View Full Version : Debunking the Myth of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece

Sunday, July 9th, 2006, 10:55 PM
Homosexuality in ancient Greece

The Persian King Cyrus asked the Lydian King Croesus what he must do in order not to have to fear the Greeks in his kingdom rising up against him. Croesus replied: "[T]o make sure of their never rebelling against you, or alarming you more, send and forbid them to keep any weapons of war, command them to wear tunics under their cloaks, and to put laced shoes upon their feet, and make them bring up their sons to lyre-playing, harping, and shop-keeping. So you will soon see them become women instead of men, and there will be no more fear of their revolting against you." Herodotus.

The age of chivalry is gone. ... The unbought grace of life, the cheap defence of nations, the nurse of manly sentiment and heroic enterprise is gone! That of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever. Edmund Burke

There are [those] who, confounding together the different characteristics of the sexes, would make man and woman into beings not only equal but alike. They would give to both the same functions, impose on both the same duties, and grant to both the same rights; they would mix them in all things -- their occupations, their pleasures, their business. It may readily be conceived that by thus attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded, and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women. Alexis de Tocqueville.

Starting around the decade of the 60s, there began to be observed a marked change in the character of the White male students enrolled in U.S. colleges. This change was commented upon by some of the more astute professors, and had to do with the tendency of these young men to be too soft, too timid, too lacking in what had always been considered normal male aggressiveness. Now, it must be said, there have always been men who were softer, more effeminate, more "girlish," than average; just as there have always been women with a tendency towards masculinity, but this was not what these professors were observing. What they saw was a relative increase in the number of such men, and this phenomenon has been growing at an ever accelerated pace ever since.

Now it is an accepted commonplace among some of the more profound thinkers, philosophers, and scholiasts on the human condition, that there have always been -- and will always be -- two kinds of men comprising that small percentage of individuals who've shaped history: the first being the "spiritual" man; the second being the "economic" man. The first, the spiritual man, is characterized by the explorer, the conqueror, the warrior, the poet, the priest and the monk. The second, the economic man, by the merchant, the politician, the money-changer, the atheist, and the bureaucrat. Spiritual man has been the builder of civilizations, the dreamer of dreams, the spiritual visionary, and the conqueror of empires: the man who lives for ideas. Economic man usually appears on the scene after the fact, and slowly wrests the levers of power away from spiritual man after the hard work of nation and culture building has been done. He is the one who figures the percentages, who knows how to get along by going along, who believes only in what he can see, touch, smell or hear: he lives from ideas. The first can be exemplified by individuals such as Socrates, Hypatia, Alexander, St. Cosmas the Aetolian, Dr. Samuel Johnson, Feodore Dostoevsky, and Robert E. Lee. The second by such as Thrasymachus, Ephialtes, the Duc d' Orleans, Jimmy Swaggart, Madeleine Albright, Henry Kissinger, GWB, and Bill Clinton. The first produces poets like Pindar who sang:

[In} the presence of the honored gods, all who were wont to rejoice in keeping their oaths, share a life that knoweth no tears...[and] whosever...have been courageous in keeping their souls pure from all deeds of wrong, pass by the highway of Zeus unto the tower of Cronus,

Where the ocean-breezes blow around the Islands of the Blest, and flowers of gold are blazing, some on the shore from radiant trees, while others the water fostereth; and with chaplets there of they entwine their hands, and with crowns, according to the righteous councils of Rhadamanthys, who shareth for evermore the judgment-seat of the mighty Father, even the Lord of Rhea with her throne exalted beyond all beside

While the second produces merchants who promote, politicians who allow, and priests who tolerate the sickening output of "poets" such as Maya Angelou, "writers" such as Sydney Sheldon, "artists" such as Picasso, and the culture-destroying and nihilistic trash emanating from Hollywood. These are the economic men who feed upon the decaying corpse of our Western Helleno-Christian civilization. Their world produces "music" that includes such lines in a popular rap song by 2 Live Crew as these:

Suck my dick ... and make it puke

Lick my ass up and down

Lick it till your tongue turn doo-doo brown.

Now, one may well ask, just what all of this has to do with the feminization of our young White men; the ever-growing number of "sensitized" males and outright homosexuals we see all around us? Well, the answer lies in the replacement of spiritual man's aristocratic values, which foster honor, ambition, discipline, and self-control, with economic man's democratic and feminine values, which foster safety, comfort, security and the home. In a democratic society the role of the government shifts from that of a father, who maintains order but allows for the incentive and freedom necessary for success, to that of a mother whose function is to provide security and comfort to all of her children; to make sure that their demands are satisfied.

As the role of the government changes, individual behavior follows suit. Children begin to be raised differently, and a disciplined environment gives way to a permissive one. Such things as spanking or disciplining a child become subject to censure, and the result is a failure on the part of the child to learn from his mistakes, to mature and grow up. This move from a masculine idealism to a feminine materialism leads inevitably to hedonism and self-absorbed egoism. The young -- both male and female -- put self-gratification as their most important goal in life, and it is this urge to satisfy the senses that economic man exploits and encourages. In the case of the male, it is not the acquisition of honor, glory or esteem that is encouraged; what is touted as most important is indulging in whatever happens to satisfy one physically and emotionally: if it feels good, do it; if it's something that discomforts you, avoid it. Honor, glory, and self-control are not encouraged by economic man because there is no money to be made from such things in his world, and money, as a means to power, is what counts for him.

As the merchant mentality dominates, and economic man gains more and more power, the opposing ideology of spiritual man is ridiculed, distorted, and marginalized. Manliness, the sacredness of marriage, the idealization and protection of inviolate womanhood, the importance of religious belief, of race, heritage, and tradition, and other such values of spiritual man are scorned. Economic man realizes that the systematic weakening of these inclinations are in his best interest, because it is only in their diminishment or demise that he will be able to keep spiritual man at bay and maintain his own power. It is therefore perfectly understandable that the crowning achievements of spiritual man, Hellenism and Christianity, should be considered the absolute enemies of economic man. Hellenism and the glory that was Greece must be removed from the curricula of our schools; when it is allowed, it must be made to reflect the lies and myths that are being hustled, because the truth is too compelling, too magnetic, and would serve to inspire a new way of thinking: would serve to create a new kind of spiritual man. As far as Christianity is concerned, one need only look at the way it is portrayed by Hollywood and the television industry nowadays to see the scorn, contempt, and fear with which it is held by economic man in order to understand how important an adversary, and how much of a threat, he considers it to be to his power. It is truly to be regretted that so many of today's church leaders -- in their desire to be "mainstream" -- have rejected the masculine Christianity of the past in favor of the ultimately self-destructive feminine Christianity so commonly seen today.

Although this study is concerned with helping to dispel the myth regarding homosexuality in ancient Greece, a few words about the severe damage being caused by the feminization of the White man are in order. Some examples will suffice, we think, to show that even though a man may not be a homosexual, his feminization can have dire consequences for the society in which he lives.

A few years ago, some White employees of the Texaco Corporation were turned in to management by a group of their Black colleagues who'd been systematically tape-recording their telephone conversations. During these illegal invasions of privacy, the Whites used the words "niggers," and "black jelly-beans." The "Rev." Jesse Jackson saw in this another means by which he could extort money from what he knew to be the wimpy White management that typifies the heads of American corporations these days, and this is exactly what he proceeded to do. Jackson threatened a boycott of Texaco, and, in the end, was able to grab approximately 170 million dollars from the lily-white management of the company who were too cowardly to stand up to an action which, if tried by the average citizen, would most likely land him in jail. It must be emphasized that the use of such words --as "honkey," "gringo," "dago," "spic," etc.-- though offensive, are constitutionally protected by the first amendment which guarantees free speech. But to the "go along in order to get along," feminized, "captains of industry," like Texaco's "economic man" management team, avoiding the possibility of a red bottom line on the corporate balance sheet is more important than standing up for the precious right -- bought with blood, pain, and sacrifice -- of free speech.

During Mardi Gras in Seattle -- on so-called "Fat Tuesday" earlier this year [2001] -- small groups of Blacks viciously attacked individual White men and women in an overwhelmingly White crowd. While the Blacks punched young White women to the ground and then kicked them senseless, and while they ripped the clothes off other White women and pawed and probed them, White men standing nearby just stared without attempting to intervene. The victims were mostly between 20 and 30 years old. They were chased, dragged to the ground, punched severely, and kicked mercilessly; some were sexually assaulted. Of course, this incident wasn't reported on by the controlled national media, but the event was witnessed by so many people it could not be kept out of some of the local papers. On March 12th, an article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, described how White women were being forcibly held down by gangs of Blacks while effete White photographers took the pictures. "[T]here are about 20 Black... hands on her body," wrote the White reporter about one typical incident, without feeling the least bit of shame for not acting to help the victim. (Emphasis added.)

On the evening of December 14th of 2000, two Black brothers, 20-year-old Jonathan Carr and 23-year-old Reginald Carr, invaded a White home in Wichita, Kansas and kidnapped the three White men and two White women inside, all of whom were in their 20s. They then drove them to a snow-covered soccer field outside of town after forcing them to withdraw money from several ATM machines. At the field, they raped the two women, then told all five of the Whites to kneel in the snow and shot them in the back of the head. After that, the two Blacks returned to the victims' home, burglarized it, and shot a pet dog they found there. One of the young women did not die, however. After recovering consciousness, she ran naked and bleeding to summon police. The Blacks were arrested and, of course, the national media clamped a total blackout on the story.

The local female district attorney repeatedly asserted that "race was not a factor," and that the incidents would not be treated as "hate crimes"; but the idiocy of "Hate Crime" legislation is another matter for another time. What is important here is to analyze the behavior of the White victims. The degradation and humiliation they suffered would have been resisted most forcefully just a few decades ago. These animals not only raped the two women, they forced all of the Whites to put on a sex show for their amusement. They made the White men engage in homosexual acts, the women to have sex with each other and with the white men before shooting them, and then ran over their bodies with one of the vehicles they were driving. The pistol used by the Blacks was an anemic .380 caliber -- which does not have much stopping power. What should be especially noted is that three able-bodied White men let two blacks, armed only with a .380 caliber pistol, degrade their women and even took part in the degradation. They then knelt obediently in the snow and let themselves and their women be slaughtered.

Another example of the "demasculinization" of the Western White male can be seen by anyone who visits some of the many trendy vacation spots -- mostly in the Caribbean -- frequented by sexually frustrated White women, seeking to escape from the still "straight" but flabby, limp-wristed, indecisive, fearful and sensitive White males back home. Decades ago, such scenarios had to do with the women from upper-class social strata -- educated, sheltered, and spoiled -- who would form liaisons with their White chauffeurs, music teachers, gardeners, gamekeepers, etc., ala Lady Chatterley's Lover. Nowadays, even these once robust types have been "sensitized" to the point where many can no longer satisfy the cravings of a sexually normal woman. How many times have we heard this complaint voiced by so many of today's young women?: "It seems every man I meet is gay." They're really not, of course, they're just "caring" and "non-aggressive," and "tolerant": that is, feminized. This has given a big boost to tourism in the Caribbean and to other vacation spots considered by many White women to be inhabited by men not tainted by the castrating poison of politically correct, liberal hate-mongering against White European males. (It should be noted that Greece and the Greek islands get a yearly influx of Scandinavian, English, and German girls eager to be "hit-on" by the local "kamakia, " as well.)

In a new book by Dial Press titled Privilege: the Enigma of Sasha Bruce, the true story of a blue-blooded heiress is told. She was the beautiful and intelligent daughter of a diplomat and one-time U.S. ambassador to France, W. Germany, and Britain. Educated at the most exclusive and expensive schools, she ended up being murdered at 29 by her last lover. Prior to that, her fruitless search for a man who would not only love her but also master her had led her through an endless succession of Blacks, and just about every form of degradation, humiliation, and self-abasement at their hands imaginable; and her case is not at all unusual. One of the more bizarre forms this hunger to find a strong mate has taken in recent years, is the growing migration of White women to the jungles and shantytowns of Jamaica where they bed down with the dreadlocked Blacks known as Rastafarians: members of a White-hating, drug-using, Black sect. In a recent issue of Der Spiegel, the German news magazine, this phenomenon was written about in a lengthy article: "When one travels along Jamaica's north coast ... one is struck by the fascination the daughters of White civilization have for the Black sons of the wilderness .... One sees rows of female eyes turn from the Jamaican sunset toward the locks of an approaching 'dread' ....

One experiences the sight of a dozen blooming maidens following the lips of some talking Rasta. One feels the irritation of the hotel guests when a White girl with a Rasta shows up, she bright and combed, he dark and ragged." Not only German girls, but Canadian and American, and others have been drawn to such places as Jamaica. Some have been murdered, raped, and robbed, but they keep going. One woman interviewed by Der Spiegel was a 26-year-old German university student -- and a feminist. After seven semesters of Sociology, she left school and headed west. looking for something. She found it in the raw masculinity of the Rastas, "...who fought violently over me." The Rasta she is sleeping with is full of rage against "White oppressors," and he constantly berates her with tirades of his anti-White hate. This, she says, has given her a different perspective for her own race: "I understand better now, that although our race is totally deformed, it could one day become just as wonderful [as the Black race] if it would only return to its original ways." So that Black men [having a strong consciousness of their roots] are "simply more attractive [to me] than White men." (Emphasis added.)

And finally, let us remember that when Odysseus returned to Ithaca and found his family, women, home, and substance being wasted and defiled, he did not concern himself with worrying about why the brutish suitors were behaving so reprehensibly; he did not seek to find justification for their insolence in some real or imagined trauma they may have suffered in their childhoods; he did not blame himself for being richer or more powerful than they, and feel guilt because he was the cause of their envy and resentment. He simply made a plan, gathered his son and loyal servants to his side, and massacred the bastards. What has always been a source of wonderment about this incident, was not that the suitors behaved as they did -- there have always been and will always be such people among us -- but that the rest of the population of Ithaca stood by and allowed the despoilment of their beloved King's family and property to go unchallenged. But then again, isn't the same thing happening today?. How many of us of White European ancestry are making plans and gathering friends and family in preparation for the day when we -- using all the legal means still available to us -- " 'massacre' the bastards" who are behind the planned destruction of our Helleno-Christian world?

But let us turn our attention now away from the feminized and back to the homosexual man. Such a person, from the age of Homer -- if he were "gay" in today's sense of the word --was called kinaithos (KIN ay thos), which means "causer of shame" in both modern and ancient Greek (aftós/aftí poú eíinai ó kinón tín Aidó). The word has etymological connections to "shame," "corruption," "disgrace" (Aidó/Aísxos), and literally means "he who brings about the curse of Aídó (a minor goddess who punished moral transgressors and was a companion of the goddess, Nemesis). In Athens, and most other Greek city-states, he would not be allowed to take part in public affairs, and if he were blatant in his behavior (that is, behavior such as that characterized by homosexuals today), would be disenfranchised, exiled, or executed by the state.

What must be kept in mind is that the ancient Greeks were perpetually at war, either with foreign (barbarian) or with Greek foes. War in those days was brutal and final. There were no M.A.S.H. units just behind the field of battle, ready to give life-saving first-aid. No helicopters to take the wounded to hospital. If one were captured, there were no Geneva Conventions to ensure the proper treatment of prisoners because there were no prisoners: All combatants were slain, their women, children, and non-combatants sold into slavery, taken as booty, or slaughtered as well. Such war-like societies must, perforce, develop a warrior code in order to survive. This meant that there was a premium on manhood and all that that word implied. Think of Achilles who, when given the choice of a long life with no glory, chose a short life with glory and honor instead. Think of Sparta and her "wall of men," of Leonidas and his 300, or of their Spartan mothers who said to their sons as they left for war: "Either come back with your shield, or on it." Think of Socrates who chose to die rather than bring dishonor upon himself by disobeying the laws of his beloved city: a city he had fought for with honor in many a battle. Think of Alexander the Great at Opis, in Persia, and of his famous speech to his men when he offered to strip in order to match his wounds with theirs, all of which were on his chest and none on his back. Such states could not afford the luxury of the kind of weak, effeminate men we see all around us today. The glory that was Greece was only possible because strong men were willing to fight and die so that their country could survive and their philosophers and poets could flourish. Before there could be a Parthenon there had to be a Marathon (Xoris Marathones then ginounte Parthenones).

This concentration on the development of strong and honorable men, upon whom the very life of the state depended, ultimately resulted in the creation of an aesthetical male ideal. (As opposed to the feminine "Hollywood" ideal prevalent in the West today; focusing, as it does, on sex, romance, and the female form, instead.) And it naturally follows that, in such a society, the manly virtues (aretes) would also be the most prized. And since there were no military academies to train young men in these virtues, this important task was taken up by the older, experienced males who grew to love their charges, just as these young men grew to love and respect their elder mentors. Such training also put a great deal of emphasis on the importance of friendship, especially in the need for a close companion or friend on the battlefield. So important was this training considered to be, that families unable to find a suitable pedagogue for their son felt socially slighted and disadvantaged. The aesthetical ideal of the male mentioned above (similar in its essentials to the idealized Christian feminine ideal, which inspires male effort to a higher good) is delineated in Plato's Symposium, where we are presented with the mystical realization of Plato's famous Doctrine of the Forms. Socrates, having been instructed in matters of love by the priestess, Diotima, seeks to show that by understanding "Eros" (love), we can learn to approach the Forms, toward which our souls are oriented. This is done initially by admiring a young man's body as a thing of beauty. One continues this "aesthetical ascent" by the admiration of all bodies, then on to human institutions -- such as the state -- until, finally, one can come to understand and love the beauty not only of nature but of the Supreme Beauty of God Himself: an evolutionary process that is ultimately meant to purify one's soul, and free one from the enslavement of the flesh.

In Xenophon's version of the Symposium (sometimes titled, Banquet), Socrates expounds on the importance of a love that transcends bodily desires. He tells one of his fellow banqueters that: "My heart is set on showing you ... that not only humankind but also gods and demi-gods set a higher value on the friendship of the spirit than on the enjoyment of the body. For in all cases where Zeus became enamored of mortal women for their beauty, though he united with them he suffered them to remain mortal; but all those persons whom he delighted in for their souls' sake he made immortal." It is this love -- a love on a plane higher than that of the merely physical -- that has come to be known as "Platonic love" in all of the languages of the world. And it is just this love that set the standards of behavior that existed between teacher and boy, as well as between adult friends in ancient Greece. Though it never reached such lofty heights, the admiration of the beauty of the male form was also prevalent in the Roman world as evidenced by such as St. Augustine of Hippo (arguably Christianity's most heterosexual saint), who said that the body was obviously created for more than mere utilitarian purposes; it was also meant to be admired for its beauty. As an example, he cites the beard which has no functional purpose but was given to men to make them beautiful.

So that we have the combination of the need in the Greek world to develop strong, honorable, and physically capable men, coupled with a male aesthetic of the beautiful that was universally admired and sought. Add to this the aforementioned custom of putting the schooling of young boys in the manly arts and virtues into the hands of older men, and one begins to see that such a mix could be potentially explosive. For this reason, although these friendships were encouraged, there were -- according to many sources such as Xenophon, Plutarch, Plato, and others --tough restrictions imposed by custom and law. As an example, an older man (Erastis) might take on the training of a young boy (Eromenos), but under no circumstances was intimate touching allowed. The difference between homo-erotic friendships, and actual homosexual practices (in the modern sense of what it means to be "gay"), was clearly defined. The Greek ideal was a non-physical, purely pedagogical, relationship. That some, if not many, may have strayed, cannot be denied, but what is important here is to understand that those who did risked serious legal penalties such as banishment or death, and that such behavior was most emphatically discouraged and forbidden by custom and law.

Proof of this can be found through an observation of Greek vase paintings having the depiction of Erastis and Eromenos as the subject. The strong ties between the older man and the boy he is training are easily seen. No close bodily contact is ever depicted, however, and one notices that all of the prohibitions regarding these relationships are being strictly observed. Had overt homosexual behavior been considered acceptable, it would most definitely have been shown -- because the Greeks were prone to "letting everything hang out" -- but this is hardly ever the case. Those vase paintings that do depict what might accurately be categorized as homosexual scenes comprise such an insignificant percentage of the total -- something like 30 out of tens of thousands (cf A. Georgiades, Debunking the Myth of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece. 2002. p. 126.), that one is perfectly justified in wondering just what the real purpose is that lies behind the extrapolation of this minute percentage into the absurd charge that they represent the norm. Moreover, a percentage of these 30 or so could have been commissioned by homosexuals, or even by "straight" customers who saw them as a means of ridiculing behavior they disliked or thought to be amusing. (It is important to note that Greek vases were a major export item and have been found from Russia to Gibraltar, as well as throughout Northern and Western Europe. In the province of Attica alone -- where Athens is located -- over 80,000 have been found to date.-- cf Georgiades. p.127.) When one compares this small number to what we see today on TV, in ads, books, magazines, the cinema, etc., one can just imagine what future generations will think of us.

That such behavior was the subject of ridicule can be seen in the disapproval voiced by Socrates, for instance, who, as Xenophon tells us in his Memorobilia, when he found out that Critias loved Euthydemus, tried to restrain him by saying that such a thing was "mean," and that it was "unbecoming" of Critias to ask of Euthydemus "... a favor that it would be wrong to grant." When Critias persisted, Socrates berates him by saying that "Critias seems to have the feelings of a pig [that can't] help rubbing [itself] against stones"( Emphasis added.). And it is Xenophon as well who tells us in his Lacedaemonian Constitution, that Lycurgus, the great Spartan lawgiver, "... banned the [physical] connection [between man and boy] as an abomination; and forbade it no less than parents were forbidden from sexual intercourse with their children and brothers and sisters with each other." Spartan life was harsh, and boys from a certain age slept in barracks with other boys as part of their training. This fact has given much cause for sly and cunning conjecture, but upon closer scrutiny the effects of this practice can most accurately be compared to what Evelyn Waugh, the English writer, said about the exclusive, all-boys private schools of his time. He said that though there may have been some homosexual activity, he did not know of one single case where a graduate, of his school for instance, did not go on to marry and raise a family. The same can be said of the Spartans who were expected to give strong children to their country, and who, according to Plutarch, in his "Life of Lycurgus," were severely dealt with if they didn't.

Concerning Sparta, Plutarch, in the "Sayings of Spartan Women," to be found in his Moralia, relates some pithy but informative anecdotes about these extraordinary females. As one reads them, it is extremely difficult to think of the men they are talking about as being "gay," or effeminate in any way. One of the most famous of these is the following: A woman from Attica asked a Spartiatisa, "Why is it that you Spartan women are the only women that lord it over your men?" The Spartan woman answered: "Because we are the only women that are the mothers of [real] men." It is worthy of note that what the woman from Attica said, in effect, was that all Greek women were under the complete control of their men, whereas the Spartan woman answered, in effect, that even these dominating Greek males were not "men" in comparison with Spartans. Another, the wife of Leonidas, of Thermopylae fame, asked her husband what she should do [should he be killed]. He answered: "Marry a good man, and bear good children." First off, it is noteworthy that she asked her husband what she should do, hardly a likely possibility if he were an effeminate male, and she, not he, were the master in the home. Secondly, his chief concern is that she marry and bear children; something a homosexual wouldn't give too much of a damn about. Another has to do with a Spartan girl who is the object of some very sissified advances by a visiting foreigner. She pushes him away and says deridingly: "Get away from me, you can't even 'come on' to me like a man." This tells us, since it is perfectly logical to assume that the girl had never left Sparta (travel outside of Lacedaemonia was not something ordinarily done by anyone, male or female), that in her prior experiences with the men of Sparta, the advances they'd made were aggressive. Finally, when a Spartan woman was asked if she had made advances [before marriage] to her husband, she answered: "No, but he made them to me." And speaking of Spartan men, we mustn't forget that it was Menelaus, the Spartan, who waged war upon the Trojans in order to win back his wife, the beautiful Helen. Whether she was the actual cause of the war is not the issue here; what is important is that the idea of a Spartan husband -- not to mention the whole of Greece -- going to war for a woman had enough verisimilitude about it to be considered the natural thing for any husband to do. Had this story contained too much of the fantastic, it would not have had the staying power it has enjoyed down through the centuries.

From the time of Homer, in whose epic poetry there cannot be found one iota of a hint of homosexual behavior, to the time of Alexander the Great, such practices as sodomy between adults -- or between an adult and a boy -- were considered abominations, and were strictly forbidden and severely punished. As for Alexander, according to Plutarch in On The Fortune of Alexander, when the Macedonian conqueror was asked by the lickspittle governor of one of the conquered provinces in Asia Minor, if he would like him to send Alexander "...a youth, the like of whom for bloom and beauty did not exist." he received the following reply: "Why you vilest of men, what deed of mine have you witnessed in the past that would make you think I would be interested in such pleasures?" And speaking of Homer, the friendship between Achilles and Patroclus has been the subject of much snide innuendo. This malicious and self-serving commentary always seems to ignore the fact that the whole theme of the Iliad -- Homer's great epic account of the Trojan War, and Achilles' heroic exploits in it -- was the "Wrath of Achilles." And what was Achilles so worked up (wrathful) about? Why, it was that Agamemnon, had taken Achilles' slave girl away from him. When Achilles and Patroclus came back to their tent after a hard day on the field of battle, their two captured slave girls -- taken as booty -- were waiting for them. When they went to sleep, they slept with these girls. The idea that the glorification of friendship that the Greeks so admired could have been nothing more than an excuse for sodomy, is as ridiculous as it is despicable and unhistorical.

As far as the classical age is concerned, a reading of Aristophanes' great comedies (as just one source among many) should be enough to convince any reasonable person that, when this great artist poked fun at the perpetual battle between the sexes, he was accurately reflecting the ethos of an overwhelmingly heterosexual society. His play, Lysistrata, is the perfect case in point. The premise of the play is that the Peloponnesian War is destroying Athens, and the women want it to end. They decide that the best way to get their men to stop fighting is to refrain from having sex with them, so they go on what might be called a sex strike. It all makes for very funny reading, but the point we wish to emphasize here is that the men go crazy! After all kinds of very comical goings-on, the men finally give up and agree to stop fighting if only their women will come down from the Acropolis, where they've barricaded themselves, and sleep in their own beds again. If the ancient Greeks were "a bunch of fairies," as that paradigm of civic virtue, the "Rev." Al Sharpton, once remarked, why did they all go nuts? Why were all of the males of Athens running around with "three legs," as is so graphically and comically depicted in the play?

It is important to note that throughout the entire written history of Hellenism (and the same can be said of Christianity as well), erotic love was universally presented in terms of male and female: the bride and the bridegroom. This is true of all of the scriptural images we possess, just as it is true of about 99% of Greek art and literature. When one looks over the whole of Greek literature, poetry, and art, for instance, one sees that when the subject of erotic attachment comes up, it is always between a man and a women: Odysseus and Penelope (whose relationship is a near-perfect model of a mature marriage), Hector and Andromache, Hippolytus and Phaedra, Aegisthus and Clytemnestra. Even among the major gods like Ares and Aphrodite, Zeus and Hera (and Zeus' behavior can be best described as macho and heterosexual in the extreme), on down to the minor gods, such as Peleus, married to the goddess Thetis, and Heracles, who took the mortal Deianira to wife, the list goes on and on. And this model extends as well into the Hellenistic age, with such lovers as Leander and Hero, and all of the couples in the plays of Menander. The same pattern holds true of Greek art running from the Minoan, Mycenaean, Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic ages, a span of over 2000 years. All through this enormous length of time, the overwhelming majority of the sculptures, figurines, wall paintings, mosaics, and vase paintings (something like 99%), show males and females when the subject is erotic love. By contrast, America went from Christian Puritanism to "Gay and Lesbian pride," "Heather has two Mommies," Barney Frank in the U.S. Congress, and "Don't ask, don't tell" in the U.S. Armed Forces -- with all of the attendant decadence these nihilistic constructs have brought us -- in just over 200 years.

This pattern of strict adherence to God's Natural Law held true in the political arena as well. There was not one Greek political leader -- from Homeric to Classical times -- that was known to be a homosexual. Prominent men such as Odysseus, Diomedes, Agamemnon, Menelaus, Nestor, Priam, Paris, and Hector of the Trojan War; down to the classical period, with such men as Pericles (who, after he divorced his wife, lived with his mistress, Aspasia, until his death), Aristides, Phocion, Themistocles, Miltiades, Nicias, and others, too numerous to mention, were all, without exception, married or involved in heterosexual relationships with mistresses or Hetairai (roughly equivalent to the Japanese Geisha). The same can be said of the "mythological" heroes like Perseus, Cecrops (who first instituted monogamy among men), and Theseus (who was the first man to abduct Helen of Troy when she was a girl); to such heroes as the Argonauts: men like Jason, Orpheus, and Heracles; all of whom were involved in (sometimes stormy) heterosexual love affairs throughout their lives. The playwrights and poets too -- Hesiod, Archilochus, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, Menander, and others, were all masculine, normal men as well. And this is true of the philosophers whose lives we know something about, such as Socrates (who married twice), Aristotle, and Plato.

Though Plato never married, he had much to say on what he felt was normal behavior between the sexes: Much that would blow to pieces the devious and self-serving assertions being put forward by our postmodern "scholars," and "intellectuals" today. Here is a sample: In his Laws he states quite categorically that "... male does not touch male for this purpose, since it is unnatural...." And again, in the same work, he tells us that "... when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature (kata physin), but is contrary to nature (para physin) when male mates with male or female with female, and that those ... guilty of such enormities [are] impelled by their slavery to pleasure." Plato's views might even be termed puritanical by many today for in his "Seventh Epistle" he tells us that "...if one's existence is spent in gorging food twice a day and never sleeping alone at night ... [then] not a single man of all who live beneath the heavens could ever become wise." And Plato, who has been called the wisest man who ever lived, was certainly wise enough to know that compulsive homosexuality leads inexorably to the utter enslavement of, first, the individuals who practice it, and second, the society in which it is allowed to flourish. For, as the Emperor Julian (the "Apostate") -- a scholar of the first rank who was superbly schooled in Greek paideia -- so aptly put it in his Sixth Oration: "Then never think, my friend, that you are free while your belly rules you and the part below the belly, since you will then have masters who can either furnish you the means of pleasure or deprive you of them."

So that what we see in ancient Greece is a devotion to the male ideal, engendered by the need to create a warrior class capable of defending home and hearth effectively. This self-preserving ideal resulted in the creation of strict codes of honor on the battlefield, and in the elevation of friendship between men carried to what may today be considered the extreme. A similar situation occurred in the age of the Samurai warrior in Japan. These men were the embodiment of heroic virtue, and their idealization led to the cult of the male in that country as well. These manly virtues may provide plenty of material for ridicule for the likes of Woody Allen (who gets lots of laughs when he quips: "I'm way beyond 4-F; I'm categorized as 'coward' by my draft board"); and Bill Clinton, who famously wrote that " I despise the military," and actually demonstrated against his country while American boys were dying in a war he was illegally evading. One more thought on Clinton: It was because those 1500 men on the Titanic had been raised while Helleno-Christian influence was still strong, that they were able to muster the courage and determination to give up their lives so that their women and children could live. There were, of course, a few cowards who dressed as women in order to gain a place on the lifeboats, and you can be sure that "Slick Willie" would have been one of these. Yet, this man --who would not have been allowed to hold the office of "night-soil collector" in ancient Greece -- was elected the Commander-in-Chief of the American armed forces! What does this tell you, dear reader, about the state of "feminine democracy" in that country?

What does this say about the contempt in which the dumbed-down and misinformed citizens of that once-great land are held by those who control that nation's media, and are therefore able to wield the power necessary to have the "lickspittle-of-their-choice" elected?

It may be reasonably argued that there was something wrong with the culture that fostered these irregular and illegal homo-erotic relationships between some Greek males in the 6th, 5th, and 4th centuries. What must be repeatedly emphasized, however, is that, unlike in America (and more and more in Europe) today, this activity was never legalized, never encouraged, never lauded as being perfectly normal, never part of the Greek educational curriculum, never depicted on the stage as something trendy and "cool." No candidate for public office, known to be a homosexual, could ever, by the wildest stretch of the imagination, have been elected; no openly homosexual person -- male or female -- could have avoided death, banishment, or, at the very least, severe public censure. The idea of same-sex- marriage would have been incomprehensible and repugnant beyond words to them; and the thought of a group such as the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA -- whose goal is "to end the oppression of men and boys who have mutually consensual relationships") forming in their community would have thrown them into paroxysms of uncontrollable rage.

The philosophers and priests of ancient Greece were dedicated to the principle of never violating with thought or deed that which has been given to man by the gods. This principle was encapsulated in the much-heralded phrase, Sozein ta phenomena; which phrase we translate as follows: "Preserve the natural!" The acorn may most certainly be observed, commented upon, ridiculed or revered; but it must be allowed to become an oak tree. The idea that within the acorn there is a weeping willow struggling to "come out" would have been met with the ridicule and scorn such fuzzy-minded thinking deserves. This thinking is today encouraged and promoted by a malignant and elitist minority, hell-bent on bringing Western Civilization -- given to the world by White men and women of European ancestry -- to its knees so that it can fill the power vacuum that will result. Some have stated that such thinking is only possible among academics and "intellectuals"; such a belief is simplistic and unrealistic. A more likely reason for the collaboration of such water-bucket-carriers for the aforementioned elitist minority, is that these people are simply the products of a society controlled by the "economic men" previously described. If touting homosexuality, feminism, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., will enhance our careers, why let's do it , and to hell with what damage will be done to future generations. These are the Clintons, the Bushes, the Albrights, the Kissingers, the Friedans, the Abzugs, the Franks, the Simitis', the Karamanlis', the Jacksons, the Sharptons, and the Blairs of the world. For such creatures there is no salvation, no saving grace: everything they do is anathema, corrosive, and self-serving in the extreme. And their most feared common enemy is the White male of European ancestry: It is he who must be ridiculed, marginalized, feminized, and ultimately destroyed before he awakens.

Those of us who wish to preserve what is left of our culture must develop a zero-tolerance attitude towards such people. The kind of "tolerance" demonstrated by the "diversity"-promoting leftists who demonstrate their love for diversity by shouting down speakers who don't toe the party line. We risk losing our identities, our culture, and our freedoms because we seem to think it more important to be polite than to engage in the kind of behavior that has proven so rewarding for our ideological enemies. One of their "New Left" gurus, the late Herbert Marcuse, wrote -- back in the destructive decade of the 60s -- that:

"Liberating tolerance is intolerance against movements from the Right, and toleration [only] of movements from the Left."

We must learn to practice such "tolerance"; otherwise, our men will continue to become "weak," and our women ever more "disorderly."

Sunday, July 9th, 2006, 10:59 PM
Debunking the Myth of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece

A review of Adonis Georgiades' book

You've got to give Adonis Georgiades credit. Here he is, just a shade over 30, and he manages one of Hellas' most prestigious publishing houses, hosts a five-day a week TV show, runs a school which specializes in teaching the ancient language of his ancestors, and somehow still manages to find the time to lecture and write books on the subject nearest and dearest to his heart: the unrivalled and many-faceted glory of ancient Greece: A renaissance man in every sense of the word.

Naturally, a man like this is going to be more than just a little upset over the distortions and outright fabrications circulating in today's multicultural, postmodern world. A world where the unsuspecting and historically challenged are subjected to whatever deconstructed version of reality the purveyors of the kind of putrescent pap think most suits their worldview of "diversity" and "cultural equality." To such dissembling dimwits, Plato, Dr. Ruth, and Chief Seattle are intellectually, ethically, and philosophically equal! As a result, the unique contributions made by the Greeks in the millenniums-old struggle to lift mankind out of the slime of ignorance and superstition are trivialized, ignored, or put into an ersatz context which helps to promote the "isms" in fashion at the moment.

Thus, we discover that the Greeks hated and victimized their women, that they imposed their culture upon the poor, suffering peoples they conquered, that they were heartless slave-owners, that they stole their philosophy from the brown-skinned Egyptians, that they appropriated their alphabet from the Semitic Phoenicians, and that some of their most outstanding personalities -- and even some of their gods and goddesses -- were Black! Those of you who have cracked a respectable number of pre-postmodern books, or are frequent visitors to this site, know that such invidious absurdities are untrue, and can easily be proven to be untrue. The fact remains, however, that such is the blather being hustled these days, and a whole generation of innocent youth is being exposed to this poison: A poison purposely injected into their minds in order to create the stateless, colorless, genderless, faithless, inarticulate, boob-tube-mesmerized, consumer-drones the proponents of this Zyclon-B-of-the-intellect want to inhabit the "Global Village" they are hell-bent on creating.

Such fuzzy-minded huckstering is especially prominent among the professors in the Humanities departments of the colleges and universities of the Western World. The frenzy-to-conform exhibited by these homunculi -- whose shoes don't touch the floor when they are seated in their academic chairs -- is such that they are willing to sell their souls, betray their racial heritage (those who are White), and pollute the quality of their scholarship by playing an active role in the promulgation of this historical mythmaking. And it is here, in these departments, where the most infuriating lie of all -- that which posits the prevalence of homosexuality in ancient Greece -- was born. This myth, engendered in Academia, and "legitimized" by an alien and hostile element in America -- an element that controls the awesome mind-molding power of the media and Hollywood -- could not help but "have legs." And so it has come to pass that even an Al Sharpton -- a man with the intellect of a retarded Neanderthal -- could publicly refer to the ancient Greeks as "a bunch of fairies" in a speech given before an audience of his mentally challenged acolytes. "Mentally challenged" because instead of hissing and booing at such patronizingly obvious demagoguery, they cheered, clapped, whistled, and hooted with bug-eyed delight at hearing Whitey traduced and ridiculed by one of their own.

This is the myth that Adonis Georgiades so successfully and convincingly demolishes in his book Debunking the Myth of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece.

Georgiades manages, in just over 200 easy-to-read and well-documented pages, to cite a multitude of ancient sources which shed the light of truth upon the question of just how homosexuals and homosexuality were regarded in the Hellas of the 9th to the 4th century B.C. His thesis is simple: "Of course homosexuality existed in Greece, just as it has existed, and will continue to exist, everywhere and at all times in human history. However, while it did exist, it was never legally sanctioned, thought to be a cultural norm, or engaged in without risk of serious punishment, including exile and death." A pitiful creature like Barney Frank, for instance, would have -- upon his particular "proclivity" being discovered -- been executed or sent into exile. After which, his living quarters would have been fumigated and ritually purified by a priest. Unless, of course, he had previously "gone public" with his homosexual lifestyle. In that case, though he would have been permitted to live, he would, under Athenian law (grafí etairísios), not be permitted to

become one of the nine archons, nor to discharge the office of priest, nor to act as an advocate for the state, nor shall he hold any office whatsoever, at home or abroad, whether filled by lot or by election; he shall not be sent as a herald; he shall not take part in debate, nor be present at the public sacrifices; when the citizens are wearing garlands, he shall wear none; and he shall not enter within the limits of the place that has been purified for the assembling of the people. Any man who has been convicted of defying these prohibitions pertaining to sexual conduct shall be put to death (Aeschines. "Contra Timarchus," as cited in Georgiades, p. 69).

We learn as well that "Athens had the strictest laws pertaining to homosexuality of any democracy that has ever existed" (62). In non-democratic Sparta, as well as in democratic Crete and the rest of democratic Hellas, there were similar prohibitions with similar punishments as that meted out in Athens, and Georgiades gives us citations galore to prove his main thesis: "At no time, and in no place, was this practice considered normal behavior, or those engaged in it allowed to go unpunished" (passim). In order to remove any doubt whatsoever, he draws on such ancient luminaries as Aeschylus, Aristophanes, Diodorus Seculus, Euripides, Homer, Lysias, Plato, Plutarch and Xenophon, all of whom have left a written record as to what the prevailing norms were concerning this behavior. He also covers Greek vase painting, Mythology and Lesbianism, while not neglecting to reveal the truth about such much-maligned personalities from Hellas' glorious past as Achilles and Patroclus, Alcibiades and Socrates, Alexander the Great and Hephaestion, and the woman that the later Greeks regarded as "the greatest of the lyric poets," Sappho.

Greek vase painting has been a favorite source for the distorters of Greek culture and civilization. Georgiades points out that, of the tens of thousands of vases unearthed so far (the count for just the province of Attica, where Athens is located, is over 80,000), only 30 or so have an overtly homosexual theme; representing, in other words, just .01% of the total (127). When one compares this small percentage to what we see today on TV, in ads, books, magazines, the cinema, etc., one can just imagine what future generations will think of us. There is more, much more, but the purpose of this review is to stimulate the reader to order the book to see for himself just how Georgiades has managed to shed the light of truth on this important aspect of Greek history.

There is one more thing, however, that must be said. Georgiades has -- in a clear and easy-to-comprehend manner -- delineated the difference between what the ancients meant when they used the words "Erastis" and "Eromenos," and the way these words are translated and used in our time. This alone is worth the price of the book. Briefly, to the ancient Greeks, the term Erastis denoted a man who mentored, in a non-physical way, an Eromenos. The Eromenos was in all cases a beardless youth who looked up to and respected his mentor, and who had been commissioned by the boy's parents to take on the vital chore of preparing him to assume the roles of husband, father, soldier, and active citizen in the affairs of his community. Georgiades delves deeply into this relationship, and explains how and why these terms have come today to be confused with the "dominant" and "passive" partners in an homosexual union.

We can only be grateful that there are still young men around like Adonis Georgiades who want only to see that the truth is told about the country they love. This book is highly recommended, and though it has been published only in Greek to date, we sincerely hope to see an English language edition in the near future.

Sunday, July 9th, 2006, 11:19 PM
Citations Pertaining to Homosexuality from Greek & Other Sources

"There is a love that makes men virtuous / And chaste, an envied gift. Such love I crave."



Aeschines was born ca. 390 B.C. His father was Atrometus, his mother was Glaucothea. He was the second of three sons, and was performing his service as an Athenian cadet when the battle of Leuctra plunged Hellas into the Theban wars which were to last almost a decade. His bravery in the field was so distinguished that he received a wreath of honor and was appointed one of two messengers to carry the news to Athens. By age 42, he was a man of influence in political affairs, and, because of his unquestioned patriotism and skills as an orator, was chosen as a member of a ten-man delegation to treat with Phillip of Macedon (father of Alexander the Great) who was threatening all of Hellas. The famous orator Demosthenes was also a part of that group. The astute Phillip was, it seems, too shrewd for Aeschines, who returned to Athens convinced that "peace in our time" was possible with the Macedonian king; as a result, he soon found himself under suspicion of having been bribed by Phillip. His principal accuser was Demosthenes, who was joined in an action against Aeschines by Timarchus, a prominent politician of the anti-Macedonian faction. The Contra Timarchus (Katá Timárkou) speech is Aeschines' defense against the unwarranted charges against him. He was acquitted, but Demosthenes became his implacable enemy.

Aeschines based his defense on the law which denied any participation in public affairs by homosexuals and pederasts. According to the law of "same-sex companionship" (grafí etairísios), any citizen could bring charges against a person suspected or known to be a sodomite or a pederast. Aeschines will attempt to prove that Timarchus did not have the civil right to bring charges against him because his "lifestyle"-- that of a "passive" homosexual -- legally rendered him a non-person according to Athenian law.

Aeschines' speech represents the fullest account we have of the laws of Athens regarding homosexuality and pederasty. The excerpts which follow are from Aeschines' Contra Timarchus.

Aeschines tells the clerk of the court to read various laws pertaining to pederasty and homosexuality to the jury so as to provide them with the background information they'll need in order to render judgment. He begins with a law protecting young boys from being corrupted in school, because "when a boy's natural disposition is subjected at the very outset to vicious training, the product of such wrong nurture will be ... a citizen like this man, Timarchus":


The teachers of the boys shall open the school-rooms not earlier than sunrise, and they shall close them before sunset. No person who is older than the boys shall be permitted to enter the room while they are there, unless he be a son of the teacher, a brother, or a daughter's husband. If any one enter in violation of this prohibition, he shall be punished with death. The superintendents of the gymnasia shall under no conditions allow any one who has reached the age of manhood to enter the contests of Hermes together with the boys. A gymnasiarch who does permit this and fails to keep such a person out of the gymnasium, shall be liable to the penalties prescribed for the seduction of free-born youth. Every choregus who is appointed by the people shall be more than forty years of age.(12.)

Aeschines then instructs the clerk to read the law pertaining to the "outrage" of a child.


If any Athenian shall outrage a free-born child, the parent or guardian of the child shall prosecute him before the Thesmothetae, and shall demand a specific penalty. If the court condemn the accused to death, he shall be delivered to the constables and be put to death the same day. If he be con-demned to pay a fine, and be unable to pay the fine immediately, he must pay within eleven days after the trial, and he shall remain in prison until payment is made. The same action shall hold against those who abuse the persons of slaves. (16.)

He explains the fact that even slaves are protected under Athenian law because "in a democracy that man is unfit for citizenship who outrages any person whatsoever." He then asks the clerk to read that part of the law having to do with youths "who recklessly sin against their own bodies." The laws are most concerned with morality, he explains, because "that state will be best administered in which orderly conduct is most common":


If any Athenian shall have prostituted his person, he shall not be permitted to become one of the nine archons, nor to discharge the office of priest, nor to act as an advocate for the state, nor shall he hold any office whatsoever, at home or abroad, whether filled by lot or by election; he shall not be sent as a herald; he shall not take part in debate, nor be present at the public sacrifices; when the citizens are wearing garlands, he shall wear none; and he shall not enter within the limits of the place that has been purified for the assembling of the people. If any man who has been convicted of prostitution act contrary to these prohibitions, he shall be put to death. (21.)

Aeschines then refers to the section in the law titled "Scrutiny of Public Men." He addresses the jury directly on this part of the law which sets forth the requisite behavior of those who would hold public office: "[F]or the man who in his youth was led by shameful indulgence to surrender honorable ambition, that man [say the lawgivers] ought not in later life to be possessed of the privileges of citizenship."

(It is interesting to think about the sorry specimens who hold or have held office in the U.S. and Greece, and who would have been automatically excluded from contaminating a public trust had we similar restrictions today. "Slick Willie" for instance, would never have been allowed to hold even the position of a "night soil collector" in Athens. As far as "Dubbya" or "Georgaki" Papandreou are concerned, it is beyond the ability of this writer to imagine such an inarticulate halfwit as Bush rising beyond the position of an insignificant public official -- something like being in charge of seeing to it that there were sufficient buckets available for the collection of "night soil -- in some remote region of Greece. As for "Georgaki," he too would most likely have wound up as the ancient Greek equivalent of a hair dresser. As for a creature like the reprehensible representative from Massachusetts, Barney Frank, he would have been put to death and his living quarters fumigated and purified by the priests.)

When reading about the kind of behavior demanded of their politicians by the ancient Greeks (a sample of which follows), think about how such demands would have impacted on the morally bankrupt and intellectually challenged misfits we've had battening down upon us in recent decades.

Scrutiny of Public Men

If any one attempts to speak before the people who beats his father or mother, or fails to support them or to provide a home for them. ... [s]uch a man is forbidden to speak. ... Because if such a man is mean toward those whom he ought to honor as the gods, how, pray, ... will such a man treat the members of another household, and how will he treat the whole city? ... Or the man who has failed to perform all the military service demanded of him, or who has thrown away his shield (rípsaspis), ... if you are such a coward that you are unable to defend [your city], you must not claim the right to advise her either. ... Or the man who has squandered his patrimony or other inheritance. ... For ... the man who has mismanaged his own household will handle the affairs of the city in a like manner; [for] to the lawgiver it did not seem possible that the same man could be a rascal in private life, and in
public life a good and useful citizen. ... Or the man ... who has debauched or
prostituted himself. ... For the man who has made traffic of the shame of his own body, ... would be ready to sell the common interests of the city also. (28 -31.)

Aeschines then summoned the jury to remember their [Athenian] ancestors, who were "stern ... toward all shameful conduct," and considered the purity of their children and fellow citizens to be "precious." He goes on to give an example regarding the way the Lacedaemonians [Spartans] felt about such matters. He justifies his praising the Spartans by quoting an old Athenian saying which teaches that it is "well to imitate virtue even in a foreigner." [kalón d' estí daí tás xenikás mimeísthai.]

When a certain man had spoken in the assembly of the Lacedaemonians, a man of shameful life but an exceedingly able speaker, and when, we are told, the Lacedaemonians were on the point of voting according to his advice, a man came forward from the Council of Elders. ... and vehemently rebuked the Lacedaemonians and denounced them in words like these: That the homes of Sparta would not long remain unravaged if the people followed such advisers in their assemblies.

Aeschines then asks the jurors to consider whether or not such a dissolute and "low-lived" degenerate as Timarchus -- "a creature with the body of a man defiled with the sins of a woman. ... [a] man who in despite of nature has sinned against his own body" -- would ever have been allowed to take part in the public affairs of the Lacedaemonians; implying, of course, that neither should he be allowed to inject his poison into the political lifeblood of Athens. If the jurors were to make the mistake of not finding Timarchus guilty, he continues, "what then, pray , are you going to answer ... when your sons ask you whether you voted for conviction or acquittal? When you acknowledge that you set Timarchus free, will you not at the same time be overturning our whole system of training the youth? ... For you must not imagine, fellow citizens, that the impulse to wrong doing is from the gods; nay, rather it is from the wickedness of men. ... Therefore, fellow citizens, remove from among us such natures, for so shall you turn the aspirations of the young toward virtue."

[I]Flaceliere, Robert.

On pages 49 -50 of his authoritative and well documented book Love in Ancient Greece (trans. by James Cleugh. Frederick Muller Ltd., London; 1962), Flaceliere writes: "t appears extremely likely that homosexuality of any kind was confined to the prosperous and aristocratic levels of ancient society. The masses of peasants and artisans were probably scarcely affected by habits of this kind, which seem to have been associated with a sort of snobbery. The available texts deal mainly with the leisured nobility of Athens. But they may give the impression that pederasty was practiced by the entire nation. The subject, however, of the comedy by Aristophanes entitled Lysistrata suggests that homosexuality was hardly rampant among the people at large. It would be an error to think so. ... There was nothing particularly 'Greek' about homosexual feeling. The nation in antiquity was by no means alone in providing illustrations of inversion (see note below), which has been practiced at almost all times and in almost all countries. ... In the pre-Christian era, the case of Sodom is well known. Nor were the Persians, the Etruscans, the Celts or the Romans ignorant of homosexuality. But its existence among these peoples was kept more or less secret on account of the discredit which attached to it. But in Greece, though pederasty was forbidden by law in most cities, it had become so fashionable [among the artists and aristocrats] that no one troubled to conceal it."

On page 140 he writes: "The permanent popularity of courtesans [hetairai] in ancient Greece is surely the best proof that homosexuals were either not consistently so or not particularly numerous. We have already suggested that inversion was never very prevalent except in one class of society and over quite a limited period." (Emphasis added.)

Note: Inversion: "Assumption of the sexual role of the opposite sex; homosexuality." The American College Dictionary. Random House, New York; 1966.

[I]Julianus, Flavius Claudius

Julian ("the Apostate") was born in 332 A.D. He was the son of Julius Constantius, the half-brother of Constantine. He was brought up in a remote fortress in Cappadocia and given a pious Christian education. But Julian acquired from his tutor, the eunuch Mardonius, a passion for the classics and for the old gods. In 351, while studying at Ephesus, he came under the influence of the well-known and respected pagan philosopher Maximus. After Ephesus, he went on to Athens to complete his education. Julian openly declared his paganism as soon as he became emperor. He then went on to proclaim open toleration for all religions, restored the confiscated lands of the pagan temples, and had those which had been destroyed rebuilt. One of his rare anti-Christian measures was to forbid Christian professors to teach the classics. His eastern borders were continually being harassed by the Persians, and, in 363, he marched at the head of his army to confront them. During one of the ensuing battles he was mortally wounded.

Julian's religious beliefs were the Neoplatonist monotheism expounded by his friend Sallustius, author of the Neoplatonic piety known as De deis et mundo. Julian was a brave military leader and a scholar of the first rank who was superbly educated in Greek paideia. On the subject in question, he writes:

Then never think, my friend, that you are free while your belly rules you and the part below the belly, since you will then have masters who can either furnish you with the means of pleasure or deprive you of them. (Oration VI, 196 - c.)


Plato was born ca. 429 and died ca. 347 B.C. He was the son of Ariston and Perictione, both of whom were Athenians of distinguished lineage. His philosophy and writings show the enormous influence Socrates had upon him, both by his life and by his unjust death. In his youth he considered a political career, but the sorry spectacle he witnessed, whether the "conservative" or the "democratic" party was in power, convinced him that the only real hope would be when philosophers became rulers or rulers became philosophers. He traveled extensively after Socrates was put to death by the "democratic" mob, finally settling down near the grove of Academus, about a mile outside the walls of Athens. Here, in 385 B.C., Plato opened the "Academy" of Athens: the first university in Europe, if not the world. The school remained in continuous operation for over 900 years. It was finally closed by order of the Byzantine emperor, Justinian, in 529 A.D. This makes it the oldest university in the world, pre-dating the University of Constantinople by 800 years or so, and the Universities of Paris and Oxford by about 1500 years.

His comments regarding homosexuality leave absolutely no doubt as to what Plato (whose been justifiably described as the most intelligent man who ever lived) thought about this perversion. As we read his thoughts on this subject, one gets the impression that he would most certainly agree with the Christian view that "we must love the sinner, though we hate the sin."

And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure. (Laws, I. 636-c.)

Come then, suppose we grant that this practice [homosexuality] is now legalized, and that it is noble and in no way ignoble, how far would it promote virtue? Will it engender in the soul of him who is seduced a courageous character, or in the soul of the seducer the quality of temperance? Nobody would ever believe this; on the contrary, as all men will blame the cowardice of the man who always yields to pleasures and is never able to hold out against them, will they not likewise reproach that man who plays the woman's
part with the resemblance he bears to his model? Is there any man, then, who will ordain by law a practice like that? not one, I should say, if he has a notion of what true law is.
(Laws, VIII. 836 d - e.)

This law ... is the cause of countless blessings. For, in the first place, it follows the dictates of nature, and it serves to keep men from sexual rage and frenzy and all kinds of fornication, and from all excess in meats and drinks, and it ensures in husbands fondness for their own wives. (Laws, VIII. 839 a - b.)

I maintain ... that our citizens must not be worse than fowls and many other animals which are produced in large broods, and which live chaste and celibate lives without sexual intercourse until they arrive at the age for breeding; and when they reach this age they pair off, as instinct moves them, male with female and female with male; and thereafter they live in a way that is holy and just, remaining constant to their first contracts of love: surely our citizens should at least be better than these animals.
(Laws, VIII. 840 d - e.)

Again, in Plato's Laws, in a scene laid in Crete, and on a walk from Cnosus to the grotto of Zeus on Mount Ida on a long midsummer's day, the conversation related here between three old men took place. Of the three, one is an Athenian (Stranger), one (Clinias) a Cretan, and one (Megillus) a Spartan. The protagonist is the Athenian (Stanger), and nearly all the talking is done by him. ... "The choice of their nationality, however, is significant, since the main body of the laws framed for the Model City is derived from the codes actually in force in Athens, Sparta, and Crete" (p. viii in the introduction. Emphasis added).

The three elderly men are discussing the ways that which is "honorable and shameful" shall be established. And [the ways] those who are "of depraved character, whom we describe as 'self-inferior,'... shall be hemmed in by three kinds of force and compelled to refrain from law-breaking."

Clinias: "What kinds?"

Athenian Stranger: "That of godly fear, and that of love of honor, and that which is desirous of fair forms of soul, not of fair bodies. The things I now mention are, perhaps, like the visionary ideals in a story; yet in fair truth, if only they were realized, they would prove a great blessing in every State. Possibly, should God so grant, we might forcibly effect one of two things in this matter of sex-relations, -- either that no one should venture to touch any of the noble and freeborn save his own wedded wife, nor sow any unholy and bastard seed in fornication, nor any unnatural and barren seed in sodomy, -- or else we should entirely abolish love for males, and in regard to that for women, if we enact a law that any man who has intercourse with any women save those who have been brought to his house under the sanction of Heaven and holy marriage, whether purchased or otherwise acquired, if detected in such intercourse by any man or woman, shall be disqualified from any civic commendation, as being really an alien, -- probably such a law would be approved as right. So let this law -- Whether we ought to call it one law or two -- be laid down concerning sexual commerce and love affairs in general, as regards right and wrong conduct in our mutual intercourse due to these desires."

Megillus: "For my own part, Stranger, I should warmly welcome this law" (VIII. 841 c - e).

Plato talks about how homosexuals must worry about being found out:

[If] you are afraid of public opinion, and fear that if people find out your love affair you will be disgraced. (Phaedrus, 231 e.)

Plato seems to have had a puritanical streak, because, in his Epistle Seven (326 b - d), he writes rather testily that:

[If] one's existence is spent in gorging food twice a day and never sleeping alone at night, and all the practices which accompany this mode of living [, then] ... not a single man of all who live beneath the heavens could ever become wise ... nor would he ever be likely to become temperate; and the same may truly be said of all other forms of virtue. And no State would ever remain stable under laws of any kind, if its citizens, while supposing that they ought to spend everywhere to excess, yet believed that they ought to cease from all exertion except feastings and drinkings and the vigorous pursuit of their amours. Of necessity these States never cease changing into tyrannies, oligarchies, and democracies, and the men who hold power in them cannot
endure so much as the mention of the name of a just government with equal laws.

Note: Plato's warning about a State where self-indulgence is the norm sinking inexorably into a tyranny, oligarchy or democracy is pertinent because, in the ancient Greek world, these were considered the worst possible forms of government. Tyranny is rule by one man, oligarchy is rule by a privileged elite, and democracy is rule by the mob which is easily swayed by demagogues. The best forms of government are monarchy, aristocracy, and constitutional republic (cf. The Statesman, 291 d ff, & 302 b ff. ed.).


Plutarch of Chaeronea was born ca. 50 A.D. and died ca. 120 A.D. He was the son of Autobulus, and grandson of Lamprias, who along with other members of his family, figure often in his work. His was a well established family in Chaeronea, and most of Plutarch's life was spent in his home town, though he did visit Egypt and Italy, and lectured for a time at Rome. His wide circle of friends included many influential men in the political arena, as well as many Greek men of letters. For the last thirty years of his life he was a priest at Delphi. He was extremely devout and pious, and a profound student of human nature and history. Up until very recently, a man was not considered educated unless he could read Plutarch, Thucydides, and Homer (at the very minimum) in the original. Plutarch, especially, was always to be found on the "great books" list of educators who really cared about turning out well rounded students who would, by reading Plutarch and the Greeks in general, be well-equipped to face any challenge in their lives, and to enjoy a high quality of life as well. Plutarch achieved no small influence within governing circles in his lifetime, and was especially instrumental in promoting the concept of a partnership between Greece, the educator, and Rome, the great power, and of the compatibility of the two patriotisms.

About Alexander the Great, Plutarch has this to say:

[W]hen ... the governor of the coast-lands of Asia Minor wrote to Alexander that there was in Ionia a youth, the like of whom for bloom and beauty did not exist, and inquired in his letter whether he should send the boy on to him, Alexander wrote bitterly in reply, "Vilest of men, what deed of this sort have you ever been privy to in my past that now you would flatter me with the offer of such pleasures?" (On The Fortune of Alexander, 333 a - b.)

About the Spartans, Plutarch wrote:

Affectionate regard for boys of good character was permissible, but embracing them was held to be disgraceful, on the ground that the affection was for the body and not for the mind. Any man against whom complaint was made of any disgraceful embracing was deprived of all civic rights for life. (Ancient Customs of the Spartans, 7. 237 - c.)

That the law against pederasty was violated on occasion there can be no doubt, but there is also no doubt that it was illegal. For instance, Plutarch writes:

[Pederasty] needs a fair pretext for approaching the young and beautiful, so it pretends friendship and virtue. It covers itself with the sand of the wrestling-floor, it takes cold baths, it plays the highbrow and publicly proclaims that it is a philosopher and disciplined on the outside -- because of the law. (Dialogue on Love, 752 - a. Emphasis added.)

Thornton, Bruce S.

In the preface (p. xiii) of his book titled Eros: The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality, Dr. Thornton, a professor of Classics at California State University, Fresno, states in no uncertain terms that the Greeks "were horrified and disgusted by the idea of a male being anally penetrated by another male, and called such behavior 'against nature.' "

On page 99, he cites Plato's dialogue Georgias [491e -92a & 494e] to make a great point. He is talking about Socrates' conversation with Callicles, whose hedonistic philosophy Socrates disagrees with. To counter Callicles' argument that a man should give full reign to his passions, and not worry about convention, Socrates exclaims: "[What about] the life of passive homosexuals (kinaidon), isn't it awful and shameful and wretched? Or will you have the audacity to say that they are happy, if they have enough of the things they need?" To which a shocked Callicles replies: "Aren't you ashamed ... at leading the discussion to such a topic?" (Emphasis added.).

The point Dr. Thornton makes is that here is the sophist, Callicles, who represents the "avant-garde" of cosmopolitan thought in the world of ancient Greece, who is "shocked" that Socrates would bring up such a disgusting subject as male homosexuality during a philosophical discussion. Dr. Thornton asks (sarcastically): "Aren't these men Greeks, those enthusiasts of pederasty, the liberated icons of 'Greek Love?' "

On page 100, Dr. Thornton writes:

Very little, if any, evidence from ancient Greece survives that shows adult males (or females) as "couples" involved in an ongoing, reciprocal sexual and emotional relationship in which sex with women (or men) is moot and the age difference is no more significant than it is in heterosexual relationships.

On page 102, Dr. Thornton refers to the myth of "Chrysippus, the son of Pelops -- hence uncle to Agamemnon and Menelaus -- whom Laius, father of Oedipus, kidnapped and raped. Chrysippus then killed himself because of 'shame' (aischunes), and Hera -- goddess of marriage -- sent the Sphinx to Thebes as punishment. Another punishment for this act was the death of Laius at his son Oedipus's hands."

The question raised by this myth (which was the subject of a lost play by Euripides titled Chrysippus), is why would the young Chrysippus kill himself if man/boy love were an accepted practice? Why would the goddess Hera send the Sphinx to Laius' hometown, Thebes, as punishment for what its king did, if what he did were not considered an abomination? An abomination which was also the root cause of the curse of the house of Oedipus which would come down upon the entire family in such a tragic way in the future. Also, if this was an accepted practice among the Greeks, why would Euripides write a whole play about it? All good questions, which lead to only one conclusion: Although such practices did occur, they were abhorred and severely punished by the Greeks when they were discovered!

On page 163, Dr. Thornton talks about a scene from Xenophon"s Symposium -- this being the name of the drinking and eating parties for the refined and educated men of Athens, where philosophical questions were raised and discussed. Dr. Thornton refers to the part where

After the philosophical conversation, two actors come into the room and reenact the marriage of Ariadne and the god Dionysus, who fell in love with the Cretan maiden after she had been abandoned by Theseus on the island of Naxos during their flight from Crete. The actors do such a good job of passionately kissing and declaring their love for one another that the men at the dinner party are sexually aroused, with the result that "the unmarried men swore that they would marry, while the married men mounted their horses and rode home to their wives, so they could find pleasure with them." (Xen. Symp.9.7.)

The point being, of course, that here we have a gathering of the literati of Athens; the poets, philosophers, and artists, who would be expected to be at the forefront of sexual experimentation and innovation. Yet, instead of these men satisfying their lust by sodomizing one another, the unmarried ones vow to marry, and the married ones rush home to make love to their wives. Somehow, this just doesn't jibe with the image the concoctors of creative history have managed to imprint upon the minds of present-day youth. Unfortunately for them, however, Xenophon, who had no reason to write anything other than that which would have struck his readers as being a natural reaction to the stimulus these men had experienced, was telling the unvarnished truth.

On page 268, in what is a concise summation of the entire argument of his book, Dr. Thornton compares the naive and destructive modern-day sexual idiocies encapsulated in Dr. Ruth Westheimer's statement that "... a child knowing about his or her body will be able to deal with the pressure to have sex," with one by "a much more acute psychologist, Euripides, when he has his Phaedra say, 'We know the good and recognize it, but we cannot bring it to pass' [Hipp. 380-81]. When the flames of Eros rage in the blood, knowledge, like Prospero's oaths, is just 'straw for the fire.' "

Which means, dear reader, that the Greeks, like all human beings, were subjected to temptations that its society, in seeking to protect and perpetuate itself, deemed to be unnatural and illegal. The fact that there were Greeks who yielded can in no way be interpreted as meaning that the practices which gave rise to these temptations were in accord with the norms and customs of the society that banned them. Yet, there are those who make this illogical argument for what we can only assume to be ulterior motives.

U. S. Supreme Court

The U. S. Supreme Court ruled in Bowers vs. Hardwick (1986) that the "freedom" to commit sodomy does not exist under the Constitution, even if done in the privacy of one's own home. Justice Burger stated in his opinion: "Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law. During the English Reformation, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed. Blackstone described 'the infamous crime against nature' as an offense of 'deeper malignity' than rape, an heinous act, 'the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature,' and 'a crime not fit to be named.' "


Xenophon was the son of Gryllus of the Athenian deme Erchia, and his wife Philesia. He lived from ca. 428 to ca. 354 B.C. He approached maturity at around the time of the oligarchic revolution at Athens, and may have taken part in the costly sea battle of Arginusae, which a nearly totally exhausted Athens won against Sparta, but which was the cause of many unhappy political events. As an aristocrat, a friend of Socrates, and a member of the Socratic circle of intellectuals, he probably found things quite difficult after the restoration of "democracy," and so he left Athens at around 401. He accepted an invitation by Proxenus to join him in an expedition to Asia Minor in the service of Cyrus who was trying to gain the Persian throne. After the failure of the expedition Xenophon was elected general, and it was then, after many hardships and difficulties, that he successfully led the Greek army of mercenaries out of Asia and back to Hellas. This "coming up" out of Asia is told to us in his famous work titled "The Anabasis." After campaigning in Thrace and again in Asia minor, he was exiled from Athens in the year 399. This was the year of Socrates' death, and anyone who was known to have been close to the great man was bound to have political problems. He subsequently went to Sparta, and for services rendered to the Spartan king Agesilaus was granted an estate near Olympia, at Scillus. In 371 Elis claimed Scillus, and Xenophon and his wife and two sons went to live in Corinth. In ca. 368 his exile was rescinded, and in ca. 366 he returned to Athens where he lived until his death.

On the subject in question, he writes:

Nevertheless, although he [Socrates] was free from vice, if he saw and approved of base conduct in [others], he would be open to censure. Well, when he found that Critias loved Euthydemus and wanted to lead him astray, he tried to restrain him by saying that it was mean and unbecoming in a gentleman to sue like a beggar to the object of his affection, whose good opinion he coveted, stooping to ask a favor that it was wrong to grant. As Critias paid no heed whatever to this protest, Socrates, it is said, exclaimed
in the presence of Euthydemus and many others, "Critias seems to have the feelings of a pig: he can no more keep away from Euthydemus than pigs can help rubbing themselves against stones." (Memorabilia, I. ii. 29 -30.)

The legendary Lacedaemonian king and lawgiver, Lycurgus, was very consistent in the rules he laid down for the proper personal conduct of the Spartans. When it came to the relationship between an Erastís (adult mentor) and his Eroménos (the young man in his charge), Xenophon tells us that the Spartan Constitution Lycurgus instituted made it very clear that:

If someone, being himself an honest man, admired a boy's soul and tried to make of him an ideal friend without reproach and to associate with him, he [Lycurgus] approved, and believed in the excellence of this kind of training. But if it was clear that the attraction lay in the boy's outward beauty, he banned the connection as an abomination; and thus he caused mentors to abstain from boys no less than parents abstain from sexual intercourse
with their children and brothers and sisters with each other. (Lacedaemonian Constitution, II. 13.)

Much has been made by the Hellene-hating homophiles about Zeus's "abduction" of the boy Ganymede to be his cupbearer on Mount Olympus. Missing the point completely, they invariably portray the abduction as "the indecency of Zeus" (ék Diós archómestha). Keeping in mind that Zeus is without a doubt the most heterosexual of gods, the abduction only makes sense when, as Xenophon explains,

[I]n the case of Ganymede, it was not his person but his spiritual character that influenced Zeus to carry him up to Olympus. ... [as in] Homer [who] pictures us Achilles looking upon Patroclus not as the object of his passion but as a comrade, and in this spirit signally avenging his death. So we have songs telling also how Orestes, Pylades, Theseus, Peirithous, and many other illustrious demi-gods wrought glorious deeds of valor side by side, not because they shared a common bed but because of mutual admiration and respect.
(Symposium, VIII. 30 - 32.)

[B]The Greco Report

Wednesday, August 22nd, 2007, 12:57 PM
[...]Georgiades manages, in just over 200 easy-to-read and well-documented pages, to cite a multitude of ancient sources which shed the light of truth upon the question of just how homosexuals and homosexuality were regarded in the Hellas of the 9th to the 4th century B.C. His thesis is simple: "Of course homosexuality existed in Greece, just as it has existed, and will continue to exist, everywhere and at all times in human history. However, while it did exist, it was never legally sanctioned, thought to be a cultural norm, or engaged in without risk of serious punishment, including exile and death."[...]
Read the entire review here. (http://www.grecoreport.com/debunking_the_myth_of_homosexuality_in_a ncient_greece.htm)

I had always been taught that the ancient Greek philosophers embraced homosexuality. This book shows how the modern leftist academia and politicians have misinterpreted and misused the ancient Greek writings to further their cause. Unfortunately the book is only available in Greek. However here are some more pages from the same site that treat the subject in-depth.

http://www.grecoreport.com/citations_pertaining_to_homosexuality.ht m

Thursday, October 11th, 2007, 11:25 AM
The above website, www.grecoreport.com, does not seem to exist any more. Here are text files of the referenced pages.

Thursday, October 11th, 2007, 12:29 PM
Here is an interesting YouTube video on this subject.


Thursday, October 11th, 2007, 03:09 PM
The definitive study was by a cambridge classicist named Dover, titled Greek Homosexuality, it came out in the 1980s. He argued that homosexuality was accepted on very particular terms and not others, within some social contexts but not others.

Thursday, October 11th, 2007, 03:39 PM
TBH, does it really matter whether some ancient Greek men liked to shag other ancient Greek men? :rolleyes: At this point it is a historical curiosity, and no more. I am aware that some liberals like blowing this out of proportion, but to me it is a nonissue.

Thursday, October 11th, 2007, 04:35 PM
Kenneth Dover's study was the basis for Foucault's writings. Dover was, incidentally, heterosexual. His nuanced analysis was intended as a challenge to those who claimed that ancient Greece was a gay paradise as much to those who tried to pretend that homosexuality did not really exist then.

A lot of the popular association of Greece with homosexuality was the result of nineteenth-century scholars using metaphors and images from ancient Greek mythology to build a vocabulary with which to speak about homosexuality before psychology became an influential science.

Tuesday, October 26th, 2010, 12:36 AM

Monday, October 17th, 2011, 07:20 PM
Kenneth Dover's study was the basis for Foucault's writings. Dover was, incidentally, heterosexual. His nuanced analysis was intended as a challenge to those who claimed that ancient Greece was a gay paradise as much to those who tried to pretend that homosexuality did not really exist then.
....Which nobody actually does. Hence it's kind of a straw man argument.

Gay activists have pretended the Homosexuality of quite a number of historic figures - mostly without any probative base for it. Given that agenda there is some reason for suspicion.

Monday, October 17th, 2011, 07:42 PM
Homosexuality in Ancient Greece had precious little to do with the "gayness" of the modern age. To be sure, there was likely elements of homosexuality in Sparta, that can't be denied. Many Spartans were probably bisexuals, who had gay bonds to other men in the army but married women later on. But yes, most of what we perceive as "homosexuality" today was probably a combination of the Greek artistic depictions of naked male bodies, and their well-documented sense of comradeship between male warriors.

Homoeroticism is perhaps a better word than homosexuality, since the latter implies a romantic attraction to men. The Greek classical cultures liked to appreciate the athletic male body as an ideal of beauty (this sex symbol portrayal was also done with women). It was this appreciation of naked beauty that the Third Reich tried to convey in their statues. It's entirely unrelated to the modern-day effeminate "queer culture".