Well, you beat me to it. I was about to throw up a post on this subject.

I'm still catching up on your links, but I'd like to add, from wretchard's post this morning:

Oliver Stone portrays Alexander the Great as gay (via Instapundit and Ann Althouse) and whether or not that was the case, it illustrates the potential dangers of learning history according to Hollywood.

as the saying goes...it is well worth it to read the whole thing.

Eric, I'm enjoying your site immensely!

Well now hold on. I don't want to defend his re-making of history or anything- he can't be defended for that- but I do want to make one wee observation: This movie was being made prior to the election. It can't be a cynical ploy to exploit the current debate, can it?

Urthshu (love that name!): It might not have been made for that reason, but it certainly appears to be how they're using it now. Via, the Ann Althouse link above, here's the NYT:

**QUOTE**
Mr. Stone said he was concerned that there might be a backlash. "I'd be naïve not to be concerned, in America, anyway," he said. "I didn't know there would be a parallel situation going on."

The parallel situation Mr. Stone refers to is that in the wake of the presidential election and the passage of prohibitions on gay marriage in a number of states, homosexuality has resurfaced as a focus of debate and controversy among cultural critics.
**QUOTE**

Darleen, thanks for the kind words!

HAIL TO THE EMPIRE!!!! HAIL TO CLASSICAL VALUES AND TO THE GREAT PHILOSOPHER OF CLASSICAL VALUES, ERIC SCHEIE!!!!

Yet another excellent post. Too many things. Too. Many. Things. to write about here.

1) I'm just shocked and horrified at myself. I looked at your links and saw so many outstanding essays by you that _I did not comment on_. WHY???? Or, rather: WHY NOT???? What was I doing at the time that I failed to comment such profound and so tremendously comment-worthy essays you wrote??

2) In one of your essays, you discussed the Orange Order. I'm glad that you stated that you are not not have you ever been a member of the Orange Order.

Getting back to the anti-reality-based anti-community, I must inform you that Dawn and Norma have often warned, in a number of their filstrips and booklets and books, that the Protestant Orange Order, the Orange Lodges, are and have long been the center of the Communist Conspiracy (founded by Akhenaton). They took a trip a while back to Europe and Africa, including Ireland, largely in order to explore and expose the Conspiracy. Thry wrote about their findings in their book "Holy Music vs. Drug Music and The Conspiracy Behind the Conspiracy."

Ironic that Jack T. Chick has also warned against "Lodges", i.e., Masonic Lodges, Freemasonry. (By the way, Mr. Bricker is a Mason, as were many of our Founding Fathers, as well as a Jew.) Dawn and Norma have identified Jack T. Chick as a Communist. He is a Protestant, he attacks Catholicism, therefore me must be a member of the Orange Lodges. The ultimate goal of the Communist Conspiracy is to dethrone the Most High Goddess. Holy Dawn and her holy Negro wife Norma totally oppose Communism and worship the Most High Goddess.

Steven, you're too kind! I don't think I have enough of the right, er, blood to qualify for the Orange Order. Last time I looked it wasn't a Norwegian American organization. (Well my mom was German/Welsh, but that's not close enough either.)

It would be historically inaccurate for me to hold either the blonde Dawn, whose ancestors were well to the North and West (Ireland) of the Classical civilization, or the Negress Norma, whose ancestors were well to the South (equatorial Africa) of the Classical civilization, as exponents of Classical values. Indeed, Aristotle classified their ancestors as barbarians. It is, rather, the brunette Wanda, who has Greek and Italian ancestors, who articulates Classical values.

3) Ann Althouse, in her review of Oliver Stone's movie about Alexander, makes a devastating point. He foolishly speaks of Alexander as being "in touch with his feminine side". That is Peikoff-obviously preposterously false! A MALE homosexual, i.e., an androsexual man, is getting in touch with his MASCULINE side, in the most literal sense, he is getting in touch with another MAN. HE is A MAN'S MAN!!!! Alexander the Great, like Julius Caesar, like Richard the Lion-Hearted, like General Edwin Anderson Walker (an anti-Communist), like many other such statesmen and warriors and conquerors, was a MAN'S MAN, A REAL HE-MAN!!!!

I must confess that I myself have never been man enough to be a man's man. I must "out" myself. MALE homosexuality has always seemed TOO MASCULINE for me, TOO MALE. I have, in my youth in the 1970s, been "homophobic" in the only real and meaningful sense of the word, i.e., a phobia or fear of, or visceral aversion to, being raped by another man or a bunch of men or being trapped in an all-male environment. I did submit to buggery once, in 1975, but (butt) it was, literally, a pain the ass. I have never been inside of any gay bar, nor in any bathhouse, nor in the Army, nor in the Navy, nor in a prison, nor in a monastery, nor in most other such all-male environments. I was in the Boy Scouts for about a couple months, but the Girl Scouts have always interested me much more. I go to the men's room to piss and shit, of course, but that's it.

I took boy's P.E. in junior high school and high school, but I was a short, skinny little ectomorph instead of a big, manly mesomorph, and I always lusted for the girls' P.E. instead. That still turns me on whenever I think of it, and I love to think of it all the time. I love to think of Dawn and Norma doing calisthenics, playing soccer and basketball, running, swimming, lifting weights. Holy Dawn has twice broken the world's record for women's weight-lifting by lifting up a bunch of fat women. I love to think about that.

I have always been in touch with my feminine side. You may call me a sissy, a girlie-man, if you wish, but that's just the way I am. I was always attracted to the female, to girls and women. I must confess that, when I first heard of male homosexuality as a boy, it turned me off, but as soon as I heard of female homosexuality, Lesbianism, it turned me on and has been turning me on ever since. Long before I ever even heard of sex, I was drawn to girls and women. I never liked stories about boys all that much. I always liked stories about girls. Alice in Wonderland. Dorothy and Ozma in Oz. Pippi Longstocking. Isis seeking, finding, and resurrecting Osiris. I was turned on by Agent 99 in "Get Smart". "Honey West" also turned me on. The earliest story I can remember was Hans Christian Andersen's sadistic "The Little Girl Who Trod On a Loaf". I always loved stories of women being captured, especially by other women. Ishtar/Inanna being captured by Ereshkigal. There was an episode of "Popeye" in which Olive Oil gets captured by a big fat woman but then eats some spinach and overpowers her. There was a commercial in which a woman tied another woman up and stuffed her into her sofa and sat on her.

I'm totally a deviated prevert. I'm the OPPOSITE of STRAIGHT. I love curves and circles, the Encircling Eternal Feminine, the sinuousity of sin. ONLY a MAN'S MAN is STRAIGHT, linear, angular.

4) You mentioned leg men, i.e., those gynosexual men who are attracted more to women's legs than to, e.g., breasts. I am a leg man. I love breasts as a badge of femininity, but I have always been turned on more by legs, calves and thighs. I love big, muscular legs.

But, primarily, I'm attracted to all that which is above the breasts, i.e., to a woman's shoulders, neck, hair, and face. That's what I love to look upon, that's what turns me on the most. I'm a face-ist.

5) While I have, in recent years, come to appreciate the value of manliness, and while I certainly admire the manliness of men's men, there is one thing some of them do that always makes me mad. It is very disrespectful, and an Objectivist might well call it "the fallacy of the stolen concept". A man must never call himself or any other man a "Queen". That always infuriates me. The term "Queen" is and always has been and alwas must be reserved EXCLUSIVELY for the FEMALE, for FEMALE royalty, a FEMALE ruler. If a man wishes to use a royal title, he may call himself a KING, PRINCE, EMPEROR, etc., but NEVER a QUEEN. THAT title is ONLY for WOMEN. QUEEN. Queen Hatshepsut of Egypt. Queen Boadicca of the Iceni. Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth II of England. Queen Marie Antoinette of France. Queen Catherine the Great of Russia. Queen Beatrice of the Netherlands. The Queen of Hearts. The Queen of Diamonds. Queen Ozma of Oz. The Queen of Heaven. Rosemary Esmay the Queen of All Evil. HAIL TO THE QUEEN....!!!!

Give me a break! Oliver Stone would NEVER twist history! (cough cough JFK cough cough)

/sarcasm off

6) Once again, the autopsy of Leftism. While it is, as I said, a piece of preposterous foolishness, and a total and most grotesque inversion, to speak of a MAN'S MAN like Alexander the Great as "getting in touch with his feminine side", when it is just Peikoff-obvious that he is LITERALLY "getting in touch with" ANOTHER MAN! -- yet, there is, in that very inversion of the palpable truth, something quite revealing of the tropisms of Leftism.

While the average, rank-and-file "homophobe" or "queer-basher" of the Right often detests homosexual men largely because he falsely perceives them as "effeminate", I have long noteced that the "liberals" or Leftists who praise "gay liberation" or "queer liberation" admire them for precisely that reason, i.e., because they falsely perceive such men as "feminine". And, in turn, they like the feminine, and feminism, because they identify women or "feminine" men, as WEAK. They don't like masculinity, which they call "macho" or "testosterone-poisoned", because it is defined as STRONG.

The Right admires and identifies with what is perceived as strong: the male sex, the patriarchal family, the military, capitalism, the United States, the West, the Christian churches, etc. -- the Transcendental Scientists.

The Left sympathizes with and identifies with what is perceived as weak: the female sex, homosexual men (perceived as "effeminate"), pacifism, anti-capitalism, the "Third World", Islam, etc. -- the Femocrats.

In other words, the Left embodies more consistently than any segment of the Right what Nietzsche called "the slave morality". The Left gravitates toward and extols weakness. The Left's tropism is toward entropy. Leftism is, as James Burnham saw, the ideology of the Suicide of the West. And/or of its own suicide.

Hmmm.... And which side won the election this year? Which side now controls the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Supreme Court, the military, and, most important of all, the churches? Hmmm....