http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2004b/Lynch121204mrAlexander.htm

Movie Review: 'Alexander'

by T.C. Lynch

12 December 2004

Oliver Stone's "Alexander" is great. It isn't perfect, but neither was Alexander. It is definitely worth seeing. But there is a subtle and sinister thread of anti-White propaganda running through the movie, and I would not recommend it to anyone without warning him first.

There are many reasons why I enjoyed "Alexander." Chief among them is Alexander himself. Alexander the Great was surely one of the most gifted men in history. His father, Philip II, was the king of Macedon and the conqueror of Greece. Alexander was handsome and athletic. He was highly intelligent and received a remarkable education (Aristotle was one of his tutors). As a genius of military and political strategy, he was almost without rival. He was also an eloquent speaker and a charismatic leader of men. He was courageous, sharing the hardships of his soldiers and leading them into battle. He was capable of great acts of magnanimity to his enemies and generosity to his friends. He became the richest man the world had ever seen -- and gave most of it away. He was a patron of art, science, and exploration, a city founder and an empire builder, a political visionary. He changed the course of history, for good and ill, in countless ways. His principal effect was to shift the dynamic center of our civilization from the Near East to Europe proper, namely to Greece. Alexander westernized "Western" civilization.

But Alexander was also a tyrant, a sacker and destroyer of cities and empires; he killed, mutilated, and enslaved countless people; he was capable of astonishing acts of cruelty and folly; he was corrupted by his power, and by his lust for more power, which grew as his power grew. He began his career as a Greek-style constitutional monarch who made decisions with the counsel of his peers, and he ended his life an oriental despot surrounded by flatterers and sneaks, a despot who brooked no disagreement and executed men on suspicions and whims. He began life as a devotee of the Greek philosophy of moderation -- the Greeks always mixed water with their wine, even during drinking parties. He ended his life as a debilitated alcoholic who fell mortally ill after downing a krater of unmixed wine at the end of a long drinking party. He was also grossly irresponsible. Even when it was apparent he was dying, he refused to name a successor. This led to forty years of civil war that destroyed his empire. His mother, his wife Roxane, and his only son were among the slain. He was only thirty-two when he died. Few men mourned his passing. Many celebrated it. Most were simply relieved.

He wasn't Alexander the Good. But he was Great, because in both good and evil he was larger than life. As the passage of time put a safe distance between Alexander and the rest of us, the moralistic denunciation of his crimes began to look small-minded. Alexander seemed less a failed human being and more a demigod or a force of nature, both terrifying and thrilling. His life was a Greek tragedy every bit as compelling as the stories of Hercules and Jason and Oedipus. With this kind of material, it would be hard to make a bad movie about Alexander.

The script was also well-written, well-researched, and surprisingly scrupulous in its concern for historical accuracy. Yes, countless small liberties were taken in bringing Alexander's life to the screen, but the movie is faithful to the spirit of what happened, and that is what counts. For instance, a line spoken by the Indian king Porus is given to a daughter of Darius III, but it provides an occasion to illustrate Alexander's magnanimity just the same. (Other historical liberties were taken for propaganda purposes, which I will detail below.)
There were a few historical inaccuracies: the lighthouse of Alexandria was shown in the background as Ptolemy I dictated his memoirs, even though it was not built until the reign of his successor Ptolemy II. When Alexander enters Babylon, we see the great Ziggurat of the temple of Marduk, although it had been demolished in 482 BC to punish the Babylonians for a rebellion. When Alexander enters India, we see stone Buddhist stupas, even though the Indians did not build and sculpt in stone until after they came in contact with Hellenistic civilization as a result of Alexander's invasion. In the bedroom of Alexander's mother, there is a statue of a goat standing on its hind legs. This is a reproduction of an artifact found in the last century by Sir Leonard Woolley in a royal tomb at Ur, dated circa 2600-2400 BC. It is completely out of place in fourth century BC Macedonia.

I do have a quarrel with the narration. It seemed to meander and contain irrelevancies, and it could have done more to frame and link the scenes of the movie and make them more intelligible.

The acting is excellent, particularly Colin Farrell as Alexander and Angelina Jolie as his mother Olympias. Farrell is a handsome and virile Irishman who has been groomed for stardom in a number of movies in recent years, but he has never really achieved leading-man status until now. I had never taken Angelina Jolie seriously as an actress before, but she was really quite believable as Alexander's ruthless and cunning and slightly mad mother. (Perhaps the poor woman can now afford to undo the botched plastic surgery that disfigured her lovely face with grotesquely large Negroid lips.)

Val Kilmer played Alexander's father, Philip II. The dreamy, androgynous Jared Leto was cast as Alexander's lover Hephaestion. Anthony Hopkins played an aged Ptolemy, one of Alexander's generals, who, after Alexander's death, became ruler of Egypt. He is the narrator of the film.

Racially, the cast is remarkably Nordic. This, of course, is historically accurate, although mere historical accuracy has never counted for much in the eyes of Hollywood. The Greek ruling class of the classical age was Nordic, even though the aboriginal population of Greece whom they ruled was a darker, Mediterranean race, among them the descendants of the remarkably cultured and beautiful Minoans. The Macedonians to the North were, if anything, even more Nordic than the Greeks because they had fewer opportunities to mix with Mediterranean stock. Alexander was a blonde, and was portrayed as such. (Mainstream reviewers have been harping on Farrell's "bad dye-job," but there was nothing bad about it, unless they were simply objecting to the fact that it was blonde.) There were also many luminous blue eyes among the cast. Interestingly, blue eyes were highlighted in the hand-tinted black and white photos used in print ads. Clearly it was a priority for Nordics to be able to identify with Alexander and his countrymen.

There is, however, one major problem with the casting. Alexander's first wife Roxane was the daughter of a nobleman named Oxyartes in what is now Afghanistan. She was said to have been one of the most beautiful women in the Persian Empire, second only to the wife of Darius III, the Emperor whom Alexander defeated. She was undoubtedly an Aryan like Alexander himself. But Oliver Stone had her portrayed by Rosario Dawson, an obvious mulatto. Later in the movie, when Alexander shares his vision of the empire he is creating, and he explicitly says that it is a place where "the races will mix," meaning miscegenation, not trade and tourism.

Alexander did marry Roxane and two Persian princesses. This was an unpopular decision because the Macedonians understandably wished him to take a Macedonian bride. Alexander also ordered his Macedonian officers to marry the daughters of Persian noblemen, a move that was intensely resented. (Most of these marriages were repudiated after Alexander's death.) Alexander also offered dowries to the Persian concubines of his soldiers and Greek educations to their illegitimate children to encourage the men to marry them. This was a humane and popular gesture.

Alexander realized that he could not rule the Persian Empire without the recognition and cooperation of the Persian aristocracy that had conquered it and ruled it for two hundred years. Thus he hoped to cement his conquests through marriage.

But this was not a policy of racial miscegenation, for the simple reason that the Persians were Aryans too. The name Iran, like Ireland, is derived from Aryan. Today's Persians, like today's Greeks and Macedonians, are heavily mixed with Semitic stocks, but one still finds people with genuinely Aryan, even Nordic, features among them. (See Savitri Devi's remarks on "Alexander the Great and the Mixing of Races." http://library.flawlesslogic.com/alexander.htm)

[contd next post]

Oliver Stone's directing is stunning throughout. This is a hard thing for me to admit. I had hated Stone since walking out of "Platoon" in 1986. I had never seen a Stone movie before "Platoon," and I boycotted every one after it. I disliked him because he was a manipulative sixties Leftist spouting the predictable nonsense about corporations, Wall Street, the Vietnam War, the Military-Industrial Complex, J.F.K., M.L.K., Negroes, etc., not because he was a Jew pushing an anti-White agenda.

Since then, my views have mellowed about the sixties counter-culture, and I can go a long way with Leftist analyses of economics and US foreign policy until I part ways with them on the issues of race and the Jews. I have also become more objective in my reactions to filmmakers, meaning that I can enjoy a well-made film even though it has disagreeable elements.

Thus, around two years ago, I let a friend persuade me to watch the DVD of Stone's "The Doors." I thought it was excellent and went on to watch other Stone films. I was most impressed with "J.F.K." and "Any Given Sunday." I had to admit that Stone is a highly talented director, even though all of his films contain anti-White propaganda to one degree or another. "Alexander" is one of Stone's best films. ("The Doors" remains my favorite.)

Some favorite scenes: Philip showing Alexander crude depictions of the sufferings of Hercules, Jason, Oedipus, and Prometheus -- tragic representations of the downfall of heroes and the jealousy of the gods; the battle of Gaugamela in 331 BC where Alexander crushed a vastly larger Persian force and drove Darius III from the field, leaving Alexander the master of Mesopotamia; Alexander's dazzling triumphal entry into Babylon; Alexander's battle with the Indian king Porus near the river Jhelum in 326 BC (the best scene of the film, intense and emotionally shattering; the war elephants were terrifying); Alexander's last fateful drinking party: when he looks into the krater, he sees his mother's face with snakes in her hair, like Medusa -- a brilliant allusion to the tradition that Alexander was poisoned, perhaps by strychnine, delivered in unmixed wine; when Alexander downs the wine, his face disappears behind the krater and it looks as if the head of the lion's skin he wore is drinking in his place -- brilliantly depicting how Alexander was consumed by his own superhuman appetites.

Oliver Stone's handling of war in "Alexander" is worth pondering. Stone made three films about the Vietnam War and its aftermath -- "Platoon," "Born on the Fourth of July," and "Heaven and Earth" -- and Vietnam also hangs in the background of "J.F.K." and "Nixon." Stone was very much opposed to the Vietnam War. He masterfully depicted its brutality, horror, and injustice, and he juxtaposed the ideological rationale for the war with the realities that belied it. It would be natural to conclude that Stone is against war as such. But in "Alexander," Stone seems to have found a war he likes. He certainly does not dwell on the horrors of Alexander's wars as he did on Vietnam.
Nor does Stone probe behind Alexander's rationale for war. Alexander makes speeches about defending Greek "freedom." The Persians had conquered the Greek city states in what is now Turkey, and they tried but failed to add Greece proper to their empire. But Alexander was not one to talk. His own father Philip had conquered Greece, accomplishing what Alexander had blamed the Persians for attempting, and Alexander himself savagely quashed the Greek rebellions that followed his father's assassination.

As for the Greek city states conquered by the Persians: they had grown far richer and more cultured than the "free" states of Greece proper, for the Persians did not permit the ceaseless, destructive, and dysgenic wars that the Greeks fought amongst themselves.

In any case, Alexander "freed" the Greeks under Persian rule rather quickly (by adding them to his empire), thus his campaigns into Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, and beyond were all about winning an empire, not spreading freedom.

Alexander also accused the Persians of assassinating his father. He almost certainly did not believe it, but the lie served a dual purpose: to justify war and to deflect suspicion from the most likely culprit, his own mother.

Stone offers another rationale for war: it is a civilizing mission. The "Asiatics" (meaning the Caucasian peoples of the Middle East, not the Mongoloid peoples of the Far East) are said to be "barbarous" and "cruel," which apparently means that the more-civilized Greeks and Macedonians need not respect their sovereignty, so long as they promise to bring the blessings of Hellenic civilization at the point of as sword. Of course the Greeks and Macedonians really thought this way, but given Stone's views of the Vietnam War -- for which the same rationales could be given -- it is surprising that he includes these sentiments without comment, critique, or the least hint of irony.
Later, when the Persians have been conquered and his troops want to go home, Alexander castigates them for their xenophobia and seeks to merge them with the conquered Persians. Instead of making the Persians more Hellenic, Alexander's armies must now become more Persian. But the result is the same: whether packaged as spreading civilization or appreciating "diversity," the distinct identities of peoples is erased.

The wars in "Alexander" invite, of course, comparisons with the United States' recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Stone chose to represent only the part of Alexander's campaigns that took place in what is now present-day countries of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, even though Alexander also fought battles in present-day Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Egypt. Stone even dresses Persian soldiers in Arab headscarves, although in reality their costumes were quite different, and the actor playing Darius III was cast and costumed to remind us of Osama Bin Laden.

This is explains why Stone took pains that the Aryan majority in the US should be able to identify with Alexander and his Macedonians. The purpose of the movie is to manipulate Aryans to be more willing to kill Iraqis, Iranians, and Afghans. What is Stone's motive? He is a Jew, and Jewish policy is to dupe Americans into squandering their blood and treasure to increase the wealth, power, and security of Israel. This is how Oliver Stone has finally found a war that he likes.

Stone promotes miscegenation because, although it may be in the short term interest of Jews to manipulate White racial consciousness to dupe us into killing their enemies in the Middle East, it is in the long term interests of Jews that Aryans cease to exist, that we be dumbed down by breeding with inferior races. And what better way to encourage this than to portray a handsome White alpha male marrying a mulatto?

Stone's message to a young White man is: go to the far ends of the Earth to kill the enemies of the Jews, then marry a non-White and return home to sire a litter of mongrels and provide a base for a chain immigration scheme. (The Arab world is crawling with mulattos, by the way, because Arabs have been importing African slaves for more than a thousand years.)

The US military is already responsible for encouraging a huge amount of miscegenation, and what is worse, the miscegenators tend in other ways to be conservative-minded, honorable, and masculine men. But the most important thing to conserve is our race, and through miscegenation their loyalties and their genes are lost to us forever. This is a trend that Jews would like to encourage.

"Alexander" is, however, bombing at the box office. It has gotten a lot of bad reviews, most of which I think are unjust. But it is "word of mouth," not the reviews, that is causing the film to fail. And by far the biggest complaint is about Stone's frank portrayal of Alexander's bisexuality. This does not sit well with a lot of viewers. I saw "Alexander" in San Francisco, which culturally speaking is surely the "gayest" city in the world, and I was surprised at the audible and visible discomfort in the audience. Even there.

I found this discomfort surprising, because Stone's portrayal of Alexander's relationships with men is really rather tame. He puts his arm around the shoulders of Hephaestion and says that he loves him, and be plants a kiss on Bagoas, a Persian eunuch from the harem of Darius. (Alexander also kept Darius's harem of 365 beautiful women, one for each day -- or night -- of the year. Maybe Bagoas was for leap years.) Personally, I was more disturbed by the explicit heterosexual intercourse simulated by Farrell and the mulatto Dawson. At least homosexual intercourse does not produce mongrels.
Depicting Alexander's bisexuality was clearly a blunder. Why did Stone do it? Historical accuracy is no explanation, because, as we have seen, Stone was willing to cast a mulatto as Roxane to promote miscegenation.

Stone's aim was clearly to promote the contemporary homosexual lifestyle and agenda. Homosexual organizations and advocates also hoped their cause would benefit from "Alexander." What better way to promote homosexuality than to portray one of the manliest men in history making eyes at handsome guys?

[contd]

But Alexander was not a homosexual in the contemporary sense. He had homosexual desires, yes. He had homosexual relationships, yes. But he did not adopt an exclusively homosexual "lifestyle." Instead, Alexander practiced the sort of bisexuality that was common among the warrior aristocracies of most ancient Aryan peoples. Alexander married three women, sired an heir, enjoyed the pleasures of the harem -- and also carried on affairs with men on the side. The ancients frowned upon men who adopted exclusively homosexual lifestyles, and there is every reason to think Alexander shared that attitude.
Alexander's same-sex relationships were unusual in only one respect. The standard practice was for a young man of seventeen or eighteen to take up with an older man, who was supposed to be a teacher and authority figure. Hephaestion, however, was Alexander's age. But as the heir-apparent to the Macedonian throne and then as a young king, Alexander could not have submitted to the authority of an older man.

By all accounts, Stone is no homosexual. So why does he promote homosexuality? Because he is a Jew. Judaism, of course, is the most anti-homosexual religion in existence, and these attitudes survive among secular Jews. And, in spite of the fact that the Christian clergy has always been filled with homosexuals, Christian teachings have followed the Jewish lead. Deep in his heart, Oliver Stone probably finds homosexuality revolting.
But Jews do not promote homosexuality in White societies because they think it is good. They promote it because they think it is bad. Jews promote homosexuality for the same reason they promote miscegenation, abortion, feminism, and materialism: to break down White families and communities, to decrease the White population, to drive us further and further towards extinction.

If Stone had contented himself with making two propaganda points -- promoting miscegenation and war against Israel's enemies in the Middle East -- "Alexander" might have been a hit and Stone might have succeeded. But Stone just had to push the homosexual agenda as well and was thus undone by another typically Jewish trait: always grasping for more, he ends up with nothing in the end. It is ironic that Stone was stopped by the grip of his own tribe's sexual taboos on the Aryan mind.

I suppose that we Whites should be thankful any time Jewish efforts to poison our minds and culture self-destruct. But personally I am tired of counting on the Jews to defeat themselves.

I have said this before. Linder and his writers(T.C. Lynch in particular) should be headlining mainstream news media. This review might make a good addition to AA tabloid second addition.

But Alexander was not a homosexual in the contemporary sense. He had homosexual desires, yes. He had homosexual relationships, yes. But he did not adopt an exclusively homosexual "lifestyle."
Perhaps Lynch can verify these snide observations ? There are no references to Alexander's homosexuality in Plutarch's Lives.

Alexander's same-sex relationships were unusual in only one respect. The standard practice was for a young man of seventeen or eighteen to take up with an older man, who was supposed to be a teacher and authority figure.Wrong again

"eromenos" from "eromai" = to ask, enquire
And "erastes" from "erao"/ "eraomai" = to be in love with, without sexual reference to love warmly/admire
it also gives us "eromene" = the beloved one

Modern Hellinic
"erotisi" =question
"eroto"= to ask

Here is the text mentioned in my previous post, that proves that homosexuality was NO kind of norm, nor was it accepted in ancient Hellas (even though fags did exist),

From Aeschines, Against Timarchus. The law that was called (grafí etairisios)

“If any Athenian,” he says, “shall have prostituted his person, he shall not be permitted to become one of the nine archons,” because, no doubt, that official wears the wreath; “nor to discharge the office of priest,” as being not even clean of body; “nor shall he act as an advocate for the state,” he says, “nor shall ever hold any office whatsoever, at home or abroad,whether filled by lot or by election; nor shall he be a herald or an ambassador”

(Aeschines, Against Timarchus 1.19)

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=170720&page=3&pp=10

The elder Cato despised the Greeks. Crawford in The Roman Republic says that the Romans thought homosexuality a Greek and unmanly custom, though it caught on there as the empire became increasingly Hellenised (beginning contentiously with the Scipii c.200BC vis-a-vis the aforementioned Cato).
Burckhardt mentions the bisexuality of the Greeks, and writes that only tyrants persecuted homosexuals because of the belief that conspiracies arose in these circles.
Thucydides, Herodotus, and Plutarch all mention 'male lovers' in their works (eg., life of Sulla, and the assassination of Hipparchus.) Aristophanes gives some of his characters very bawdy and patently gay remarks, but his 'Lysistrata' is about women holding the men to ransom through the withholding of sex.

To my knowledge Celts, Germans, and other Aryans did not practice homosexuality.

There is nothing snide or disapproving about my comments at all.

I have not read Plutarch in years, and I don't have the time to re-read him, so I'll concede the point—although I do think he mentioned Bagoas. But there are many other ancient sources on Alexander, and they do support my claims. The best recent biography of Alexander is Peter Green’s Alexander of Macedon. Green is a good classicist and a good writer. He cites all the ancient sources on Alexander, not just Plutarch.

As for Greek attitudes on homosexual desires and behavior and lifestyles: Where do I begin? Maybe the best place to begin is Dover’s book Greek Homosexuality, which surveys the literary and archaeological evidence and contains many pictures of ancient Greek pornography, which was pretty explict. You might read Plato’s Symposium and Phaedrus, or the plays of Aristophanes (which are quite explicit on this matter—if the translations have not been Bowdlerized; it is best to get anonymous translations or really recent ones to avoid this problem).

As for the quote you cite from Aeschines, I would like to know the context. On the surface, it refers to prostitution, doesn’t it?

I have not read Plutarch in years, and I don't have the time to re-read him, so I'll concede the point—although I do think he mentioned Bagoas. But there are many other ancient sources on Alexander, and they do support my claims.You would do well to re-read Plutarch's account. A 'Bagoas' is mentioned, but he is hardly the degenerate that over-active-imaginations would have him be... But who's to say what sensitized readers can come up with if they really try ?

As for these "other sources", secondary literature doesn't count for much. Just about anyone with a non-Aryan agenda gets published these days.

Maybe the best place to begin is Dover’s book Greek Homosexuality, which surveys the literary and archaeological evidence and contains many pictures of ancient Greek pornography, which was pretty explict. You might read Plato’s Symposium and Phaedrus, or the plays of Aristophanes (which are quite explicit on this matter—if the translations have not been Bowdlerized; it is best to get anonymous translations or really recent ones to avoid this problem).In fact, pre-Counter Culture translations are better than "recent" ones for obvious reasons.

This homosexual theory started by a German psychologist, Karoly Maria Benkert in the late 19th century.

Well 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.
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," ( so basicaly he didn`t even exist, easy to understand if you`ve read anything about ancient Athens )

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 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

[b]This idiotic theory is based on the word eromenos, but what does it really mean ( modern Greek = lover) :In ancient Hellinic, eromenos from eromai = to ask, to enquire, well isn`t that the only way to obtain knoledge, by asking?

Now if some illeterate nobody has mixed up the meaning it had, to what it means now thats a whole different story.

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.
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

Should someone spend some time to read the ancients he will learn that Athens had the strictest laws pertaining to homosexuality of any democracy that has ever existed. 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.

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, please read any of the following 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.

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 dangerous. 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.

Greek vase painting has been a favorite source for the distorters of Greek culture and civilization. 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.
Don`t you find it interesting 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 represented ? In other words, just .01% of the total .

To cut a real long answer short I`ll tell you a tale written by AESOP not very well known :
ZEUS gave man all his vitues and his flaws through every hole in his body ,from his ears , mouth ,nostrils and eyes , he left last SHAME ( Aidos )and he tried to put SHAME (AIDOS) through the asshole.
SHAME reacted and finally they came to an agreement that if anything else would ever go in the ass after she (shame) did, she would leave that body immediately , thats why gays in ancient Greece were called "kinaidos" that means he who has no shame.

In conclusion, people please read ancient Hellinic texts they give you all the answers you need !!!

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=170720&page=2&pp=10


People who buy into the Greeks were gay myth are flying on autopilot.

Since Agis prefers primarily to quote from a debate on Stormfront, I recommend that interested readers check out the whole thread:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=170720&page=1&pp=10

Homosexuals is a Latin word,not a Greek one.No ancient Greek was gay(not Alexander or Achilles)Some Roman Emperors were(Caesar)

The rules were evidently different if Caesar can be called "gay".

He had a wife, children and a very high-profile mistress who also gave him a son. That's the kind of gay that don't make much difference to the gene pool, assuming he actually had time to play with the boys.

(Not making the case one way or the other, but a friend of mine is a Latin scholar who says Caesar was straight and his enemies just made up a lot of dirty stories about him. Be hard to prove any of it now.)


...

This movie was not as bad as I thought it would be, or as the critics said it was. If you can look past his wife being portrayed as black and a few other historical inaccuracies, it was actually pretty good.

To be honest I'm quite disappointed. You want to argue about homosexuality in Hellas but in the process of doing so, all of you prove my point of wanna-be historians/researchers.

I gave a translation for the word "eromenos" in a Sromfront and my posts were used by Agis (thanks, nice to know I’m getting results). What none of you noticed, was that the translation I give is wrong. The translation presented is correct but for the "eromenos" with "omikron" not "omega" as the one used in all ancient texts.
This topic is just another example of what I was saying about people with NO knowledge starting a theory that everyone has came to believe without any real research. (no offence to anyone) The fact that I intentionally presented the wrong word is proof of this argument .

A simple example :
At the 6th International Symposium on Ancient Macedonia in Thessaloniki, Greece, concluded that King Philip II of Macedonia was bisexual.

Now the interesting part:
During this "symposium" these alleged historians were comfronted by the well known (in Hellas that is) Hellin researcher Kyriakos Delopoulos.
What he managed to uncover is very interesting.

The two main speakers were Kate Modersen and Mandian (spelling) were the main speakers, both well respected historians and professors at New England University.
He argued with them on the topic, his arguments were based on the original texts, by original I mean in ancient Hellinic, not translated.
These wanna-be historians couldn't read a word in ancient Hellinic and of course had no idea on how to translate the text.
It was all over the Hellinic news how they were ridiculed and left, long before it even ended.
So, what historians are we talking about when they can't even read the original SOURCES and how credible can their opinion really be?


If we are to see the meaning of "eromenos" (as found in texts spelled with "omega") we find that once again has nothing to do with any kind of sexual intercourse :
Just one of many examples

Plato, Euthydemus 282b
“there is no disgrace, Cleinias, or reprobation in making this a reason for serving and being a slave to either one's lover or any man, and being ready to perform any service that is honorable in one's eagerness to become wise.”

All of the texts give a meaning of obtaining knowledge and virtue, none of them refer to anything sexual.


T.C. Lynch

I read in your post the arguments of Dover, Aristophanes and Aeschynes.

Dover. LOL!!!
The exact theory that both Dover and Reinsberg have introduced is that, during these alleged homosexual acts, actual penetration never did take place because the ancients believed that it was disgraceful.
So they introduced “thigh-rubbing” as intercourse. Even if this was right, NO penetration simply means NO homosexual act!!!
Simple proof of this are the vase painting found after the Persian defeat, where we find the Hellines coming up to the bent over Persian fully aroused. Clearly depicting domination. (this vase is included in his list)
So please tell me what kind of homo paradise was Hellas when we never did have any kind of penetration?

As for the rest of the artefacts he presented in his book.

In his book, K.J Dover presents a total of 600 vases.
What is very interesting is the fact that only 25-30 (I am really generous here) can be considered to depict something sexual. The rest of them 570!!! have NOTHING to do with the topic in question. Yet he manages to connect them with some actually ridiculous assumptions. example:
In artefact E373 the young man depicted has a tiny penis but a normal scrotum, in E368 his scrotum is enormous,
In another vase he mentions "the hoop and walking stick carry their own symbolism"

These arguments as anyone can plainly see, are RIDICULOUS!!!

Arisophanes:

Not sure what you consider to be evidence, from what I've read Aristophanes manages to ridicule homos in every occasion he mentions them. Even when talking about the God Dionysus in "Frogs". Aren't the words "lakkoproktos", "euruproktos" and "kunaidos", all used by Aristophanes to actually insult and ridicule homos?
Unless you conceder being called “hollow-assed”, “wide-assed” and “shameless” some kind of compliment.
If we are to “brake down” the word “kunaidos” , we find that it is nothing more than “he who “kinei thn aido” from “kineo”= ”to move,to meddle with things sacred” and “aidos” = “the personification of a conscience, of shame”.
It is well known that whoever provoked “Aidos” was always paid a visit from Nemesis.

Anyway, concerning Aristophanes, Euripides or any other comedy and drama creator, it is completely wrong and inappropriate to use theatre plays as historical sources.
A play is just a play, it servers the need of learning together with entertainment. The most accurate sources are the myths themselves. It is equivalent to being a historian of the 41st century and study history of our times bases upon comedy shows.

Aeschylus:
You said “On the surface, it refers to prostitution, doesn’t it?”

This again proves my argument of no true knowledge (no offence) if you had read the original text and not some wanna-be researcher’s translation you would have found that in the text mentioned he clearly states:

Against Timarchus 1.29

"in the third place, the lawgiver bans those who have been prostitutes or companions, for the man who has shamed his body is likely to sell the interests of the city too"

If it was all about prostitution as you imply why would he use the term “etairekos” when we know for a FACT that it means companion?
Obviously the words have different meanings. I’m sure any dictionary will support this.

How about this:

Against Timarchus 1.185

“a man chargeable with the most shameful practices, a creature with the body of a man defiled with the sins of a woman? In that case, who of you will punish a woman if he finds her in wrong doing? Or what man will not be regarded as lacking intelligence who is angry with her who errs by an impulse of nature, while he treats as adviser the man who in despite of nature has sinned against his own body? “

There is clearly no mention of prostitution, unless there is some hidden meaning I’m missing. He clearly speaks of an act against his nature, sins against his body. No mention of money here, just the FACT that Timarchus shamed his body and thus his nature. A man that puts meat up his ass. It really is simple.

And finally Against Timarchus 1.72

“if anyone hires any Athenian for this act, or if any one lets himself out for hire, he is liable to the most severe penalties, and the same penalties for both offences.”

This simply proves that even being the “active” member in such a relationship was punished.

So why start this whole fairy -tale? (emphasis on fairy)
The reason, of course, is simple. The Hellines have always been viewed as a model of civilisation. So what better way to justify their sick nature than by connecting it to the greatness of the Hellinic civilization and thus legitimise same-sex?

More proof to support this is the FACT that most if not all of these leading wanna-be "historians" of Hellinic sexuality, see: Michel Foucault, John Boswell, John Winkler and David Halperin were or are all HOMOS.

One last example of these wanna-be historians with a bias agenda.
Robert Graves. He was the first to give the translation "rejoicing in virility" for the name Ganymedes turning it into a argument used by homos.

Now, the interesting part:
If we read his bio we find that :
“Although confused about his sexuality as an adolescent and about his innocent crushes on boys”
Damn good source if you ask me.

Now the real meaning of the name Ganymedes as given by Xenophon:

Xenophon in his Symposium (also known as Banquet). 8.54-58

"to show you that not men only, but gods and heroes, set greater store by friendship of the soul than bodily enjoyment. Thus those fair women [55] whom Zeus, enamoured of their outward beauty, wedded, he permitted them to
remain mortal; but those heroes whose souls he held in admiration, these he
raised to immortality.
Of whom are Heracles and the Dioscuri, and there are others also named.
[56] As I maintain, it was not for his body's sake, but for his soul's, that Ganymede
[57] was translated to Olympus, as the story goes, by Zeus. And to this his very name bears witness, for is it not written in Homer?

And he continues 8.59
"Knowing deep devices {medea} in his mind, [59]
which is as much as to say, "Knowing wise counsels in his mind."
Ganymede, therefore, bears a name compounded of the two words, "joy"
and "counsel," and is honoured among the gods, not as one "whose
body," but "whose mind" "gives pleasure."