On this day in the year of our Lord 1649, His Majesty, Charles I, King of England, Scotland and Ireland was murdered, His Majesty's last words before his execution were, "I go from a corruptible to an incorruptible Crown, where no disturbance can be."
As is usual, this murder of a rightful king led to much evil in these isles, much suffering and darkness before the restoration of Charles II, the son and heir of the murdered king!
God save the King!
I like that word.
I like the certainty behind it, the sureness, the confidence it implies. There was a time when we actually were proud of ourselves, certain of our faith and culture. Certain that It was true, certain that is was a shining example to the world.
What happened?
Its hard to know exactly what happened, because so much has happened, but the revolutions of the eighteenth century obviously left their scars and planted the seeds for the evil to come.
Nationalism was another of the viral contagions from the French Revolution that spread over Europe, it destroyed the Holy Roman Empire, it was used by atheist utopians to unify Italy and dispose the rightful Kings, Dukes and old republics of that peninsula as well as strip the Patrimony of St Peter from the Popes.
Nationalism led to pointless hatreds between people who should be the firmest of friends, the Hungarians, the Poles, The Germans, the Irish, The Catalans were all infected by this virus, this highest of lies!
And nationalism led directly to that most foolish of wars, the Great War!
The world was in a bad state in 1914 anyway, what with France a republic, poisoned with laicite and Portugal having recently overthrown their King. Then looking to the east, China had become a republic in 1911 leaving a vacuum that would not be filled until 1949. Ireland was on the verge of a bitter civil war, Italy, that plastic Kingdom was still trying to keep the Neapolitans and Sicilians down, The Balkans was a ferment of racialism, ethnic and sectarian enmity and all over the world ill educated but zealous ideologues stirred trouble, Communists, Anarchists, Republicans, Nationalists, Zionists and atheists!
If the economy had continued to grow, if peace had continued to reign, if the rightful kings and emperors of the world had continued to rule, prosperity would have diffused most of these passions.
Yet despite these problems, Christendom still existed, there was still a confidence in who we were, faith, history, monarchy and culture were real to people back then, and they believed that Christendom was a light to a dark world!
It’s not easy to maintain that confidence after thirty million battle dead, forty million dead after a pandemic, the collapse of three empires, mass starvation, the use of poison gas, the desecration of churches and monasteries, the rape of nuns, the murder of an imperial family, genocide, ethnic cleansing, the pulling apart of ancient nations and a series of unlawful coup d’etats. This is bound to affect the morale of any civilisation; I suppose we should only be thankful that it failed to destroy us completely!
In July and August 1914 the military High Commands of Austria, Germany and Russia instigated what can only be called coup d’etats against the wishes and desires of their rightful sovereigns!
Czar Nicholas and Kaiser Wilhelm did not want war, and worked for peace in the weeks that followed the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Kaiser Franz Josef was an elderly and broken man, easily led by his conniving ministers and generals. Together the generals of Austria and Germany sealed the fates of their sovereigns and empires and decided to go to war!
The Russian generals too, decided for war, they were tired of Nicholas’ prevarication, his fear of war and its consequences, one of his generals stated after receiving the go ahead for general mobilisation, that he disconnected his phone to stop the Czar from rescinding his order as he had done many times in the past! This is treason, and the Russian generals, as eager for blood and death as their Austrian and German peers committed treason, for them war and the mirage of glory was more important then their sovereign Lord!
Wilhelm was stunned when he rushed back to Berlin after the Russians mobilised, to find that he had been effectively sidelined in the decision to go to war, he was presented with a fait acompli, like their Russian peers, his generals did not trust the Kaiser, as he too feared the consequences of war.
1914 marked the triumph of nationalism and militarism and ‘the future’, over the ‘forces of conservatism’, as Tony Blair so eloquently put it! It marked the end of the power of the aristocrats, kings and emperors and their replacement with bureaucrats, generals and politicians. This was the true significance of those fateful weeks!
There was nothing conservative about that war, nothing right, nothing moral, nothing noble or glorious, it was a bloody mistake, or maybe not, perhaps that is exactly how the ‘modern world’ needed to be birthed? In 1914, the state, whether the Russian state, the German state, the British state, the Italian, French or American States were small, mostly harmless things, one did not need a passport or any identification to travel the world in those days, one did not need the states approval to invest ones money abroad, or to take that money on holiday, one did not need the governments permission to keep ones pub open after ten in the evening, one did not need to register a gun or pay very much in tax, one did not need to be numbered, licenced, authorised or stamped by the government, AJP Taylor wrote that ‘an Englishman could live his whole life and the government would be unaware of his existence.
By 1918 all this had changed and changed completely. War had been the excuse to bring in passports, so now they would know when and where one had gone, War was the excuse to steal property, in the form of railways and the coal mines, condemning them to their slow decline. War was the excuse for more and ever higher taxes, taking more and more of a mans wage, War was the excuse for the first ID cards, the dream of many a totalitarian and pushy bureaucrat, War was the excuse to close pubs and dance halls after 10 pm, War was the excuse to change time zones, War was the excuse to use poison gas, chemicals and billions of shells to kill as many as the enemy as possible, War was the excuse to cast aside decency and civility to achieve ‘victory’.
None of the things mentioned above were rescinded after the war, some are still in force to this day, the barbarity of total war degraded all of us, it opened the gates of hell and was the template for future wars and the conduct of instigators of Babi Yar and Mai Lai.
Worst of all Christendom died in the trenches of the Great War, the fury of that barbaric war, along with all the chaos, bloodshed and misery that followed knocked many peoples faith, for some it convinced them there was no God, for the professional atheist it was an opening, they condemned the old order, the one that had been overthrown as the instigator of this viciousness!
The anarchists, communists, atheists and other trouble makers seized the opportunities provided by the war to end completely the old order of the world, the did this at Versailles and condemned us to an other war twenty years later which would finish off any semblance of the overthrown order.
I love to explore Europe, seeing the great cities, the great centres of our culture, but it also saddens me, as I look upon mere buildings, the treasures of Europe and experience the place, all the time I know what happened, this suicide, this murder of us took place among all this beauty and achievement by fools, by greedy men who thought nothing of tradition or faith or morals!
Christendom still lingers in some places, the odd village, some faded cities far from the centres of power, and the memory of the old order also lingers in places, the cathedrals, palaces and older parts of cities that were fortunate enough not to be flattened in the next war. Mostly it lingers in the hearts of the faithful, who in spite of the scorn and derision continue with their quiet but resolute faith in God.
Christendom survives, but only now in a spiritual sense!
We now live in a ‘modern’ world, one committed to ‘progress’ and egalitarianism; truly, the world has been remade in the image of the Jacobins!
Resource
As we continue our civilisational slide toward depravity and enslavement, it seems urgent that I harp on about how we could avoid this fate, and perhaps even succeed in reestablishing our belief in ourselves and our culture!
Theodore Dalrymple says "Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. Ones standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to."
Wikipedia states:
'The word comes from the Middle Irish word tóraidhe, modern Irish tóraí — outlaw, robber, from the Irish word tóir, meaning 'pursuit', since outlaws were "pursued men"
Originally the word 'Tory' was a term of insult, as was the word 'Whig', as is often the case, the insult was adopted by those it was supposed to insult and worn as a badge of pride.
Just to impress this point on you, I am not a member of the British Conservative Party, I do not support them nor any other party, I describe myself as a Tory in the old sense of the word!
I like the original meaning of the word, it seems apt to me, as I feel as if I'm an outlaw or a pursued man with the beliefs I hold. I despise democracy and all the feel good propaganda that goes with it, I despise those politicians who seem such little men compared with those from even a century ago, I despise their smallness, their ignorance and their pandering to the basest instincts.
I despise their attitude toward our culture, history and faith, they obviously hold them in contempt, as they banish Christianity from the school rooms, or even worse, make a mockery of it. They hold homosexuality and those who practice it in the sort of regard we used to hold the saints!
Women are led to believe that the highest goal in life is to get a job, and that there is nothing wrong with acting like a slut, because hey, men have been doing it for so long, why can't we?
Then they wonder why they can't get married, and before they know it, they are 35 years old, single, overweight and childless!
Our modern world is so full of lies, and we believe those lies, we live by these lies and as we see, people die by those lies!
The old truths of faith, family, honour, decency, loyalty, duty and sacrifice are now ridiculed, they are laughed at, as cynicism, selfishness, promiscuity, sloth and greed are elevated to new heights, this is the new morality.
These lies promise to liberate us, indeed, we are assailed every day by advertisements, songs, political propaganda and other trash telling us to 'just do it', to ignore morality and do 'what feels good to us', to dismiss honour and decency and duty for a one night stand.
How pathetic is our rotten culture? How sad are those who live by this new morality?
I would rather be an outlaw, a bandit a Tory!!
Someone sent me the article bellow, it is a bit long, but is definitly worth a read.
I appologise in advance if this is belong's to anyone, there was no links or names attached!
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 upontheir 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 tobe 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 themore profound thinkers, philosophers, and socialists 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 ofpower away from spiritual man after the hard work ofnation 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, andRobert 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 thereof 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 honour, 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 ordisciplining a child become subject to censure, andthe 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.I
n the case of the male, it is not the acquisition of honour, 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. Honour, 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 mangains more and more power, the opposing ideology ofspiritual 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 andChristianity, 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 theway 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 churchleaders -- 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.
A few words about the severe damage beingcaused 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 oftheir 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 bethe 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 firstamendment 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 withblood, pain, and sacrifice -- of free speech.
During Mardi Gras in Seattle -- on so-called "FatTuesday" 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 SeattlePost-Intelligencer, described how White women were being forcibly held down by gangs of Blacks while effete White photographers took the pictures. "[T]hereare about 20 Black... hands on her body," wrote theWhite reporter about one typical incident, without feeling the least bit of shame for not acting to help the victim.
On the evening of December 14th of 2000, two Blackbrothers, 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, burglarised 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 analyse 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 theWestern 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. (Itshould be noted that Greece and the Greek islands geta 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 ablue-blooded heiress is told. She was the beautiful and intelligent daughter of a diplomat and one-timeU.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 downwith the dreadlocked Blacks known as Rastafarians: members of a White-hating, drug-using, Black sect. Ina 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 Blacksons 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] thanWhite men." 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 oftheir 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 (KINay thos), which means "causer of shame" in both modern and ancient Greek (aftós/aftí poú eíinai ó kinón tínAidó). 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-savingfirst-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 ofSparta 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 anaesthetical 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 "aestheticalascent" 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 ofGod 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 (sometimestitled, 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 mankind 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 ofthe 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 actua lhomosexual practices (in the modern sense of what itmeans 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 ofGreek vase paintings having the depiction of Erastisand 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 ofthe total -- something like 30 out of tens of thousands (cf A. Georgiades, Debunking the Myth ofHomosexuality in Ancient Greece. 2002. p. 126.), that one is perfectly justified in wondering just what the real purpose is that lies behind the extrapolation ofthis minute percentage into the absurd charge that they represent the norm. Moreover, a percentage ofthese 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 notethat 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 forbadeit 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 anyway. 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 note worthythat 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 'comeon' 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 speakingof Spartan men, we mustn't forget that it was Menelaus, the Spartan, who waged war upon the Trojansin 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 homosexua lbehavior, 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 forAlexander, 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 followingreply: "Why you vilest of men, what deed of mine have you witnessed in the past that would make you think Iwould 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 "Wrathof 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 itis despicable and unhistorical.
As far as the classical age is concerned, a reading ofAristophanes' great comedies (as just one source amongmany) 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 ownbeds again. If the ancient Greeks were "a bunch offairies," 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 aroundwith "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% ofGreek 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, andvase paintings (something like 99%), show males and females when the subject is erotic love. By contrast, America went from Christian Puritanism to "Gay andLesbian 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 theTrojan 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), andTheseus (who was the first man to abduct Helen of Troywhen she was a girl); to such heroes as the Argonauts:men like Jason, Orpheus, and Heracles; all of whomwere 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 asample: In his Laws he states quite categorically that"... male does not touch male for this purpose, sinceit 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 dueto 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 inexorablyto the utter enslavement of, first, the individuals who practice it, and second, the society in which itis 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 ofa 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 beallowed 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 forthe 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,f eminized, 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.
Yes, there are such creatures as Tories that happen to be Irish! I am attempting to keep a diary, a record of my thoughts and life. I wish to put across an alternative view, an unpopular view, a despised view of this world.
Tories are by nature deeply suspicious of romanticism, sceptical of 'progress', and wary of those who seem so determined to overturn everything they see around them, from morality to the family, from faith in God to the sanctity of property!
I am Irish, there are not many Irishmen who describe themselves as Tories, in fact it would be considered by many to be treason to describe oneself as an Irish Tory, an oxymoron, an impossibility, or at the very least unlikely!
I am not a slavish anglophile, although there are many things to admire in that nation, I am not a believer in the protestant supremacy or even of the Union of 1801.
I do, however, reject the modern and republican mythology of the 'Irish Republic' or 'Eire' and all the violence and bloodshed and brutality associated with it.
I am a Tory by nature, by temperament and by conviction. Ideology is dangerous, purity and demand for it by anyone, must in all ages be suspect, and must be rejected. Toryism is mostly about just wanting to be left alone, to be free of brutal, thieving and lying politicians, those same people who demand 'change' and 'reform', these agents of the devil. We must reject them, their lies and evil ambitions.
We must be Tories!
