How many gay-related people would the pagan Germans drown in a bog?


Jack Donovan has recently re-discovered Tacitus, and has offered the following five highlights:

http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2013/11/5-quotes-from-tacitus-germania/

1. “The Germans do not think it in keeping with the divine majesty to confine gods within walls or to portray them in the likeness of any human countenance. Their holy places are woods and groves, and they apply the names of deities to that hidden presence which is seen only by the eye of reverence.

2. “On the field of battle it is a disgrace to a chief to be surpassed in courage by his followers, and to the followers not to equal the courage of their chief.”

3. “Speed suggests something like fear, whereas deliberate movement rather indicates a steady courage.”

4. “…mystery begets terror and a pious reluctance to ask what sight can be which is seen only by men doomed to die.”

5. “Bordering on the Suiones are the nations of the Sitones. They resemble them in all respects but one — woman is the ruling sex. That is the measure of their decline, I will not say below freedom, but even below decent slavery.”


I find it interesting that Donovan has omitted what I consider the most famous passage from the book:

[12] Proditores et transfugas arboribus suspendunt, ignavos et imbelles et corpore infames caeno ac palude, iniecta insuper crate, mergunt. Diversitas supplicii illuc respicit, tamquam scelera ostendi oporteat, dum puniuntur, flagitia abscondi.

http://northvegr.org/histories%20and%20chronicles/tacitus%20germania%20in%20english%20and%20latin/006.html

Traitors and deserters are hanged on trees; cowards, shirkers, and sodomites are pressed down under a wicker hurdle into the slimy mud of a bog. This distinction in the punishments is based on the idea that offenders against the state should be made a public example of, whereas deeds of shame should be buried out of men’s sight.

https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~wstevens/history331texts/barbarians.html


This sort of thing always makes me wonder: if the ancient Germans were to invade the modern West and impose their laws – how many people would get drowned in bogs for homosexuality-related offenses? Would it just be the flaming gays? Would it include the guys who tried gay sex once, decided it wasn’t for them, and then pretended to be 100% hetero?

The remainder of this post is a repost of my earlier question- would Oscar Wilde have been drowned in a bog?


OscarWildeimages
There is an interesting pagan essay at:
http://alternativeright.com/blog/mali-principii-malus-finis

which includes the complaint:

We—as a people—have no spiritual identity. Not that pan-Europeans lack spiritual impulse, or spiritual distinctions—we have all that, from New Age to Calvinism—what we lack is an identity of ourselves as a cohesive group of mutual respecting believers: a spiritual identity that encloses all of us as members of our Folk. And it has been to our detriment—it took a long time coming, granted—but we now face a withered future. Shriveled in spirit, shriveled in self-respect, shriveled in unity. We are decaying, spiritually, and have been doing so for a long time (almost 2000 years)—what’s more, it is just getting faster and faster—take the last 60 years as a mere foretaste of what’s coming.

“The fact is that spiritual decay comes from a lack of a cultural identity for the belief itself. Why is this? It is because indigenous religions were formed from the very core of our ancestral soul. They developed through countless eons and are ingrained into the very fiber of our being. In ancient times the world ‘religion’ did not exist, nor were there any distinctions between different beliefs, other than the cultural identity.” 1

For the Folk–and by this I mean for the European and European-descended peoples—the difference between Pagan and non-Pagan members of ourselves is sadly reversed these days. We still have a cultural identity—white people—that brooks little distinction between us. Face it, whether Irish or Hungarian or Greek, we as Europeans are cohesively stuck (sometimes whether we want to be or not) being non-people-of-color living in a multi culti colored world redesigned to accommodate everyone except us.

However, we have no cohesive spiritual identity.

What’s that? We did have spiritual cohesiveness, some of you say, before these ridiculous Neo-Pagans reared their raven banners and swayed the crowds with ancient myths and bloody sagas? Well, we did and we did not. What we had, my friends (and, for that matter, my enemies, too) was a couple of millennia’s worth (give or take a millennia depending on where we are talking about; Lithuania didn’t convert to Christianity until 1387) of official pan-European Christianity that lumped all us white Folks together under one big religious assumption: if you are European, you are Christian.

Note that I used the world ‘official’ back there. There was never any complete Christianization of Europe.

and ends with:

“O goat foot god of Arcady!
The modern world hath need of thee!”

—Oscar Wilde

Well, here is a practical issue of religion.

Religions teach about good and bad. E.g. Germanic paganism taught that sodomy was bad, and Dark Ages Christianity taught that sodomy was bad, and modern Christianity mostly teaches that sodomy is good.

The ancient Germans would have drowned Oscar Wilde in a bog, because he was a sodomite. The modern Christians do their utmost to give special considerations and favors to modern sodomites.

So, if the whites are going to be coherent – what teaching will they issue regarding sodomy?


 

 

Title:A PAINS-taking approach to the history of sex

Published March 2014

 

When teaching undergraduates, remember the PAINS principle.

This does not mean the instructor is allowed to inflict gratuitous pain on the student, or that the student will learn more if subjected to pain.

The PAINS principle is:

People Are Ignorant, Not Stupid !

Undergraduates are not stupid. They are, however, ignorant, as are we all, to one degree or another. (Socrates counted himself wise only insofar as he knew he was ignorant.)


infamous analyst wrote:

Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe homosexuality was rarely accepted in most governments/cultures throughout history, and I think it comes down to the simplest of forms when you tell the people of your culture that it is a general rule of thumb for “this” to go “there”. It’s not a lack of appreciation and acceptance for individuals, it is a framework for not only your country to survive, but for you to survive as a species. For this reason I see laws against homosexuality a part of a positive and successful governing body.

http://thevirtualpolitician.wordpress.com/2014/03/09/thoughts-on-gay-marriage/comment-page-1/#comment-8

This was of course rebuked:

If you think that ancient history prohibited homosexuality, you should read up on the Romans and Greeks. Homosexuality? Not so taboo.

http://thevirtualpolitician.wordpress.com/2014/03/09/thoughts-on-gay-marriage/comment-page-1/#comment-12

Ancient history is an academic discipline. Ancient history does not prohibit anything; it merely describes the past.

Cultures known from our study of ancient history include the ancient Germans, who apparently DID prohibit homosexual conduct (although this point is disputed) and the ancient Greeks, who definitely condoned some kinds of homosexual conduct in certain places, by certain social classes.

But the picture of what was prohibited and what was encouraged is not so clear as pro-gay propagandists would have us believe.

… from
Homosexuality in Ancient Greece and Rome
, p. 7 and following

Varieties of Moral Judgment
Just as sexual behavior in Greece and Rome was
irreducible to any single paradigm, moral judgments
concerning the various species of same-gender interaction
were far from uniform. The widespread
notion that a “general acceptance” of homosexuality
prevailed is an oversimplification of a complex
mélange of viewpoints about a range of different
practices, as is the dogma that a detailed regimen of
protocols and conventions distinguished “acceptable”
from “unacceptable” homosexual behaviors.
[7] For the former view, see Boswell (1980) 61–87;
the latter view is implied by Foucault (1986).
There was, in
― 8 ―
fact, no more consensus about homosexuality in ancient
Greece and Rome than there is today. In
these heavily discourse-oriented cultures, as in our
own, sexual dissidence was a flash point of
ideological contention.
In Greece, suspicion of homosexual relations of any
sort seems most pronounced in those genres
of discourse that are designed to appeal to the
masses’ resentment of sociopolitical elites: iambic
poetry (1.1–3), comedy (chapter 3), forensic oratory
(chapter 4), and popular street preaching
(5.17–18). Such class-based hostility is already
evident in our earliest literary evidence for
homosexuality, the barbed lampoons of Archilochus
(1.1–3), a self-proclaimed bastard and
spokesman for the common man. Similarly, comic
drama of the fifth and fourth centuries satirizes
the excesses and follies of the city’s intellectual
and political leaders, typically showing them foiled or
defeated by a protagonist who in some sense represents
the average citizen. Although there is no
question that comic invective holds the greatest scorn
for effeminates and/or sexual passives (3.8,
3.10, 3.14, 3.21–24, 3.32), adult effeminacy was merely
seen as the most extreme and visible
manifestation of an institution (pederasty) that, even
when practiced in a “normative” way,
effeminized, prostituted, and corrupted adolescents
who were one day destined to become the city’s
leaders. Active/passive roles were widely imagined
as interchangeable (e.g., in Aristophanes’ Knights
[3.1–10] or Clouds [3.11]), in part because any
active pederast had himself most likely played the
passive role at some point in his development.
Hence, active boy-lovers are themselves a target of
satire (3.7, 3.11–13, 3.18, 3.20, 3.23, 3.27, 3.29,
3.31, 3.33) just as often as men who take a
passive role. Boys are frequently accused of being
prostitutes, but it is apparent that comedy expands
the notion of “prostitution” to encompass virtually
all the forms of gift-exchange that characterized
traditional pederastic courtship (3.17; compare figs.
4b, 6–8, 16–17, 19–21) and even the offer of
entertainment and a fancy meal (3.25–26, 3.30),
staples of the upper-class homosocial symposium.
In contrast, boys who sell themselves for money
out of genuine need are treated more sympathetically
(3.9, 3.16).
Athenian forensic oratory also appealed to a mass
audience, since its goal was to persuade a jury
composed of a cross section of the city’s male
citizen population. Arguments based on an opponent’s
bad character were commonplace, and charges of
prostitution are frequent (4.1, 4.6–8), perhaps
appealing to popular suspicions concerning
politicians’ venality. However, these charges
are never based on any evidence more specific than
that a man was known to keep the company of older men in
his youth. Although formal legal contracts exchanging
such long-term companionship for money were
not unknown (4.4.22), merely benefiting from
extravagant dinners and entertainment was considered
equivalent to a form of payment in oratory
(4.7.75–76), as it was in comedy. But even pederastic
involvements, whether active or passive, that did not
involve prostitution were thought to
― 9 ―
prejudice a jury against an opponent, and were thus
brought up even when strictly irrelevant to a case
(4.2–3, 4.5, 4.10–11, 4.13); the defendant in 4.4,
an active pederast, admits his involvement only
with the greatest embarrassment and fear that it
will prejudice the judges against him.
The sum of this evidence, together with the association
of pederasty with upper-class venues like
the symposium and wrestling school, suggests that
it was primarily an upper-class phenomenon, at
least in Athens; only men with a certain amount
of wealth, leisure, and education were in a position to
provide boys with the attention and courtship gifts
they might expect, whether tangible or intangible.
The majority of Greek men lived close to the
subsistence level and had neither the time nor the
wherewithal for such pursuits.
Even within elite intellectual circles there were
many Greeks who had their doubts about any
physically consummated form of pederasty. Xenophon’s
Memorabilia(5.1–3) presents a Socrates who
cautions his young followers against pederastic
involvements; and Xenophon’s Symposium(5.8)
seems to place a higher valuation on heterosexuality
at the end. “Platonic love,” as articulated in
Plato’s Symposium(5.7) and Phaedrus(5.9), attempts
to rehabilitate pederastic desire by sublimating
it into a higher, spiritual pursuit of Beauty in
which the sexual appetite is ultimately transcended. The
idea of a chaste pederasty gained currency in
other fourth-century authors (4.7.136–57, 4.12,
5.14), and may have some precedent in Spartan
customs (2.9–12), but Plato’s last work, the
Laws(5.10–11), appears to abandon it and present
an entirely negative view. Even in the Phaedrus,
Lysias’ speech and Socrates’ first speech flesh
out serious and specific reflections on the harm that the
wrong kind of pederasty could do a boy, suggesting
that the concept of Platonic love was developed as
a response to widespread censure. Texts such as
the comic fragment 3.29 show that even in Plato’s
own day, some were skeptical whether such a chaste
pederasty could exist in reality; later satirical
texts (6.48, 9.38, 10.10) take it for granted that
these philosophical pretensions were fraudulent
covers.
Censure of same-gender relations in Roman culture
was differently motivated: class considerations
played less of a role, and the inappropriateness
of sexual passivity for a Roman male, even during his
youth, is the central theme of many texts…

—–


Similarly, from Revilo Oliver:

we know virtually nothing about our ancestors in the stages of savagery and barbarism through which we assume that they must have passed. The nearest we can come to them, perhaps, is by considering the Germanic tribes who lived on the borders of the Roman Empire, which they later overran and sacked, and then occupied. Homosexuality was not unknown among those tribes, but they disapproved of it, and they signified their disapproval by simply hanging perverts to the nearest tree or, preferably, sinking them in mud under a weight of stones, if a swamp was conveniently available. In recent years, archaeologists have recovered quite a number of such bodies from peat bogs in which they were preserved. Those tribes were, of course, pagans, and I insist on that detail because the persons who distort history to poison our culture will assure you that disapproval of homosexuality is something peculiar to Christianity.

Among the Greeks, the extraordinarily gifted people who were the real creators of our civilization, homosexuality appears to have been an alien corruption. It was unknown in the Homeric epics, although in later times perverts, who are incapable of understanding masculine friendship and always seek any pretext to justify themselves, tried to read homosexual implications into the comradeship of Achilles and Patroclus. The aetiological myths all suggest a foreign origin: one states that the vice was invented by Laius in Thebes (where there was a pre-Greek Semitic element), and another claims that it originated in Crete (where the Mycenean Greeks ruled a native population of undetermined ethnic origin) — and we know that centuries later, as Aristotle (Pol., II, 10, 9 = 1271a) remarked with astonishment, on that island homosexuality was permitted by law, perhaps as a means of avoiding overpopulation.

At Athens, homosexuality appears to have been rare before the demoralizing Peloponnesian War, and certainly did not receive any kind of general sanction until long thereafter. It was forbidden by one of Solon’s laws, which was still enforced as late as 346 B.C., when one of the most prominent Athenian politicians, Timarchus, was prosecuted under that law and was probably convicted, although one account says that he committed suicide before the jury brought in its verdict. Plato has himself been suspected, not without reason, of homosexuality, but it is noteworthy that when he elaborated a model constitution for a city-state, he absolutely forbade (Leg., VIII, 8 = 841d) sexual relations between males.

At Sparta, where, we are told, paederasty flourished early, it was forbidden, under the same penalty as incest, by a law attributed to Lycurgus that was still in force in the time of Xenophon (De rep. Lac., 2, 13). It would be tedious to make the rounds of the other Greek states, or to try to determine at what time and under what influences the old legislation and the attitudes that seem to have been natively Greek were made obsolete by toleration and corruption. We may all suspect that first the tolerance and finally the vogue of homosexuality had much to do with the decline of the Greek world, but we cannot prove that, for we cannot show what Greek history, turbulent with internecine, and, in the end, suicidal wars, would have been without that factor. [9]

The Romans, to whom we owe more than to the Greeks, felt Western man’s natural abhorrence of homosexuality. Although degenerates were doubtless born from time to time, the contempt universally felt for perverts probably sufficed to restrain their tendencies, and when it did not, the stern ethos of the nation made short work of them. As late as 125 B.C., when the old paternal authority had been greatly restricted, a Roman of the old school, Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus, who had held the highest offices in the Roman Republic, peremptorily put his own son to death for homosexuality. Such was the unflinching moral code that made the Romans great. It was only after Rome had become a dominant power in the world by decisively defeating the Carthaginians (202 B.C.), the Macedonians (197), and the Seleucid Empire (188), and had suffered a great influx of aliens, including Orientals, that we see the beginning of moral decay.

In 186 B.C., just two years after the Roman legions had shattered the power of the richest and most populous empire of the Hellenistic Age, the Roman Senate, by a still extant decree, tried to suppress the Bacchanalian rites of a cult that, originating in Asia Minor, had reached Rome by way of Etruria, and used the traditional “freedom of worship” as a cover for nocturnal orgies of promiscuity and perversion. Investigation disclosed that the alien “religion” was really a secret conspiracy that worked systematically to seduce and corrupt adolescent boys and girls, and practiced, in addition to sexual profligacy, such associated arts as the forging of wills and murder by poison. And, significantly, a majority of the physiologically male members of the Bacchanalian conspiracy were homosexuals, although the cult made available to them a copious supply of young and libidinous women ready and eager for anything. (For a full account, see Livy, XXXIX, 8-19). All that sounds quite modern, doesn’t it?

In 186 B.C., therefore, we have the first clear instance in recorded history of a clandestine conspiracy engaged in a revolt against civilization by using sex to entice adolescents into a life of depravity and crime — evidently for the sheer pleasure of dragging human beings down to the moral nihilism in which the conspirators find a strange satisfaction. And homosexuality was a major part of a phenomenon that was to be repeated over and over again in the subsequent history of Western civilization.

In 186 B.C., intelligent Romans had to face a truth that few Americans are willing to face today: perverts are formidable, not because they practice a disgusting vice among themselves, but because they are driven by a demonic urge to corrupt and defile all mankind, to propagate not only perversion but every form of crime. From 186 B.C. to 1966 A.D. the evidence constantly indicates that for many degenerates the physical pleasure that they derive from their perversion is quite secondary to the pleasure they derive from ensnaring and degrading children and adolescents who would otherwise become decent men and women.

At Rome, the repression of the Bacchanalians checked the infection for a time, but not permanently. In 149 B.C. or thereabouts the Romans enacted the Lex Scantina de stupro cum masculo, which provided a heavy penalty for perversion. As everyone knows, such laws cannot prevent; they can only discourage, and their most important force is expression of the standards of the society that enacts them. Rome, however, was suffering from creeping moral paralysis that the Senate and conservative magistrates to the very end of the Republic sought to combat by such measures as the expulsion of subversive aliens (which was only temporary, since they, aided by wealth and influence, began to filter back almost at once) and measures to limit the spread of Oriental cults.

The Lex Scantina remained on the books; there were prosecutions under it as late as the Second Century after Christ and perhaps later. But the feeling that had inspired it was gradually eroded, and although homosexuality was never officially legalized, as has now been done in the State of Illinois and will probably be done in our entire nation as soon as Earl Warren gets around to it, the law became virtually a dead letter. Before the end of the Republic, Roman writers who wanted to be thought “intellectual” and “sophisticated,” imitating the literary fashions of Alexandria, which was the New York of the ancient world, did not hesitate to confess — perhaps falsely in some cases — that they were paederasts. And, paralleling what happens in the United States today, one of Cicero’s correspondents thought it a delightful joke when a homosexual pervert was prosecuted under the Lex Scantina before a presiding judge who was himself a pervert. Such a society is fit only for despotism, and despotism was, of course what the Romans got — a despotism under which the old Roman families quickly died out and were replaced by the descendants of their slaves.

We may take our leave of the Romans by reminding ourselves that the Emperor Nero, after murdering his mother in 59 A.D. and his first wife soon thereafter, officially and with all legal and religious ceremony married one of his slave boys, whom he had castrated for the purpose, and also posed himself as a timid and blushing bride when he was, with equal solemnity, married to a lusty slave whom he had emancipated to have as husband. It is not quite certain whether these auspicious nuptials were solemnized before or after he kicked his second wife to death, but it is clear that Nero was as free of prejudices as progressive educators are trying to make our children. The imperial animal was finally eliminated by the Army, but the really significant thing is that his youthful zest, exhibited in these and a hundred other exploits of equal charm, made him a symbol of “democracy,” and he was so beloved by a large part of the populace that for decades after his death the Empire was disturbed by imposters who, claiming to be Nero, had no difficulty in attracting a large and enthusiastic following and flourished until regular troops were sent to put them down. A Great Society always knows its own.

9 – We can list a number of coincidences between homosexuality and treason but we cannot show that one was a cause, or even a factor, in the other. And to be fair, we must record on the other side of the ledger a peculiar and inexplicable phenomenon: it seems certain that in the Greek world there were homosexuals who were men — even men of honor. We are assured (cf. Plutarch, Vit. Pelop., 18) that in the Fourth Century the flower of the Theban army was, for an odd religious reason, composed of homosexuals. With his superior forces and superior strategy, Philip of Macedon finally won at Chaeronea, but when he did, the Sacred Regiment lay dead to a man in their unbroken ranks. That is true greatness. If the story of their customs is true, there must have been in one respect a fundamental difference between their world and our own, in which perversion and treason are almost synonymous. The Honorable John Dowdy of Texas, who is in a position to be very well informed, stated bluntly, “As far as I know, all of the security risks that have deserted the United States and gone over to the Communists have been homosexuals.” (See the hearings on House Resolution 5990, August 8, 1964, p. 17). There have been many such cases in Western nations. A typical instance in the United States is that of two “geniuses, ” Bernon F. Mitchell and William H. Martin, who, trained at the Universities of Washington and Illinois and Stanford, where they were known to be degenerates, ensconced themselves in positions of strategic importance in “our” National Security Agency (which, for vital reasons, should be our most secret intelligence agency) while the Director of Personnel was a scabrous alien named Maurice Klein, who had falsified his own record through perjury and forgery. Mitchell and Martin high-tailed it for Mother Russia in 1960, and it is rumored that the damage done by their treason has not yet been repaired. For a comparable incident in Britain’s Military Intelligence, see Burgess and Maclean by Anthony Purdy and Douglas Sutherland (New York, Doubleday, 1963); the book makes it clear that those “intellectuals” were known perverts and traitors when they were installed in Military Intelligence by degenerates in higher governmental positions who protected them for twelve years, enabled them to escape when exposure was imminent, and remained in power in the highest offices of the government of the Britain that once was Great.

Source:
http://www.revilo-oliver.com/news/2015/02/oliver-on-homosexuality


For more discussions of sexual controversies, see the following pages and posts:

https://vultureofcritique.wordpress.com/sex/article-by-danielle-lussier-educational-guidance-institute-sexual-restraint-and-social-energy-in-diverse-cultures-the-findings-of-j-d-unwin/

https://vultureofcritique.wordpress.com/scholarship/quotations/john-bagot-glubb-the-fate-of-empires/


 

Published at some point in 2014:

Just in case you’re keeping up with the ongoing controversy of who would drown whom in a bog, Crisis Magazine has you covered with regard to G. K. C.

Gkc16

Chesterton was so consistently right in his pronouncements and prophecies because he understood that anything that attacked the family was bad for society. That is why he spoke out against eugenics and contraception, against divorce and “free love” (another term he disliked because of its dishonesty), but also against wage slavery and compulsory state-sponsored education and mothers hiring other people to do what mothers were designed to do themselves. It is safe to say that Chesterton stood up against every trend and fad that plagues us today because every one of those trends and fads undermines the family. Big Government tries to replace the family’s authority, and Big Business tries to replace the family’s autonomy. There is a constant commercial and cultural pressure on father, mother, and child. They are minimized and marginalized and, yes, mocked. But as Chesterton says, “This triangle of truisms, of father, mother and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.”

This latest attack on the family is neither the latest nor the worst. But it has a shock value to it, in spite of the process of de-sensitization that the information and entertainment industries have been putting us through the past several years. Those who have tried to speak out against the normalization of the abnormal have been met with “either slanging or silence,” as Chesterton was when he attempted to argue against the faddish philosophies that were promoted by the major newspapers in his day. In 1926, he warned, “The next great heresy will be an attack on morality, especially sexual morality.” His warning has gone unheeded, and sexual morality has decayed progressively. But let us remember that it began with birth control, which is an attempt to create sex for sex’s sake, changing the act of love into an act of selfishness. The promotion and acceptance of lifeless, barren, selfish sex has logically progressed to homosexuality.

Chesterton shows that the problem of homosexuality as an enemy of civilization is quite old. In The Everlasting Man, he describes the nature-worship and “mere mythology” that produced a perversion among the Greeks. “Just as they became unnatural by worshipping nature, so they actually became unmanly by worshipping man.” Any young man, he says, “who has the luck to grow up sane and simple” is naturally repulsed by homosexuality because “it is not true to human nature or to common sense.” He argues that if we attempt to act indifferent about it, we are fooling ourselves. It is “the illusion of familiarity,” when “a perversion become[s] a convention.”

In Heretics, Chesterton almost makes a prophecy of the misuse of the word “gay.” He writes of “the very powerful and very desolate philosophy of Oscar Wilde. It is the carpe diem religion.” Carpe diem means “seize the day,” do whatever you want and don’t think about the consequences, live only for the moment. “But the carpe diem religion is not the religion of happy people, but of very unhappy people.” There is a hopelessness as well as a haplessness to it. When sex is only a momentary pleasure, when it offers nothing beyond itself, it brings no fulfillment. It is literally lifeless. And as Chesterton writes in his book St. Francis of Assisi, the minute sex ceases to be a servant, it becomes a tyrant. This is perhaps the most profound analysis of the problem of homosexuals: they are slaves to sex. They are trying to “pervert the future and unmake the past.” They need to be set free.

Sin has consequences. Yet Chesterton always maintains that we must condemn the sin and not the sinner. And no one shows more compassion for the fallen than G.K. Chesterton. Of Oscar Wilde, whom he calls “the Chief of the Decadents,” he says that Wilde committed “a monstrous wrong” but also suffered monstrously for it, going to an awful prison, where he was forgotten by all the people who had earlier toasted his cavalier rebelliousness. “His was a complete life, in that awful sense in which your life and mine are incomplete; since we have not yet paid for our sins. In that sense one might call it a perfect life, as one speaks of a perfect equation; it cancels out. On the one hand we have the healthy horror of the evil; on the other the healthy horror of the punishment.”

Chesterton referred to Wilde’s homosexual behavior as a “highly civilized” sin, something that was a worse affliction among the wealthy and cultured classes. It was a sin that was never a temptation for Chesterton, and he says that it is no great virtue for us never to commit a sin for which we are not tempted. That is another reason we must treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with compassion. We know our own sins and weaknesses well enough. Philo of Alexandria said, “Be kind. Everyone you meet is fighting a terrible battle.” But compassion must never compromise with evil. Chesterton points out that balance that our truth must not be pitiless, but neither can our pity be untruthful. Homosexuality is a disorder. It is contrary to order. Homosexual acts are sinful, that is, they are contrary to God’s order. They can never be normal. And worse yet, they can never even be even. As Chesterton’s great detective Father Brown says: “Men may keep a sort of level of good, but no man has ever been able to keep on one level of evil. That road goes down and down.”

G. K. Chesterton: It’s Not Gay, and It’s Not Marriage

 


Published at unknown date:

Would the ancient Germans consider intentional infection with a deadly disease to be a “deed of shame”?  What about the Assyrians?

Pre-modern societies frequently used violence to enforce prohibitions against sex between men. For example, more than 1000 years before the birth of Christ, the Assyrian laws read:

I.20. If a man have intercourse with his brother-in-arms, they shall turn him into a eunuch.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/1075assyriancode.asp
Assyrian_Horse_Archer
Some five centuries later, Rome enforced violent penalties against some categories of male-male sex, but the exact extent of capital punishment in such cases is still debated by historians.

Tacitus wrote, regarding ancient German executions:

Traitors and deserters are hanged on trees; cowards, shirkers, and sodomites are pressed down under a wicker hurdle into the slimy mud of a bog. This distinction in the punishments is based on the idea that offenders against the state should be made a public example of, whereas deeds of shame should be buried out of men’s sight.

300px-Homme_de_Tollund_6

Obviously, Tacitus was a nostalgic traditionalist, pining for the good old days of the Roman Republic when hetero men were men and non-hetero men were subject to various penalties. This does not prove that Tacitus was mis-stating the facts of the matter.

So far as I can tell, many pre-modern societies believed that men who have sex with men did not (and do not) serve the greater interests of the community; those societies used systematic, socially-condoned violence to punish men who had sex with men. In this post, I’m going to establish some scholarship about the facts; in later posts, I will speculate about the implications.

I don’t post much about gay people, but I recently got some provocative comments on the post at:

https://vultureofcritique.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/would-the-pagan-germans-drown-oscar-wilde-in-a-bog/

Jack Donovan evidently didn’t think very highly of my post.

I agree with this much of what he wrote:

it is possible that Romans saw the Germans sacrificing effeminate priests (priests tend to be a little soft in any culture). This may or not be a stretch, but Germania is also at the very best a second hand account, as Tacitus never went to Germania or saw any of this. He relied on the accounts of soldiers, etc.

Certainly, the first thought I had when I heard about all those bodies recovered from bogs was that these “human sacrifices” might have been held in high esteem by the cultures that sacrificed them.

Donovan was plainly ill-informed regarding some aspects of Roman and Greek attitudes concerning sodomy.
Donovan claimed – incorrectly:

The Romans had different rules for what kind of homosexuality was OK, and for whom. No one cared if freeborn men banged their slaves, but if they were taking it, that was another matter entirely.

No one cared? Donovan has claimed that there was a consensus of indifference. That was far from correct. People didn’t move heaven and earth to see the sodomites executed, but that doesn’t mean people were indifferent.

As so often happen, apologists for the modern gay lifestyle try to depict opposition thereto as highly unusual. But if one scratches the surface, a very different picture emerges, as shown by Hubbard, Homosexuality in Ancient Greece and Rome, p. 7 and following:

Varieties of Moral Judgment
Just as sexual behavior in Greece and Rome was irreducible to any single paradigm, moral judgments
concerning the various species of same-gender interaction were far from uniform. The widespread
notion that a “general acceptance” of homosexuality prevailed is an oversimplification of a complex
mélange of viewpoints about a range of different practices, as is the dogma that a detailed regimen of
protocols and conventions distinguished “acceptable” from “unacceptable” homosexual behaviors.
[7] For the former view, see Boswell (1980) 61–87; the latter view is implied by Foucault (1986).
There was, in
― 8 ―
fact, no more consensus about homosexuality in ancient Greece and Rome than there is today. In
these heavily discourse-oriented cultures, as in our own, sexual dissidence was a flash point of
ideological contention.
In Greece, suspicion of homosexual relations of any sort seems most pronounced in those genres
of discourse that are designed to appeal to the masses’ resentment of sociopolitical elites: iambic
poetry (1.1–3), comedy (chapter 3), forensic oratory (chapter 4), and popular street preaching
(5.17–18). Such class-based hostility is already evident in our earliest literary evidence for
homosexuality, the barbed lampoons of Archilochus (1.1–3), a self-proclaimed bastard and
spokesman for the common man. Similarly, comic drama of the fifth and fourth centuries satirizes the
excesses and follies of the city’s intellectual and political leaders, typically showing them foiled or
defeated by a protagonist who in some sense represents the average citizen. Although there is no
question that comic invective holds the greatest scorn for effeminates and/or sexual passives (3.8,
3.10, 3.14, 3.21–24, 3.32), adult effeminacy was merely seen as the most extreme and visible
manifestation of an institution (pederasty) that, even when practiced in a “normative” way,
effeminized, prostituted, and corrupted adolescents who were one day destined to become the city’s
leaders. Active/passive roles were widely imagined as interchangeable (e.g., in Aristophanes’ Knights
[3.1–10] or Clouds [3.11]), in part because any active pederast had himself most likely played the
passive role at some point in his development. Hence, active boy-lovers are themselves a target of
satire (3.7, 3.11–13, 3.18, 3.20, 3.23, 3.27, 3.29, 3.31, 3.33) just as often as men who take a
passive role. Boys are frequently accused of being prostitutes, but it is apparent that comedy expands
the notion of “prostitution” to encompass virtually all the forms of gift-exchange that characterized
traditional pederastic courtship (3.17; compare figs. 4b, 6–8, 16–17, 19–21) and even the offer of
entertainment and a fancy meal (3.25–26, 3.30), staples of the upper-class homosocial symposium.
In contrast, boys who sell themselves for money out of genuine need are treated more sympathetically
(3.9, 3.16).
Athenian forensic oratory also appealed to a mass audience, since its goal was to persuade a jury
composed of a cross section of the city’s male citizen population. Arguments based on an opponent’s
bad character were commonplace, and charges of prostitution are frequent (4.1, 4.6–8), perhaps
appealing to popular suspicions concerning politicians’ venality. However, these charges are never
based on any evidence more specific than that a man was known to keep the company of older men in
his youth. Although formal legal contracts exchanging such long-term companionship for money were
not unknown (4.4.22), merely benefiting from extravagant dinners and entertainment was considered
equivalent to a form of payment in oratory (4.7.75–76), as it was in comedy. But even pederastic
involvements, whether active or passive, that did not involve prostitution were thought to
― 9 ―
prejudice a jury against an opponent, and were thus brought up even when strictly irrelevant to a case
(4.2–3, 4.5, 4.10–11, 4.13); the defendant in 4.4, an active pederast, admits his involvement only
with the greatest embarrassment and fear that it will prejudice the judges against him.
The sum of this evidence, together with the association of pederasty with upper-class venues like
the symposium and wrestling school, suggests that it was primarily an upper-class phenomenon, at
least in Athens; only men with a certain amount of wealth, leisure, and education were in a position to
provide boys with the attention and courtship gifts they might expect, whether tangible or intangible.
The majority of Greek men lived close to the subsistence level and had neither the time nor the
wherewithal for such pursuits.
Even within elite intellectual circles there were many Greeks who had their doubts about any
physically consummated form of pederasty. Xenophon’s Memorabilia(5.1–3) presents a Socrates who
cautions his young followers against pederastic involvements; and Xenophon’s Symposium(5.8)
seems to place a higher valuation on heterosexuality at the end. “Platonic love,” as articulated in
Plato’s Symposium(5.7) and Phaedrus(5.9), attempts to rehabilitate pederastic desire by sublimating
it into a higher, spiritual pursuit of Beauty in which the sexual appetite is ultimately transcended. The
idea of a chaste pederasty gained currency in other fourth-century authors (4.7.136–57, 4.12,
5.14), and may have some precedent in Spartan customs (2.9–12), but Plato’s last work, the
Laws(5.10–11), appears to abandon it and present an entirely negative view. Even in the Phaedrus,
Lysias’ speech and Socrates’ first speech flesh out serious and specific reflections on the harm that the
wrong kind of pederasty could do a boy, suggesting that the concept of Platonic love was developed as
a response to widespread censure. Texts such as the comic fragment 3.29 show that even in Plato’s
own day, some were skeptical whether such a chaste pederasty could exist in reality; later satirical
texts (6.48, 9.38, 10.10) take it for granted that these philosophical pretensions were fraudulent
covers.
Censure of same-gender relations in Roman culture was differently motivated: class considerations
played less of a role, and the inappropriateness of sexual passivity for a Roman male, even during his
youth, is the central theme of many texts…

So it would be to Donovan’s advantage if no Roman cared about Roman men having sex with their male slaves, but that goes beyond Whiggish history to sheer misinformation.


I have a lot of objections to the following text from Donovan:

What we know about the ancient Germans is sketchy at best. We can be inspired by them and their myths, but anyone who wants to execute people based on sketchy translations of second hand accounts featured in a 1,900 year old travel guide is pretty retarded.

The first problem is that Jack Donovan seems to be suggesting that the people who are motivated to take practical actions against gay people are basing their thinking on nothing more than Tacitus.

Furthermore, Donovan really distorts the realities of the situation with the following:

Sketchy, old information never stopped anyone from blaming a conveniently disposable minority for bigger social problems, and it never stopped anyone from writing a blog post.

Blame? The post in question deals with whether Germans would execute Oscar Wilde – it doesn’t seem to have any blaming in it.

If Donovan thinks I am blaming some marginalized social class of saintly, perpetually victimized underdogs for any problems they didn’t cause, then Donovan is wrong.

If Donovan wants a post with blaming it, we should revisit the practical realities of gay activism:
https://vultureofcritique.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/boku-no-sixty-two-percent-or-the-political-economy-of-hiv-infected-men-who-knowingly-transmit-the-virus-by-unprotected-sex/

Sixty-two percent of American men who know they are HIV positive continue to have unprotected anal sex, according to data released last week by the federal Centers for Disease Control.
This data, which was published Friday, came from the federal government’s National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System.
The percentage of self-aware HIV-positive men who engage in unprotected anal sex has been increasing, according to the CDC. In 2005, 55 percent did so. In 2008, 57 percent did so. And, in 2011, 62 percent did so.
“Unprotected anal sex is a high-risk practice for HIV infection, with receptive anal sex having the highest risk,” said the CDC report. ”Unprotected anal sex also places MSM at risk for other sexually transmitted infections such as syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea. Although condoms can reduce the risk for HIV transmission, they do not eliminate risk and often are not used consistently. Some MSM attempt to decrease their HIV risk by engaging in unprotected sex only with partners perceived to have the same HIV status as their own. However, this practice is risky, especially for HIV-negative MSM, because MSM with HIV might not know or disclose that they are infected and men’s assumptions about the HIV status of their partners can be wrong.”
Now this is going to be contained if men who have sex with men are relatively monogamous, but are they?
The Family Research Council has published a paper that links to mainstream secular sources that notes that gay men tend to have a far more loose notion of monogamy than men in heterosexual relationships.

There is indeed blaming going on in that post. The CDC is doing the blaming, and they are doing it on the basis of medical science. The CDC does not base their blaming on Tacitus, and the present blogger’s reposting on the CDC’s blaming cannot be construed as Tacitus-based.


The CDC alone, of course, would only be one source of data, so let’s double-check our understanding of gayness:

“The typical homosexual (needless to say there are exceptions) is a man who has frequent episodes of anal intercourse with other men, often with many different men. These episodes are 13 times more frequent than heterosexuals’ acts of anal intercourse, with 12 times as many different partners as heterosexuals.”

Reilly goes further. “The most rigorous single study—the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study [1987]—recruited nearly 5,000 homosexual men and found that: ‘a significant majority of these men … (69 to 82%) reported having 50 or more lifetime sexual partners, and over 80% had engaged in receptive anal intercourse with at least some of their partners in the previous two years.’”

Such relationships are not spousal in any way, shape or form and [cannot fit into] any notion of Christian sexual ethics.

Studies show gay men are remarkably promiscuous. Dr. Santinover cites a study by two homosexual researchers that found that out of “156 couples studied, only seven had maintained sexual fidelity; of the hundred couples that had been together for more than five years, none had been able to maintain sexual fidelity.” They said, “[t]he expectation for outside sexual activity was the rule for male couples and the exception for heterosexual couples.”

Reilly cites a 1997 Australian study that showed “only 15% of the men reported having fewer than 11 sex partners to date, while on the other end of the spectrum 15% had over 1,000 sex partners. A whopping 82% had over 50 partners and nearly 50% had over 100.” The research goes on and drearily on.

The Real Lives of Gay Men

But Crisis Magazine fails to draw a link between promiscuity and disease. Promiscuous people aren’t just at a greater risk of venereal diseases, they’re at a greater risk of ALL infectious diseases. If gay men are typically promiscuous, even if the CDC is wrong about intentional gay transmission of venereal disease, gay men will present public health risks for non-sexually-transmitted diseases.


So let us once again ask ourselves what the ancient Germans would think of all this. I am not starting up a pagan religion; I am not trying to whip anyone up into a frenzy of inspired or passionate emotion. I am trying to do a cold, scholarly thought-experiment.

Suppose we could get a bunch of authoritative ancient Germans – chieftains, priests, rune-writers – the intellectual leaders of those tribes. And suppose we could explain the situation of infectious diseases and viruses to them.

What advice would the ancient Germans give us about how to deal with a promiscuous sexual minority that intentionally infects people with incurable diseases? And if the opinions of the Germans are “inspiring” but unknowable, what would the Assyrians advise?


 

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in philosophy and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to How many gay-related people would the pagan Germans drown in a bog?

  1. Jack Donovan says:

    I omitted it for a reason.

    When I saw the word “sodomite” I knew it was obviously Biblical, and a translation issue. So I looked it up. The original Latin translates to “bodily infamous,” which, to a Roman, would probably have meant an effeminate, passive “bottom.” The Romans had different rules for what kind of homosexuality was OK, and for whom. No one cared if freeborn men banged their slaves, but if they were taking it, that was another matter entirely.

    I also found this piece about it.

    http://www.connellodonovan.com/lindow.html

    His point was that these people generally saw bogs as sacred places, and it is possible that Romans saw the Germans sacrificing effeminate priests (priests tend to be a little soft in any culture). This may or not be a stretch, but Germania is also at the very best a second hand account, as Tacitus never went to Germania or saw any of this. He relied on the accounts of soldiers, etc.

    What we know about the ancient Germans is sketchy at best. We can be inspired by them and their myths, but anyone who wants to execute people based on sketchy translations of second hand accounts featured in a 1,900 year old travel guide is pretty retarded.

    Sketchy, old information never stopped anyone from blaming a conveniently disposable minority for bigger social problems, and it never stopped anyone from writing a blog post.

    • zhai2nan2 says:

      That’s an interesting perspective. I don’t post a lot about homosexuality, because I’m more concerned with degenerate versions of hetero behavior, but perhaps I should post some in-depth analyses of homosexual behaviors in ancient Greece.

  2. Here’s a relevant wikipedia page on Ancient Greek homesexual practices which seems to indicate that sodomy was looked down upon. (Though of course Greece is only one small part of European population, so it may vary more or less amongst the other European cultures):

    >Vase paintings and an obsession with the beloved’s appealing thighs in poetry[61] indicate that when the pederastic couple engaged in sex acts, the preferred form was intercrural.[62] To preserve his dignity and honor, the erômenos limits the man who desires him to penetration between closed thighs.[63]

    Anal sex may be depicted, but far more rarely. The evidence is not explicit and is open to interpretation. Some vase paintings, which Percy considers a fourth type of pederastic scene in addition to Beazley’s three, show the erastês seated with an erection and the erômenos either approaching or climbing into his lap. The composition of these scenes is the same as that for depictions of women mounting men who are seated and aroused for intercourse.[64] As a cultural norm considered apart from personal preference, anal penetration was most often seen as dishonorable to the one penetrated, or shameful.[65] A fable attributed to Aesop tells how Aeschyne (Shame) consented to enter the human body from behind only as long as Eros did not follow the same path, and would fly away at once if he did.[66] Oral sex is likewise not depicted, or is indicated only indirectly; anal or oral penetration seems to have been reserved for prostitutes or slaves.[67]

    Dover maintained that the erômenos was ideally not supposed to feel “unmanly” desire for the erastês.[68] David M. Halperin contended that boys were not aroused.[69]<
    (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eromenos#Sexual_practices)

  3. Pingback: A PAINS-taking approach to the history of sex | vulture of critique

Comments are closed.