1302
Comments (64)
sorted by:
49
TheImpossible1 49 points ago +49 / -0

The screeching women in the replies is the sign that he's onto something.

They always get aggressive when something they've supported is about to be outed.

17
Major_Nutt 17 points ago +17 / -0

What it comes down to is that women ABSOLUTELY HATE the fact that men can "adopt" other men as their brothers and will treat them as such.

Women gain "friends" easier, and love to pretend to like each other, but in a group of "friends", as soon as one is out of sight of the others the berating, and gossiping, and secret hating begins.

Men on the other hand, make friends harder and a lot of us end up hating one another, but those of us who do form bonds, they are most definitely stronger to the point of recklessness. You see this countless times again and again in war when a man will shove his buddy out of the way of danger and end up dying in his stead.

Not only that, but men working in conjunction with each other have the ability to literally move mountains and overcome the most overwhelming odds. Which is why SEAL teams and other special forces units are so effective. They live, eat, shit, even breathe together, and the level of synchronicity that is achieved is something that cannot be replicated by ANY group of women.

2
they-see-me-trollin 2 points ago +2 / -0

men do this because someone had to guard the tribe while the others were sleeping. tribes with too many men who didn't cooperate for the tribe's collective benefit ended up going extinct.

the alpha/beta social contract was that every male does his part, and everyone will get to have a family, increasing bonds even further with the tribe.

women had no such requirement of tribal cooperation. instead, women were coddled and absolved of all responsibility, because any tribe where women were actually held responsible went extinct simply by insufficient babies.

today this has all been flipped on its head, which is why native born western populations are in contraction, desperately trying to make it up with open-border immigration, because social programs nowadays are all ponzi schemes that excessively depend on population growth for their financial modeling.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
24
Pinochet_Was_Right 24 points ago +24 / -0

In archaeology, it's nearly impossible to tell if they were homosexual unless left a written letter. One of the hard rules is you need to remember your modern beliefs probably do not reflect on those of the past.

They tried the same thing with two male skeletal remains found in Pompei.

"Both were holding hands so they must have been gay!"

In reality, there even a lot of modern cultures where men holding hands are not considered homosexual.

The spin is real

16
BeefChucker 16 points ago +16 / -0

Plus it denies the reality of mass graves. “Holding hands” means body 1 got thrown on top of body 2 and when they decomposed the bones of their hands were touching. How romantic

8
Patriot3per 8 points ago +8 / -0

One of those cultures is the same one that launches faggots off the rooftops.

3
BeefyBelisarius 3 points ago +3 / -0

Like the saying goes, the past is a foreign country. And most moderns looking at history are ethnocentric as hell.

21
Cyber1776 [S] 21 points ago +22 / -1

HERE is the entire twitter thread on this topic if you want to read through it all

15
prayinpede 15 points ago +15 / -0

A while ago good friend of mine has been depressed and hid girl left him. When he told me i dropped everything and went to stay with him for a few days. My gf didn't really get it and was a bit annoyed that i just dropped everything. She wasnt too upset just agitated.

As ive grown ive realized that most friends are fairweather so it's important to keep up those that are not.

15
War_Hamster 15 points ago +15 / -0

This is interesting enough that I made a rare foray into Twatter-land. Very much worth the time.

15
Verrerogo 15 points ago +16 / -1

Of course sexual potential kills friendship.

Sexuality always has an element of aggression. That is corralled and sweetened by marriage.

Without marriage, it isn't corralled or sweetened, and has a lot of potential for hostility. There is a reason it's called "game." In a game, there is always a loser.

So yes. If everybody is a potential lover, that is the death of friendship.

Because friendship requires the suspension of defensiveness. Of conflict. And that isn't possible around sex. Not without a wedding ring. Or some equivalent.

15
NvJohansson 15 points ago +15 / -0

When has "but we can still be friends" thing ever turned out that they actually remained friends?

7
War_Hamster 7 points ago +8 / -1

There are exceptions. I've got an ex-GF that I dated for several years who is a very dear friend.

I've got a few that didn't turn out well also.

4
NvJohansson 4 points ago +4 / -0

Yeah, Heather is a nice girl. She says hello. Kek

6
War_Hamster 6 points ago +6 / -0

Jeezus....I had a stalker named Heather once. You probably just caused me to have nightmares tonight.

6
NvJohansson 6 points ago +6 / -0

I think she went into the bathroom to call somebody. Is your phone ringing?

9
War_Hamster 9 points ago +9 / -0

Please don't encourage her to break her restraining order.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
4
Pinochet_Was_Right 4 points ago +4 / -0

Have to take your word on that

11
carnivore-pede 11 points ago +11 / -0

The food pyramid was designed to make you fat, stupid and broken so you are easy to control.

9
TexasPiper 9 points ago +9 / -0

That’s why I invert it and my base consists of pie, cake and ice cream. Next level is beer. At the very top of the pyramid is fruit and veggies.

7
deleted 7 points ago +8 / -1
9
TexasPiper 9 points ago +9 / -0

its a joke

9
jennyfrutex 9 points ago +9 / -0

Seriously. The promotion of the gay agenda has co-opted male friendship into "they must be gay!" and it's so frustrating. They'll watch a movie or tv show from 30 years ago and insist that characters are secretly gay. It's irritating as hell.

4
MR_FROG_TRUMP 4 points ago +4 / -0

I'm so over it. I pulled my eye socket from rolling my eyes when Captain America Civil War came around and there was "Steve and Bucky are gay!" morons all over nerd culture.

4
NazisWereSocialist 4 points ago +4 / -0

I’ll hold a frens hand wut of it?

6
NADSAQ 6 points ago +6 / -0

that’s the first level in gay chicken

4
TheMadManDidItAgain 4 points ago +4 / -0

If you look toward the bottom left, there was one skeleton with her hands over her penis. This is clear proof that transgender surgery has existed for 2000 years. It's amazing nobody knows this! /s

4
Backslash2099 4 points ago +4 / -0

I bet they were doing all sorts of things... Like hugging! They must be gay!

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
deleted 3 points ago +4 / -1
2
jakebro420 2 points ago +3 / -1

Yeah, wasn't aware this was debated. Plutarch, /Pelopidas/ 18 talks about it, the reasons for it (the bond between lovers was unbreakable) and the inspiration (Herakles and Iolaus). Classicist here. The text is pretty clear lol.

6
the_sky_is_falling 6 points ago +6 / -0

Interestingly, no one claims they were homosexual lovers during the time the Sacred Band of Thebes existed.

This idea of them being lovers comes around centuries after their existence and sources like Plutarch are careful to say "it is said" "I have heard" when mentioning homosexual lovers.

Also, the idea of a unit of soldiers, who also happened to be lovers, was actually a philosophical thought idea by ancient Greek philosophers but none of them ever goes, "oh and these Thebans totally did exactly that and it was awesome"

As much as I'm not a fan of Reddit, this question about them being lovers actually did come up on AskHistorians

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/70v1r9/what_is_the_consensus_among_historians_about_the/

4
jakebro420 4 points ago +4 / -0

Unless you've mistyped, your first sentence is wrong. A lot of people claim that lol. But if you're saying no sources exist about it dating to the time of the band itself, that's true. Fairly sure Plutarch is the first to mention them as a unit at all, but you are indeed correct. He says that people say it, then gives a huge paragraph of detail about it. That's why something like a burial site with intertwined bodies is important and adds evidence to the idea, and why an article would be written about it.

Either way, the thrust of the twitter poster seems to be 'let us enjoy our manly Greek warriors as figures to look up to, without diluting the idea with modern homosexual notions of sexual love in manly friendships', which seems a bit off for a number of reasons. But the most obvious one to me is that reading a 'Greeks as manly warriors that we can look up to as modern Americans' into any Classical Greek warrior society, from the Athenians to the Spartans and these Thebans, is pretty much going to have to be ahistorical to be at all acceptable by modern standards. Yeah, throw out the 'bonds of love' stuff, and you're still left with widespread pederasty that would be considered statutory rape by modern standards.

So the guy's basically saying 'don't let the gays take our pederast statutory rapist heroes', which seems like an odd thing to do.

Reading the reddit thread, thanks for the link. But I'd like to point out that the first post indicates that the critical historians' consensus is that the Sacred Band did exist and was made up of 150 lovers.

5
the_sky_is_falling 5 points ago +5 / -0

My first line merely states that no one from their time, when the Sacred Band of Thebes existed, claims they were a unit of lovers going to battle.

This was something that later Greek historians claimed centuries after.

Pederasty was common in Greek society - older adult males taking boy lovers.

So it's not weird for soldiers to have younger male lovers.

But the idea of an entire unit of homosexual couples going out to war has no basis, other than in philosophical thought experiments and it seems historians are merely repeating the same lie over and over again.

3
Cyber1776 [S] 3 points ago +3 / -0

Engaging in pederasty's would mean ancient Athenians would lose their right to vote, and doing so with a young boy would mean a death sentence, also the boy wouldnt be allowed to vote either. Teachers who kept their students over night were killed as well based just on the suspicion they were "corrupting the youth"

Back to the original point, I really do think a lot of the common conception that ancient greek was this LGBT utopia is a giant myth that is promoted on really faulty evidence and as a modern day cultural/political bludgeoning tool. This idea of "see!? The birth of the western world is gay!"

Ancient Greek democracies really were just military dictatorships, where the front line elite hoplites who were expected to fight to defend the country were given the right to vote and who were impossible to oppress since they were the armed and experienced martial power of the state. It was basically the society in starship troopers, thats what Democracy was.

2
jakebro420 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ah, I see what you meant now.

'historians ... repeating the same lie over and over again' is also a baseless statement. More accurately, we don't know if it's true. But the earliest mention of the Sacred Band as a specific unit is still Plutarch, and still includes the story of them being lovers, albeit from hearsay. So we don't know, but this burial site presumably adds a little weight to the story. One of the counter-arguments on that reddit thread you linked specifically mentions that Theban soldiers would take their 'favorites' to bed and fight alongside them, so whether or not the Sacred Band existed or was exclusively made up of lovers, it was normal, like you say. So why is the guy from the screenshot mad about it, again?

1
Independenceforever 1 point ago +1 / -0

Says there are many sources

Quotes none of them

Like Herodotus says you can ONLY go by what is said. As points are not only impossible to prove but also impossble to agree upon.

Herodotus was a genius

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
jakebro420 1 point ago +1 / -0

While that's true, it's not what he says in the tweets that are posted here. For that matter, erastes/eromenos relationships were usually pederastic in nature by modern standards. But just from the clip that's shown in this screengrab, he seems to be offended that archaeologists are taking burials with hands or embraces as signs that the dead were lovers-- when in the case of the Sacred Band it just confirms or adds evidence to the textual sources we have. I also agree that using terms like 'gay', 'homosexual', or even 'bisexual' is ahistorical and gives an inaccurate idea of ancient relationships in Greece or Rome, where power and status (including age) played a much bigger part in determining socially 'correct' relationships than sex. People who did male/male sexual relationships for life are rare in the sources that survive, and frequently looked down on. Playing the 'passive' role in sex was something reserved for women and youths, or slaves in some societies (e.g. Rome).

2
TheWinningNeverStops 2 points ago +2 / -0

"Look, see they were holding hands! That clearly means they were butt-fucking each other! it's science!"

1
remember1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

Did you just combine factioned and fractured?

1
Dialectic 1 point ago +1 / -0

Jokes on them I’ve seen my best friend naked....

vomits

1
brundlefly777 1 point ago +1 / -0

Wow, I had never heard it explained to me like this.

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
0
Voltage 0 points ago +1 / -1

As a Freemason I believe this is why Freemasonry is so hated on this site. It's just so stupid to think a blue lodge mason has any thing to do with much other than a charity breakfast, lunch, BBQ dinner. However the connection and community you can find can certainly help someone like me that needed a community to be part of. It's just sad for me to see a community that helped me find conservative positive outlook so hated but some here.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
2
Independenceforever 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is endemic to

  1. Schools

  2. Churches

  3. Government

Infiltrators seems to be a danger nobody is prepared to address or solve

1
Voltage 1 point ago +1 / -0

Not sure which upper members you are talking about. I've sat in every chair in my local lodge (I mostly have nothing to do with other local lodges not the grand lodge or appended bodies). I've even done both a year as the elected leader of my lodge as well as the secretary. It's pretty safe to say I know what is going on in my lodge, but I'll admit I don't know much about other parts of Freemasonry. Mainly because I joined to get to know local people and work on some social aspects of myself.

2
krzyzowiec 2 points ago +2 / -0

I knew someone who claimed his uncle was a mason and tried to get him to join. He said they were Satanists. I don’t know if it’s true but be careful fren.

2
BeefyBelisarius 2 points ago +2 / -0

As I understand, it depends on the level of the mason. At low levels it's just a social club, but as they climb the ranks and get initiated into deeper secrets, it gets significantly darker. Spirit cooking type stuff and worse.

2
krzyzowiec 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yeah that was my understanding too. Btw, I love your username. I see you are a fellow man of culture. :)

1
BeefyBelisarius 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thanks.

2
Voltage 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not saying it's not true but it would be odd. A Mason should never ask or suggest anyone else not even their kids to become one. It should be of their own freewill and accord.

-1
thelastlast -1 points ago +3 / -4

LOL dude you can still have strong male bonds, hahaha.

i'm not making fun, i can see where this guy's going but this made me laugh, if you're not gay then there's no danger of you falling and tripping on dick, you can be as close to your boys as you want.

11
Cyber1776 [S] 11 points ago +11 / -0

Its not so much that it doesnt exist anymore, it that there is an obvious under the radar campaign to depict comradery like this as gay as a way to discourage men from forming it.

This is really common with some modern historians, to find literally ANY trace of a historical man having a friend and claim it was actually a secretly gay relationship based on the most ridiculous criteria. I read a book about Abe Lincoln that spent several pages entertaining the idea that he was actually gay because he had a fucking roomate when he was younger.

0
jakebro420 0 points ago +1 / -1

Yeah, but in this case, with the Sacred Band, it's been a feature of historical accounts of the group from the first mention in Plutarch. Wrong hill to die on.

3
BigIronBigIron 3 points ago +4 / -1

I suppose you're right, holding hands isn't always gay

3
War_Hamster 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yup. I've been an athlete my whole life. Some of the bonds formed on the field/court/cave have nothing to do with gayness. It's about sharing a common cause and celebrating victories and all of that legitimately good stuff about male bonding.

6
thelastlast 6 points ago +6 / -0

OP is legitimately true though- a few bros working in sync can do amazing things.

6
War_Hamster 6 points ago +6 / -0

100% agree. I'm seeing this in real time.

My grass roots group in IRL are doing those amazing things and it's better than any sports team I've ever been on. Funny thing is we've got a bunch of bad-a$$ lady pedes working with us.

1
NADSAQ 1 point ago +1 / -0

if you’re not gay what’s the harm in playing a little gay chicken haha