night or maybe two nights ago. My memory complete covered fog and I don't remember even what is waking a dream anymore, but maybe it was 3 or 4 a.m. I often take night walk in insomniac haze lately. And I was in plaza, abandoned city plazas are beautiful and you experience this at night. Nietzsche mentions Heraclitus loved to do these night portico walks, Temple of Artemis. But I walk on this plaza and I see side street with a kind of dumpster and a tall building side a small alley. And this look romantic to me because I have a love for this kind of filth and dirt. I have romance for it. So I walk down this and look up the windows. And I look and see what lights are on and what doorways are into the buildings. And behind green, I think green-gray dumpsters, there was small door.

And out of this door came, I was basically, to tell you full story, I was sexual assault by succubus. And I don't like this word succubus because I don't think that's what these creatures actually are. It's a trite word for people not to confront reality, which is you don't actually understand what these, it was pink filigreed, kind of filigreed skin with long filigreed wings, pink magenta, glowing kind color, and it put proboscis-type tentacle between my thighs. I was not sodomized, but it rubbed it between my thighs because it was attracted to my sex, my sexual power. And yes, I concede that I could have dreamt this, because I really can't at times distinguish anymore because insomnia between waking and dream. I was in bed other day and I don't

even know, I was extreme tired and complete pass out and suddenly I hear door, I don't know if maybe somebody rang doorbell by mistake, but I thought they are here, they are at the door and I was in that condition between sleep paralysis and waking and I carry a big knife, You know, I carry a big army knife with me while I travel for protection. I carry a big army knife. And I thought, why am I keeping this knife in the closet? I should have it right next to me for easy. And I know I cannot have Schopenhauer's system where he designed a pulley such that he could shoot at the door if intruder came in. But okay, I can't do that because I travel and there are countries that don't let you have gun like this. But can I at least have a blow dart system?

like blow poison blow dart, Amazonian India type thing, can I at least set that up? I do believe that as mankind's innovation makes it encroach into the wilderness, and there is less and less privacy among forests and reeds from mankind's intrusions, that I don't want to call them gods, but old spirits of beings that you don't even understand what they are, even ones who have never been honored by mankind though they should have been. But they move now to cities, because cities are the new, untamed wilderness in some cases, the Blade Runner-type city allows hidden private spaces for these creatures to hide, and some of them want, I think, to copulate with mankind. they are attracted by the sexual power of some of us, or they even want to impregnate female, human female,

and to give birth to a monster of some. Well, welcome to Caribbean Rhythms, episode 142. Are you enjoying ongoing media frenzy on me? I think in part what happens is many midget mannequins of the spirit hope that I will waste a lot of time fending off attacks, or paying attention to them. But I won't do that. I refer listeners instead to my most recent episode when another article had come out. Now, yes, there is one more. There will be others too, I think. The most recent ones are in Politico and The Atlantic, which they are basically state media in America. So I will not say too much about it. What is motivating it, some people are asking. I don't know. I covered this on last episode. It's same thing, I think, the innocent explanation at least,

unless it is state desires to provide a pretext for investigation, which it might be as well, or it might become as well because of retired prosecutors looking to make distinctions for themselves. But the innocent explanation, all these journalists are following a trend of others doing it. Maybe ultimately motivated, I would guess, by attention I am getting in New York and Los Angeles art world scenes and other cities and world, which you don't really hear about online directly. And a lot of these journalists themselves have maybe in the past had dreams of being artists or of literary distinction, and they certainly, they dream of being respected as public intellectuals and so on. So it hurts them, you see, that there is a guy who did not play as a striver game they've been always doing,

who doesn't pay his dues to social constipations, who is, I've never sacrificed to the farts of Harvey Weinstein or equivalent in the publishing industry whatever, Jeffrey Goldberg from The Atlantic, who is now chimping about a humor book, Bronze Age Mindset, of when he proudly beat inmates in a prison camp in Israel, which to be fair, it might be the best thing he's ever done, but he is not in any position to complain about fascism, But these types of people, not him, but the particular writers of these articles might be a bit resentful of what I just said. I never played constipation game. I'm beholden to no one, and I do far better than them, saying what I want and so such things, while getting attention from their intended audience. So they do not say this is the reason,

but they hide it under, well, he could be a politically dangerous person, maybe even terroristic. So here I am quoting, I'm speaking in their voice now, and so here I am quoting with no evidence some terrorism center guy on the menace of the Bronze Age pervert threat to democracy. Don't you want to fixate on him, law enforcement agencies, hello. Here, this is literally what sycophants used to do. That's how the word was born, sycophant regime, sycophants. But I'm not a political actor, and my book is not a book of policy, that's insane. Nor is this show anything to do with policies, and I've said many times over the years, I lead no movement, I want to lead no movement, there is no movement as far as I'm concerned. And you know these excuses for the articles are fake,

they're fake pretext by the way, because these political rumors have been around since maybe 2019 when the last political piece came out trying to make similar case that at the time they were saying I'm corrupting the military with a conspiracy out of the White House. As far as I know, these things are not true. It's some guy, some were saying that staffers or such read me, congressional staffers or whoever, and now they have another in the recent article, strange, strange guy, I don't know him in the source, claiming, and I don't know if he's joking, but claiming that I'm some kind of Marvel supervillain directing a secret society within the government. As far as I know, there is no secret society, and I'm certainly not coordinating anything, but I do have a helmet, you know.

Maybe that is the illusion the article is making. I used to go around with this green helmet. Maybe they heard something. I may also have psychic powers, people have said, and I can scan the world. But no, joking or not, I'm not responsible for fact that people in government may have read my book, or may like my jokes, or own my book. And the fact that they do wouldn't be a sign of any secret coordination, they were not even my intended audience, although the intention is to make it look that way again to activate the so-called immune system of regime. In other words, what immune system means is to get a submoron 110 IQ prosecutor to invent charges against me or begin investigation. But like I tell you, these so-called political rumors have been around for a while, so no,

that's not the reason for this article. it's rather this, that now my book appears to have broken through their Voldemort strategy, you know, where they try to kill you with silence, and it's spread offline among quite smart people, and as I hear among young creative people in these urban-centered New York L.A. and some art scenes in Europe, and they cannot control that, and nor do they want to admit that it is jealousy and exasperation at this situation that motivates these pathetic articles on me. My friend Anna Kachian put it well in a recent tweet, Barbara Krueger voice, you invent elaborate conspiracy theories to explain why other people get more attention than you and you call it journalism. And that's been pretty much the seed against me

from these literary journalist types since my book came out. To them, it has to be some conspiracy or it's some unjust arrangement that explains how people like my book and not them. And I'll finish by saying this, although this latest article, lowbrow as it is, and it's intended for lowbrow audience, it makes some cursory attempt to mention a couple of my ideas, a thing from book. There is, as usual, almost no engagement at all with the content. You would not know from any of these smear pieces why people actually like my book, you know, because the reasons they like it have nothing to do with me as such. Many people who like me are not on Twitter. I hear all the time amazing things. People in Argentina or parts of Europe in a park talk about me and some guy comes up,

oh, you like this, I like this book, and they start talking and these are not people on Twitter. They don't know who I am and they don't care. And so all of these efforts to smear me from actually all sides are basically PR efforts. You see, attempts to get maybe new readers to not even pick up the book and attempts in the pedestrian journalists or equivalent mind to get the imagined readers will say, oh, well, now that you've painted his supposed background as mentally ill, or you've associated him with pop culture images of loser and outcast, or with other things that are supposed to be despicable. Although, you know, it blows my mind that some of the stories they say supposedly about me, that I disrespected human resources departments,

or that I was not a very eager worker at Normie Jobs, as if this is supposed to smear me with, I really don't understand. I do think Atlantic readers maybe are the snitches to HR types, though, so... But look, who knows what I mean? Against me, the arguments are PR all the time, all PR all the time. Everyone is mindfuck by TV shows like West Wing, and they imagine themselves Bernays, Madison Avenue, where if they just find the right formula to reframe my image, or what I do or don't do in my private life, or what I had for breakfast, or who I supposedly am, that this will convince readers and listeners to the show, to put me away, to feel, oh I've been tricked, or this guy, he's a bad loser, so he's crazy, he did this crazy thing supposedly

in his private life, so I don't want to put my book away, and then you will read the journalist or whoever, they wrote a book report on the loose, and so you will read that now and consider them an important public intellectual, you know. But the thing is, they cannot engage me at all, because the gulf in culture between me and all my critics is so vast, there's really no competition. So they can never catch up. So let's leave it at that. I try to address such attacks as little as possible, and mostly you will be happy, I think, with my next book. I should focus on such things. It should come out this year, I hope. But even before then, I will have certain surprises for you along the way. So anyway, I am eager to get back, discuss Greek life, continue my series on erotic romantic sex,

a life of ancient Greek aristocrats. Everybody likes a racy subject like this. This show is sure to make me many friends. I will be widely loved after this for sure. Please do not have children listen to this show. I was amazed. I have friends with toddlers, and they say they listen together. even infant baby, they listen to my show, and then toddler or infant start to laugh and chuckle at my stories of harassing homeless men and such because of maybe voice or outburst of energy I sometimes have. I think they know, but don't have, well, this is not family episode. I have to get a bit graphic and discuss, I discuss homosexual love in ancient Greece. I refuse to call it pederasty, by the way, for a reason, because that gives the wrong image. By now, people think of Sandusky

and of some pervert 60-year-old football coach who has anal sex, violent sodomy with underage boys in public bathrooms, or whatever age he was in such things, or priests who do the same thing. Although Steve Saylor points out the image of molestation, in fact, doesn't really apply to what most priests do. In other words, they don't do what I just said Sandusky did. priests who tend to be rather shy and awkward closeted gay men. Not that I'm excusing it, but it's not quite Sandusky prison level activities. But anyway, yes, that is the wrong model of what took place. Has very little to do with what took place in ancient Greece. Is maybe more what happens in Gulf States, Arab Gulf States right now. So I will just use the word that the Burkhardt, the German historian does,

Homosexual love, it seems more neutral. And I've avoided this matter for some time, not out of, I'm not shy to discuss this, but it's very complicated, and there are many opportunities for misunderstanding because highly politicized situation on these matters in our time. So I've tried to avoid. I remember one time I took ancient Greek composition class. Mostly I studied Greek on my own, but eventually I said why not take some class while I was student and such, and I did not learn much new from professors, but I remember we came across one passage dealing with this matter, with the word, and the professor immediately interjected and said, okay, very good, and we're not talking here about that, which you might not expect from what you hear, but he had good sense, I think,

and he was likely libtarded. In fact, I'm sure he was a libtard, but he had good sense of knowing you can't really have an honest talk about what that means in the university setting, especially today, and he didn't want it, I guess, at least he had the honesty not to want it misused for libtarded political distortions. Such principled libtards still exist, I think, but the same reason mostly I've tried to avoid it, and yet I think I don't want to anymore because really a central part of Greek life, central institution, and I don't like lies is the thing. That's what I hate the most, lies, And some people, I guess on our sphere of things, if such a thing can be said to exist anymore, but are starting to go in the other direction from the gay distorters.

The gay distorters, of course, try to make up thing and to say that the ancient Greeks were gay, which is complete nonsense. But the opposite lie is to say they were not doing these things or that it didn't exist or that it was not a central part of Greek life or that it's a modern invention of the gay movement and many such nonsense. And you know, I hate lies more than anything. So anyway, why not? I figure it's time to discuss it myself. Let me read first from Jacob Burckhardt, a great 19th century German historian, known for art book, Italy art book, Renaissance Italy history, and ancient Greek history. You should read both of his great works. But he was friend of Nietzsche too, by the way. And his words on this are hardly unique to him, though. And here I am reading,

among the other social changes noticeable in this period, and he's talking about what he calls the Agonal Period and what most historians now call the Archaic Period. This is the period right before the most famous of Greek history, which is, let's say, classical Athens. You might know it as the classical Athens of the 500s, 400s especially BC. He's talking more, let's say, the period 700s and 600s BC here. It's called Archaic Age. He calls it the Agonal Age because the argon, the competition, intense, especially physical, but eventually mental, intellectual, philosophical competition, political competition, too, between men, was the driver engine of all Greek life. So, I continue. Among the other social changes noticeable in this agonal period, the situation of women demands attention.

They were excluded not only from the symposia, the parties, but from what was by far the most important aspect of Greek life, that is the argon. They were not even allowed to look on at this highest activity. Offering the victory at their feet, as in chivalry, was the last thing anyone would have thought of. But the argons were not the only exhibitions of gymnastic skill, but also of youth and beauty, and these were the guarantee of future civic greatness. In antiquity, a connection was soon perceived between the argon and the occurrence of homosexual love, not yet apparent in Homeric times, but more and more a constant feature of Greek life from the period of the Agon. It seems, indeed, positively innate in the Greek spirit and takes on an ideal aspect.

A contributing factor must be the admiration of man for youth and of boy for man, which the Agon encouraged. In gymnasia, the statue of Eros was to be seen between Hermes and Heracles. In War II, the relationship was held to be of value. Still, the matter has a darker and more mysterious side. For instance, it assumes a special quality that varies with the region, Crete, Sparta, Elis, Boeotia. That is, it has gained the status of a general custom. The only governments which prescribed homosexuality and also gymnastics seem to have been those of the tyrants who fear that conspiracies might arise in these circles. In other states, there is generally no penalty. Athens only punished rape and forbade male prostitutes to appear in public. This grace set in only where violence

or venality were involved. At the same time, marital and extramarital relations with women went on with no perceptible diminution. Marriage was just as important for the police as has ever been before, for it was only from true marriage that the true citizen could be born. But all the heart seems to have gone out of it. Frivolous and jeering remarks about women become more and more frequent now. And I end as a passage and then Borchardt goes on to explain really the lurid and demonic image of women that Greeks of this period developed. You should read it. Of course, I'm not reading to you all the footnotes he has. He has footnotes to all the claims he makes. But now let me read for you extreme racy and naughty passage from Nietzsche that many may not know about.

I didn't really want to post or read it before. 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. He's talking there about European society, by the way. 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, in accordance with Hölderlin's beautiful line, For loving the mortal gives 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 with women. There was no spiritual intercourse with them, not even a real romance. If one considers further that woman herself was excluded from all kinds of competitions and spectacles, then the sole higher entertainment remaining to her was religious worship. To be sure, when Electra and Antigone were portrayed in tragedies, the Greeks tolerated

in art, although they did not like it in life, just as we now do not tolerate anything with pathos in life but like to see it in art. Women 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. Yes, do you like this? I want to just relax, take a short break, smoke, while you think about this nice passage I will be right back. We are back, yes. you like the unexpected ending to that last aphorism I read from Nietzsche. It's characteristic of his best writing that kind of turnaround,

and a eugenic ending to that particular passage. You have to read between the lines why he did that, but that's for another time. Anyway, there was recent YouTube which made the point that ancient Greeks were not into this for real, or that it was a very marginal practice in this time, that it was limited in scope to a small perverse class or something, that it was much reviled by them supposedly in their own time, and that it is an invention of the modern gay movement that they were so-called gay. And it is indeed an invention of gay movement that they were gay, but it's not an invention of the gay movement that they practiced homosexual love, which again I use as shorthand of same-sex sexual romantic affairs. This video, YouTube I mentioned, got many views

and is really an embarrassment that the few people on so-called our side are spreading it around as if it is the debunking. I want nothing to do with this. You are embarrassing yourselves. And I don't want to pick too much on this YouTube because it's really just the mirror image of the far more numerous libtarded and gay movement bunglers who say the exact opposite that the ancient Greeks were gay. And like them, the narrator, however, relies on distortions, half-truths, outright lies even to make his case. I'll just point out a couple of things, not that this video matters, but people enjoy polemical format. So I think in a process of supposedly criticizing some of this YouTube and some of the debates that people have gotten into recently on these things,

I will just refresh audience memory because maybe even many of you who read occasionally ancient literature are maybe not aware or have forgotten, it's not refreshed in your mind just how incredibly central homosexual love was to ancient Greek life. But yes, I don't want to engage in detailed criticism. These online YouTube debates, YouTube's one of the worst formats and it's very tedious debates, you know. These people take 40 minutes to say something you could say in five minutes. They are bereft of content, and they are complete artless, no entertainment, on both sides, unfortunately. And there is a pretty decent rebuttal to it that maybe I will link or a friend will, but they are just so boring, you know? So I don't want to dwell on them, but I will give you, in this context,

some background information on how central homosic was to ancient Greek life. As you can see from my citing Nietzsche and Burckhardt, the claim that homosexual love was central to Greek culture is by no means an invention of the gay movement or of the 1970s. The claim is thrown around that it traces it to K.J. Dover's book, Greek Homosexuality, which I've mentioned on this show before and which is a rather trivial book. I remember reading it, and at least from its literary examples, I knew really all of them, even as a dilettante reader of the classics at whatever age I read this book, and I could actually even cite, even at the time, many more examples that Dover had left out in this book, but as you can see, even venerable 19th century German historian were saying the same,

or actually much more than Dover dares to say. and Burkhardt is not a libtard. He's a conservative, skeptical of democracy and the modern state and many such things. He's hardly an element of the gay agenda. No, in fact, many other books were written in recent times on this matter, prefaced by Dumezil, for example, George Dumezil, who is a historian of ancient Indo-European matters and much beloved of, let's say, the European right. And so even in modern times, this can hardly be said to be an observation unique to the gay movement or even the left more generally, it's simply an acknowledgement of the truth, which is admittedly distorted by the left academics. They do distort this for political reasons. One of the classic and most egregious cases

is Martha Nussbaum invoked the Greek tolerance supposedly for homosexuality in her testimony to Congress when gay marriage was being debated and possibly perjured herself. She mentioned one side of things, but did not mention the other side, with, for example, Katamites, Kinaidoy, or Pathics. In other words, men who took it up the ass, and there was even a slur, a broad-assed. She did not mention the part where these were despised and even excluded from political life. As a purpose of her testimony was to make the case that any prohibition on homosexuality exclusively comes from the Bible, is therefore religious-based, And there cannot be no secular basis for law that prohibits homosexual behavior. And again, what the left in this case is doing

is a half-truth, because I do think absolute, let's say, prohibition on homosexuality is relatively, you can say it's exclusive to the biblical religions, let's say. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and such. On the other hand, homosexual relations and sexual relations in general have been regulated throughout the world, not just in ancient Greece, and both their prescription and the blessing of some of them was at times based on religion too. So I don't understand really her point. Why would she go to look at ancient Greek or other leftists would go to look at ancient Greek for the same reason? Well, you know why. it's because the ancient Greeks have a kind of status or had a kind of high class status, culture status in at least to their target audience of congressional conservatives.

I don't know that they would make these arguments anymore. They've moved to saying that the ancient Greeks were fascist white supremacist misogynists and in the direction of Donna Zuckerberg's sister who, you know, triggered by me has started this entire thing where we have to make sure that especially boys today do not read anything ancient Greek or they might become fascist. And so I don't think they would gladly invoke them anymore to make their case, but really they don't need to go to ancient Greek. Why don't they go to Melanesia, which I will talk about later, or any other number of far more even a pederastic cultures And to ask the question I think is to answer it because while many and maybe even most human societies have allowed some type of homosexual relation,

the form in which it took place and their other sexual regulations wouldn't be welcome to the left. And so it's a bad faith argument in general. On the other hand, this should also show the right wing that invoking religion or religious morality to oppose things like public homosexuality or its public acceptance is stupid, I think. There is no need to and it cannot appeal to people who don't share your religious convictions and even actually that are, as unfortunately many of you may be aware, that are Christian denominations now. The Episcopalians, I understand, and who interpret Christianity perversely as a story of gay liberation, and even I've seen where they see the passion of Christ as the coming out of a gay man. It's hard to believe that people pushing this

actually sincerely trust in that, but I can't comment on the satirical, self-satirical beliefs of the left there. Some of them are surely mentally ill. However, this situation is tailor-made for a secular argument, a secular conservative argument where you could say, invoke public hygiene and public health matters to, and you could convince people, smart people of all kinds that these activities need some type of regulation, especially when you consider their effects on very young people. That would seem a much more promising avenue of argument instead of going back and forth with Martha Nussbaum on whether prescriptions, excuse me, banning of this is biblical or Greek or whatnot. It's bad faith arguments on both sides. But any case, the left does distort this.

And yes, ancient Greeks, they tolerate it in one sense, but certain other kinds of homosexuals excluded from political life, and more in general, when they try to draw any direct equivalence between what you see modern gays practice and what they are, and on the other hand ancient homosexual love is mostly a lie for reasons that will become apparent in the course of this episode, but which I also covered before, I think on a double episode, 75 and 76 are the numbers, I think, or something like that, after which I was immediately banned by SoundCloud. It's funny, the things that will get you banned, but you can check very good essay by one citizen of Geneva on the gay question in the asylum magazine, which I don't agree with everything in that essay,

I just think, but he's very good at drawing the distinction why it's a category mistake to apply the word gay or homosexual as we understand it today to what ancient Greeks were doing, or frankly any other of many other societies that were highly pederastic, let's say. There is not really any such thing as gay, in fact, okay, it's a modern made-up thing. So for example, take Paglia, when she addresses the issue of the word homosexual. It is a mixture of two words, one Latin, one Greek, it is a modern science neologism. It did not exist before. And so then the left and the Foucault people take that too far, and they say because the The world did not exist, therefore gays didn't exist, and it's a half-truth that they did not.

If you look back to any major urban center in whatever part of European history and other nations too, but let me just stick to European history now because I know it well, you pick any major urban center, and there were people there who would be recognizably gay, so-called, today's standards. Even working in the same fields that gays do today, hairdressing, makeup, effeminate behavior and so on, highly flamboyant in some cases, it means really engaging exclusively in homosexual relations or actually unable, in many cases, to have relations with women. And so this has always existed, let's say, at the rate at which it strictly exists today on the order of one to two to three percent. And it's no use saying they did not. They did not think

of themselves as the word homosexual or as gay because sexuality is central to your identity and your self-understanding is very much a modern time obsession but they certainly existed as a type but they were a very limited type and they did not here is the thing they did not cover there were many other kinds of men who engaged in many other kinds of same-sex contact sexual behavior or even romantic affairs who were not these men. And they did not, by virtue of that same-sex occasional behavior at whatever point in their lives, they didn't think of themselves and weren't thought of as this word or any other special word and so on and so forth, you see, of what I am saying. And so in the end, you have to conclude that the modern identity,

which is really the identification of this rather bizarre small group I mentioned, some of them, you've heard the word gay face. It's interesting because gay face, like Down syndrome face, cuts across different races. So you might meet an African or a Chinese and they will have so-called gay face in ways European, white gay would. It's very odd. It must be some kind of developmental thing, but that only covers a tiny percentage of what same-sex sexual behavior or romantic affairs have been throughout time. And to identify this small group with all same-sex sexual behavior as such, it would be as if you were to focus on, let's say, coprophiliacs, right? Shit fetishists. And you were to call them, I don't know, you were to make up a euphemism, a new name for them.

They are not coprophiliacs, they are men of sex. And to say that there is a new identity, men of sex, and then to reinterpret random various other things that people did, whether with women or with men in the past, in terms of coprophilia, but not to call it that. And let's say you're to make up a nice word for it, not gay, but something equivalent like the pleasant, or some other absurd euphemism, and then you seek rights for the pleasant, and you reinterpret various other unrelated but maybe similar behaviors from the past in terms of the pleasant, meaning shit-eaters literally, and to start calling random historical figures part of the newly invented pleasant identity, because some may have, I don't know, liked shapely, they may have liked shapely women's asses or such,

or shared one or two qualities non-essential with coprophiliacs. Maybe my analogy is not quite a 100% right analogy, but it's the same thing. It's really the focus on exclusive homosexuals who usually practice certain acts and then to rebrand all past human same-sex romantic behavior in terms of that. And so in that sense, no, there is no such thing as gay as such. You're talking about people actually on the tranny spectrum. That's what modern, what the strict gays and past thick gays really are. It's people who are on some type of tranny spectrum plus a number of other unrelated types that result in seemingly similar behavior. I'm talking just now about the exclusive gaze, right? So you can have someone like Jeffrey Dahmer, that's an extreme end of one type of homo

that I believe is very close to what Pete Buttigieg is and very close to what many Catholic closet case integralists are, but the etiology of their pathology is different, let's say, from an effeminate passive gay, but both are called the same thing, even though both are, let's say, exclusive gays of a pathological type. I don't want to get too much into this, I covered it again on the previous episodes. But so, the left is then very wrong to try to apply these categories to the past. That being said, to fall into the mirror image where you accept a modern definition of gay as something absolute, and then you try to argue the ancient Greeks definitely were not that or to lie and downplay the centrality of same-sex love

to Greek cultural life is a lie that opponents of the left and the gay movement should not engage in because you know lies are very bad you know they discredit you and this YouTube and similar other arguments that many of you are sharing and still are look this video again is not important I'm just using it as a way to remind you but this video which being besides extremely unpleasant and most of these pop historians are retards, and this one in particular has a very off-putting camera manner, YouTube explainer style. But quite aside from this, it's full of many lies and distortions. You can't make this case that the Greeks were not engaging in same-sex behavior almost universally. You can't make that case without lies and distortions. I won't go through it in detail.

Many of you have not and will not listen to it, but again, read any German historian before 1930, and they will basically all, Burkhart, who I just read, is hardly unique in what he was saying. So no, the claim of centrality of same-sex relations to ancient Greeks is not a modern leftist or gay invention of the 1970s. Or this person and others I've seen say outright lies, such as the only source for the Theban sacred band, which is 150 pairs of lovers, that this was only found in Plutarch and so on. It's actually not just in Plutarch, it's also in Xenophon, for example. It's in Athenaeus who cites other sources. And so that's just one case. You can cherry-pick other cases, other words from Xenophon and Plato, both of who are unusual because they are Socratic, right?

And therefore, they are highly unorthodox in regard to what the Greeks actually were at the time, Plato and Xenophon or reformers. So you can't really, for example, use Plato's laws to understand what, quote, unquote, the Greeks thought about homosexuality. Actually, it's funny, Leo Strauss tries to make the same argument, maybe I'm confusing him with Alan Bloom, he says that if you look at contemporary, meaning in his time, treatments of the symposium and the Phaedrus, they might as well be thought to be gay erotica. They could be found in gay erotica section of bookstores, or gay apology section. And he's right about this distortion, but then he adds, well, if you look at Plato's laws, it's the same sexual morality as the Bible on this matter, which is true, but again,

He's also engaging in a big distortion because neither Plato nor Xenophon, and when they explicitly discuss the practice of homosexuality in their time, they either try to interpret it on highly moral and ethical lines in Socratic fashion, or actually in Plato's laws, the speaker there, if you want to identify him with what Plato's opinions are, but the speaker there suggests to ban it outright, but again, this is a highly divergent sect of Greek life at the time. It was not really influential in either politics or culture for a long while thereafter. So it's wrong to use the two of them as your exclusive examples. And actually, whatever Plato's later own opinions may or may not be in the laws regarding

pederasty, if you read his Symposium and other books, as well as Xenophon's Symposium and other things, you can see in passing references, it should be said, whenever they discuss the the practice casually, in passing reference to what the customs of the time were, as opposed to, again, their self-conscious attempts to reform the practice. But in passing, you get a quite different image of the status of homosexuality. In Symposium, for example, regarding Alcibiades, Alcibiades recounts, he comes in drunk, and he recounts to the Symposium, the parties, he says his story of how he tried to seduce Socrates. and the tricks he played and how he tried to get him alone in bed and he got him alone in bed. And then he has this line, you know, and so far nobody would think I did anything shameful.

However, I am ashamed of what happened next and what he means happened next is that Socrates rejected him. I think a rebuttal to this debate made this point and it's a very good point. He's only embarrassed and ashamed that Socrates turned him down. His behavior before that trying to seduce Socrates is seen as perfectly normal. But this is hardly the only example you can find in Greek literature. It's just absolutely full of it in the anabasis of Xenophon. Some of you may remember the episode where the Thracian king is killing off prisoners of war from a recent battle. And one of Xenophon's friends, who is described as especially a lover of boys, sees a very handsome youth who is about to be killed. He's a prisoner of war and he intervenes

and he saves his life. And Xenophon relates this anecdote, whatever Xenophon's own opinions in other places may or may not be, and actually Xenophon I don't think really ever condemns Pederasty at all, he was a very much a Spartanophile, a laconophile, a fan of Sparta, and of, you know, he tries to kind of say that their practice of pederasty was chased and so on, but whatever his own opinions, maybe in other cases, when he relates this anecdote quite casually, if it's the most normal thing in the world. So in passing Plato and Xenophon also, and other socratics, you see the same attitude, the attitude of the time and of their class. But in general, there are so many more sources for such things. I don't want this debate online,

and actually K.J. Dover too, his book, Greek Homosexuality, as far as I can remember, entirely leave out discussion, for example, of Theognis, where Theognis, one of my favorite poets, for other reasons, by the way, he's one of the purest voices of Greek aristocratic temperament and really Greek eugenic aristocratic practice, but he goes on at length about how he's jealous that his crush is flirting with other men and such and you know it's like he has funny poems or you're destroying me why are you doing this to me and it sounds very familiar to anyone writing love songs today about your crush doing that and etc and many outright lies and omissions in this whole debate that the fake left and the fake right are having um

I think, at some point, people are saying that there are no examples of same-sex love involving deities, which, again, complete fake. To take just one example, Apollo had quite a few boy loves and such, usually with youths near his age, who then later in their mortal lives established families that were lines of seers and ogres. For example, Iapics, who had Virgil in the Aeneid. Virgil refers to as Apollo's friend and lover. he uses the word dialectus, that is not frequent word, but in this context almost always refers to sexual love, which Ovid also uses this word, metamorphoses, book 10, I think, again to refer to the love that God's had for boys, and it's in a very sexual context. He's talking about sexual love. He also refers to girls, unlawful and wicked lusts and such,

and that's when he talks about Ganymede and also Hyacinth, And for example, the love of Apollo for Hyacinth, or you can find in Conan, a mythographer whose work was preserved and transmitted in Photius, Photius being a Byzantine patriarch quite, this is a Christian patriarch of Constantinople in the years, I don't remember if it's 800s or 900s, but he preserved this ancient mythographer Conan with several references to similar romantic love Apollo had for other youths, and again, some especially who became seers and prophets later. Let me read for you from Conan as recorded by Photius. She had a son, reading now, she had a son and called him Broncos because the son had passed through her bronchia and this boy was the handsomest of men. Apollo found him working as a shepherd,

fell in love and kissed him. And an altar of Apollo of the kiss was established there. In other words, Greeks worshiped this homosexual love between Apollo and this shepherd he had blessed. And Brancus, having had the gift of prophecy breathed into him by Apollo, established himself in the hamlet of Didyma. And up to the present day, the oracle of the Branchidi is recognized as the best after Delphi of all the Greek oracular sites we know, end quote. Or Hesiod himself, or a Hesiod analog, it could be a pseudo-Hesiod, but in any case, an extreme ancient source from Hesiod's time, a lost epic cycle. It's called the Great Eoi. It's kind of fragments. Referring again to the intense love of Apollo for Hymenaeus, Hymen, the god or daimon of marriage,

described in terms that make it clear, you know, that he's sexually taken in by his beauty. And many other such I could spend maybe days referencing to you. Apollo is hardly unique. And so even in Hesiod, which is very ancient, actually pre-Agonal age source, maybe, but what about Homer? it doesn't really appear to be in Homer. Pederastic or homosexual love, whatever you want to say. Burckhardt himself notes that, in what I read above, that it's not yet in Homer. You can't really find any explicit mention of it in Homer, for example, between Achilles and Patroclus. But it's also not the case, yeah, the gaze. It's also not the case that sexual love between Achilles and Patroclus is the invention of modern gay movement. Such love was posited, maybe interpolated, you can say,

but it was posited anyway by the classical Greeks themselves in multiple sources, which shows you what their attitude was. And many such distortions or lies in argument of that and similar silly video I mentioned that try to debunk ancient Greeks, you know, that they were not at all so-called gay, a stupid word. And so like I said, let's not litigate this tedious online debate, but just in closing remarks on it, I ask you all to stop having the attitude that well you can lie because you think it might be good propaganda. You are actually not a Madison Avenue Wasp or a West Wing political Ashky consultant doing PR, you know. If you didn't notice, we do not own any state. So actually, we cannot really do propaganda. Many of eager people on sides that opposes regime,

say you oppose regime lies, okay, but then many people on that side falsely imagine that we have far greater numbers than we do. You must realize maybe how few and how powerless we are and that the truth is our only credit and only weapon besides humor. And the more you lie, the more you dissipate, really the only advantage we have had. It's the only thing that brought the right, briefly, to international prominence around 2015 or 14. It wasn't just because of Trump, although that helped, it preceded Trump, it was because we told the truth, both about history and especially with scientific statistical information and because of our humor. But now it's pretty much over online, I'm afraid to tell you. There are a few good minds left but we are swamped by retards and imbeciles and liars

and this is happening as media attention on us becomes ever greater. So I don't know, there are a few good accounts left. I will not praise myself and my close friends but for example there is one good one, Kremio, C-R-M-I-E-U-X, I will post him soon so you can see him, but he's doing good scientific exposition in the style that we used to do and generally effective. Our only hope is to try to convince a good portion of intelligent, maybe powerful people you see, and you do that by telling the truth and by bringing new things to light, not by by playing tricks and thinking you are Mr. Slick doing propaganda, because you're not actually that smart, okay, and your audience isn't that stupid. So stop lying. Anyway, there are other good, Stone Age Herbalists is a good account.

There's one, Uriah or Krimkadid, I will retweet all of these to feature them again so you can see them. They're doing good work in the old style, good anthropological work, scientific, statistical work in some cases. But mostly, we are deluged morons like this, like I've been describing. I strongly encourage you to tell truth. Now, to return to my narration of homosexuality in ancient Greece, do you like this? Let me read for you from Athenaeus, just so you understand, again, how absolute central practice of Greek homosexuality was at the time, where Athenaeus explicitly discusses this at length. And I think very few people read Athenaeus, so you know, why don't I read now for you, considers this a part audio book, this episode a part audio book of a text

many may not see ever or read ever. And the thing about Athenaeus is he cites also many, many ancient sources as well that are lost to us, but in some cases corroborated by others. So here I will read for you, but I think I've actually been talking for a while, so I take a quick break and then read. Welcome back to the show, and I am considering rehiring ex-communist party member and CIA director Brennan to do a foot massage, manicure, pedicure while I record this show. He has been writing me daily DMs. He slid into my DMs begging me for attention again and to show him some favor, but I don't know if it can work between us, Brennan. The age gap is too large, But anyway, welcome back to show. Before I read for you from Athenaeus, regarding its source of ancient Greek Homosec type thing,

but just to close the issue on this stupid debate that's come online lately about people on our so-called site trying to de-boom that the Greeks were into homosexual affairs to any significant degree, To close the matter on it, you should really read this, yes, maybe should be prerequisite for this show. You should read Against Demarcus, its speech by one Eskeniz. It's written in the 300s BC, right before, let's say, the rise of Alexander. This is during the time of Philip of Macedon when the famous Demosthenes, famous defender of democracy and republicanism and independence of the Greeks against the authoritarian monarchy of Philip of Macedon. And he was for obviously the anti-Macedonian side in ancient Athens, whereas Aeschines, the man who gave the speech to a jury,

was for the pro-Macedonian side. And the speech is intended against Timarchus, who was an associate of Demosthenes. The purpose of the speech was to basically get Timarchus disenfranchised. And what's telling about this speech is again what comes out in passing, right? Because you have, in a court case like this, it's given before a jury of several hundred. And you have to make, you have to appeal to their prejudices. And what appears in passing in this speech should put to rest any stupid debate because you see really absolutely central homosexual relations were to this world. Some maroon, I forget which one, they are also tedious, in the process of trying to debunk again to challenge that the ancient Greeks were so-called gay. He flashes on the screen very briefly a law

that Aeschines cites in this court speech. But he just flashes it. When you look at the actual law, what it said, It didn't ban either homosexuality or pederasty or any such thing. It was a law that banned rape and non-consensual violation and it banned also, you could say, in a civil sense it banned prostitution only in the sense that you could be a prostitute but if you prostituted yourself, you were then not allowed to hold public office and or to speak in public or to go on an embassy. And that's his case that Timarkus had been a prostitute in his youth and probably still was and therefore should be disenfranchised, should not be allowed to go on embassies or to speak in public and so on. But what's really telling about the course of doing this,

A. Skinny's has to go way out of his way to assure his audience, I'm not attacking homosexual love. I'm not attacking pederasty or this practice. I'm just saying this guy, you know, I mean Timarkus was basically a flamboyant faggot, okay, like he go around getting drunk, getting naked in public, whoring his ass out, complete dissolute life, basically a coke addicted gay gambler type, you know, like Justin Trudeau perhaps, and this, aside from this, Ace Kid East has to go way out of his way to assure I'm only attacking this guy based on this old law that apparently was not even enforced to resurrect the 100-year-old old law. It wasn't even an open secret. Everyone knew what Timarkus got up to and still he faced absolutely not only no legal penalties but no social reprobation at all.

He had an elite position in Athenian society. society. This is not how societies, for example, in 1950, pre-1950 Europe or America, where homosexuality was seen as bad or illegal or socially prescribed. This is not how they behave, right? Quite aside from this, in this speech, Esquides has to go way out of his way to assure his audience that he's not attacking homosexuality or homosexual love as such, that he himself is a lover of boys and he goes on and say, well, you know, they might bring up the fact that I too like this and it's actually, yeah, it's a noble practice and I wrote these love poems and I got in all these jealous quarrels with my love affairs with boys and as people often do in these affairs and that's fine and I'm not attacking that at all.

And through that and many other passing references and signs and appeals to the prejudices of of the time, you can understand absolute central place that had homosexuality or homosexual love in ancient Greece. It was at least in Athens of the time, but actually Athens was the leading state, and so many others copied its mores and its practices and so on, but Sparta was even more this way. I'll get to that later in episode. The problem with ancient Greece, talking many such things, though, is it was quite heterogeneous place. So the way of life, let's say, quite aside from what I'm talking about now, but the way of life in Athens versus Sparta was far different from America versus Soviet Union or Putin Russia today.

And it's history that spans, what, five, six, seven hundred years, maybe longer. And so during that time, a lot of variations possible, and you can cherry-pick whatever you want. I'm sure at certain cities, in certain places, it was not so well seen, pederasty or homosexuality or other such things. At other places, it was very central. But overall, to the period that matters to most people, which is Athens, especially at its height, as well as what Greek culture ended up meaning in the Mediterranean and to others, homosexual love had very central place. So now, let me read for you from Athenaeus. This is the Dapeno Sophists. It's a kind of the dinner Sophists, okay? So, I'm reading now. And many men used to be as fond of having boys as their favorites as women for their mistresses.

And this was a frequent fashion in many well-regulated cities of Greece. Accordingly, the Cretans, as I have said before, and the Chalcidians in Euboea, were very much addicted to the custom of having boy favorites. Therefore, Achaemenes, in his history of Crete, says that it was not Zeus who carried off Ganymede, but Minos. But the before-mentioned Chalcidians say that Ganymede was carried off from them by Zeus, and they showed a spot which they called Harpagium, and it is a place which produces extraordinary mortals. and Minos abandoned his enmity to the Athenians, although it had originated in consequence of the death of his son, out of his love for Theseus. And he gave his daughter Phaedra to Theseus for his wife, as Xenis, or Zeneus of Chios,

tells us in his history of his native land. But Hieronymus the Peripatetic says that the ancients were anxious to encourage the practice of having boy favorites, because the vigorous disposition of youths and the confidence, and by the way, I will cover this, excuse me, to interject. Just so you understand something, and I'll cover this in more detail later in episode because really I'm not trying to make the case in this episode for you that homosexual love was central to the ancient Greeks, but rather accepting that to explain how it worked, how it would have ended up in the typical life of an ancient Greek aristocrat and so on. But just to clarify, when he talks about this affair of boys and youths and these words, Again, it is not Sandusky with even a 14-year-old boy.

It's not a 42-year-old man or something with an 80-year-old boy. The general ages that this took place in Athens, I mentioned it I think on last episode, it would be something like a 23, 24, 25-year-old with a 16, 17, 18-year-old or such, or that type of age difference. and I'll get to details about that later. In Sparta and in Crete, which, excuse me, SNAs is now talking about Crete. In Sparta and in Crete, both would have been younger, so would have been something like a 15 or 16-year-old with an 18, 19-year-old or something like that. And it would have been generally something confined to their youth, and I'll explain why and how it worked later in episode. I continue now to read from Athenaeus. He just got done saying that many ancients were anxious

to encourage practice of having boy favorites because the vigorous disposition of youths and the confidence engendered by their association with each other has often led to the overthrow of tyrants. For in the presence of his favorite, a man would choose to do anything rather than to get the reputation of being a coward. And this was proved in practice in the case of the sacred band, as it was called, which was established at Thebes by Epaminondas. Harmodius and Aristogaeton made a deadly attack on the Peci Stratidae. They are the ones who ended the tyranny at Athens. I'll talk about them later, excuse. And at Acragas in Sicily, now known as Agrigento, the mutual love of Cariton and Melanippus produced a similar result. They overthrew the local tyrant.

As we are told by Heraclitus of Pontus and his treatise on amatory matters. For when Melanippus and Cariton were informed against as plotting against Falaris and were tortured in order to compel them to reveal their accomplices. Not only did they not betray them, but they even made Falaris himself pity them because of the tortures which they had undergone so that he dismissed them with great praise. On which account Apollo, being pleased at this conduct, gave Falaris a respite from death, declaring this to the man who consulted the Pythian priestess as to how they might best attack him. He also gave them an oracle respecting Hariton, putting the pentameter before the hexameter in the same way as afterwards Dionysus the Athenian did, who was nicknamed a brazen in his elegies.

And the oracle runs as follows, happy or carried on Amelanippus, guides in heavenly love to many men. The circumstances, too, that happened to Cartinus, the Athenian, are well known, for he, being a very beautiful boy at the time when Epimenides was purifying Attica by human sacrifices on account of some old pollution, as Niantis of Cyzicus relates in the second book of his treatise on initiation rites, willingly gave himself to secure the safety of the woman who had brought him up. And after his death, Apollodorus, his friend, also devoted himself to death, and so the calamities of the country were terminated. And owing to love affairs of this kind, the tyrants for friendships of this sort were very adverse to their interests. The tyrants altogether forbade the fashion

of making favorites of boys, and wholly abolished it. And some of them even burnt down and raised to the ground the palestri, the gyms, considering them as fortresses hostile to their own citadels. As instance, Polycrates, the tyrant of Samos, burnt down the gyms. But among the Spartans, as Hognon the academic philosopher tells us, unmarried girls are treated as boy favorites. The great lawgiver Solon has said, admiring pretty legs and rosy lips, and Aeschylus and Sophocles have openly made similar statements, the one saying in the Myrmidons, You paid not due respect to modesty led by your passion for too frequent kisses. And the other in his Colchian women, speaking of Ganymede, says, inflaming with his beauty mighty Zeus. I am not ignorant that the story

which is told about Kratinus and Aristodemus is stated by Polemon Periagetes in his replies to Niantes, to be a mere invention. But you, O Sinulkus, believe that all these stories are true, let them ever be so false. and you take the greatest pleasure in all such poem which speak of boys and favorites of that kind. The fashion of making favorites of boys was first introduced among the Greeks from Crete, as Timaeus informs us. But others say that Laius was the originator of this custom when he received hospitality by Pelops, and that he took a great fancy to Pelop's son Chrysippus, whom he put into his chariot and carried off, and fled with to Thebes. But Praxilla the Sichionian says that Chrysippus was carried off by Zeus, And Celts, too, although they have the most beautiful women

of all the barbarians, the Celts, still make great favorites of boys, so that some of them often go to rest with two lovers on their beds of hide. And the Persians, according to the statement of Herodotus, learned from the Greeks to adopt this same fashion. Alexander the King was also very much in the habit of giving in to this fashion. Accordingly, the Chaarchus, in his treatise on the sacrifice at Troy, says that he was so much under the influence of Bagoas the eunuch that he embraced him in the sight of the whole theater. Oh boy, a eunuch that's a tranny, oh, well. And that when the whole theater shouted in approval of the action, he repeated it. Alexander kissing this eunuch. And Caristius, in his historical commentary says, Charon of Calchis had a boy of great beauty

who was a great favorite of his. But when Alexander, on one occasion, at a great entertainment given by Craterus, praised this boy very much, Charon bade the boy go and salute Alexander, and he said, not so, for he will not please me so much as he will vex you. For though the king was of a very amorous disposition, still he was at all times sufficiently master of himself to have a due regard to decorum and to the preservation of appearances. And in the same spirit, when he had taken as prisoners the daughters of Darius and his wife, who was of extraordinary beauty, he not only abstained from offering them any insult, but he took care never to let them feel that they were prisoners at all, but ordered them to be treated in every respect and to be supplied with everything,

just as if Darius, the Persian king, had still been in his palace. On which account Darius, when he heard this conduct, raised his hands to the sun and prayed that either he might be king or Alexander. But Ibykus states that Talos was the great favorite of Radomantis, the just. And Diatimas, in his Heracleia, says that Eurystheus was a great favorite of Heracles, on which account he willingly endured all his labors for his sake. And it is said that Arginus was a favorite, favorite is just this older English translation, it just, it means lover. And that Arginus was a favorite of Agamemnon. And that they first became acquainted from Agamemnon seeing Arginus bathing in the Cephasus. And afterwards, when he was drowned in this river, for he was continually bathing in it,

Agamemnon buried him and raised the temple on the spot to Aphrodite Arginus. But Licimnius of Chios, in his Dithyrambix, said that it was Hymeneus of whom Arginus was a favorite, and Aristocles the harp player was a favorite of King Antigonus. And Antigonus of Caristus, in his Life of Xenon, writes of him in the following terms. Antigonus the king used to often go to sup with Xenon, and once, as he was returning by daylight from some entertainment, he went to Xenon's house and persuaded him to go to sup with Aristocles the harp player who was an excessive favorite of the kings. Sophocles, too, had a great fancy for having boy favorites. I'm sorry in what I'm about to read. Sophocles, great playwright, some of you like him, is, Athenaeus makes him sound from these sayings

of Sophocles that had apparently been passed down as a great, well, a faggot in a funny way from the way he talks about these things. But I'll read for you. Sophocles, too, had a great fancy for having boy favorites equal to the addiction of Euripides for women. And accordingly, Ion, the poet in his book on the arrival of illustrious men in the island of Chios, writes thus, I met Sophocles, the poet, in Chios when he was sailing to Lesbos as the general. He was a man very pleasant over his wine and very witty. And when Hermesilaus, who was connected with him by ancient ties of hospitality and who was also the proximus of the Athenians, entertained him, the boy who was mixing the wine was standing by the fire, being a boy of very beautiful complexion, but made red by the fire.

So Sophocles called him and said, do you wish me to drink with pleasure? And when he said that, he did. He said, well then bring me the cup and take it away again in a leisurely manner. And as the boy blushed all the moreties, Sophocles said to the guest who was sitting next to him, how well did Phrenicus speak when he said, the light of love doth shine in purple cheeks. And the man from Eretria, or from Eretri, who was a schoolmaster, answered him, You are a great man in poetry, oh Sophocles, but still Phrenicus did not say well when he called purple cheeks a mark of beauty. For if a painter were to cover the cheeks of this boy with purple paint, he would not be beautiful at all. And so it is not well to compare what is beautiful with what is not so.

And on this, Sophocles, laughing at the Eritrean, said, then, my friend, I suppose you are not pleased with the line in Simonides, which is generally considered among the Greeks to be a beautiful one. The maid poured forth a gentle voice from out her purple mouth. And you do not either like the poet who spoke of the golden-haired Apollo, for if a painter were to represent the hair of the god as actually golden and not black, the picture would be all the worse. Nor do you approve of the poet who described women as rosy-fingered, for if anyone were to dip his fingers in rosy-colored paint, he would make his hands like those of a purple-dyer and not of a pretty woman. And when they all laughed at this, the Eritrean was checked by the reproof,

and Sophocles again turned to pursue the conversation was the boy, for he asked him as he was brushing away the straws from the cup with his little finger whether he saw any straws. And when he said that he did, he said, blow them away then that you may not dirty your fingers. And when he brought his face near the cup, he held the cup nearer to his own mouth so as to bring his own head nearer to the head of the boy. And when he was very near, he took him by the hand and kissed him. And when all clapped their hands, laughing and shouting out to see how well he had taken the boy in, he said, I, my friends, am practicing the art of generalship, since Pericles has said, I know how to compose poetry, but not how to be a general. Now has not this stratagem of mine succeeded perfectly.

And he both said and did many things of this kind in a witty manner, drinking and giving himself up to mirth. But as to political affairs, he was not able nor energetic in them, but behaved as any other virtuous Athenian might have done. And Hieronymus of Rhodes, in his historical commentary, says that Sophocles once led a handsome boy outside the walls in order to consort with him. The boy laid his own cloak on the grass, and they used Sophocles' cloak to cover them. When they had finished their encounter, the boy went off with Sophocles' cloak, and Sophocles was left to the boy's cloak. Naturally, this affair became the subject of gossip, and when Euripides was told about it, he scoffed at Sophocles, saying that he too had used this boy, but he had not had

to pay any extra, whereas Sophocles had been treated with contempt because of his licentiousness. When Sophocles heard this, he composed the following epigram. By the way, in all this is quite funny, and Sophocles comes off as a major kind of flamboyant homo, but you can see in the words used and licentiousness and chastity what they actually meant when you see them used in this fashion. It gives you a clue, like Xenophon and others mean when they say that the Spartan version of homosexual love was quote unquote chaste. What they mean is that they were not behaving like Sophocles is now or like Timarchus in the speech against Timarchus by Aeschylus. I continue reading a little bit longer. When Sophocles heard this, he composed the following epigram

which refers to the fable about the sun and the north wind and hints also at Euripides' adultery. It was the son, not the boy who stripped me of my cloak, Euripides, but the north wind went with you when you made love to another man's wife. You're not wise when sowing another's field, to bring arrows to court for being a snatched thief. And Theopampus, in his treatise on the treasures of which the temple at Delphi was plundered, says that Aesopicus, being a favorite of Epaminondas, had the trophy of Leuctra represented in relief on his shield, and that he encountered danger with extraordinary gallantry, and that his shield is consecrated at Delphi in the portico. And in the same treatise, Theopampus further alleges, well, should I keep reading? Phylos, the tyrant of Phocas,

was extremely addicted to women, but that Onomarchus used to select boys as his favorites, and that he had a favorite, the son of Pythodorus, the Sicyonion, to whom, when he came to Delphi to devote his hair to the god, and he was a youth of great beauty, Onomarchus gave the offerings of the Sybarites four golden combs, and Phylos gave to Bromias, the daughter of Danaedas, who was a female flute player, a silver goblet of the Phocaeans, and a golden crown of ivy leaves, the offering of the Peripatians. And he says, she was about, look, it goes a bit off topic there. I read it for you maybe beyond what was necessary, so you get some ancient flavor, and so on and so forth. So you see now maybe you start to get flavor. It's not my purpose again here to prove to you

how widespread and central this was to ancient Greek life, especially during their most vital period, the archaic and classical periods. And it actually became less common as the Greeks decline. Greek heterosexual love becomes more important as the Greeks decline, and as they degenerate, which is interesting. They come to love women more and boys less. But to explain maybe how it worked, the day of day of it, that's my intention here, and even the mechanics of it, I will do this maybe also on next segment. But that said, I should also add here, I've heard the argument made again in these, I don't know, should I continue criticizing morons in these online debates? But oh well, medieval Europeans had high regard for ancient Greeks, and how could they have had

high regard if ancient Greeks had been gay? Because medieval Christianity banned homosexuality, QED. When people say such things, so-called arguments, do not call this autism, it's just cretiness. First of all, Greek knowledge was not widespread in medieval Europe really at all. A little bit was through Latin translation, for example, of Aristotle, but not much else, and many famous Greek authors we know of now were not known at all, basically. Hardly anyone actually read Plato, hence the Renaissance, which was kicked off in large part by Byzantine refugees from the fall of Constantinople, that was 1453, but there had been refugees fleeing the short period actually leading up to that, even before 1453. So second of all, as you see from the example I gave before

from one Fotius, who's the patriarch of Constantinople, it was this guy, and this is just one case, this Christian religious head, right, who preserved notes and texts in part documenting specifically Greek homosexual love. Because you know, normal people can compartmentalize. They might not be as imbecilic and bigoted as some who would no doubt maybe edit those texts or burn them in the same way the left would for different reasons. But medieval Christians and later Christians were of course all aware what Greek love was. In fact, this is what Platonic love actually meant. And they frequently acknowledge it and they condemn it. Or sometimes they avoid it, but you know, they had a more human attitude, as in you can admire one side of that culture,

but not another, you know, it's not an all or nothing. But the knowledge that Greeks would like this is not, again, an invention of any modern faction left or right. It's just so common in Western history that I don't really understand the attempts lately on the right, and I hear of other efforts upcoming too to try to obfuscate and deny this. It's really a pathetic type of lying to engage in, in my opinion. So enough of it. But furthermore, it isn't a contemporary leftist invention either to say that the ancient Greeks had in general a very different moral code from us. In fact, that they were quite alien to us and were a different civilization. Spengler is not only German historian to make this point. Many others believe it too, that

the moderns are a separate civilization that began around the year 1000. There is no direct continuity to antiquity, in other words. In fact, that claim is much more a wiggish, liberal distortion of history. My favorite Germans also believe there had been a break, one of Nietzsche's nicest lines that comes to mind as I'm talking now. It's not directly the same, but he says when you write, you should study solace. You should study the Romans. The Greeks are just too alien, for example, in style and mind for us to learn to write from them. But it's not just in writing, of course. Schopenhauer, right, a famous modernist leftist Schopenhauer, says that modern Christian civilization is unfortunately an entirely

new and different one from ancient. And there have been attempts at revival, of course, the Renaissance, or hence German Hellenism starting late 18th and especially picking up in 19th centuries, which Burckhardt refers to as an attempted sacred marriage between Germany and ancient Greece, kicked off by the way probably by Winkelmann, who I've talked about an episode on him on this show, was probably, Winkelmann probably was a gay in the modern sense or something close to that, let's say gays at their best, men like Winkelmann and Walter Pater. But all of these These attempts at revival, I mean, were self-conscious, self-conscious attempts at resurrection of an ancient spirit that while maybe it had not died off and the books and high vision

was still there, it could hardly be said to have existed continuously. It had been suppressed by forces of obscurantism and especially suppressed by the vile type of the priest. And that's it. You know, it's the priestly type. And that's the kind of imbecile who has infested the so-called right wing lately. And there's only so much I can do. Schopenhauer is also useful. It's quite interesting. Read his essay on this matter that I'm talking on this show. He refers to it as pederasty, which I told you I refuse to do for now. But he has an essay called The Metaphysics of Sexual Love, which is really amazing. It's a kind of statement of evolutionary biology or evolutionary psychology before the fact. It's in volume two of his main work, but you can find it separate, I think, online.

And to this, he has an appendix where he discusses pederasty. And he notes that it is so widespread in human societies across history and time and space that it must therefore have some natural basis. Many interesting remarks he made here, including that medieval Arab love poetry. He mentioned that it might be as if women did not exist at all. And regarding my last episode on the geishas, I should mention my friend Masaki, he tell me I don't want to smear him with this, let me just smear myself, someone tell me. But yes, samurai use of geishas was actually relatively rare, and in fact samurai were far more interested in boy love, and that was apparently far more frequent among them. I should have Japanese expert on show to talk this. I'm not familiar with that history.

Or you look to Richard Burton's Sotadic Zone argument. He makes the case that large Swedes of the world, he calls it the Sotadic Zone, where forms of pederasty were widely accepted and practiced. I have to laugh at the trads who invoke Africa right now as some kind of bulwark against the gay agenda. Yes, like Iran, where pederasty is absolutely rampant, it is true that Africans in public and in their government face and in their moral public face, if you can call it that, condemn Western-style identitarian gayness. On the other hand, Africa has a rampant homo-behavior. This is why Tariq Nasheed is always chimping out about buck-breaking, because the down-low nigger is extremely common, and I did not say it's a nigger. The down-low is very common

in Africa. That's why Gaitan Dougas or whatever, patient zero for AIDS spread, used to go to, I think, Equatorial Guinea or Guinea-Bissau or some other type nation like that, and get into orgies with black men there and so forth, and it's just incredibly common in the African continent. I mean, what is the use of pretending that this practice isn't universally widespread? Why did boroughs, I think, go to Morocco, which is a nominally Muslim country, right? But it's because Muslim or not, public condemnation or not, just like in the Gulf today, it's just so incredibly widespread. Much of the warm areas of the world, let's say, in Brazil also. No offense to my Brazilian friends, when I bring this up, they may be offended sometimes,

But public Christianity notwithstanding, homosexual behavior, although not identity, extremely — you know, bisexual behavior, call it what you want — extremely widespread there. So you are reminded, perhaps, of episode Laurence Olivier, I think it is. Is it him? Oh, no, it's Peter O'Toole, I'm sorry, in the Laurence of Arabia movie. He gets sodomized by a Turkish officer. That really is, unfortunately, the prison form that it takes in many parts of the world where a Turkish officer sodomizes a British adventurer to try to prove that Britain is beta, you see. But what's the point of pretending that it's not universally widespread, and in particular that it was not so central, really an obsessive matter, as I've been showing you to the Greeks, you know, that even the neighbors at the time,

teased them for it, not to speak of also later Europeans who noted and sometimes condemned them, but it's so central to so many societies that it might in fact be more accurate to say Jewish and Christian societies are pretty much unique in condemning homosexuality as such. Note I say as such because condemnation of many types of homosexuality and sexual behavior in general, a regulation of sexual behavior, is also universal, again as it was in ancient Greece too. I mentioned, I will elaborate soon, but I mentioned in previous episodes, I don't want to repeat myself, but you know, disgust at someone like Barney Frank or types like this does not mean either disgust or outlawing same-sex romantic or sexual love as such. And it's more accurate to say

that Jewish and Christian societies are almost unique in their absolute condemnation of it, although in practice, again, the example not only of Brazil but many other tropical Christian societies shows something very different in practice than in thought. And modern society is also unique in its absolute obsession with it, by the way. And whether this was an intended thing or just an unfortunate accident, I think it is this obsession with it on the part of the priestly type, on the part of the Ned Flanders type who forms the cuck biotype on which both Jewish and Christian morality are fundamentally based, at least in their origin. And finally, on the inversion of this, which is the modern state, whether it was intended or not, it has paradoxically managed to use gay liberation,

so-called, gay not only legalization, but aggressive promotion of gay identity, combined with the artificial empowerment of women and the destruction of all male spaces. It's managed, I say, with these tactics to achieve the same ends that ancient tyrants did when they banned homosexual love and also banned gyms. And they did so because they believed such unions were kernels of conspiracy against their power. But in turn, today you can achieve the same effects by destroying all male spaces and fraternities in this other path, by making men so paranoid about being called gay that they isolate themselves from each other and then they learn to see life as really service to a woman, to women's needs, being clowns for women and many such. And either in the context of a family or not,

being clowns for women, having their mental, spiritual horizon entirely based on the needs, desire psychology of women on either way. And now, you can accuse me of promoting pederasty. And that's funny, you know, that's how Schopenhauer ends his essay on pederasty too. He says that the Protestant stuffed shirt Parsons and Hegelian state philosophers can now add to their slanders of me and say that I defend pederasty because I've tried to speculate on what is the natural basis of it. And like him and others, you know, my motivation is I hate lies. So that's why I do this episode, although I do expect it will be distorted and twisted, what I say here. Anyway, I'll be right back to discuss. Yes, well, how it actually took

place in various Greek cities and the mechanics of it. Not for family show, please. I will be right back. So again, I am reluctant to use the word pederasty because image by now, with insanity, especially over pedophilia since at least 2016 election, but even before then, you know, in some ways, despite all the huffing of the populists that there's as some effort to normalize it. There surely is in some quarters, but in some ways it's always been worse and more hysterical thing in American society, the pedophilia thing, worse even than Holocaust denial. Yes it was, and I remember very well this idea. For example, if you'd make such arguments as, well, the men of the Bible, they often married 13, 14 year olds, and are you saying the venerable men of the Bible are vile pedophiles?

And simply making such an argument would engender rage beyond what would happen when you do Holocaust denial, I think. I know because I've trolled people with both things in real life myself, and much worse than that, you know. And the thing is, you can speculate about why a society like the modern world, which hates youth, which is willing to destroy tens or hundreds of millions of young lives, imprisoning them for the benefit of the old and the sick, imprisoning the young for more than 10% of their lives in some cases. I hope that young people will grow up and punish those who did this to them. A society that you are told worships youth, but that I tell you worships the old and the sick and the decrepit and shows that in many actions, which is willing to mistreat its youth really

for over a hundred years, to send them to meat grinder wars and such. You know this thing about war and youth, a bit misunderstood today, some controversy over the last week or two on Twitter as all the lame conservatives, all who uphold this dead faith that was unable to stand up to the left even when they had a favorable demographics and often a favorable political situation. But now they want to continue especially their flag country, religious Pharisaism, and all kinds of the same thing in much worse circumstances where it really stands no chance. But the lackeys and brown-noses of this losing and dead ideology come out to Huff and Puff about, no sir, we stand against this desperately right wing Nietzscheanism. And these perverts are pushing on the young

and God gave judgment on it in 1945 on Nietzscheanism and other platitudes that they've traded in for decades. The new Komsomol, this was the communist youth organization, the Komsomol lackeys, just repeat it. But it wasn't Nietzscheanism that had anything to do with World War II in the way that conservatives and even the churches advocated for World War I and all that carnage. And Nietzsche, D'Annunzio, Celine even, certainly Stefan Goerge and Mishima, who are maybe the foremost Nietzscheans after Nietzsche, none of them had anything to do with World War II. And in fact, Nietzsche very much opposed the vain retard, Kaiser Wilhelm II, because he knew this morale would inevitably lead to a European war and would destroy Germany's spirit. And similar for all his preparation for war

and his vitalistic militarism in manner, Mishima was not a pro-war man, and neither, by the way, was the most radical faction in Japan of the 1930s, at least they were not advocating for war with America, they were maybe trying to push Japan towards a confrontation with the Soviet Union instead, and I say this because actually it's a consistent position, even going back to antiquity, of militaristic and youth-led, youth-worshiping even societies like the Spartans, that actually they were very cautious about getting into wars, and they were not happy with idea of meat grinders. I mean, you cannot be when it's the youth and soldiers themselves who lead the state. A warlord even, right, a viking warlord. The Last Kingdom series on Netflix does a good job capturing this simple

but actually easy to forget fact. A simple but easy to forget fact. A warlord doesn't like losing his men. His power is counted by how many powerful warriors he has. It's not counted by performatively dying for no purpose or to please the heaving bosom of an old woman. And Tacitus says something similar about ancient Germanic warlords as well. Youth-worshipping societies led by vital young men do not like to start stupid wars, in fact. They like to fight, they like to start smart wars, but not the meat-grinder industrial-type wars of what you see the last hundred years. That's not a youth-worshipping society. I mean, to say the tangents I go on, you see, Why would such a youth-hating and old-worshiping senile society like modern Europe and America today

get into such hysteria over pedophilia? And you can speculate many things, but one friend, you may know him, I can say his name, Macrobius, a traditionalist Christian friend, in fact, for over 10 years, he says it's a feminist tactic to take attention away from the killer mummy, the killer mummy archetype, terrible reality of women performing abortions and such, and to invent the other feminist scapegoat of the rapist daddy to take attention for, you know, and indeed pedophilia in general seems to be a feminist fixation that the right has very foolishly amplified because it helps, in the end, feminist goals on every level. Especially if you understand feminism as what it really is, it's a cartel of older women who want to prevent men their age

and slightly younger from pursuing younger women, which you see, you know, when you consistently why men who like younger women, and even if you're like a 21 or 22-year-old, you're attacked as a pedophile. You know, why men who do not like fat women are now pedophiles and so on, too. So anyway, what was I? Pedorasty, yes. This is why I don't like the word, and in this hysteria over pedophilia, again, the image is Sandusky or some 45-year-old or 50-year-old with, you know. Simply, it was not the case that in ancient Greece, it was like an 80-year-old boy with a 40-year-old man, or even a 12-year-old, frankly, or even a 13- or 14-year-old, frankly. These things become clear, again, from things like Eskeny's speech and from asides made

in various texts indicating when sexual relations would start. The typical relationship in Athens was probably between a 16, 17, or even 18-year-old and above with someone who would have been only somewhat older or even the same age, but let's say 23 or 24 or something like this, if you are to judge from evidence of those relationships that were most celebrated. So if you look at Harmodios and Erstogaiton, who are celebrated at Athens for ending the tyranny there together, you can see the statue. One has a beard and one not, but they don't look much different in age, and the one without the beard doesn't have the physique of a 15 or 16-year-old, nor could you necessarily use a 15- or 16-year-old physique in fighting or in assassination plots, which is again

at least to be crude in saying, at least from a public relations perspective, this is how they most nobly presented themselves as joint fighters, as in Thebes, where again you'd have to be professional soldiers to be part of the 150 pair of lovers that made the elite sacred band, so it wouldn't even be like a 16-year-old, or in many of the other cities joint plotters and assassins of tyrants. If you remember from Athenaeus' long list of lovers who were tyrant killers, that was kind of that public function. So both would have been young adults of some type, able to fight and so on. That's just what the physique was for, by the way, if I need to repeat it, and what the gyms are for. Just as I hear maybe this rumor, I haven't checked it, but that the age of 21 has come

to us as of adulthood age, because generally only at that age would you be able to wear a heavy knight's armor in the Middle Ages. In the same way among Greeks, the bronze armor of hoplites was quite heavy, and generally before 18 you were not able to put it on without awkwardness, and much of that physical training and the perfect physiques you see wasn't only for this, it was appreciation of beauty too, primarily it was training for war, which is why, I remind you, tyrants wanted to forbid these kinds of relationships and some of them also closed down gyms because they were places where men trained for war and also formed such bonds. Sorry to say yes, but remember Burkhardt mentioning that the statue of Eros was prominently displayed in the gym between those of Hermes and Heracles.

So the point is these were not abused children, you know. Again, it becomes obvious with events like Alcibiades trying to seduce Socrates in the the description I read in the symposium, what's described there by Alcibiades is not a 12 or 13 year old, but somebody who was probably 20 years old or older, who was a kind of male slut of his time, famously much pursued because of his beauty by others. And he was trying to reduce Socrates, and he recounts that with no shame. And later, he's only ashamed that Socrates turned him down. And later, when Aristotle is trying to disprove that Solon and Peisistratus, the future tyrant of Athens, when he tries to disprove that they were lovers, which he ended up not being very effective at doing because Greeks, after Aristotle, continued to believe

that Solon and Peisistratus had been lovers. But one of Aristotle's main arguments is that the age gap between them would have been too great for this to make sense. So it was quite understood that what was meant by male love and such, and this word used, this pederasty today, but it's quite misleading because the age differences were still customary for the archaic and classical periods for there to be a little bit of age difference, but it was not that great. This age difference existed explicitly for the purposes of education because, or the pretext of education, but it was not just the pretext, it was education, as in Knight's Choir situation, saying the slightly older youth was supposed to guide and instruct the younger in various matters,

especially pertaining to war, training for war, athletics and the like, although philosophical and literary mentorship later ended up also taking place. And it was this kind of idealistic and educational-based affair that structured the practice, especially in Sparta and in Athens, where I will focus my discussion now. This should go without saying in what I'm about to say. I'm treating exclusively the institution as it existed for the upper class. As for homosexual relations in general, no doubt they took place in various forms and were basically unrestricted when it came to medics, resident foreigners and slaves, and so who knows what went on there, but I might comment on that, but mainly when I speak of the institution, in this segment especially,

I'm talking about the upper-class practice, and especially the Athenian upper-class practice, unless I say otherwise. Its form then was educational, and at least in its beginning, specifically based around war, a form in which continued fossilized, obviously, at Sparta for that purpose, although it should be emphasized that in both cases it had a sexual and romantic component specifically. It was not just the so-called, some people try to argue chaste or whatever they claim. This is seen from many offhand comments. I've mentioned some of them. As time went on, Greek society in its decline became more hedonistic, voluptuous, more actually heterosexual and interested in women and lost the idealism and educational aspect of the homosexual relationship,

while still maintaining a purely carnal and sexual form. So let me read this interesting passage again from Borchardt, now regarding the changes in the Hellenistic and cosmopolitan age, the age after Alexander. The practice of love between men and boys may have gone on much as before, but there was no longer a polis or any shared heroism in war, both of which had provided an element of cultivating or training the beloved. And so these relationships quite lost their former motivation in ethics, politics, and love of education. The friendship of Cleomenes and Pantheus was perhaps the last of its kind to lay claim to exalted feeling. After that, there were no more famous pairs of male lovers, not even among the Diadochoid, these were Alexander's general emperor successors,

though Demetrios Polyokrates might have provided an example. provided an example. The boy who was loved no longer existed as a recognized feature of social life, but only as an instrument of pleasure and sentimentality was forced to turn to relationships with women. Fanocles still made use of the motif in learned poetry for etiological proofs, but otherwise it was only the subject of elegantly obscene jests, or of some epigrams which are in the nature of coded sighs. The last poet who was at home with it was Theocritus in his boy poems, Paedica. and reading. In the description of this change, so I'm not reading anymore, okay, but in the description of this change now, you see it was supposed to be in its original form. So Burkhart explains how it declined, changed, transformed,

but in doing that, you get an idea of what it had supposed to be in its original form. So probably around age 13 or 14, an Athenian upper-class boy would have begun receiving praise or attention, especially if he was good looking or to perceive to have good moral qualities and to have many lovers or rather suitors at this stage because again, sexual contact would probably have been seen even maybe as illegal. There was a law that ace kidneys as well as a convention, just a normal custom that it was seen as untoward to make sexual advances beyond friendship to a boy that was not yet of aged consent and he doesn't exactly say what that age is, but he clearly implies that after that age it would be more than friendship. Doesn't imply, he says it. But it would have been seen as unsavory,

let's say to have sexual contact at 13 or 14, but to have many suitors was seen as a great honor and of course in some cases it was also teased and such, which is to be expected, and probably a full affair would begin later, maybe around age 16 or such, and I'm not saying that just because it's the modern age of consent in some places in the modern world, but because from intuition, from having read many such things in ancient literature, including unrelated, but for example, the fact that Romans basically conscripted already 16-year-olds, and often these formed the first Roman line of attack. Not that I'm saying these had the same practices at Greece with regard to the homosing and so on. But at that age it seems ancient societies overall recognize consistent mental and physical

sufficient changes take place and they're willing to give such youths much responsibility to 16-year-olds. Ours of course does not do that even to 26-year-olds. But Romans and many others sent 16-year-olds on important missions. So anyway, probably a full romantic relationship as such. Would have started around that age and again, usually with the youth not much older, maybe 24 or 25, I guess, neither, am I aware, would be over 28. It wasn't mandatory by any means, certainly not in Athens, and some men did not like it. For example, famously Pericles, who I mentioned on last show, where I talk about his great love affair with the courtesan Aspasia. Of course, many had courtesans, and at other points in their life, this love affair, this homosexual love affair, but Pericles

didn't like homosexual relations, but he was conspicuous for it. It was unusual enough to draw remarks. He's not into that, although nobody attacked him for it. It was all, again, it is a free relation. Conversely, some men would no doubt be lifelong essentially homos, and they were not attacked for it either. Technically, if it could be proved, for example, that they engaged in anal sex, they would have maybe been a punishment where they technically lost the right to speak in public or hold an embassy office or something like that, but I'm not really aware of cases where this law was pursued or enforced. There would have been heavy social pressure on them, of course, to have children. That's another matter. There would have been, frankly, such pressure

even on well-known kinidoid, catamites, or widely known male passive whores, men known to take it up the ass and so on. The pressure even on them to have children was immense, because again, in Greece in general, there was often population problem, especially for the citizen class. But aside from that, they would have been left alone. Such men did not imagine, though it's interesting, even in the tolerant environment, they did not imagine to go the extra step and demand, as modern gays do, to have equal and full social, civil recognition, marriage rights, and many such things. In fact, to even consider that transposed to that time is absurd and reveals much, I think. The question, why wouldn't they? It shows you, really, the modern gay movement isn't really about what it pretends to be.

The ancient analogy to it would actually be Aristophanes' funny play, The Assemblywomen, which is the ultimate criticism, I think, of all modern identity movements, and in fact, the whole modern left and even of Marxism, a criticism of Marxism well before the fact. Aristophanes showing in that play, The Assemblywomen, ultimately what the left is about as a matter of human nature. It's a stomping of feet for sexual access and demand for the law to step in and make up for what you lack in nature in so far as sexual worth especially is concerned. Which is also why Marxism, in the end, cannot tolerate existence of family or actually any kind of sexual exclusivity, but the most advanced Marxists recognize in the end state, yes, there would be equal distribution of goods,

but if women or men or sexual access is not equally distributed to, that's really what the material goods are for, and so they realize they must push for polymorphous perversity, you see. But that's a talk for another time. To go back to ancient Greek homosexual love, for most men who chose to engage in this, it would've been an affair largely confined to their youth, let's say, as ephebes or military cadets, and the age after that, or their early 20s, because after, they would've been married, and throughout in any case would have had prosties and in some cases affairs with Hetairai and courtesans, which were much desires and such. Desired, excuse me, the rock stars of their time. Although in many cases they continued a lifelong friendship with their formal lovers as was said

of Solon and Peisistratus. So even when these two were very much opposed to each other politically, it never got ugly between them. And from this alone you see why both tyrannies and democracies would have been very much interested in ending these types of this practice, especially between aristocrats, which is to say what? Wealthy and powerful men, because both tyranny and democracy does not want this kind of partial and internal faction in the state from potential rivals. So it wasn't just tyranny that hated these affairs, but democracy is much disparaged them too, and by extension, cosmopolitan Hellenistic society, even when it was monarchic in form, but much like the Roman Empire, it was a lot more democratic than what had come before, socially and in other ways.

So it reduced this relation again to a purely carnal one. Did it do so consciously? Probably not. That reduction and transformation came about in any case with the decline of the aristocracy and its striving for excellence and many such. So now a word to what was practiced. In these affairs, sodomy was not practiced or at least it was supposed to be. Did it happen? I have no doubt it occasionally happened. But remember that such men had plentiful whores for that or other such penetrative sex. If their desires ran in that way, there were also male prostitutes, slaves, and many such thing. Between themselves, what was commonly practiced was inter-cruel sex, or inter-cruel, I forget, I'm not expert on terminology of such, but it was basically between the thighs,

what was later called in later age, English schoolboy style, because the English mimic these customs in their own boarding school, as did other Anglophilic peoples, like the Austrians read Confessions of Young Torliss by Musel, of course. That particular story is quite cruel tale of sexual domination, much like Dominated by Doug and Celine discusses something similar in French boarding schools. I have no doubt that such scenes took place in the erotically charged gymnasium of ancient Greece as well, with hazing rituals and such. You know, the Dominated by Doug things, but they weren't supposed to. And Intracruller or Intracruller was the preferred style. And by the way, if I unsavory topic, but regarding anal sex, it is not something especially easy or convenient always to do.

It's quite, takes preparation sometimes, it is dirty, you ask any modern homo. And so while it certainly did take place in antiquity, in fact, wars were started over it because you'd have one Mediterranean chimp tyrant marrying his daughter off to a neighboring chimp tyrant. And, you know, to make a dynastic alliance, I think actually this took place between two Greek tyrants. But, so the one who married the other guy's daughter, word got out he was doing her against nature or against convention, meaning he was doing her up the ass, and her father declared war on him. And the reason he was doing that was because he already had a male heir from his previous marriage and did not want a rival heir. And so anal sex was used in antiquity and at other times in history for this purpose.

I'm not saying it was never practiced, but it's possibly not something so convenient and easy to do as modern media pretends it is. And so it's not so hard to think that the usual practice in the upper class style was probably what I'm saying, this different thing, inter-cruel or inter-cruel. Does this make you uncomfortable? Good, I will continue. With frottage, which you are happy to look up if you want, as an adjacent form, which is to say, the image that both sides have of this, but principally what the Foucault left, the Foucault academic gay left says, is completely backward and Paglia's right to call that image completely twisted. Because the whole Foucauldian model is that the non-citizen other was seen as a passive and inert, unsexual sperm spittoon,

and that the active citizen could use the sperm spittoon in a protocol of social and political domination, again as a passive receptacle, these words. But this is completely false because penetrative sex in this sense was not the customary style first of all, whereas second, and Paglia is very right on this as well, it was the younger partner, if anything, the Romanos, who was the dominant in the relationship, not the older. So if that's what you thought, you had it backwards, and dominant is not even the right word, but as in revered and worshiped and in art, literally put on a pedestal, which was the, it was the Romanos, the younger, who if you had to put it this way, had the sexual and social upper hand, which becomes clear not only if you look at what is said

about Alcibiades, but others of his type and how much they abused their suitors and lovers, and really much in the same way modern, very desired celebrity thought or something, abuse their suitors and simps today, like one of these girls and so on. I don't like this word simp, you know, but you do. But so yes, the modern vision of how these things went is wrong on multiple counts. It's completely backwards. First on age gap understanding, second on which partner had the upper hand of sorts, and finally on what acts were practiced, usually at least, I mean. Did blowjobs happen? probably, but they were seen as slightly ridiculous. They were not banned. Sodomy, it was technically banned, but again, if you got sodomized, you lost political rights. Technically,

blowjobs were not mentioned in this regard, but from what I gather, they were seen as somewhat ridiculous, especially if you see remarks. Famously, Plutarch makes on Alcibiades and his refusal to play the flute. It's quite funny, but from other sources too, although this particular act again did not carry penalties, whereas sodomy did. Yeah, if you got fucked in the ass, I mean provably so, then you lost the right to political participation. And similarly, if you sodomized another citizen and therefore caused the city to lose a citizen, you were also amenable to very harsh punishment. But in fact, unless in cases of proven prostitution where it was automatically assumed, yeah, if you're a male prostitute,

Of course you got fucked, but unless in cases of prostitution like that, it wasn't really punished or at all pursued de facto. Even in cases of prostitution, again like that of Timarkus, it's only if someone brought a case against you as Eskeniz did and proved it in court, something that happened only you know. I mean aside from this event, Timarkus was not ostracized or punished in any way, although everybody knew what he got up to for years. He wasn't private or secret about it. So anyway, you'll excuse my foray into the mechanics of it, but I think why not give you full story? And the practice of inter-cruel sex is also pictured on various vases. This was K.J. Dover's special and really only contribution to establish in part through visual evidence

that this was generally what was done, although it's not the only source and it's obvious also from other historical eras with similar arrangements. It was supposedly different in Thebes, where outright sodomy was apparently practiced, but it's hard to say exactly what went on there. Certainly Thebes preserved the reputation as a hotbed of heavy homosexual activity even into Roman times. Sparta, a different and special case. It was much more than Athens based around this relationship, and I will be right back to discuss Sparta and Crete and such. Famously, even Athenaeus says this, but I think Xenophon Constitution of Spartans says it too, and by the way, Xenophon is not attacking Spartans when he say this, he loves Sparta. But Spartan men were not so used to being Arab women,

and they were so not used to being Arab women, there is story the women shave head and dress like men on wedding night. I don't know if this is true. I think the general structure of the affair would have been much like in Athens, except almost exclusively geared toward war and athletics, and of a knight-squire variety. And there are crazy German historian, I forget if 19th century or 1920s, who think that Dorian tradition, Spartans were Dorians, other states were Dorians too, the Cretans, the Rhodians, and so on, but that the Dorian tradition was actually sodomy, it was sodomy-based so that the mentor would fuck the mentee so as to supposedly, along with the education, pass the seamen, and within the seamen, the information, you know, the teaching would be part of the seamen.

One scholar in famous German article on Doric boy love, sees significance in espenelas, being the word for the lover in Doric, which he takes to be an inblower of seed. So you understand his meaning from this. That's from one Eric Beth, writing in 1907, by the way, I think he became a Nazi later. Another famous anthropologist, Arnold van Genep, In 1909, who is still cited on initiatory practices, I actually think he is the one who made the connection between Spartan ephebe rituals and similar pederastic rites of the Melanesians. And it is in this connection that, forgive the pornography, but the mention of semen as carriage of information is said, or maybe I'm confusing him with Bethe, but regardless, Sparta being a Doric state had a more primitive version of this relation than Athens

because the Doric states, how they were founded, they were founded later than others by a later wave of Aryan newcomers who had preserved these, so they were in a quite way fossilized states anthropologically by the historical period, had preserved quite ancient rituals, and Crete even more so than Sparta. In fact, it is said Sparta imported much of its unusual political and social system, including things like the common mess hall for the Brotherhood of Citizen Warriors and such, that it imported this from Crete. And Crete, as an outlier, would have been especially a place where very ancient rituals could be preserved. So you can understand the logic of this. Dorians arrive, they destroy the local previous culture, and then because they're on the side,

they fossilize in a relative isolation on island during Greek Dark Ages. So they preserve actually a very ancient form of the practice where the boy was ritually kidnapped by his lover, and then the boy's friends, and this is all described by one Ephoros, a very ancient historian, as quoted at length by Strabo in his Geography. But Ephoros wrote of the Cretan constitution, and he goes on at length about their love affairs. So the boy is kidnapped, he puts up, that's his word, by the way, love affairs, he puts up a token resistance, and he's taken to the lover's mess hall, and meanwhile, the boy's friends go after him and try to recover him, at which point, a reconciliation and exchange of gifts take place. It's all ritualized and token, a token kidnapping and token resistance and so on.

And after this exchange, however, the boy and his lover, and please understand that both here and in Spartan version were talking about adolescence, okay? Not again like old guy, nine-year-old. In the Doric version of the rite, both are actually younger than in Athens. The word used for the lover, which is to mean the older one, is neoi in Xenophon for Spartan version, and neanias in Ephorus for the Cretan. That means a very young man, maybe the lover, that is the older one, would have been 16 or 17, and the younger, maybe a couple of years younger. So yes, Spartan law actually said that boys had to take lover at the age of 12 or be penalized in some form, but lover, quote unquote, is relative. I would guess that until they were slight older than this,

there wouldn't really have been romantic contact directly. If you are, again, to take what Eskeny says and mean, look, it's not quite clear. And Xenophon, of course, is eager to prove that a relationship was chaste, but again, the word chaste is relative. And at least at a somewhat later age, as we see from Crete, from where the custom was renewed, it wouldn't have been chaste, and they would have been slightly older than let's say 12 and 14 they would have been maybe 14 and 16 or 15 and 17 or 16 and 18 and so on so but anyway this the kidnapping and everything else I described have been maybe 60 or 17 18 year old doing this to someone slightly younger than himself and then the two of them the ritual called for they would go in anthropological literature in general

you can find same principle in other cultures bush time meaning hunting expedition for two months by themselves. I'm still describing the Cretan rite here. The purpose of hunting expedition is very much initiatory rite again in many cultures and show you probably yes education or mentorship warrior origins of this institution in Athens as well where it was spiritualized into real education and such beyond just this and so they tended to be a bit older in Athens than in Crete and Sparta but in Crete they still had this primitive away time in the wilderness hunting for two months by themselves after which they returned and gifts were given to the initiated boy now these gifts were an ox a suit of armor which you know it cost you the equivalent

of a modern car today and a cup and a cup for participation in wine festivals you're an adult now you can come to our drinking parties the armor obvious in its purpose you're part of the of the military brotherhood now, and the ox was then sacrificed by the youth, and he made a party, a big feast, to which he invited his mentor and many others. And this ritual was in a different form, exist even now in Germanic countries, where Promovendus gives a dinner to his friends and associates and a supervisor who helped him after he received his doctorate, and I quote, existing in Germany and Holland at the present day and going back to the earliest Middle Ages. quoting from an article I will cite soon, which is simply to say that such a feast is typical of initiatory rites

and more generally places this rite in Crete with an initiate education rite very firmly. And so as to relationship to Melanesia or other such place where similar things happen with hunters in the hunting expedition same rite, it's possible that there's a relation, but I'm not sure. Schopenhauer, Richard Burton, and so on, They are right that the practice of same-sex sexual affairs of some type are nearly universal in so many cultures. But very few of them, maybe none, have the educational, idealistic, and free character that this had in ancient Greece at its height. And I say free again because in the upper class version, in Athens especially, again, it's not really known too much what or if the lower classes practiced this, but probably not actually.

But the upper class men had many possible avenues open for sexual satisfaction with prostitutes of all types. And so this first of all removed the pressure of sexual satisfaction as a base need for foundation of this relation, allowing it to become refined and acquire cultural and intellectual importance and not just be, again, satisfaction of sexual need. More generally, yes, on this what I mean is in many societies which are prison societies, like the Islamic, the women are all taken by polygamy or other such thing, the older men monopolize them, and many men don't have access to women, period. So they engage in this kind of pederastic practices and analog of prison sex, let's say, because they can't any other way. But that's not the case in ancient Greece.

So you know, in other parts of the world, it is though. I'm not familiar in detail with anthropology of other places as much, although in old Saudi men, once tried to touch my thigh, you know, we were in public, but I think in other parts of the world it's probably closer, it's probably mostly abused by older men and or and or caused by lack of sexual access to women and so forth. This bring up interesting question of whether pederasty, and again please you understand what I mean, but whether this practice, English vice call it what you want, whether it was an Indo-European institution, and there's some evidence that it was, that it was widely practiced among some Indo-European primitive peoples in antiquity is very obvious, especially the Celts. Aristotle has offhand remarks on this,

as does Diodorus Siculus, or is it Strabo, or is it both, I forget, I read for you before, from Athenaeus certainly does, saying they enjoyed two boys at the same time. But it is a commonplace thing about the Celts, and there is book Chris Kershaw, Odin, The One-Eyed God, which discusses the Mannerbund in Indo-European remote prehistory antiquity, and she goes on at length about actually how brutal the pederastic rights were among the Celts. This is a good book by an Indo-Europeanist who is, I don't want to smear her, but let's say generally someone who would be of our sphere, although maybe I'm sure she'd hate me, but it's well established that it took place among the Celts. They were famously Pederastic as much or more than the Thebans in

Greece even. There is article I mentioned, somewhat interesting, by one Ian Bremmer, not to be confused with the so-called geopolitics commentator, but this is J-A-N-B-R-E-M-M-E-R, an enigmatic Indo-European right, Pederasty. I've relied on it for a little bit of content of what I just said on Crete and the medieval right and such. But here is a good description of what a pederastic native society looks like in our time. We happen to have, I'm reading now, a fairly detailed description of the practice among the Papuans of the trans fly by the late English social anthropologist F.E. Williams, who visited the area a number of times between 1926 and 1932. Williams tells us, it was frequently maintained that city riva, or bachelors, remained truly celibate

until they entered upon sexual relations with their own wives. Without giving too much credence to this statement, we may note that the hospitable exchange above noted was nominally restricted to married adults. Some informants maintained that city riva could secure the favors of married women at feast times, but it seems evident that this was not definitely sanctioned. The bachelors had recourse to sodomy, a practice which was not reprobated, but was actually a custom of the country, and a custom in the true sense, that is, fully sanctioned by male society and universally practiced. For a long time, the existence of sodomy was successfully concealed from me, but latterly, once I had won the confidence of a few informants in the matter, it was admitted on every hand.

It is actually regarded as essential to the growing boy to be sodomized. More than one informant being asked if he had ever been subjected to a natural practice, answered, why yes, otherwise how should have I grown? The ceremonial initiation to sodomy and the mythological antecedents to it will be spoken of elsewhere. In the meantime, it is enough to note that every male adult in the Moorhead district has in his time constantly played both parts in this perversion. The boys initiated to it at the bull-roarer ceremony and not earlier, for he could not then be trusted to keep the secret from his mother. When he becomes adolescent, his part is reversed and he may then sodomize his juniors, the new initiates to the bull-roarer. I am told that some boys are more attractive

and consequently receive more attention of this kind than do others, but all must pass through it since it is regarded as essential to their bodily growth. There is indeed no question as to the universality of the practice. It is commonly asserted that the early practice of sodomy does nothing to inhibit a man's natural desires when later on he marries, and it is a fact that while older men are not debarred from indulging and actually do so at the bull-roarer ceremony, Sodomy is virtually restricted as a habit to the city Riva. That means, you know, the community of bachelors. Right, okay, so it was much more, it's quite a bit different from what I've been describing, but probably in very primitive societies, this is the form it takes. And then it takes the form of pure slavery

and a lack of access in civilized societies that have similar practices, urbanized civilized societies, not just in Islamic world, but much of the Orient. Although, again, I cannot comment exactly on what it looked like among samurai. I'd like to have Japanese experts on show to explain us this. In any case, was it Indo-European right? It appears so maybe. For example, the Persians banned it, but that's because Zoroastrianism was a highly, see that's very telling. Zoroastrianism was a reform religion. Zoroastrianism is known to have banned other very many archetypal Indo-European things that had been common in Persian society before Zoroastrianism. Aryan things, let's just say it, including especially the Mannerbund or secret warrior societies themselves,

as well as their, you know, their love for murderous courtesan apsaras, meaning a kind of divine murderous nymph-like woman and such. So, well, yes, Zoroastrianism, although it became itself an imperial and arrogant religion, it's actually a reaction and reform of Aryan ways in favor of the ways of the farmer and of settled life. It's very interesting that Nietzsche picked Zoroaster. He didn't pick him because he believed Zoroastrianism was the true faith, he picked him because possibly he believed Zoroastrianism made the first mistake. And it's not just, it's not about pederasty, it's about its banning of the Aryan ways of Persian society prior to that. The bureaucrat talks about this too, it's an interesting matter. Of course, pederasty was widely practiced

in Persian historical times despite the ban, but Herodotus says they learned it from the Greeks, which I'm sure his Persian sources at least wanted him to think so. But there's no special knockout info on the Persian or Indian side, I think. The Celts, the Greeks, plenty of material on them. And then the Germanics, there was a tribe, the Heruli, who were actually, in my opinion, hardly even a people in the proper sense of the term. I think actually many tribes were antiquity that we think of as tribes or closer to gangs. And the Heruli qualifies this, Heruli, the earls, we the kings, we the earls. And Procopius says they practiced this. He actually calls the youth slaves, although this is wrong if you keep reading his description, they were just initiated, or before they initiated,

and they were not allowed to fight with shields until they had proven themselves. And Pederasty is said to have been involved in this, in the mentor-mentee relation. And Ammianus Marcellinus says the same about the typhals, condemning them for their pederastic practices. this was another Germanic tribe, who practiced intense pederasty until a boy proved himself by killing a boar. The same custom, by the way, existed in Macedonia and at the Macedonian court even, minus, as far as I know, the actual pederasty in that case, but who knows, but you could not, for example, sit with the men at the men's table in Macedonian court until you killed a boar in battle yourself. Boars are wild, powerful, vicious creatures by the extreme power. be careful wilderness you encounter Boer.

Alexander fair with Hephaestion, as Burckhardt says, was one between equals. Probably, in fact, very much like a modern gay or bisexual relationship. It didn't have the character discussed in most of the show. It was much more like what these relations became later during Hellenistic times. And I am aware Alexander is said to have ostentatiously rebuked a governor somewhere who offered him a boy, but the same sources say quite different about his actual behavior otherwise. He was into public decorum and so on. So there are examples such as these and the author of this article gives also, actually interesting from late 19th century, an 1894 study by a German scholar who studied Albania where as a mountainous refuge, look who knows if they preserved old rituals

or just designed their own hillbilly deliverance by having gone feral over time as Balkanoid mountain rock-farming bumpkins, but they have, or at least had in the recent past, very pedarastic initiatory rites, a little bit like these. The writer, the German writer of this article connects them to Dorian rites in form, although I haven't read this article, I mean the 1894 one. Some German artist, you know, although it's funny that he mentions when asked about where they learned all this, they said, whoa, we learned this from the gypsies, and that's funny. Well, anyway, I hope you enjoy this anthropological episode. There's no direct application to modern world in any way, I think, and I'm not saying that just to be coy or such. There's no direct application aside the left fantasies about

gay this and gay that in the past completely false, but the point regarding tyranny the way both tyranny and democracy sought to suppress these types of relations because they were perceived as engines of such powerful political on the part of aristocratic classes, that is important. And I tell you that by an equivalent but different channel, the modern state has done the same. So maybe you were squeamish listening to me talk this show, that's fine, I got graphic at times, but the modern state has managed, you want to talk atomization. The atomization is in managing to sunder men from each other from creating political faction that can pose any challenge. And a large part, you know, this whole thing of we're going to wake up the people and raise awareness,

I'm going to wake up a bunch of middle-aged mothers. All political change happens through party courts, which are a tight-knit group of mostly men, although there were some fanatical women communists and such, but a large part of how the modern state did this was by making men very paranoid that they would be called gay if they form intense friendships with each other, outside of which it's impossible to form, again, any political group or mafia. And the destruction of male spaces, the unnatural promotion of women, and especially of weak men, and yes, but also the reconceptualization by which men who could perhaps form powerful factions are so afraid to associate with each other because you know that's gay and such. And so now we're in this bizarre condition

where the Ned Flanders type, right, which is a man I have to tell you, the hand-pecked husband was the butt of jokes in traditional European, which is to say aristocratic society. As far as I know, 17th century aristocrats, for example, loved women and didn't get off with each other like ancient Greeks did, but still managed to form powerful bonds and form these factions and have adventures, and they were not afraid to be called gay by having intense friendships. They were not afraid to be called gay by a spent-out roasty hectoring them or having someone, having an Annette Flanders telling them to have a normal one, right? The article is against me. Bap doesn't like to have a normal one. And somehow, there's a delusion, among many rightists,

is a delusion that it's Ned Flanders who is the maintainer of civilization, whereas I maintain when societies have Ned Flanders as their main man, the domesticated family, hand-pecked man, so-called, that's really the true degeneracy. That's when civilizations collapse, because that man's entire horizon is his small domestic life, and this half-man, this woman-man, is entirely unable to engage in political faction, mafias, intrigue, and such thing, any such thing because he, you see this type is constitutionally I think as a biotype unable to form any strong friendship or trust with another man not just out of fear of being called gay but really because for this type his life is a woman that's the center of his life everything that comes with that and of course actually women

who are alluring and worth anything usually have contempt for this type of men but regardless woman is the center of his life and he's bred beyond control and he is the rule today it's the type of guy you know the book pink swastika it's that that yes it's such a dumb book such dumb but we live in a stupid age maybe the stupidest of all ages and in that book you have the revelation of the unfortunate biotype their ultimate statement on behalf of who the it's you know it's written by a rabbi and a pastor okay a joint effort and it's this the origins of these cock religions that cater to let's say the Ned Flanders type and to them the Nazis are gay and and Sparta's gay, Rome is gay, it's all gay, because it doesn't revolve around the stay-at-home, pan-packed house husband's priorities.

And that's basically your mother and cuck conservative for you also. And you have the predictable result when it's this type and it's priorities in the West for the last 100 or 150 years, slowly becoming the dominant type and leading society in this direction that I think women will want these kinds of males overthrown and one way or another, they will replace the Ned Flanders with other types of men. I think women's nature cannot abide the Ned Flanders. That's why women love Trump, you see, his very different type, regardless of his circumstantial and not essential accidental later faults. But overthrow the Ned Flanders or others will overthrow. The order of nature cannot abide the Ned Flanders. Destroy the good. Crush the good. The good are the bad. The good are death.

Until next time, BAP OUT!