The Spartan Tradition & UK Government; pederasty & homosexuality as control grid

The key to the prison door is knowledge. Ultimately, this means hitting the books, and not hanging off of every word about the latest psyop to come out of internet bulletin board platforms. There are approximately two and a half thousand solid years’ worth of written page in the world, and a very high percentage of the internet’s opinion formers have read 0% of it, if they’ve read that. And then, one must come at lots of this material from a certain perspective to really benefit from it. It is a perspective that is obtained through understanding that the construct of modern human society is the same as it was when man started to scratch words on papyrus, and modern human beings are the subjects of an elite class through the same basic technocratic tools that subjected their ancient counterparts.

Consider Plutarch’s Greek Lives, the first of which was the history of Lycurgus, the king of the Spartans. Lycurgus appears to be worthy of record because of the unique form of society that he created. As one reads and becomes familiar with the details of the Spartan system, if one is receptive to it through having obtained the understanding described above, it becomes clear that the Lycurgian system has been implemented in the UK. It is at its most blatantly obvious in the education of the children of the ruling class – which is exactly where we would expect it to be found; Victorian public schools were not called “Spartan” for nothing. From this nugget of reality, a fuller installation can be discerned and at last explanations can be found for how the military and intelligence agencies are peopled, and where the social engineering that is being inflicted upon Britons has come from, and for what purpose it is deployed, and why there is no social mobility – which is the central reason for the pretence of representative democracy; i.e. to stymie expectations and manage disappointment.

Even today, there are five public schools that feed the same number of children into Oxford and Cambridge universities as do two thousand state schools. This will never change, despite what an apparent social-engineering politician campaigns on to get elected. If one applies even a little bit of thought, one realises that this disparity isn’t about any difference in performance between individual children, because high grades are there for the talking up and down the land. Children from public schools should be proportionally represented at Oxbridge if it was just a matter of grades. It isn’t about the quality of education either, because British education doesn’t produce fine minds. British education is inculcation for the good of the State, and Oxford and Cambridge produce drones to that end. What the favouritism is about is keeping certain families in the ruling class – directing the children of the head drones into a route to become the next generation. The author has previously in another place directed his readers to the article from whence the extract comes, but it is worth doing it again:

Strikingly, there is no evidence that wealth and status between the generations has declined since the Victorian era. The economists say that, despite the introduction of wealth taxes early in the 20th century, the arrival of mass education and the opening of the universities and professions to a modern meritocracy, social mobility rates have not changed “one iota”.

The Telegraph gives an oportunity to observe a different tone in its coverage of the same report from whence the Guardian published these findings. Not surprisingly, it is more up-beat and proudful (think “rah-rah”, straw hats and rowing regattas).

It is surely no accident that certain practices in public schools were instituted more or less at the same time as Britons were staging the Greek Revival – which brought extremely good things as well as extremely bad. Of course, it is the Victorians rather than the Regency Georgians who have become synonymous with the brutal “Spartan” education designed to knock stamina and hardness into a boy – see Dickens and other writers for plenty of examples.  But there is another aspect of the Spartan method that was adopted, and it appears to be an open secret. Plutarch sets the scene:

By the time they were this old [twelve] the boys used to be accompanied as they went about by lovers from among the young men of good families. The older men used to pay them more attention, visiting the wrestling-grounds and hanging around while they fought and teased one another. Nor was it the case that older men had nothing to do there: in a sense they all regarded all boys as their sons, pupils, and wards, which meant that there was never a time or place whn the boys would be without someone to criticise and correct their mistakes…. [17]

Although passionate love was so highly thought of in Sparta that even noble and respectable women used to have love-affairs with unmarried girls, yet rivalry in love was unknown; instead, if two men were in love with the same boy, they would let this forge a bond of friendship between them and from then on would share their efforts to improve their beloved. [18]

It’s remarkable that Sparta is held in such a high regard in modern times when it serves as documented proof that a society can collectively be mentally ill. Some, as Plutarch goes on to explain, would argue that there was method to the madness…

To Lycurgus’ way of thinking children did not belong to their fathers, but to the state in common; and so he wanted the citizens of the state to come from the best stock, not just any random parents.

… and hence…

Despite making marriage such a chaste and decorous affair, Lycurgus also banished the vain, womanish feeling of jealousy by making it acceptable to share the business of procreating children with others of sufficient excellence, provided there remained no place for any kind of outrageous or disorderly behaviour within the marriage.

The Spartans were convinced that adultery didn’t exist in their society – in that way, too, the syphilitic Victorians were alike.

The reader may have noticed that LGBT history has started to be talked about in the same way that “Black history” is, and the figure that we must encounter next might very well be prominent in its canon  given that he has a write-up in the LGBTWiki: William Johnson Cory, or William Johnson before his “disgrace”. The following is from the straight version.

Johnson was forced to resign from Eton at Easter 1872 after an “indiscreet letter” that he had written to a pupil was intercepted by the boy’s parents and brought to the notice of the headmaster. Although it has been suggested that Johnson was a devoted pederast who numbered among his paramours Reginald Brett, the future Lord Esher, the Dictionary of National Biography maintains that this cannot be proved and that “No one can be quite sure of the exact circumstances of his resignation,” adding: “There is no question, however, that he was dangerously fond of a number of boys. Although he probably did not allow his affections to take any physical form, he permitted intimacies between the boys. This conduct was brought to the notice of the headmaster, James Hornby, who demanded Johnson’s resignation.” In dismissing Johnson, Hornby commented that it was not for committing acts of “immorality in the ordinary sense of the word”, meaning sodomy in the euphemism of an era when passionate relationships between men and boys were justly encouraged, and an alternative view of Johnson’s dismissal is given by William C. Lubenow, who posits that Hornby “turfed out William Johnson and Oscar Browning because they were liberal reformers in a highly authoritarian institution … [they] attempted to create a community where power and personality, desire and discipline, and love and learning were integrated.

This subject is extremely cagey in these days where we aren’t tolerant of paedophilia, but we are supposed to accept homosexuality – and there can never be even a hint of a connection between the two. This Wikipedia entry squirms with it. At best, in this world view, Johnson encouraged homosexuality in schoolboys, at worst he sexually molested them. But the truth is, there is no best or worst; actually, it’s all bad. And calling it “liberal reform” shows where the modern tendency to dress sordidness up as progress comes from. The “liberal reform” is surely code for practicing Greek-style pederastic-mentoring. Notice, too, the cageyness of the the Eton headmaster in the above quote: the immorality wasn’t the usual sort – but of course he would say that. But the really intriguing thing is the way the emboldened sentence is phrased. What does this reference – the Victorian age or the Greek age? When Plutarch talks of “passionate love” between men and boys, he’s talking about the act of buggery. Maybe it is the Victorian age after all, especially when one considers the overt fag system, about which the Wiki page on the subject informs as follows:  “Fagging was sometimes associated with sexual abuse by those older boys”. It goes on to say:

Dr. Thomas Arnold, headmaster of Rugby from 1828 to 1841, defined fagging as the power given by the authorities of the school to the Sixth Form, to be exercised by them over younger boys

The Victorian Spartan system continued well into the 20th century, as the testimonies collated on a 2005 Guardian web page show. It’ll suffice us to reproduce here the first of seven vignettes, although it should be mentioned that in at least one of the others, there is open mention of “a lot of buggery”. It reminds us perfectly that public school was for producing the elite ruling class – which intrinsically involved homosexuality between juvenile boys, and whatever was compelling them to it. Of course, our explanation is the pederastic Spartan system that had been incorporated onto what otherwise would have been the quite innocent playing fields of England. Indeed, these tales tell of school masters interfering with the boys.

I was at Oundle in the mid-40s and it was tough. There were cold baths every morning and the food was awful. As far as I can see, the point was to produce people to run the British empire: if you could survive five years at public school, there was nothing the Kalahari desert or Antarctica could throw at you. Sex was part of the culture of the school, but it was all pretty ingenuous. It wasn’t a culture of gang rape; it was boys getting crushes on other boys. It was like a ghastly parody of courtship, more to do with adolescent yearning than lust. Imagine it: 650 adolescents with nothing on their mind but sex who had to try to sublimate it all into playing rugger.

The system continues. In 2014, the following reportage appeared in the Daily Mail:

Prosecutions against independent school teachers for sex crimes have soared as victims come forward to report historic allegations.

One or more men employed at 62 leading institutions – including many top boys’ public schools such as Haberdashers’ Aske’s, Wellington College and Ampleforth – have been convicted of abusing children over the past 20 years.

Of these, 18 came to court during the past two years. Cases involving teachers at four more schools are awaiting trial.

A very high profile case that was aired in public in the last few years was that of James Rhodes, a concert pianist, and a celebrity one at that. The Daily Mail takes up the story:

When he was five, James went to Arnold House, an exclusive prep school serving the affluent neighbourhood where he lived and a conveyor belt for Westminster, St Paul’s and Charterhouse, as well as Eton and Harrow. The comedian Michael McIntyre was in the year below.

Rhodes had been at the school for a year when the abuse began, though he says in the book that it is wrong to describe the ordeal inflicted on him as ‘abuse’.

‘Abuse. What a word. Abuse is when you tell a traffic warden to “F*** off’’ . . . I was used, broken, toyed with and violated from the age of six. Over and over for years and years.’

A full five years, to be precise. The perpetrator, he says, was his boxing master, someone he looked up to.

The author suspects that this boxing coach, Peter Lee, who died in 2011, might have been a bit of a scapegoat, although that is definitely not to say that he didn’t assist in the persistent assault of a lad that would lead to “depression, attempted suicides, eating disorders and several mental institutions”. But something is revealed when we learn that when Rhodes  “moved to other schools, he had learned to offer sexual favours to older boys and teachers in return for sweets and other treats”.

Expectation that teachers would want sexual favours must be due to systematic conditioning to the certainty of it. Cases like Rhodes’ inform that adults do play an active role in public school homosexuality, but if anyone wants to defend it by saying that it is generally boy-culture, then consider this: the adults know of it because they suffered it the same, but then they don’t do anything to stamp it out when they acquire the power whereby they could take that determined action. Why not?

James Rhodes is married, and has at least one child. This, and his opinion of how his experience of being molested was so destructive and alienating from an idea of normalcy, can be taken as evidence that there was no natural inclination for sexual relations with other males. Other boys become homosexuals after being abused – there is plenty of anecdotal evidence. But that doesn’t make the transformative process any less destructive. The author proposes that homosexuality is rooted in paedophilia, and has nothing to do with genetics – although it can be brought on with environmental chemical poisoning and conditioning. At its root is abuse, and this is the big emperor’s clothes issue of our times. No one points out the nakedness because homosexuality is central, like it was in Sparta, to a program of social engineering.

Did the reader ever wonder why they were called “public schools”? It is because they are communal – an idea straight from Sparta. What many living today who get their history from Gerard Butler films probably don’t understand is that Sparta is the city that ruled over the country of Lacedaemon, and the author would stick his neck out to add that it originally didn’t belong to the Spartans. Sparta really begins with Lycurgus, who brought about the reforms after a long time of chaos. Lycurgus came back to the country, so the historians tell us, and resolved everything peacefully – but one has to be a bit naïve to think he could enforce his radical vision on human beings without the aid of coercing  force; i.e. an occupying army. Another clue is that the Spartans were always hugely outnumbered by people called the Helots, who were awarded land to work by the Spartans, and who therefore had to surrender produce to its “owners”.

While the Helots lived in family units, the Spartans were organised communally, for the benefit of the State. Women weren’t maternal, they were auxiliary drones to take up certain functions when their male warrior countrymen went to war. All Spartans were drones for the exercise of war, and the country had a reputation of being without art and architecture – the usual real expressions of civilisation. Family attachments were discouraged (see the report above on aberrational sexual practices), and even attachment to a home and possessions were frowned upon. Spartans would have to eat in canteens all together – they weren’t allowed to dine at home.

And so, the later public school of Britain would be a re-enactment of Spartan culture because it would be host to the communal gathering of children for the purposes already mentioned. The reader should have Harry Potter’s Hogwarts school spring to mind, and also think of the Horace Slughorn character – again, further to what has already been written at FBEL on this matter (see article here), a clue that what is being represented in that fictional world is the British training college for the elite class.

The Wizards had the Muggles, the Normans had the Anglo-Saxons (and arguably still do), and the Spartans had the Helots – and when we get into the treatment of the Helots by the Spartans, the reader should be drawing equivalences to contemporary circumstances [the Masonic Crown vs the Britons], and alarm bells should be going off. Instead of reinventing the wheel, the reader is encouraged to go to the site linked to, here, from whence the following extract is taken, and read the whole page.

A secret society for the young, the future citizen-soldiers, called the Krypteia (from the Greek word meaning ‘hidden’ or ‘secret’) ruthlessly eliminated any Helots that were considered objectionable, with a few random murders thrown in to keep the rest of the Helots in fear–a kind of state terror. Every year, the oligarchy declared war on the Helots so Spartan citizens could kill them without committing murder according to their laws.

Here is an hypothesis for framing future research work: Britain has an equivalent of the Krypteia, and it is known as MI5. The agency’s involvement in that abovementioned state terror has been adduced over again by people who look into the matter. Indeed, after briefly examining the Derek Bird case of 2010, the author achieved the opinion that all the big crimes are committed by the Government for the purpose of control. Naturally, it would be a hard accusation to prove. However, we can certainly charge the British Government of inflicting its diseased culture upon us in order to harm us. Consider the following 1997 Independent article entitled, So what’s new about gay spies?

…the news last week that the secret services have relaxed their ban on gays to attract recruits from a broader section of the population – “MI5 brings homosexuals back in from the cold”, as one headline put it – is a little puzzling.

As all spywatchers know, they have never been out there. Right from their formation in 1909, Britain’s secret services have been thick with homosexual officers, as has the opposition. At the peak of the Cold War we had been so penetrated by gay agents working for the Comintern that they privately referred to their spy ring as “the Homintern”.

A 2016 BBC article informs that “MI5 has been named the UK’s most gay-friendly employer”. If its stocked to the gills with Britain’s ruling class†, why should anyone be surprised. [The stories about a ban on homosexuals serving in MI5, MI6 or GCHQ are obviously for Helot consumption].

Here’s the bottom line, dear reader. These people aren’t your ruling class, they are not the owners of fine minds thanks to the best education, they are not the enlightened minority. They are degenerates, who even went to the lengths of inventing a Masonic mythology about man being a Hermaphrodite at his creation in order to rationalise their corruption. This little detail is important, because we are seeing, in the latest phase of trying to extend a Spartan control grid into the wider population through the destruction of the family (the Spartans themselves committed eugenics on the Helots), the roll-out of the Transsexual/Transgendered/Multigendered as the latest push of the Overton Window. Homosexuality, emasculated men, masculated women and family breakdown is their culture for control, and that is all it is. When it is pushed on the Helots – us – it isn’t there to do anyone any favours. If we extrapolate from what we know, the goal has to be open pederasty. It’s high time that the emperor was called out for being naked and indecent. And it’s high time that the decent “farming class” of Helotry pushed back. Are you going to let yourself be ruled by these creatures anymore? There are millions of Helots, and only a few Spartons.

[Related: Establishment closes ranks over elite paedophile-ring suspicions? ]

† Inviting an opportunity to remember this: