The New Left is absolutely responsible for setting the stage for contemporary identitarian progressives. As such the whole "where did this come from?" act is completely disingenuous. The New Left replaced native workers with students and oppressed groups as the core of revolutionary change. Similarly, non-objective theories of oppression like Freudian Marxism were already popular. I should also point out that while the Left has always had a professional class which leads, the gap between the oppressed peoples and the leadership has grown considerably so they make up for this uncomfortable truth by adopting their own victimology. When the veteran Boomer leftist speaks of "the reasonable hierarchy of moral priorities" he means objective measures of disenfranchisement, such as income levels and educational opportunities. The contemporary progressive has no time for such things and is perfectly content to see oppression as simply, "I went outside and somebody looked at me funny" or, "I do things that make me feel bad about myself but I don't want to take responsibility." When we consider that the contemporary progressive is likely a jobless college student living off their parents finances it's easy to see why this mode has won out. Despite the irrationality of the political language, there is an objective self-interest at play. This is because in the Anglo-American context, the Left has always been better at politics than the Right. The language may change but the promotion of the professional leadership class is always the objective. From labor unions (the Old Left) to libertine upper middle class students (the New Left) to middle class young people with personality disorders and a medicine cabinet full of SSRIs since middle school (contemporary progressives).
This is how betas will be remembered
The more I see this sort of thing the more convinced I become of my private theory that beta male fixation on epic romantic relationships with women is actually an anima projection of an unmet need for male friendship that is too emotionally intense for the manchildish masculinity of American men to bear and too alien to what women want in a man for them to really satisfy. All of the characteristics that are associated with romantic love - mutual understanding, intimacy, loyalty, and so on - are clearly more apt to flourish among people who are like minded, and there are few sets of people less like minded than a man and a woman. Yes, there is a sense in which sex can be said to naturally lead to love - the sort of breeding-love you see between people who are committed to the path of raising children together. But that is perhaps rare among humans, who seem to be far more reticent about accepting the full weight of responsibility for family and children than one might think; and it is in any case something clearly not widely found in America, where the association of sex with babies is considered morally offensive by a wide range of lunatics who prefer to talk about infants as if they were a sexual disease one needs "protection" from. One would think the more natural option for a lifelong lover (note: lover, not sexual partner) would be someone who is more capable of understanding who you are and where you are coming from, rather than someone else whose alien patterns of thought and behavior are literally proverbial for their oddity.
Why don't American men get this? Among other reasons, it is because we have lost the spine needed to enforce morality and have allowed the fringes of our society to define what qualifies as love, falsely and to their own twisted benefit. This is why behavior that would not lead to a raised eyebrow in traditional societies is classified as "gay" in the US (Ango wrote about this once after seeing men holding hands in Korea). Back when we were a traditional society as well, that was common here too. Now we can no longer set boundaries and allow the normal behavior of mankind to be norm of our law, and so we end up here: absurd expectations straining marriages to the breaking point, which might have otherwise worked if they had been entered into with more humble intentions.
Bronze Age Pervert:
The Greeks, as stated, wouldn't approve of modern homos, and modern homos would be ridiculed and would lose voting rights for engaging in slavish conduct. It's also not clear how much sex pederastic relationships involved, and it probably varied from state to state. The Thebans were famous sodomites (and rustics). The aristocratic Athenian relationship was ideally non-sexual. Also Foucault and these others are twisted and wrong about older men exploiting younger & women, in fact as Paglia emphasizes, it was the younger partner who was, if anything the "dominant" one, and he was worshiped and literally put on a pedestal. Whether this involved sex or no, I don't know, but Nietzsche says it was this love of youth that allowed for genuine education to take place, since it was based on love.
Otherwise I agree with what Sixtus says, even in societies without a reputation for homo, friendships between men were intense and could be considered "gay" today. I believe another reason such friendships are discouraged is because they are politically very dangerous. It's also the reason for the attack on fraternities (which only exist in colleges; in real life I believe men's clubs have been legally banned, and yet it is only from such clubs that any effective political movement can emerge). I don't think this was consciously thought out by ZOG, but it works to its great advantage. Normally in an age like ours there would be many conspiracies by such clubs and by men in mid-level military to overthrow the regime. Harmodius & Aristogeiton are the ancient aristocratic ideal, two friends who stood up to tyranny.
American men are feminized in a literal sense, their emotional life is exclusively connected with women and they are taught to have contempt for friendship with men. I don't think this was planned though, I don't think ZOG can think ahead so far.