, which in its right variety can also be classed as a form of strength, but the desire to strike against this, to besmirch it. Here is an important part of the definition of recent demand. To cloak this desire, however, in a humanitarian, mendacious, or egalitarian disguise, that is its meaning. And you see now how we are ruled in the West, Europe, and America, white civilization, we are ruled by resentful, almost demonic people, cockroach people who are bent on revenge. Revenge is only thing that animates them, and I'd include in this, by the way, a good number of middle-aged white ladies whose lives did not turn out the way they wanted. They did not get men they want or whatever, they're childless and so forth.

And they let out all their bile into political activism. But this is well known. Much of this pro-Christian desire for enforced equality is behind also I'm saying the transhumanist drive. You hear this more and more lately, Alex Jones, he does a good job, he talks about transhumanism. And I'm not speaking here of the visionaries like Nick Land or others who seem simply to me to be into, let's say, wild ideas for the future and maybe Nick Land has a science fiction term of mind and I say this in the best way, but they are not the drivers of this, even if they were early adopters. You know, I do think that man today, the human, as he's largely turned out in history and today is a sickly creature, is a badly turned out animal that needs to be overcome.

I believe this, but much hinges on how you think he should be overcome, in what direction of course, and whether it bothers you that such overcoming would only be available to one or to a few, or worse still for the modern sensibility, whether it would only be available to certain subsets of certain nations and not to all mankind, does that bother you? Second, and whether you think this can be done slowly from within a bosom of nature, which is to say biologically through fortuitous fortunate pairings and eugenically, or whether you think this can somehow be forced with the aid of technology. And transhumanism is almost always it means this, this desire to achieve transcendence of the human through some kind of technology, but unfortunately for such people the technology

does not exist, probably never will. The technological advancement very much slowing down, not advancing, not progressing, and given demographic realities, it's very doubtful whether Western world can preserve a, let's say, population profile that can support scientific progress. As for China, do not get started, they do not have real science to speak of whatsoever. But I posted this week, please listen, I go on tangents, but it's not tangents, it's all the same thing I'm saying. So I posted recently how nanotechnology is completely fake, an article by Scott Laughlin, you should read his blog anyway. So this is hype-filled nanotechnology, nanoparticle, nanotech, it's all fake. Which isn't to say that things don't exist on a nanoscale, but generally we have very

limited ability to manipulate on that scale, not to speak of robots or even any workable machines actually at the nanoscale. It's fantasy. Not to speak of self-replicating nanorobots or machines and so forth, which is at the center of this theory, but again I encourage you to read Scott Laughlin's essay on this. The field amounts to hand-waving, or HOPES, you know, they say this equation exists so In theory, this should be possible, so it will be possible and it will look like this, but none of the steps are worked out, which you cannot do, of course, even in theoretical science, let alone in engineering or technology. I'll see it when I believe it. It does not exist now. Nothing like nanotechnology exists. But self-assembling robots don't even exist on the macro scale.

So how do they do on nano scale, where the most we can manipulate right now, for example, are certain kinds of etchings and this. But the technology for this kind of etching and nanoscale has actually existed for a long time, hundreds of years maybe. So it's a hype field like artificial intelligence where I know some of you have worked with this and you know then in practice it's called machine learning and it's nothing to do with AI artificial intelligence the way that theorists and hypesters and fundraisers talk about it because it's not generalizable. In other words, they can make a program to do some limited things like backgammon or chess, but that does not give a computer or any other machine any ability to apply those

supposed skills to anything else, or to use it as a further learning tool. And that's because there's nothing there that can use it, and I'm not talking here even of metaphysical things like the machine has no unifying soul or something like this, which are words I would not use, but that even from purely materialist practical point of view, the people working in this field have no conception of what accounts for a unified mind that can gather and use skills and integrate them into new and different skills, or that can even successfully unify sensations and perceptions into something actionable beyond very, very basic things. So when Elon Musk is here, you can see on YouTube a retired debate with Mike Ma, I'm

I'm sorry, I mean Jack Ma, a debate with Mike Ma would actually be very entertaining. I think Mike Ma could crush Elon. But Elon is a hypester in many ways, with Jack Ma and the Chinaman, so the Chinaman Jack Ma is just saying platitudes about how he believes in the human spirit and the empty words and Elon Musk is making these Reddit wry faces and mugging it up for the camera and asking stupid questions like, what is a human better at than a computer? And Jack Ma just sits there like an idiot gives a dumb answer. And here is an answer, Elon, how about hunting? Something as basic and yet ultimately as profound and foundational for life as hunting. And I would put a pack of African hunting dogs against your most advanced hunting computard any day, Elon, I would do this.

African hunting dogs. And you can take your Boston Dynamics fake robots that they use remote control for. It will take your computer down. Of course, you'll never agree to that. You will want to pick your computer program you want to use against the Bantu farm equipment for the experiment. And I will grant you this, that you can design computers. But look, what I mean is easy to fool people who are impressed by science fiction language and start looking this and watch the Borg and to tell them, OK, this is nanotech. This is a cyborg, right? I can take a spray of water, a mist. I can make a mist of water and spray it in your face and tell you these are nanoparticle. And the way they are, for example, using nanolipid particles in these vaccines is actually a very crude technique

they use to create these. It does not involve precision instruments or machines on the nanoscale, as you might think. So you can design a poison using crude, long-known means, means long known to mankind and tell people it's nanotech and it's something that will be effective in the sense that it can do damage, it can be a poison but it won't deliver anything promised but they will believe it, right? You can implant a microchip into people and of course they will get infections from that and the immune system will refuse it, they'll get cancer and whatever and you know, you can still however call that a cyborg and say they have transcended mankind and the age of transhumanism is here, singularity is around the corner.

You can walk around with copper wires fixed to your forehead and even graft them under the skin and pretend the Borg from Star Trek are here. You can pretend to be a girl by dilating an open wound that mentally ill so-called doctors have given you. A man pretend to be a girl and have doctors mutilate you. People who are not doctors and who would actually put mental asylums in a normal world. You can do all these things and I'm afraid this will be extent of all transhumanism and people will be forced to pretend that transhumanist age is here, fake food, pretend science, trash world all so that the hierarchies organically arising from within nature will no longer hurt the egos of bugmen. The bugmen become numerous like yeast.

And I believe a vanguard of this derangement was an indirect way and I must emphasize this because it's mostly indirect. It's not as if every gay man is in on the transhumanist drive or would agree with it at all. They're being used in the same way, for example, globohomo use Ukrainian Nazis to try to impose gay right really into Kiev. And the Ukrainian Nazis, by the way, they may be aware of these intentions and they may think, well, we can get the upper hand on globohomo, which they may be able to. I don't know. I'm telling you, as analogy to the gays, it's not as if every gay is in on this transhumanist program. And in fact, in its beginnings, the gay movement had entirely different surface meaning, a different social role than it plays now.

And I will discuss that second part of this show later this week. But yes, this change in function, both in its beginnings and now, the gay movement is actually something much larger than it appears, but in different ways. in its beginnings versus now. And even worse way, this is true, by the way, of the furries, you know, the pervertoids who dress in animal suits and, you know, tiger costume and they want to fuck a wolf or someone in fox outfit. And there's a lot of overlap because many are gay, but it's not just who and how they want to intercourse that matters here, but the meaning of ultimate what it is to be a furry, and how I know this sounds absurd, but how something so silly, as people wearing Disney suits of animal for purposes apparently of satisfying a fetish,

they're actually leading a vanguard of a satanic transformation of life that reaches very far beyond itself. And you ignore this at your own peril. As friend recent tell me, the fursuit is somewhat like the rainbow flag, it's not even the point, it's just an outward sign, rather the point is overcoming of humanity and nature through an arbitrary will. Which will not work, but the Soviet Union did not work either, and yet for 70 years it existed, it brought disaster and murder to millions and millions. So in the same way, transhumanist pretense, if allowed to proliferate, will one day maybe soon succeed, ultimately it will fail. But if you let it get a foothold, much of the world will be reduced to trash first. That will be the first step.

And in some cases the damage will be permanent, or half-permanent, which is almost as bad. And by the grace of Muhammad, the Irish prophet, peace be upon him, we must stop this. I will be right back. Yes, whenever I talk about nanotechnology or artificial intelligence or quantum computing and how such things don't exist, I get often in the replies very mad, usually femaleoids, who they are a type who because so much money concentrate now in Silicon Valley, they get a glint in the eye and there are two kinds. Steve Saylor calls this the new adventurous type, you know, the kind of woman history always sees where money is concentrated, they go there to try to take advantage of the desire and weaknesses of men and there are many weak men, especially now Silicon Valley and you

You get two type of girl entrepreneur, one is the social justice type who attaches herself to the human resources part of these tech enterprises and they form the social justice warrior part of Facebook and Twitter and they use political threats, social mob intimidation threats and then on the other side there is the milder kind, there are some male but again usually female-oid, they do not practice anything that is real science, but they go to Silicon Valley to engage in this endless gibberish talk, science fiction talk of these fantastical technologies that don't exist. And I would guess they are kept around as a form of entertainment or as a form of propaganda, perhaps Silicon Valley engineers like to be flattered, and so they keep, I guess this

This is why the so-called science writers around who talk about nanotech revolution around the corner, they get very mad when I say it doesn't exist. Of course, it's their living. How can I say this kind of empty talk and blabber is their living? But anyway, I must turn now to what is a gay and I talk this in my book for a chapter and And there are some gays on our side, a few of them, they wrote me to thank me because they say I hit it on the nose, it reflects their experiences and I based part of that explanation on Camille Paglia, part was my own. I won't repeat myself but I add something to it. And on the second half of the show later this week I will explain to you the modern gay movement. For obvious reasons, cliques of gays, they would have comparative advantage in almost

any age, right, when it comes, for example, to conspiring or maneuvering for political and social advantage, especially when they're forced into secrecy. But this is made much more so after 1950 and I will try to tell you again on a future show, the next show, what a gay movement really was starting in 1950 because something very new, entirely new. Okay, now you can see there are many new things. Feminism is women's rights did not exist in history, but yes, it's true, but it's not entirely new because Aristophanes, for example, very long ago, he had play Assembly of Women that contained all the claims that modern feminists make, it lampooned women's liberation before it existed and showed how it was actually just a cartel of old hags to try to get preferential sexual sex source treatment.

And what is feminism even today but this, a cartel of aged women to prevent men from dating younger women is not my idea, this is very popular in old menosphere blogs but I think fundamentally is right and insofar as it concerns the motivation of many of the women who participate in it, who invoke its arguments, I think is correct. It has other functions too of course, feminism. But there's nothing similar to this anticipation by Aristophanes. There's nothing similar for the gay movement in antiquity. It's a reflection rather of the war situation after the world wars in Europe. And I really think fundamentally it actually has nothing to do with the gays as such. It was a vehicle for something else, which I briefly also mentioned in book and so forth.

But on these next two segments, I will cover something different, debate around this, what is meaning of gay and what is meaning of gay in antiquity, in Greek antiquity, you know? Because you shouldn't confuse what I have just said with Foucault or similar claims which have spread throughout academia even among conservatardish professors who accept, for example, the claim that gay itself is something new and that there were no gays before the late 19th century of this because there was no word for it. So I will get a little bit into this on this in the next segment, but you must understand why important because the debate over the status of homo sex and so forth in ancient Greece, still very relevant. It is used as a legitimizing and prestige factor by gay propagandists.

So it has social and cultural power as this image when they say, oh, the ancient Greeks and Romans were homos or so forth or tolerant of it. Second of all, it actually has legal expression. It's been used as a foundation of legal argument for gay rights and so forth. Let me give you an example. Martha Nussbaum, who is a complete moron, a turd of a person who calls herself a philosopher, She's mediocre college teacher of pseudo-philosophy. I believe she's married to Cass Sunstein, there is very good Mark Ames article about the mediocrities of these power couple, the power hungry couple. But Martha Nussbaum went and testified before Congress that in ancient Greece there was no condemnation of homosexuality. There was no moral condemnation of it. I think she made this kind of argument.

And the purpose of claiming this is to then say, well, all modern moral condemnation of homosexuality, I believe these were hearings over whether gay marriage should be legalized or things of something like that or whether sodomy should be decriminalized. And her point, the reason she was brought out to say this, is because if you can prove that Greeks and Romans did not have a moral problem with it, then it must be that the modern moral problem comes from the other source, from the Bible, therefore that it can only be religious in origin, and that this somehow contradicts the separation between church and state, which again is misinterpreted by these people, it doesn't mean what they They think it does, but many people, perhaps most of America, accept that church-state

should be separate. So these people think if this state can make this case, that the only source for the condemnation of homosexuality can come from religion or the Bible, oh, that then it is illegitimate to have any laws against it, because that would be a religious law, it would violate America and so forth, you understand? So I need to go into some of their argument about Greek antiquity specifically. Of course they're very wrong about the Romans also, but they're very wrong about the Greeks. And Martha Nussbaum knew that coming in because she wrote about it, I believe, in other plays. So she basically perjured herself by claiming this. She's dumb, but she knows very well that Greeks had plenty of moral condemnations of homosexuality.

I'll try to tell you on these segments the meaning of it. They also had, of course, pederastic rights, which I will not defend, but I want to explain what they were on this show to show you how different it was from modern understanding of homosexuality and so forth. But to go back to this Foucault claim, very widespread by now is that homosexuals did not exist before the late 19th century because there was no word for them. It is a very common post-modernist type claim. And it's true that homosexual is a made-up word from two roots, Greek and Latin. And the fact that it's from these two different roots is another indication that it is indeed a neologism. It's a scientistic made-up new word, much like you see.

All kinds of new words are made up now by egghead academics and science worshipers. And I think you should reject new words. And also the word homosexual, I think it's a stupid word. And by the way, the word genocide is also completely made up. Totally made up in 1947, I think. And look who made it up, by the way, and why. I will not use this word genocide. If you want to know what real genocide is, it literally means the killing of a family or a clan. This is what the word really means. So you may imagine then why certain families, let's say the Rothschilds, who had a very close call in the 1940s, they would be keen to have this word in wide currency and meaning something else entirely. I don't know, am I being a conspiracist now?

But it's strange to me how mankind got along with massacres of all kinds for millennia and no one ever thought to coin this word genocide, but suddenly okay. But maybe because if you dig a bit into this word, it means nothing, it's meant instead to aggregate different kinds of phenomena and obscure others. In other words, like most scientific and moral neologisms, it's an abstract concept meant to obscure a reality from you. And homosexual is another such word, but Foucault and similar are wrong to then conclude that homos are as understood in the vernacular by normal people to say that they did not exist before 19th century, or that they are somehow invented by mankind's new medicalized or scientific self-understanding and all this.

Because if you look throughout history, in most cosmopolitan big urban centers I'm saying with culture and around the Mediterranean and so forth, there certainly were homos. And they were mocked in much the same way as today, the homo is mocked, the sissi is mocked, and often in similar professions they worked like a hair stylist and this, and Camille Paglia points this out, she's right, she points this. So for example in ancient Greece, it was similar kind of mockery, the word kinaidos, it stood basically for bitch or the passive homo. And there was another word which meant, you know, broad ass, okay, so very graphic. But you should not jump from this, however, to imaginings of the modern gay social writers

who say, oh, this must mean it is the Mediterranean way, the Mediterranean mores of believing it's not gay if you're on top, okay? That is also misunderstanding. If you go now to Iraq, to Afghanistan and Gulf states especially, you will see something similar to this attitude is true, but not quite. are very much homo states, okay, so you look at Richard Burton, great 19th century explorer, first Westerner into Mecca, he wrote book, Satanic Zone, where he explains the predilection for pederasty in a large swathe of the world. He marked it off geographically, tried to explain this. So if you find similar behavior in prisons, and some people have tried to explain this by saying Arab societies similar to a prison or this, but they're wrong.

As Thomas Severn I think he points out, in prison it's not really what they make you think. It's not a free-for-all. It's rather that deviant criminal types will engage in sodomy among other kind of deviant behavior where on the outside they would do the same in fact, which is in keeping with what I've heard from others who are in jail. In other words, although American media somehow cruelly uses prison rape as part of every sentencing right which is used as a threat which is barbaric beyond belief if you think about it. It's often liberals who celebrate this kind which is a kind of torture even for minor offenses apparently they think it's okay. But in reality from people I've heard who are in jail for quite serious offenses for

years, for example cocaine distribution of large amounts, they say generally you find protection with various types of gangs, and that protection does not include demand for sexual favors or this. Or even if you actually fight back on your own, you generally will not be targeted for rape, which is carried only by a few types and not universally practiced. So it's not like some gays imagine that men revert in prisons to some kind of sodomitical free-for-all or on navy ships. Or in the same way in these societies in the Middle East, which are not similar to Greece by the way for reasons I will explain, but let's say in Iraq or Saudi Arabia, it's not so much that you will see men go around saying, well, it's not gay because I was on top, or this. Okay?

That behavior being, okay, the active partner, so-called, is acknowledged to be gay and wrong. Or you take, for example, Brazil, where this attitude exists but is much less marked in the Middle East much less frequent, but still in speech it will be readily acknowledged that having this kind of contact, any kind with another man, sexual contact of that kind is gay. And yet it will still in some cases be done, for example, fucking a tranny is relatively common among some classes of men, but the men who do it don't consider themselves gay or fags and yet it's only so long as it's not talked about. You understand how it works? is not a logical rule, it's a subtle social distinction is lost on people who try to say it's a different moral system.

It's not really, it's in some way different morals or habits for sure, but these cultures don't agree that, oh, it's okay to be on top or any such thing, any more than this is the case in prisons. And besides the behavior of pederasty, which is a constant in history, like I say historically across many cultures in time and space, and which Schopenhauer has an interesting explanation I think I discussed before. You can find it in the appendix to his essay on the metaphysics of sexual love, but he has a very nice theory, an evolutionary psychology explanation even, for why Pederasty exists. Because its universality must mean that it is grounded in nature somehow, which doesn't mean of course that it's good or that it should be accepted.

But these penderistic practices have almost nothing in common with modern gay rights in this. Either in practice or in the moral framework that develops to justify it or to explain it away or even to condemn it in some places in a half-hearted way while it still goes on. But this was a long tangent to tell you that in ancient Greece, as in many other places since then, the fag, the pure sissy, the pathetic, the catamite, was always marked. It existed, he was marked in ways very similar to how modern gays are stereotypically viewed in jokes and so forth. It's nothing new. And so this is tangent in other words to tell you on the other hand, it was also not the case that if the active or if you're on top side of the equation was necessarily approved of or seen as okay either.

But the focus of the jokes and of the moral opprobrium was probably on the pure, let's let's say, effeminate homotype, which is readily recognizable from literature and jokes. So Foucault and follower very wrong on this, that this type of person was somehow invented by modern medical science or modern social movements and all this. They've always been around. It's simply that sexual behavior and centrality of sexual desire and such starts, in modern times it starts to take much more personal, important role in someone's life. So these things are emphasized. They were not seen as the definition of the identity before, and in many cases, including in ancient Greece, there would have been tremendous social pressure even on the most notorious catamites to marry and have children.

So now there is a court case I mentioned before, which is educational regarding the ancient Greek attitudes to this. It's called against Timarchos by the orator Eskeniz, and it was a court case he brought against Demosthenes' companion. Demosthenes was, you know, a defender of Athenian independence democracy of his time against the encroachments of Macedon into affairs of the Greek cities. This was around, let's say, sometime before 330 B.C., OK? So in this case of Aeschines, who was Demosthenes' opponent, he brought the case to have one of Demosthenes' allies, his name was Timarchus, to have this ally disenfranchised because he had been a prostitute in his youth. And at this time, the assumption was that if you were a prostitute, you got fucked,

and by the Greek law, this meant you lost all political rights. And this is in distinction, by the way, to a later joke from Marshall, I think this joke from a Roman Marshall, much later in Roman times, but he has joked to affect that men used to pay to be on top, but now they pay for the opposite. So at this point in Greece, it was still the assumption, however, that if you were a prostitute, It means you were penetrated and under Greek law, anybody who was, you lost voting rights. You lost also the right to speak in public or to hold political office and if you want to understand Greeks by the way, you read the poetry of course, you read the history, but you read also the court cases, read Lysias for example, the orator.

Because in a court case, it's a great anthropological document, right, there is no room for error. In other words, the speaker has to appeal to accepted law, widely accepted opinions and prejudices. And it's from knowing these that you learn best about how people actually lived and what they believed, right? So for example, otherwise if you read Plato, you know, it's not even that Plato is wrong or that he was corrupted by the Jews in Egypt or any of this. But it really is that he's openly anti-Hellenic, right? In Plato and in a big way, even in Aristotle, in all the Socratic followers of Plato, you're reading the Socratic, which is the school antagonistic to Hellenic culture. They're trying to reform and reshape Greek culture.

So when you read something like Plato, you're not really getting to know the way a typical Greek thought. You're getting actually antagonistic perspective and often very distorted caricatures of what Greeks actually were, often parodies and this. So anyway, read Lysias, read Iskines the orator, you get much more of the local flavor, right? So in this speech, you learn what the law was against Timarchus. You learn, for example, that the penalty for a schoolteacher who kept children in his school after dark was death, okay? So no need even to prove that anything had happened. There's death penalty just if you kept them in your school after dark. Death penalty for many, many other such things because it was assumed you abused them and

you deprived therefore the state of its future citizens, right? Because in Greek law, if you were abused even against your will as a child, you lost all political rights. The Greeks said this law to us may seem cruel, but again, no one who was abused eligible to be a citizen, to hold power and to vote, they assumed that if you had been raped in this way, that it would have permanent deleterious spiritual effect that made you incapable of reaching decisions for the common good. And probably this was born of experience, either from observing perverts who proved frequently disloyal, and this is a problem with many homos historically, by the way, one of the most common stereotypes that views as untrustworthy and disloyal to any political

union or brotherhood of armed men or to any assembly and so on. Or secondly, it may be that the experience of abuse itself somehow made you fucked up directly, which is a cruel thing maybe to think, but is it wrong? I ask, why are men distrustful of sluts, right, of women who are sluts? And it's not so much that men hate sluts because in one sense they like them, they're convenient you would think, and yet in principle if marriage was not in question you might even prefer the company of sluts, right, but experience teaches you that sluts tend to be mentally fucked up. They are unstable, disagreeable, borderline personality disorder, and this. It's not always true, but true enough times, and why? I believe it's because if they experienced frequently faggotized, rape-like abuse at

the hands of many men, it drives them crazy. I don't know. But in general, the Greeks had this attitude. It's a famous episode from Book 10 of Odyssey. When Odysseus appears, he gets lost, and he appears again at the court of King Aeolus. And the fact that he could not continue his journey due to bad luck, Aeolus says, I will not help you Odysseus, you have to leave my court immediately because you are hated by the gods. Your bad luck proves that you are the worst of men, you are hated by the gods, leave. So this very different moral orientation from our own. But maybe it has some advantages we don't. Maybe Greek society, by seeing those who misfortune befalls, by seeing them as hated and to be Avoided maybe they were right in a bigger way not only in sense that you are in the end

Metaphysically responsible for the misfortunes that befall you even diseases and accidents. I believe this by the way I do but beyond this their attitude was a protection because they turn away the Malformed and their doctrines the doctrines of the malformed the misformed shape and how much would European men have saved himself in trouble trouble if he had rejected simply the bleatings and agitations and doctrines of the obviously malformed. But instead you are taught to drown and suppress this childish and naive instinct to fear and lose the monstrous and ugly, and even to give a more sympathetic ear to the malformed. With all the terrible consequences that followed from this. So maybe in childish instinct there is a bigger wisdom than in your self-righteous compassion.

So anyway, this was the law in ancient Athens, it was slightly different in other cities, but very far from modern fantasies of equality for homos. And yet also far from Foucault's imaginings for reasons I will continue in the next segment, I must rest and go to take a break. Maybe I take a power nap, I have glycine, I will be right back. One time Arab man tried to touch my thigh, this true Saudi man tries this at the chess stable and I crush his hand. This is true. This is how you have to deal with Gulf Arab, only understand force. No offense to my Arab friends, long face. If you're listening, you know I believe in the noble lineages of the Arabs and the Tunisians should take over the Middle East, you must refound the Fatimid Caliphate.

But anyway, as with other big topic, maybe as I say, two shows on this, two part like Like I say, because there's a lot of information from a different side, I must tell you, and go on tangent, but the point generally I try to make is that while gay movement is something quite new, the gay, the homosexual isn't new, despite the invention of this word at end of 19th century by scientific community. It's just not true as Foucault thinks that they did not exist in history. You know, the CC has a long history and what's interesting, however, is how this type was transformed and weaponized by modern regime and for what reasons. And that's for the next show. But I still must tell you of another way in which Foucault ran, not because you should

care about Foucault as such, but because his lies have infected academia and then much of journalism and finally public popular opinion on this topic. If you want, you read Simon Goldhill, Foucault's Virginity, his book recommended to me by a frog, about Foucault totally misread ancient Greek literature, just didn't know big swathes of it, did not understand, for example, how central was the romance between men and women to the Hellenistic age. Foucault actually does not seem to understand that the Greeks have distinct ages, each with its different character and so forth. And precisely he should be concerned with Hellenistic or Alexandrian age because it is more directly relevant to modern time and from where modern scientistic understanding of world comes in.

Yet he completely ignored that precisely in that age it is the love of a woman that become much more central. He does not know the romantic novels of that time, the romantic writing, completely ignoramus. But he misreads classical age Athens also, and misunderstanding is Foucault's idea that sexuality is shaped by social and political processes, or that sexual behavior is an expression of political power. I'm simplifying, but it comes down to that. Oh, I also recommend for you Camille Paglia essay, Junk Bonds and Corporate Readers' Academy in the Hour of the Wolf, a classic essay that exposes Foucault's just ignorance of ancient literature on the subject of sexuality and so forth. But now to address this claim that sexual behavior or identity, which didn't exist then

of course, but it's an expression of political power in this, when you were 18, in ancient Greek you became full Greek citizen with full rights in Athens. So by misreading a few classical texts, so you get this Foucault went to Los Angeles or San Francisco to study the classics, right, and this was his excuse. So he left Paris to go to California to study classics, okay, if this makes sense to you. And his defining experiences in America were taking LSD at Grand Canyon and McDonald pornography and cocaine. It's not a joke, I think this he say where he's defining experiences in the country he went to for some reason to study the ancient classics in California, okay I don't know. But in fact he knew next to nothing about Greek books, I don't think he read Greek language or anything.

And so by very fast misreadings, probably on drugs, he deduced that men used women and boys as semen receptacles, basically as an assertion of their active citizens' power. That basically Greek sexuality was a domination submission ritual, replaying and reinforcing the political structure. So if you hear Marx, yes, he's just redefined Marxism by analogy, it's totally correct to call the postmodernist variety of Marxist, in this case where all the cultural practices are just epiphenomena, not of economic base as in Marx, but of power, meaning specifically political social power. So in some way the conservators are right to call these cultural Marxists. Do not confuse this with Schopenhauer and Nietzsche's understanding of will, or of will

to power, as underlying all natural phenomena as well. It's something completely different, because that understanding from Nietzsche Schopenhauer does not distort, does not reduce phenomena in this way to man's petty social and political life. But in this case Foucault interpreted Greg Pederasty in this way. In his view as a Greek boy before the age of 18 was as a consequence of his lack of citizen power, he was desexualized, he was seen as inert, as not possessing masculine power in a way similar actually to a woman. And this is his explanation, I'm only simplifying very little, his explanation for Greek pederasty, which again, even supposedly conservative academics have picked up much of this nonsense. But Foucault's vision is a twisted reflection, obviously, of his own fetishes, okay?

It has nothing to do with the reality of it. He was a hardcore homo into, say, the masochism and fisted by Foucault and this, it colored all of his efforts here. First of all, the women in ancient Greece were confined to the home for the upper-class woman at least. And of all times in the West, it is true that the Greek women maybe had the least political power and the least formal rights politically. But they practiced enormous social power in the home and enormous economic power actually in business where many of the affairs of commerce were left in fact to the woman of the estate because it was seen as dishonorable to engage in commerce and so forth. So the men left much of that side of things to women and slaves. But this gave them in turn very much influence power behind the scenes.

I don't intend to prove to you that ancient Greeks were feminists because actually I like that they completely excluded women from political life and from intellectual artistic life. It is part of the cause of their great flowering of the intellect and the arts. But neither is it true that in the sexual or social sphere the woman was some kind of inert quantity doll that the men ritually penetrated to assert or demonstrate power or whatever. So actually, the very strong position of women in the non-political sphere invalidates Foucault's claims completely. And I suggest for you another book by Bruce Thornton, I think it's called Eros, which is simply written, not always very insightful, but very good direct writing to see a nonsense

As that gets said by Foucault, addled academics about ancient Greek woman and the household. But when it comes to pederasty, on the other hand, Foucault is even more egregiously wrong in so many ways. First of all, as I hint in talk of court case I brought up last segment, no, it was not acceptable for citizen boys to be penetrated before 18. In fact, the death penalty was usual punishment if this was discovered for the perpetrator. And the Athenian style of Pederastic sixors, if I told you do not let children listen to Shaw, okay, so I have to get into this, but the style of what was actually done was something called intracrural, which means between the thighs, okay, I'm not going to pretend the Greeks were completely normal to modern opinions and this when it comes to this.

But anyway, this was the practice. Did sodomy ever take place? I have no doubt it did, often with slave boys. But it was very risky to be tried with citizen. It was against the law and it was not the usual practice. In case you want to get into this, think about it for a moment in pre-modern context. And even today this is quite a risky practice with many complications. Talk to any doctor. I talked to doctor before this show, Dr. Frog. He tells me he sees many clients, you know, some of them are gay clients, and they often have psychogenic disease, many physical problems similar to women actually, fibromyalgia and all this, many of them imaginary, likely coming from anxiety about their life and so forth. I will discuss this more on next show.

But he tell me about the anal fissures that homos come in with and the persistent infections and so forth. In a pre-modern context, this can kill, actually. So anything like the modern gays would have died out in pre-modern times in a matter of decades at most. It probably did exist, cults that engaged in such behavior, but they did not have antibiotics and they died out. I mean, the gays would have died out in the 70s. Forget AIDS, they would have died in the 70s without antibiotics. Look at the cello thread on patient zero and the origins of the AIDS epidemic, in which again, Dr. Fauci, by the way, also has a role, but that's for next show. Now, there's a reason I'm telling you something rather grotesque like this, which is that

sodomy, of course, is very much a power trip or power practice. This is true because the recipient does not really get physical pleasure from it. And I'm sorry if you've been told otherwise by a Jewish feminist lesbian, but the nerve endings are not there for this to give physical pleasure to the recipient. So it's actually a form of violation, and if it was practiced in the ancient world, it was often done actually with women to prevent pregnancy. Like if you were a king and you got married for strategic reasons, but did not want to produce an heir with that particular wife, you'd do her against nature, so to speak, you know. So there's a funny episode in Herodotus where a Mediterranean chimp king tyrant, he declares

war on another because he fears that this other who married his daughter has been doing her Turkish prison style, okay, so as not to have an heir. So he invades. So, okay, this is Mediterranean excellence, excuse me. But to get back to what I say, sodomy was not practiced really in the upper class Athenian institution of pederasty for quite a few reasons, not least of which of course is if you raped a boy in this manner and it was found his relatives would have probably tried to kill you. What was practiced was this other thing which, okay, unsavory but much milder or it included kissing and such, and what I'm saying is this reflected a very different reality, social dynamic than the twisted pseudo-masochistic fantasy of Foucault. In fact, something almost opposite to what he's saying.

Why? Because, in fact, it was the younger part of the pederistic relation who held the dominant position. Okay, so Foucault and these people actually have it complete backward. The boy was literally put on a pedestal, as you see in many of the statues, worshipped as a god. And you see this attitude, very obvious in numerous small passages from Greek literature that Foucault would have remembered if he had spent time reading and enjoying his reading instead of bathhouse fisting and cocaine, right? But for example, you can deduce this from some offhand remark in court cases or from the disrespectful and abusive way that Alcibiades treats his suitors in his youth, which was considered normal and expected to treat them like that, or from the poetry of Theognis

and its tone towards the boy who Theognis is adulating, or from the behavior of, this is later, but Hadrian was role-playing the emperor, the Roman emperor, Hadrian was role-playing in Greek style, and you can see his behavior toward Antinous and many such things. For example, there is story, just to explain to you the power of physical beauty in Greek culture. There is a story somewhere of a Greek youth asked if you trade his beauty to be king of Persia, and he famously refuses, and you can deduce why he refuses from the life of Harvey Weinstein. Okay, because yes, money and power, I will not say it doesn't do anything, it solves certain problems, but not the ultimate ones. The ultimate problems eat at such people for their whole lives, because that youth in ancient

Greece enjoyed enormous advantages in that society and was basically worshipped as a god. And money and power is an attempt to exchange for this and not the other way around, okay? So someone like Weinstein who comes to money later in life, by his own admission, it will always eat at him because he never had what he really wanted. It is the vitality of youth that such people desire above all. And many other such things from Greek literature, there is an episode where Greek youth is an armor, is a soldier charging into enemy lines, and despite overwhelming odds, he's the lone one charging into it, but he's spared by the other army because of his physical beauty. In other words, enemies refuse to engage with and kill him.

So in all these ways, you see where the value was put, the dynamic was opposite to what Foucault claimed. And what you can see for all its distasteful character, for modern sensibility, I'm not defending Greek pederastic practices, but it was an idealized, highly ritualized type of relationship in which the younger partner actually held the upper hand in terms of socio-sexual dominance in which crossing certain boundaries could get you whacked and so on. And the purpose ultimately of this relation was supposed to be education. It came from Dorian practices from Sparta and Crete were very common. Crete was also organized, Dorian state organized on Spartan lines. And ultimately it may have roots in Indo-European culture itself as an educational institution,

as odd as it sounds it may have this. But for Nietzsche, who rarely talks about this, nevertheless there is quite explicit passage in Human All Too Human, I will read it for you in a moment, where he talked how Greek culture exploded, in part because of this institution. I will read it for you in a moment, but Foucault, very much different from this, and very much instead the modern homosexual, he would try to invert this completely because the modern gay actually has very little to do with what I've talked about so far on this show from ancient Greece. In fact, it has nothing to do with it at all. In the modern case, it's a society built on, let's say, a fetish. It's a series of weaponized fetishes for the purposes, actually, of self-destruction and

the spoilage and the ritual desecration of whatever is vital and beautiful. In other words, it's a form of vampirism at bottom. This is what modern gay is, and I need to tell you a bit about the world in which Foucault lived, how the ancient Kynidos was weaponized and universalized, and they demented a literally diseased Petri dish in which people like Foucault wallowed and how it originated. I will do this on the next show. But he tried to use this spurious engagement with the classics to justify his fetishes and his twisted power fantasies from the hell world of the modern bath house. But I will read now at the end of this segment Nietzsche's thoughts on these matters and on women's in maybe an explicit and surprising passage from a book, All to Human.

And I'm reading Nietzsche now, he's 259, aphorism is called a male culture. Greek culture of the classical era is a male culture. As for women, Pericles in his funeral oration says everything with the words, they are best when men speak about them as little as possible. The erotic relationship of men to youths was on a level which we cannot grasp the necessary sole prerequisite of all male education, more or less in the way love affairs and marriage were for a long time the only way to bring about the higher education of women. The whole idealism of strength of the Greek character was thrown into that relationship, And the treatment of young people has probably never again been so aware, loving, so thoroughly

geared to their excellence as it was in the 6th and 5th centuries, this is the classical age of the Greeks, in accordance with Hölderlin's beautiful line, for loving the mortal gives of his best. The more important this relationship was considered, the lower sank interaction with women. The perspective of procreation and lust, nothing further came into consideration. There was no spiritual intercourse with women, not even a real romance. If one considers further that woman herself was excluded from all kinds of competitions and spectacles, the sole higher entertainment remaining to her was religious worship. To be sure, when Electra and Antigone were portrayed in tragedies, the Greeks tolerated it in art, although they did not like it in life.

Just as we do not tolerate anything with pathos in life, but like to see it in art. had no task other than to produce beautiful, powerful bodies in which the character of the father lived on as intact as possible, and thus to counteract the increasing overstimulation of nerves in such a highly developed culture. This kept Greek culture young for such a relatively long time, for in Greek mothers, the Greek genius returned again and again to nature. An amazing passage, much to think about there, and perhaps a surprising ending given the beginning but let me just say you do not need this dynamic for the production of a higher culture. Nietzsche himself points out that the French built equally high culture almost

maybe in the 17th century on the love of woman but the point is let's take homosexuality for lack of a better word at its best and you see how in the Greek case it had nothing whatsoever to do with the modern gay, with the modern gay movement and how Foucault and And by extension, the modern academic journalists and so forth tend to twist it into support for this modern project is so fake. And on the next show, I will talk about this, the modern gay movement, and attempt really to reduce Pound the World to trash World Last Man. I will be. Until next time, Abbappe out.