The following thoughtful email convinced me that Odysseus has not been properly plumbed in regards to the transhuman conspiracy against Humanity.

The sections required of me, the thug interpreter, will be the following:

-1. Gutter Song

The Gutter Imagines the Wellspring:

How we, from the gutter of humanity, among the detrious of a sunken world, must fail to imagine the mountain spring that begat us?

-2. Diomedes and Athena

How Come a 62-Year-Old Washed Up Tramp is Uniquely Qualified to Understand Penelope?:

Who are the few humans who understand men and women? And how may the many witless proceed in, or follow, this investigation?

-3. The Iliad versus The Odyssey

The False Dichotomy of Modern Projection Upon Homeric Epic:

Some ways in which these two books are misread by academic soul crooks.

-4. Homerids and Hesiod

Four Masters and a Matron:

The probably composition of the Odyssey from 1200 through 300 B.C.

-5. Female Persons and Powers in the Odyssey

…

The Case for Modern Projection Over Ancient Connection

…

Hello James,

My name is Ryan and I have read and enjoyed a handful of your books over the last 6 months.

Seeing as you are a proponent of studying the ancients, I wanted to bring to your attention "The Authoress of the Odyssey" by Samuel Butler.

The gist of the book is a highly convincing argument that the Odyssey was written by a young unmarried woman in Sicily well after the Iliad was created.

I spent the afternoon skimming this text which can be found free here:

Given your eyesight limitations, you should be able to download the text and blow it up however large you need (should you choose to do so).

Anyway...

It's funny, I listened to the Odyssey for the first time years ago, and I distinctly recall elements of the story which had me scratching my head. Well, they now make complete sense in the context of a woman author.

My favorite example is the character of Penelope.

She's a woman of at least forty years who is desired by a hundred young suitors who are madly in love with her. Yet they do not compete for her or even seem to care who she chooses.

The suitors feast and overstay their welcome (but of course they always leave at the end of the night). They even take a handful of maidservants to bed, but they all manage to keep their hands off the illustrious Penelope who never once falters in her loyalty to Odysseus.

No man among them seems to recognize the futility of competing for Penelope, opting instead to depart in search of another (and certainly younger) wife.

Only a woman lacking mature perspective on the dynamic between the sexes could write something so myopic and incongruent with reality.

The author of the Odyssey, desperate to uphold Penelope's feminine honor, cannot give the character any flaws.

Are we really supposed to believe that this woman, surrounded by dozens of strong young men in the absence of her husband, didn't send the son of Laertes a Dear John letter?

C'MONNNNNNNN

-Ryan

…

Thanks Ryan. The ideas of a Dear John letter, of carnal love being totally entwined with family, political stability and heroism, all stems form post WWII thinking, and is more vested in Hollywood TV plots and Semitic ideals of sexual attraction than anything ancient or Arуan. It is simply not possible for modern or postmodern people to understand men or women today, let alone of yester ages. This is based on our extreme over-domestication.

Take sexual attraction for instance. Men are only supposed to be attracted to women of virgin build, who have no proven reproductive capacity. Women are only supposed to be attracted to young studs without social status or proven character, or to old men with money—this is all entirely Hebrew and Islamic. Look into the Nordic myths and you will see something opposite. However, since modern humanists look at the opposite sex through a Christian prism, we have a problem. Christianity has no sexual ideal. Christianity began as an anti-sexual, indeed sterile, ideal of withdraw from the physical world, to include withdraw from all attraction to the opposite sex as corrupt. Early Christianity was dedicated to the ideal that God designed us wrongly, that humanity had to remake itself in God’s image and leave human desire behind. [Read Augustine, Turtellian, Cyrprain, Jerome, Athenasius, etc.] So, when Christianity becomes the state religion in A.D. 325 at the bottom of a terrible demographic curve, family became fashionable again. Heathen and pagan ideals of sexual attraction—of the woman being attracted to fighting men, and of fighting men being attracted to every kind of woman but a crone—had to be set aside. The model of attraction therefore followed the Old Testament, the slave girl and the patriarch, the man marrying innocence and the virgin marrying money. This is still the feminist [entirely Jеwish] view. The hero was no longer permitted—as in pagan and heathen myth—to be attractive to women. Women must be attracted to what homos are attracted to, young, bald faced youths, pretty, fresh men, untested, without grit. And men must have the dainty damsel. Njal’s Saga tells a story that Penelope would understand, that the returning Agamemnon would grasp only too late. These aspects will be plumbed in Part 2.

First, the reason why academics can never understand antiquity are as follows:

-1. All academics are novice writers. Even Michael Grant and Will Durant, any most prolific author you can name, has written less then 30 books, and has written no novels. Only the prolific novelist [King, Elmore, McArthy, etc.] has a chance at fathoming the ancient poet, his analogue, and none of our academics are prolific novelists. Gene Wolfe understood the ancients because he was a novelist and a combat infantryman.

-2. No academics are experienced prize fighters, street thugs, violent criminals. Thus they MAY NOT understand the hero, as all ancient heroes are criminal psychopaths by modern standards.

-3. No academics are accomplished consorts of women, meaning the lovers of women of various types and ages. They thus may not understand fighting men on yet another count, or of women! Look, if you can only function sexually for the woman of your ideal type, than you are already half a homo! The hero of ages past had to be able to rape every woman in the village capable of bearing children, and also of satisfying the middle aged oracle/priestess/witch in order to get full access to the power structure outside of his immediate power. For instance, Cyrus had sex with the Queen of Cicilia in order to get her husband, the cucked king, to pay his Greek mercenaries! Odysseus had to have sex with creatures who were not even human! Why is it important to be able to have sex with an ugly bitch? In case aliens invade and you need to seduce their queen! The best example in modern prose, of the necessary hero’s ability to mate with a truly frightening BOSS BITCH, is Robert E. Howard’s Worms of the Earth, the basis for the witch sex scene in the Conan the Barbarian movie of 1981.

-4. Most modern academics have not been involved in fiction, let alone involved with writing novels with a fellow novelist. Ancient epic poets worked as teams, not lone harpers like Orion.

-5. Argument as the modern ideal of truth finding blinds us in total darkness, binds us in mist like the dead in The Land of the Midnight Sun. We are told that The Iliad is about Achilles, when it is about Hector, Odysseus and Diomedes foremost and Achilles, Patroclus, Ajax, Agamemnon, Helen, Thetis and Priam secondarily. We are also told that these are separate, when they are from the same body of pre written lore. Many tales of Troy and its heroes were told and not written. Many were written and lost to time. Herodotus wrote of Troy in Book 1: Cleo. We have only snapshots in The Iliad, The Odyssey and The Siege of Troy. In the modern bitch mind; the academic, atheist, Semitic instructed, feminist, squabbling mind of the disputant, or the politician, The Iliad and The Odyssey must be by separate authors who are negating each other’s values. But in the ancient mind of poetic concord, both stories compliment each other, like a shield does a sword, like a woman does a man. And, both of these stories were composed by dozens of poets in concord, one of Relentless War, one of Uneasy Peace, like a musical band creating a song together. There are elements of The Odyssey that are far more ancient than anything in The Iliad.

In the next three sections I will demonstrate that the minimum number of poets that finalized the Iliad was 6, and as many as 24, and that these labored under one master poet, who was like a conductor. The Odyssey had even more authors, spread across more ages, and certainly had one prominent female poet. The Odyssey is clearly broken into 4 sections, subject to the arrangement of four master poets, one of these being the same master that brought us the final version of The Iliad.

The fact that all modern academics I have read assign a single author to any of these works, and deny that any of these authors were warriors of blood-stained hand who recited around camp fires with the dying moaning in the background, tells me that they are all idiots of a kind, have not brawled, and, that if they have a woman, that that old girl or young graduate student would much rather be kneeling before this wizened old knucklehead than sharing that passionless, tenured bed.