A case for virile homosexuality

How do we conciliate the appeal for a form of sexual liberation with the references to national-socialism ?

First off there was never a national-socialist doctrine per se, not even close. There has never been any complete world-view or set of beliefs characterizing all of Hitler followers or adherents to the NSDAP. And what the majority thought at one point (or Hitler himself for the matter) doesn’t define the core ideas do, which as we’ll do not mind injecting much so-called deviancy¹ in an extremely racist totalitarian society, absolutely opposed to the liberal order which sprang unfettered from the Axis’ defeat. Then we shall explore in details the place of homosexuality (in our ape cousins at the very least) and pedophilia to some degree, to conclude on what sex should look like in humans and its place in society. While we do talk a lot about sodomy, this is by association to homosexuality. This practice (with boys and girls alike) and its meaning deserved a specific article, to which we refer after this one.

Germanany and morality

Pre-Weimar early sexual liberation

For the sake of objectivity, we shall also give an overview of what historical Nazis or Japanese imperialists or Fascists really thought about untraditional forms of relationships or sex and the reality of acts, which was more often than not extremely different - more relaxed - than some extremely overly violent speeches would have you believe. Unsurprisingly, propaganda doesn’t always match facts.

Nurtured by Wagner’s doctrine of Regeneration (favorable to sexual freedom at a time where no chemicals, contraceptives or ill-advised science could sully it), widespread naturism and a healthy admiration for living naturally led to Germans developing an equally healthy love for themselves despite an enduring Christian legacy. It also contributed to the rise of a racism devoid of hate - save for its self-proclaimed enemies, the Jewish nation.

Germans were famous for their interest in other cultures and races and for pioneering ethnography. During the Wilhelmine Empire of Mittelafrika, German colonizers had the love and respect of the locals, who acknowledged them as benevolent rulers… a feat neither French nor Belgians could boast of. On a perhaps more disturbing note, even under Hitler pages of Der Adler or similar widely spread magazines could contain openly erotic appreciations and photographs of Ethiopian women.

At its core, nation-socialism was based on love.

There are two very different kinds of nationalism and failing to understand has since then made impossible a similar revival of national-socialism. The second, un-German kind of nationalism, is correctly described by my personal Bible, Sturgeon’s portraying of a perfect, White inbred and promiscuous civilization:

Metapsychoanalysis allow us to understand the stark differences between natural instincts and their warped, neurotic equivalent absolutely ubiquitous nowadays. We don’t mean to insult anyone in particular, or hardly one for the matter: we are all neurotics, all products of a repressed society, denying young people access to sex while they suffer from rageful hormones. This, would be the limit of a purely Freudian (or Jungian) analysis, but we also know for certain that cooking create abnormal impulses on a physiological, molecular level, against which only a strong cultural conditioning has been found necessary in all High Cultures until now. Greece, Rome, Hawai’i…

Whether you hate fags or don’t mind them… or are a fag perhaps, anyone with half a brain should acknowledge nature and draw the necessary conclusions, regards to himself and others. We’ll do just that, then I’ll quote a few authors from antiquity, to hammer my point home: Himmler was wrong, homosexuality is not antinatural, nor anti-European, it was present all along, from primates to kings and the best of our philosophers, artists and inventors.

Himmler and the likes of him like to quote Germanicus from Tacitus, in fact it’s all they know, because it’s simply the only thing they have, while nearly all litterature from antiquity to early Christian times (when untamed Pagans still existed) has claimed far and wide for thousand years, the exact opposite.
Celts and Germans like their boys a lot :

As for the famous of quote of Tacitus constantly brought up by traditionalist degenerates, I can not do justice to this splendid analysis apart from quoting the magnificient Julie Couronne:

Below I treat the case of Greeks in details, since we have more litterature about them, from their own hands while Germans and Celts did not really write.

Sparta still strikes us as the ideal ethnostate, ripe with eugenicism and a near-complete abiding by natural instincts, all leading to a superior intellect and boundless martial might which left the whole Mediterranean world in awe for centuries. The whole written tradition - including Xenophon - describe it as the epitome of spiritually-minded institutionalized pederasty, so much so that to lakonize was synonymous of sodomy. We aim at imitating Sparta, plus incest and raw food, so that such a culture which could last centuries (quite an achievement already !) will this time, last not a thousand years as Hitler wished, but a thousand thousands of years.

The first generation of Nazis suffered from a reactionary Christian education exacerbated (understandably) by the excess of the Weimar republic, a striking reflection (decades before) of what Mai 68’s liberation begat. But who knows was the next generation, raised to value strength and independence of thought, would have decided ? What kind of culture would they create ? We will never know but we believe something great, increasingly closer to their Nordic heritage, discarding old prejudices.. Such a people would have been open to social change on a rational basis, much more that has been the case in the democratic new world order.

The discovery of instinctotherapy and the original function of love, would have played out very, very differently. Because it ensures peak human condition, because it works. We would probably lead hundreds if not millions of people in an unending, relentless (though peaceful) crusade.
In a nutshell, we lost decades, soon a whole century.

Then, to know human nature we should first look at apes and what they do. This will help define what natural homosexual behaviors are, without which having any discussion on desirable social norms is void of object. Then, we’ll review a few examples of the different kinds of homosexuality our current society features (the good, the bad and the ugly) what they mean on an archetypal or psychoanalytical level.

Himmler the imbecile

There are three points We want to clarify regarding how Nazis related to homosexuals.
First off, We can read here how Germans used to proceed with sterilization (of unfits, criminals, and later on homosexuals): Sterilization in Nazi Germany .

Once the decision to sterilize had been made (90% of the petitions that made it to the courts in 1934 ended up with the result of sterilization), the doctor that had petitioned for the sterilization was required to inform the patient of the operation. The patient was told “that there would be no deleterious consequences.” Police force was often needed to bring the patient to the operating table. The operation itself consisted of ligation of the Fallopian tubes in women and a vasectomy for men.

Here too, Hitler did nothing wrong: they protected the people’s genetic legacy with minimal to absent effect on individuals’ life. To sterilize any criminal whatsoever is a justified act to preserve the Völk’s genepool, and doesn’t trouble one’s sexual life, nor even the possibility of raising a family (not for criminals obviously), as adoption was highly praised as a moral duty.

The same text goes like this:

Here’s an obvious case of confirmation bias.
Statistics show no correlation between sterilization and side effects.
First regards to tubal ligation, or female surgical sterilization²:

Morbidity: Dying of undergoing bilateral tubal ligation or bilateral salpingectomy is extremely rare. Death occurred in 4 out of every 100,000 female sterilization surgeries before 19822.

These risks are inherent to surgery in general and not the type of surgery in particular.

There are also no documented changes in sex drive after receiving sterilization surgery. Many women find sex more enjoyable after getting sterilized because they don’t need to worry about getting pregnant anymore.

There is no known correlation between weight loss, weight gain, or appetite, and sterilization methods such as tubal ligation. Because of the age bias, doctors mostly offer sterilization to older women—while young women often have tremendous difficulties finding a helpful doctor. Since many people gain weight as they age, they might assume that it’s caused by their sterilization even though there are other factors at play.

There have been sufficient studies with samples of hundreds to tens of thousands in size, disproving the relationship between vasectomy and diseases, in particular autoimmune diseases and high pain. More on this here: Disease Risk after Vasectomy - Is there a Link to Other Conditions? . Studies show that some discomfort is to be expected for a a few months, but rarely more, and true pain justifying seeking a physician is very infrequent (4% according to one study, with less than 200 persons).

I am not a physician (we hate most of them and think they do more harm than good, and never needed in 10 years since I changed my diet, save for dentists), but the language of stats is universal. To describe normal vasectomy or tubal ligation as a mutilation is an utmost liar, that many do relish in.

Secondly, it must be made crystal clear, that there has never been a campaign systematic extermination of homosexuals in Germany. A small numbers were sent to prison according to the law, and a fraction of these sojourned in concentration camps, where they worked, and enjoyed life conditions identical to those of any other category. To be honest, when we know that Auschwitz had schools, swimming pools, orchestras…

I now even doubt homosexuals were “singled out”, “beaten up” or any of that kind of treatment. Simply put, in normal conditions (so maybe not when not everyone is starving or being bombed to death), Germans are human and treat people well, to the limit of their capability. The same was related about prisoners of wars and Jews, both who arguably had quite a lot of reasons to objectively fear Germans.

Hence, We now think homos didn’t have it much worse than anyone in camps..

On a last note, it was common knowledge that most homosexuals, were also communist antifascist. Enemies of the State, not unlike Jews. On the other hand, We find troubling that that those figures were so low:
The authorities, Himmler in particular, had access to much more names that a mere 50 000. In a speech to SS Group Leaders, delivered on 18 February 1937, he said:

It doesn’t make a lot of sense for there to be at least one million homos yet only… 0.05 % percents actually sent to jail ? Rhe SS (in Schwarze Korps) abounded in death threats against homosexuals. Yet it didn’t amount to much ! Let’s not mix up propaganda and reality. If We had killed one person every time We proclaimed my intention to do so, 6 000 000 would have died, for real this time.

What motivated Germans, was to destroy effeminate faggots, and we can argue that the overwhelming majority of these convicts were of that kind… probably not the militarist, masculine kind. Himmler said at least one case of homosexuality was found out in the SS per month. How much condemnations or merely accusations, is hard if perhaps to know, but we do know that evading these accusations was often as simple as demonstrating his virility by being married or having kids.
Himmler himself, defended a lot of victims of accusations: what could it mean ?

It meant Nazi fought against effeminate men, seen as a danger to the State. Lacking the concepts to make sense of reality, people raised in a certain culture will be inflicted by an incapacity to verbalize what they live, even to think about it. The same would happen with trying to name various colors within a very limited vocabulary, or differentiating new phonemes in a foreign language: phonemic deafness often takes a time to overcome, and rewire your brain sufficiently to learn to decode perceptions as distinct. Raw perception and its representation in the mental space, depending on the sense, aren’t always easy to decouple.

Arguably, the situation is worse for concepts, since the object itself is as mental as its representation, while senses deal with physical sensations: mental sensations are exponentially harder to distinguish, keep track of, memorize and compute without words making sense of vague mental impressions, and without extensive meditation experience thinking non-conceptually is nigh impossible: we are - through and through - conceptual, intellectual being.

Perhaps more importantly, clarity in the mental space was - still is - actively thwarted by unconscious moralistic constructs and deep-seated disgust for the object (effeminate homosexuality or gayness) and everything even slightly related to it, so that the solutions to that issue will forever evade those born under the old traditional morale.

Simply put, Himmler could never have thought things right, no more than he could have imagined - even remotely - that sodomy could be both pleasant, beneficial and safe on all regards. If so, he could have dissociated homosexuality from the cultural construct that is “gayness”. But all he could think was:
EEEEEEEWWWWWW!!!!!!!!

Nevertheless, as the figures show, damage was minimum if not nonexistent, they had good intention and served the greater good. Now that we elucidated the truth of Germans’ sentiments and cleared up a few myths, let us proceed on what Nature has to say, about homosexuality.

What Nature says

Homosexual behavior, defined as genital contact between same-sex individuals, has been observed in at least 51 species of nonhuman primates, including prosimians, monkeys, and apes. In contrast, homosexuality refers to a more enduring psychological predisposition (orientation) toward same-sex sexual partners — a phenomenon that is rarely observed in nonhuman primates. Although homosexual behavior is phylogenetically widespread among primates, there is an enormous amount of interspecific variation in the frequency with which such behavior is expressed. In many nonhuman primate species, homosexual behavior occurs quite rarely, whereas in an exceptional few, such as Japanese macaques³ and bonobos⁴, such interactions are a more common feature of the species’ sexual repertoire.

Gorillas which live either in male-only groups⁵ or harems of one or a few males with many females⁶ also exhibit homosexual activity culminating with orgasms like ours.

In simple terms, bonobo females are first and foremost homosexual, with the occasional kids popped out every 5 years⁷.
Given how they go at it all the week all year-long just like us I would argue that 95% of all touchings (with or without orgasms, with or without penetration of any kind) are non-procreative, including most heterosexual encounters, and most coitus as well, though the overwhelming majority of contacts are not coital.

Chimpanzees, the second closest apes don’t feature nearly as much sexual proclivity in general but contrary to what’s been believed for a long time their sociosexual behaviors do include a similar proportion of homosexual contacts:

But scientists did not discover this just now to conveniently support the LGBTI lobby’s agenda, oh no:

The big question is, how did we manage to miss these behaviors in chimpanzees for so long? Chimpanzees are one of the most well-studied primates, due to our biases toward studying our closest relatives. Bonobos are equally related to us, but chimpanzees are better studied due to their wider geographic distribution, and higher numbers in captivity. The longest-running chimpanzee field sites have been running for over 50 years. The answer is that we have not missed it entirely, but simply overlooked it as part of a suite of other behaviors. It has been documented by many studies before, but often is reported as something other than “sociosexual behavior,” subsumed under behaviors such as “reassurance” or “reconciliation,” or “gestures.” This likely is related to cultural biases preventing consideration of these behaviors as related to sexuality, particularly the potential for homosexuality. Sandel and Reddy point out that Jane Goodall, as well as other primatologists, have observed such behaviors in chimpanzees.

However, in Goodall’s 1971 book, In the Shadow of Man, she expressly distanced it from homosexuality.

Never, however, have we seen anything that could be regarded as homosexuality in chimpanzees… Admittedly, a male may mount another in times of stress or excitement, clasping the other around the waist, and he may even make thrusting movements of the pelvis, but there is no intromission. It is true, also, that a male may try to calm himself or another male by reaching out to touch or pat the other’s genitals; while we still have much to learn about this type of behavior, it certainly does not imply homosexuality. He only does this in moments of stress, and he will touch or pat a female on her genitals in exactly the same context.

As if intromission is necessary or customary in homo intercourses. Nor is it always for hetero intercourses either. This systemic schizophrenia, is no better than denying the intrinsic erotic component of breastfeeding, leading to sexual arousal and climaxing.

When those behaviors in bonobos are classified as “sociosexual” whereas in chimpanzees they are classified as ‘’reassurance,” it prevents us from directly comparing and contrasting behaviors between the two sister species. Furthermore, it prevents us from considering ape sexuality, and the potential for homosexual apes, on its own terms.

Also let’s not forget that many a country of these African sites criminalize homosexuality:

there are also cultural factors that may hinder studying and reporting sociosexual behaviors. Ngogo is located in Uganda, where there has been a series of controversial laws that criminalized homosexuality, with penalties for “promoting” or “failing to “report” homosexuality. There are several other countries with similar laws where chimpanzee field sites are located. This can potentially affect research in two ways: first, queer primatologists may not feel safe conducting fieldwork there. Second, researchers and field assistants might be more hesitant to characterize same-sex behaviors in a way that could imply homosexuality because of cultural and legal risks. […]For example, more recent research on same-sex sexual behavior across animal species suggests we may have been overemphasizing heterosexual behavior all along

How could centers and reserve parks already constantly struggling with financial troubles and with wide-scale poaching from armed bands, hope to secure support from hostile corrupt low-IQ nigger governments if they started to low-key describe their apes as pederastic and pedophiliac perverts ? Of course they can’t do that, no one in his right mind would, yet this is the accurate description.
Here is an extensive summary of all species in which some form or another of homosexuality can be observed on an occasional or regular basis.

While this last article does try to explain the very existence of such behaviors rather convincingly (basically, telling sexes apart would not necessarily be easy and it’s often more efficient to amp up sex drive overall than improve female recognition skills), on the other hand it cannot explain why such behaviors evolved to be prevalent in highly intelligent species like chimpanzees, gorillas, us, and dolphins. We must precise though, that none of the above live in a carefree environment. Predators and dangers are plenty: jungle cats (leopards), python, other apes.

So it makes perfect sense that the extrasensory purpose of non-reproductive sexuality is either budding in apes, or well on its way… did someone study bonobos’ potential psychic abilities ? Primitives in the Amazonian forest have been reported to possess a properly supernatural ability to spot on dangerous snakes in the dark.

No one even imagined extrasensory perception could be a thing, and especially not an important feature in the strife for survival. The cerebral requirements for visions or some degree of precognition doesn’t have to be big, actually arguments can be made for its earlier appearance compared to pure computer-like general intellect, which does require big brains in order to adapt. While the extrasensory on the other hand, gives immediate solutions to situations.
We only need the hardware to see the pictures, and have some understanding of causality (which most animals do to some degree, including goddamn cocks), how to relate your perception to the problem at hand. As our intelligence and lifespan grew and our capacity to cancel predation, our reproductive needs dwindled to very little, and non-reproductive sexuality came to dominate completely.

Goebbels was wrong when he wrote The mission of women is to be beautiful and to bring children into the world, since we descend from hardcore lesbian apes.

Now we should ask ourselves, what could be the cost of a lifestyle so dramatically opposed to what simple observations reveal to be our genetic programming ?

Lastly, though for anatomical reasons it is rarer than in humans, complete sodomy is not infrequent nor difficult for apes either:

• Anal insertion with the penis (both in heterosexual and male homosexual dyads, i.e. pairs of animals) has been observed among some primate species. Male homosexual anal insertion has been recorded in Old World primate species, including gorillas, orangutans, and some members of the Macaca genus (namely, stumptail, rhesus, and Japanese macaques). It has also been recorded in at least two New World primate species, the squirrel monkey and the spider monkey.
• A case of male homosexual anal insertion with the finger has also reported among orangutans, and Bruce Bagemihl mentions it as one of the homosexual practices recorded at least once among male chimpanzees.
• Morris (1970) also described one heterosexual orangutan dyad where all insertion was anal. However, the practice might have been a consequence of homosexual rearing, as the male orangutan in this dyad had had extensive same–sex experience.

Ancient Greeks

Ancient Greeks were famous for their love of prepubescent young boys representing the epithome of physical beauty. This however reflected a certain part of society, the higher classes, which inherited those values from aristocratic times. Pederasty was an ideal, and as such many people had many interpretations of it.

In Crete, in order for the suitor to carry out the ritual abduction, the father had to approve him as worthy of the honor. Among the Athenians, as Socrates claims in Xenophon’s Symposium, Nothing [of what concerns the boy] is kept hidden from the father, by an ideal lover. In order to protect their sons from inappropriate attempts at seduction, fathers appointed slaves called pedagogues to watch over their sons. However, according to Aeschines, Athenian fathers would pray that their sons would be handsome and attractive, with the full knowledge that they would then attract the attention of men and be the objects of fights because of erotic passions.

The key being ideal lover. Prostitution - which is very distinct and pertains to porneia, the love solely focused using and abusing the body of others with spiritual motives whatsoever - was common too, for both sex. But free boys willingly prostuting oneself was repellent to most.

Most people found homosexuality totally natural, even if they themselves did not necessarily partake in it… Sophisticated people of a certain standing nearly all did, and we sympathize.
Commoners, while being of a much higher mean quality than in our times, relish a bit less in this kind of things, but still a lot compared to today: in a society with a severe separation of sexes, the whole life (fortunately !) would favor same-sex attraction. Arguments that only aristocrats would indulge in boys’ love are ridiculous, since, as Xenophon’s Socrates said, streets are full with people willing to oblige. And all cities were similar in this regard: pederasty has been highly favored in Greece for centuries, still in Roman and Christian times.

So even though understanding the mystical, higher aspects of desire as explicited in the Symposium indeed was slim already in Plato’s time, as evidenced by a number of critics of pederasty (although less than specialists of doubtful intelligence believe), same-sex attraction - of whatever degree of sophistication - obviously kept strong for a long, long time.

To hammer home this truth we find useful to debunk a few myths rabid reactionaries peddle everywhere they can on internet, multiplying like a cancer on Western culture, myths summarized in this meme. Point by point, I will either validate these quotes - and explain the context - or debunk them, if they appear - as half do - utterly wrong and misguided. The fruit of seething vagina-worshipping haters envying what they’ll never have, true love, the keys to heaven’s gate.

You may go to the author of your choice, though we advise keeping in line just following the text:

Plato Xenophon Alexander Aristophanes Aeso Aeschines Aristotle

Considering the amount of die-hard morons claiming Greeks or Plato did not condone homosexuality or more precisely sodomy, below is an (commentated) excerpt from the Symposium of Plato, in which the very same principles we hold true in love. non-exclusivity but loyalty to honor, the key importance of pederasty vs reproductive heterosexuality, and the real purpose of sexuality and affection, that is to develop the extrasensory, the connection to the realm of souls beyond the material plane. After this, we will see about the Republic and Laws, which contarst harshly against any previous works, and baffled the understanding of Western and antique critics alike. We on other hand, understood. All this, accounting for the inordinate place this author takes in our thoughts.

The two kinds of love, though not really incompatible - all Greeks had a wife - do not compare in their effectiveness. Breeding is an inferior kind of love as the children of the body die while the children of the soul go on forever, alive in the minds of everyone thousands of years after world-wide, long past the boundary or life expectancy of one’s bloodline.

At last, Plato lays out what this way of love actually look like, on a social level:

The following resumes the whole exposition: from one beautiful body to many, from one beautiful soul to many, then to divine essence beauty itself. The text is clear in its inclusion of sexuality. But love of physical beauty (the violent passion for one body) is but one step, a means to connect on a level more fundamental that just the body or the emotion. That last subtlety, I think has been beyond the head of most readers (even very intelligent ones) so far. Individual passions in general do not matter.

He who from these ascending under the influence of true love, begins to perceive that beauty, is not far from the end. And the true order of going, or being led by another, to the things of love, is to begin from the beauties of earth and mount upwards for the sake of that other beauty, using these as steps only, and from one going on to two, and from two to all fair forms, and from fair forms to fair practices, and from fair practices to fair notions, until from fair notions he arrives at the notion of absolute beauty, and at last knows what the essence of beauty is. This, my dear Socrates, said the stranger of Mantineia, is that life above all others which man should live, in the contemplation of beauty absolute

How anyone, even pederasts, can conclude Socrates thought sex as lowly or unfit from this same dialog, will always leave me aghast.

Pretty much the same discourse occurs in Phaedrus, a pederastic relationship should not be used for sexual pleasure but to reach the divine. He also ridicules the notion that an adequate lover should have no feelings… Nowhere does he criticize sex in itself.

Yet it became mainstream to say this:

They argue like this:

And yet, this is tempered in various ways; role reversals between lover and beloved are constant, as they are in the Symposium. Socrates, ostensibly the lover, exhorts Phaedrus to lead the way at various times, and the dialogue ends with Socrates and Phaedrus leaving as “friends”: equals, rather than partaking in the lover/beloved relationship inherent in Greek pederasty. In the beginning, they sit themselves under a chaste tree, which is precisely what its name suggests—often known as “monk’s pepper”, it was used by monks to decrease sexual urges and is believed to be an antaphrodisiac.

Socrates here promotes a more appeased approach not consummed by passion, touchings are not the issue, they should be an ornament to something that goes deeper. As a divine madness what we do when possessed by love is beyond good and evil, otherwise to suggest it is bad per se would amount to blasphemy, eventhough constantly Plato talks of being willing slaves of the gods.

Now on the Republic, his.

First off, this is wrong, there is no 636c in Republic, which ends at 621d ! Hence the criminally stupid author of that hateful claim, should be given the choice of dying mauled by a tiger or crushed by raging elephants..

That quote is from Laws, to which we will come afterwards.

Plato is literally proposing the end of all sexual pleasure whatsoever. Anything moving spirits even slightly above the normal should be forbidden, until we all become perfect philosopher robots. This was written at most in 375 BCE according to criticisms while Symposium was written between 385 to 370 at the earliest. And it’s nothing compared to Laws, the most loathed of his works.
Those two works contradict each other completely. One talks of divine folly and uranian desire growing the wings of the soul, developping extrasensory perception, political and artistic qualities, when the other bans all desire and pleasure. There is nothing grand, nothing inspired nor making much sense in Republic anymore, hardly anything a man of reason would consider neither realistic nor desirable, such as th proposition to cut any and all family ties, not knowing one’s relatives in order to identify to the whole community. The idea of regimenting every single aspect of life, stiffling and drying up any possible source of creativity. Yet, as this chart below shows, this work came before the development of the Academy ?

Why would Plato teach something already completely at odds with its former works, both in tone and content ? What was he even teaching, what have people like Aristotle come to believe as the true doctrine of their master, accessing divinity through mystical pederastic sex ?

Or being getting scared of loosing your marbles with any strong human feeling and avoiding any human experiences and connections, including with your family to live like an abstinent Christian monk (even monks might have had homosexuality running high in their convent) ? How did his students react, or the people at large ? If people didn’t understand anything (most of them surely didn’t), why was the point of running his Academy for years until his death ? None of it makes sense, except believing he lost faith in everything he held dear before. What could have changed him if he did change, is unknown. In Athens, he experienced the rule of the 30, an oligarchic clique put in charge of Athens by Sparta after its victory. They tried to seduce Plato and Socrates, given how neither of them were notorious lovers of democracy, but rather sympathizers of Lacedemon. But to know what exactly happened with the Thirty is difficult to say the least.⁸

Then he had a bad experience with Denys 1er de Syracuse, tyrant de Sicile, in 387, which invited him to then dismiss him in the most arbitary manner, even (as the tradition goes) being responsible of his capture as a slave (fortunately a short experience). Then he wrote the Republic and Symposium, in the same span of time. So assuming a specific event changed his view doesn’t fit the chronology.

Now on to Laws, his last work, and oh boy we are in for a ride on a sea of pure batshit insanity.

Naturally enough, I began to feel some disquiet. I wondered how one would handle a state like this, with everyone engaged on a life-long round of sacrifices and festivals and chorus-performances,

No science, no wonder, no discovery, no innovation, no meditation. Just war, theater, eating sleeping and breeding. Yes, only breeding. No romance, no pleasure, no soul, just breeding. And if a couple refuses to spend all their seed breeding, VLAM.
What on Earth could explain such obvious cataclismic shift ?

?!

This is the literal contradiction of both the Symposium and Phaedra, which uphold the view (universally taken for granted in all of Greece if not the whole Mediterannean) pederasty did engender all those qualities via emulation (from a lowly mundain point of view) and divine inspiration (from an orphic/mystical one). Here, he simply erased the metapsychic plane of love from consideration.

When the legislator wants to tame one of the desires that dominate mankind so cruelly, it’s easy for him to see his method of attack. He must try to make everyone – slave and free, women and children, and the entire state without any exception – believe that this common opinion has the backing of religion. He couldn’t put his law on a securer foundation than that.

People are cattle who can’t understand anything: give them made-up religious fear.

Athenian: I’m glad you’ve taken me up on the point. This is just what I was getting at when I said I knew of a way to put into effect this law of ours which permits the sexual act only for its natural purpose, procreation, and forbids not only homosexual relations, in which the human race is deliberately murdered, but also the sowing of seeds on rocks and stone, where it will never take root and mature into a new individual;

No fellatio, no masturbation, only the penis in a holy fertile vagina, no sex outside fertile wombs, oy vey !
Let us be clear: this kind of discourse was by all means absolutely unheard off in Antiquity. This was no evidence of modern social conservatism, but for most people of mental insanity. The notion that sterile sexual contacts would endanger a city would have left any Greek flabbergasted, considering they chronically suffered from overpopulation⁹.

We do not claim this text is apography or a fake, but the difference with earlier works (and striking ressemblance to the Jewish Bible) indictes something extremely weird happened, which easily led true platonicist with an inklink of sensibility to Love and Essences, to disregard it as a patent outlier. But we do claim that:

• either Plato did a complete U turn and became actually mentally insane: an unlikely turn of event since he also wrote Timaeus and Critias at the same time pointing a good deal of inspiration
• or fell out of love with the world at large, perceiving what it would turn into, and wanting none of it. And decided to pastiche himself out of spite, offering a mirror of what truly underlied people’s incomprehension of the sacred Éros: a rampant materialism and rationalism which only grew stronger with time, as evidenced by his own pupil Aristotle, as spiritually dry as a bone.

Already the Republic ironized constantly, suggesting outlandish solutions to imaginary issues. But the tone was still light enough not derailing too much from the usual. Laws however looks like the final F**ck U! of a man who had lost faith in humanity, due to many bad experiences accumulating, least and not last Socrates’ execution and his tragic involvement with Dion and Denys the Young, the latter to whom many roasting comments in Laws were addressed to. If anyone could have had a vision of the future in the literal sense, it would have been Plato.

In any case, to claim Plato refused homosexuality is beside the point, he refused all sexual pleasure whatsoever and anything not strictly reproductive even with in an heterosexual context, an attitude most hardcore Islamists would find grossly abusive. While praising mystical homo sex in other books.

This conception of love and spirituality was not a production of Plato’s mind… either out of foolishness or genuine intuition. It is clear how it was shared by many, if not most Greeks to some level. Not everyone was fond of young boys, some preferred prostitutes or girls. Aristophanes in particular. Yet, boy-lover was not an insult. Much less than when people used to say about Julius Caesar (much later) he is the man of all women and the woman of all men, and yet it was not an insult at all either, more like a praise… more on that later.

According to all reports, up to the rise of Alexander the Great, Sparta was unanimously recognized as the highest summit of the mind, virile strength as expressed in its elite citizen army, and… of pederasty, so much so that it pervaded heterosexuality, and women themselves would often take under their wings younger girls in the same fashion as was customary for boys and older men in the rest of Greece.

Perhaps the most “negative” testimony (regards to our tenets) would be Xenophon’s, who unlike most writers had a first hand knowledge of Sparta and sent his kids be educated there. It comes from Constitution of the Lacedaimonians:

It means if the attraction was superficial, however for practical purpose this translation is horse dung.
This is the original, from “But if it was clear” downward:

εἰ δέ τις παιδὸς σώματος ὀρεγόμενος φανείη, αἴσχιστον τοῦτο θεὶς ἐποίησεν ἐν Λακεδαίμονι μηδὲν ἧττον ἐραστὰς παιδικῶν ἀπέχεσθαι ἢ γονεῖς παίδων καὶ ἀδελφοὶ ἀδελφῶν εἰς ἀφροδίσια ἀπέχονται.

If it was clear that [this attraction] résidait in the boy’s body, [] shameful in Sparta and [he] caused inferior lovers to …

As such, in the first translaiton the ban on sex could already be read as applying only to lovers whose attraction resides in the boy’s body, a sentence that should be beyond any ambiguity already. But clearly, people of today are idiots not fathoming a physical desire can be rooted in mere physical qualities, but in something beyond, namely someone’s soul. It is called sapiosexuality.

But the most important word was omitted in the two most widespread translations: ἧττον, masculine nominative singular form and comparative of the comparative of ἥσσων, meaning lesser or inferior, with ἧττον ἐραστὰς meaning inferior lovers. So Lycurge caused inferior lovers to back off from kids. Not all lovers.

This kind of law or customs reflects a very instinctive functioning: the metasexual program do have preferred physical forms - triggering patterns - purity, innocence and subtle traits indicative of inner beauty in lack of another term - quite distinct from those of the reproductive program, but also differing a lot in its modalities: on an instant, depending on both the lover’s and loved one’s inner attitude perception can switch from pleasing to appalling, for the same body, when physical contact would be detrimental to energy. This contrasts to the reproductive program, because it doesn’t care if the stalion or mare has an horrible character and hates your guts, as his dick or big muscles (or big boobs and ass respectively) hint at the same hereditary qualities which the offspring might profit from. Fucking is only concerned with the body while loving as humans are meant to do, only sees bodily traits as facilitators for an exchange of a higher nature than mere bodily fluids. The Greek is not attraction to a boy’s beauty is abomination and those lyers deserves whipping, if not rape by highly muscular men.

Here is another quote misconstrued as Socrates spitting on pederasts. But what he criticises in this excerpt is obvious: the absence of self-control, effectively giving the man’s impulses lowly animal traits. A man should be the object of admiration from his loved one, show the way to virtue, not beg for approval like a faggot… or a female. This had nothing to do with homosexuality per se.

Here’s another such quote, from Xenophon’s symposium (seemingly relating the same events):

There is no reason to believe Callias would refrain from intercourse, as both love are written as έρως, desire, sexual by definition. This notion of two Aphrodites and the term describing the good pederasty (uranian έρως) is the exact same found in Plato’s Symposium, while the vulgar (pandemonian Aphrodite) is a mindless form of desire personified by… prostitutes and married women. *Carnal doesn’t mean physical, but only or mainly lying in the physical.
The difference between Plato and Xenophon, really appeared to be minimal on this topic. That coincides with Athenians father both protecting their boys and prompting them to attract proper men.

The main romantic interest of most men (not all, obviously) were (pre)/adolescent boys, because younger children on many levels have no defined gender before puberty kicks in. That moment at the onset of puberty is the last moment to initiate a child and develop the metapsychical program, or else breeding (with or without contraception) becomes the dominant sensibility, and the child looses track of his destiny for good. At least it is the case now, but before the age of seven kids would say by their mother’s side or rather mothers’ in the case of rather collectivist cities like Sparta, all women alike raising all kids together, like all social primates do. Then from age 7 (the “age of reason”), in many primitive societies boys would integrate the men’ group (in Sparta the agoge or formal educative system started at 7), while girls usually stayed with the women’ group.
For more on Sparta and their love of sodomy and how it could save girls from inferiority, look no further .

Nowhere else has Xenophon in whole litterary corpus ever emitted any criticism of pederasty:

What about Alexander the Great ?

How is this not gay ?

As for his fake quote: I defer to this insightful commentary.

He didn’t want to force or coerce anyone or profit from his position to deprive someone of their dignity.

Now on Aristophanes:

Well those words are not present in my translation. The term unnatural didn’t exist, and the its concept just alluded to in Laws. While the idea of a natural order exists, to label people as wicked from deviancy alone regardless of actual harm to society or individuals, was simply a level of normativity non-existent before Judeo-christianity.

However, Aristophanes was a notorious opponent of pederasty, who built his fame by making his public of tens of thousands of well-bred Athenian males of all ages laugh, by accusing them of what a lot of adult men were complicit in, the passive role. Homosexuality by default implied a sodomy, which requires a passive partner, but both partners would be free citizens. So supposing public morale usually looked down upon passivity, this couldn’t possibly a monolithic judgment, as all adult men doing the sodomizing by default had been tutored by an adult man while younger, and thus, penetrated.

In Greek and even more Roman society the distinction between effeminacy and passivity has always been vague, I would argue properly schizophrenic. I would argue the more cooking developped and the less grip public institutions had on the collective, the more the ambiguity would take hold. This is why a very strong collectivistic culture is necessary with our lifestyle: to combat the inherent tendencies for sexual degeneracy(read: cross-drive induction ) brought about by cooking. That is why Sparta kept its edge longer.

Next, Aeso

They have no sense of shame (Zeus and Shame))

Written by a former Greek slave, in the late to mid-6th century BCE, Aesop’s Fables are the world’s best known collection of morality tales. The fables, numbering 725, were originally told from person-to-person as much for entertainment purposes but largely as a means for relaying or teaching a moral or lesson.

Judging from their medieval latin adaptation, these fables were a collection of subversive and vulgar tales full of sex with whoever and whatever the ugly Aesop had at its disposal. Representing somewhat of a counter-culture, this might explain why the mythical author (which most likely never existed, like Homer himself) has been imagined as a slave by a few Greek historians.

Regardless of some written disparaging discourses, it would not have made any sense for a young aspiring citizen in a very public relationship, to publically hide his being penetrated (or for others to seriously mock him for it), since he was expected to !
Slight taunts do prove a state of moral ambiguity, but they constitute totally justified Excalibur impulses, which, when not going overboard (as it happened relatively more with Romans), hone the strength of character:

People who practice sodomy for pleasure only - as one would fuck a prostitute - would resent the taunt, feel shame and reconsider their attitude. While those sure of their moral probity and spirituality elevation of their sexuality, would not feel concerned in the slightest. Explaining thus, what would otherwise look like institutionalized hypocrisy, to berate something yet indulge in it publically, and expect every male to.

This double-discours attitude survived in the Middle Age despite nominally much sterner admonitions and theological implications, although with as little actual condemnations.

Then to Aeschines:

Which implies precisely nothing about homosexuality:
But the complete quote says more, positively so:

Aeschines describes himself as a lover, in this context a pederast, and that it is honorable, and says that slaves - people who do not own themselves hence can’t be relied on nor be expected to act honourably - can not free men for that love can not be free. While prostitution is legal for this reason it is immorale, but a free man and a free boy can love each others freely, with the only restriction as the former should exert self-retraint when the latter hasn’t reached 11 or so. Although even this is relative, as there was no law against proper pedophilia, if parents would agree. And people considered the stalking by an adult of good repute as a protection…

We are only left with Aristotle.

So he equates being penetrated anally (which was but a part of male-male sexuality, eventhough a good one) with either a deviation from nature or something bred by habit. In both case putting in the same category as biting your nail or eating charcoal (which is actually healthy), things devoid of moral taint and not really bothersome either.

See the what my translater’s note has to say:

That summarizes Aristotle’s opinion. However, while being the bottom did raise some suspicion of effeminacy, this was not strictly equivalent to effeminacy, or female sexuality in men, or it would have been call faggots a whole lot of old(er) well-bred men. Again, sexuality was a trivial matter in Greece, you could do mostly whatever you wanted with however, as long as you didn’t touch the property of others. Even touching your relatives was strictly speaking your business, with only consequence eventually being kicked out of a few social circles, at worst.

Simply put, not all faggots are passive, and not all men who enjoy passivity are faggots. Now, or back then, and while they lacked the psychoanalytic tools to discern with exact accuracy, the ambiguity featured in litterature attests of such an unconscious knowledge. Even here Aristotle does not insinuate such men with female sexuality have moral issues, lack courage or virility in life etc.

Also Aristotle:

Why is it that some men enjoy being the passive partner in the sexual act, and some of these also find pleasure in taking an active role, but others do not? Those in whom the semen travels to the anus desire to be passive in the sexual act, those in whom the semen travels to both places to be both active and passive. In whichever place there is more fluid they desire more friction. In some men this disposition arises from habit. For men do whatever happens to bring them pleasure and they emit semen following the same principle. Therefore, they desire to do those things through which this is brought to pass, and it is rather as though habit becomes nature. On account of this, whoever has not been accustomed to be a passive partner in sexual intercourse before puberty, but starts around puberty, because memory is generated during the activity and pleasure comes along with the memory, on account of their habit they desire to be the passive partner as if they were naturally so constituted-frequency and habit bringing it about just as if they were naturally so inclined. If a man happens to be lustful and self-indulgent each of these comes about more quickly.

As the archetypal rationalist, he ridicules himself by coming up with a mechanical explanation. But he does not make any assumption as to the moral characters of individuals based on sexual proclivities, stating that any disposition whatsoever with some training and willingness to explore oneself (a natural character trait he labels lustful). But while he assumes the only role of semen or ejaculation is fecundation hence such biological disposition appear contradictory to natural order, it is never said to go against natural proclivities in the sense of causing diseases or damaging bodily function.

One can simply be or become that way, almost by chance. And elsewhere he describes pederasty as socially useful and ethically valuable… Not so reactionary !

What about Romans ?
While not denying a certain reality, the famous Roman hate for sexual passivity is both misunderstood and exaggerated. Surely enough, Romans were too hasty in associating effeminacy with passivity, it wasn’t unconditional either. Individuals of high stature whose virility lied beyond any doubt, could afford being both feminine and masculine. Truth be told, effeminate gays do indeed make for the bulk of homosexuals today, so the association isn’t (and wasn’t) entirely fortuitous or mean. But nor homosexuality nor passive sodomy was ever forbidden, and barely frown upon. Until Christianity took over of course…
The confusion between two programs always existed, and all social measures when it comes to mores express an unconscious or conscious will to protect transcendance, however misguided our perception of it may be. In the Quran, adultery is defined by a penetration (in another’s man’s wife) longer than the time to boil an egg. Which is to say, there was no adultery if the man didn’t ejaculate.
Our intepretation of all of ethnology and history should be revisited with the two instinctive programs of love in mind. We need to rethink our whole litterature.

Overall, Greeks (and Romans)’ attitude resonates with a divide between porneia and eros, or we would say in more modern terms, concupiscence/lust compared to metasexuality or spiritual love.

The two Symposium do not actually differ so much: both pitting an Uranian Eros versus a lowly desire content to satisfy itself with any body, be it a prostitute an animal or worse… a wife. Among proponents of the latter were some Cynics, since their whole shtick was to shock society systematically by whatever means, for ill or good. Hence attacking pederasty as unnatural (bad), while question the taboo of incest (good) and cannibalism (?!). They aligned themselves with animal life… But that of lowly dogs and cows, not apes.

And so we explained what Greeks thought about homosexuality and passive sodomy in particular: An optional shame for real effeminates to wallow in, but an overwhelming enthuasiasm for boy-love in all its forms, showing up in a littany of texts.

LGBTI

Metapsychoanalysis allows for the first time in history an accurate exposition using an universal language (science and logic) of the fundamental recurring issues underlying human sexuality in our society. Namely, here, we can respond to the question: why the faggots ?!
There are several factors, in the genesis of the faggot or effeminate personality, to be sorted in two categories:

• exogenous influence
• primary masochism and denatured molecules.

Exogenous influences

For the most part, bar from congenital anomalies (which is unlikely in our case as effeminacy has occurred consistently throughout history, signifying un inborn potential for it) abnormal personality developments (relative to genetic data) is always due to wrong upbringing with a wrong education and/or wrong role models.
In our culture denying the spiritual and marked by the reproductive instinctive program on overdrive due to cooking, there the very conceptual framework to understand sacred or true homosexuality properly if at all, is jarringly lacking.

The only conceptual framework for represent love is the breeding model, one male and one female about the same age, to make kids raise them and look after them then make more and repeat. Well, granted nowadays kids learn about some other models increasingly early. But none of them can hope to compete with mainstream ideas as logical the equation sex = reproduction remains intact as the perceived natural norm:

Some people being allowed to differ if they feel like it, doesn’t stop them from being deviants. Still in the early 2000 it was unknown in the wider public (and refused by most primatologists) that bonobos were highly homosexual, let alone the myriad of other species added to the (frequently or accidentally) homo roster.

Hence even on a superficial level (social inertia being what it is) arguably the information hasn’t had much time to sip in and really do much on education yet. Even then… because of the very nature of our pervasive materialistic culture, however spectacular and ubiquitous the exceptions, the rule still holds as the alternative is unthinkable: if evolution did favor sometimes non-reproductive behaviors, it was either accidental (having no impact on survival) or indirectly favored classic breeding because there is nothing to life but surviving and procreating, nothing but matter. In that context only reproductive intercourses make sense on a logical standpoint.

This is an splendid example of conceptual blindness, low-key dominant for centuries of Christianity. While the Industrial Revolution (for reasons we’ll dwell on another time) erected it as a absolute uncontested religion enforced by moralists and physicians, bringing all the Heaven down on Earth and substituting God with Matter.

The result, is the association of socially-induced feeling of sickness or shame with natural homosexual desire, a state of mind which, since energy deal with the very purpose of existence… is bound to backfire horribly.

Due to shame, the stronger the homosexual drive (with frustration) the stronger one feels compelled to reject it in all kinds of ways expounded by Freudian psychoanalysis. Some double down on the hetero model by lying to themselves and becoming rabid homophobes, while others instead seek to ape women in mannerisms through transgenderism or effeminacy to fit in the model. Wading in self-contradiction, they wish to appease both their own conscience and their natural metasexual needs, a tension yielding more shame and ulterior degeneracy, now driven by self-hatred.
And today, those types of men (barring the unfortunate victims of propaganda) take the next logical step inaugurated in the West by Magnus Hirschfeld , transsexualism.

The antifascist component of homosexual identity never perished, even if the extreme left was in the majority, just as it did during the Weimar Republic, which saw the transsexual Hirschfield dominate the media over the virile Aryan Adolph Brand, author of the world’s first homosexual magazine.

The close association of pedophilia with homosexuality is false (later some statistics showed that heterosexual pedophilia was by far the majority), moreover the term pederasty itself has changed its meaning in history and in the 19th century no longer referred to age, but only to sodomy for both sexes or sometimes to homosexuality. Consequently, our position, which is essentially open to both sexes, deserves to be called that.
But this amalgam is nevertheless based on a certain reality of a symbolic order: for a long time it was less easy to project on the pederast the appearance of the predator, than on the heterosexual pederast (male, of course), unconsciously accused of making a mistake in the plan and projecting the woman onto the child, thus seeking to live the relationship on a very degrading and, it must be said, traumatic level.

Feeling the tide turning, many (the majority) of homosexuals chose social conformity, molding themselves into the conventions in the hope of being accepted. Philosophers felt it coming:

While a forceful reeducation to virility and the true essence of male intimacy can save a good number of effeminates, making true men out of them, we absolutely share the opinion that transsexuals have crossed the line of no-return and the only possible liberation for their soul (and mutilated body) from this state of perpetual suffering is a merciful death. In the end though, they are victims of a system denying the very meaning of existence for which they craved enough to forfeit their humanity. A poor education and/or subpar intelligence conjugated with industrial food and its crazy high mental feedback level did the rest.

This was for the exogenous, social influence, the socially-induced or secondary guilt.

Freud on the other hand speculated the existence of an inborn or primary guiltiness, innately bound to sexuality and related to a death drive, as a natural counter-weight to Eros, the pleasure principle.

Primary masochism and denatured molecules

Obviously analysts and moralists rushed to abuse this concept, to rationalize their sadomasochistic practices for repression and self-inflicted suffering as natural… I whip myself so I am. No joke, Freud’s orthodox successors went that far the rabbit hole.

Howbeit, formulated as he did the notion of primary masochism doesn’t have to imply a (phylo)genetic or hereditary etiology,though he did favor such explanation… Or rather, lest for ditching it completely We do not believe neither him nor anyone of the time could have made sense of this intuition in any other way. They needed the experience of raw food.

Primary means not learned through interaction with other people but there is another source of behavioral denaturation: cooked food.

Cooking-induced feedbacks alter brain functioning and heighten three fundamental cognitive tendencies up to pathological proportions, as described by Guy-Claude: psychosis, schizoid dissociation and paranoia (or egotism). We shall defer to his books for more details, but we’ll stick with paranoia for a bit, for it lies at the core of the whole failure of modern sexuality, and its incapacity to reach its natural transcendent purpose, even in seemingly kosher relationships such homosexual or Greek-style pedophiliac ones.

Paranoia, as he defined, is the innate tendency to be convinced of something regardless of evidences or logical inference. Or maybe, the ability to continue in a given direction in absence of immediate verification or gratification, until the task’s fulfillment. In itself, there is nothing wrong with this, hence I used the word ability: all animals are capable to some degree of postponing satisfaction while holding on to a behavior. Going further, no situation in life is ever totally, absolutely certain: not even the sun rising again tomorrow. We create absolutes out of habit and convenience, but such worldviews really are products of repeated experience.

However, what we mundanely label as paranoia (or ego) is the certitude of being right despite conspicuous evidences of the contrary, and the incapacity or stern refusal to even consider alternative points of view. And by evidences, I mean failing at the stock exchange five times in a row yet still persisting and loosing thousands in an laughably terrible move while lashing out at all attempt to dissuade him and blaming others of one’s own mistake… Or marrying two times only slightly smarter (but evil) depraved foreign women for their vaginas, and loosing not thousands but hundreds of thousands, falling for the very same obvious (well, not to him !) traps. Add both feats to the same individual and you get the spitting image of low-IQ paranoia not even raw food could cure.

As cartoonish (though real) this example may be, paranoia though isn’t limited to clinical morons, it takes so varied cultured or widespread shapes we don’t notice it until it’s gone, in either cultural institutions or one’s own personality.

Feedback coupled with the endogenous over-excitation cooking also produces, results a strong tendency to repeat and latch on any source of strong physical pleasure of a rather coarse kind. This focalisation and fixation paranoid on physical sensations itself, is the number one cause of the metapsychic failure of the quasi-totality of relationships regardless of sexual orientation.

In these conditions maintaining the proper inner attitude conducive for the emergence of paranormal abilities of any kind, is impossible with cooking for 99% of people in Ancient Greece… and 99.99% today.

Even with the best spiritual and meditative efforts, this endogenous excitation of molecular origin disrupts the most sensitive cognitive processes dealing with energy, disrupting the very calm and fundamental receptivity necessary. Normative heterosexuality is much worse in every way conceivable, no question asked, but parapsychic achievements of the kind we observe, have been impossible but for the smallest fraction of the population since time immemorial.

Though Greeks had respect and a modicum of understanding for sacred love, how many Socrates and Plato among them ? Even Aristotle, the latter’s most brilliant disciple (arguably, lover), grasped none of it whatsoever.

And to put things in context we’ve just discussed highly evolved subtle people for which the baseness or sheer lack of aesthetics of half the current homo population (lesbians fare better) would appear thoroughly incomprehensible, and utterly disgusting. What hope then, does the common drug-filled or condom-worshiping gay have to get telepathy ?

Lastly, cooking also specifically physiologically amp up breeding impulses causing what we call a transpulsional induction entailing the confusion of objects of one instinctive program for the closely related pattern in the other program… In short people just can’t help but play out the reproductive instinctive pattern in their head and life and feel jealousy, possessivity and nesting (investing on material possessions, a nice house etc) as innate.

These low quality homos while much nicer less frustrated than heteros and not loosing all their energy in the Wound in the Force that are vaginas, deep down are actually heterosexuals in disguise, treating butts like vaginas. Some very real energy is invested in the wrong channels, desecrating the most revered instrument of divine knowledge with a vile quest for personal enjoyment (or equally lowly very feminine sentimentalism).

For fake homos, no heaven or life after death, no more than more normies. And no wonder, those types are the ones begging for tolerance and crying they are equal normal couples…. Because they are. Or worse.

And top it all… such heavy misdirection of instincts, isn’t missed out, for it is never a gratuitous choice to miss the most important part of life. Angry as all hell, the subconscious generates what we call Excalibur impulses, endogenous feelings of guilt and inadequacy (which we can not decode conceptually), soon turning into inner distress through compulsion as they are not heeded as should be the case in nature, finally warping personality under ever more unbearable weights of unexpressed self-loathing negativity.

This, is Freud’s primary masochism.
And this closes our exposé of the ontology of effeminate homosexuality, or all uninspired homosexualities for the matter..

Conclusion

True pederasty, as Greeks vehemently asserted, on the contrary create the most virile men from the cradle on masculine sodomitic embraces. The same energy fueling gays’ terrible perversions, thanks to a much better mindset could fuel tremendous human qualities, propelling young adolescents to the roof of masculine strength, courage and moral fortitude.

Passivity, makes for the most masculine men, given the right natural conditions, despite what beta males like Himmler thought.

Beside, normal people always sought scapegoats to blame for their mistakes. Male homosexuals have consistently been singled out, lesbians being rather left out or ignored (with some rare exceptions), up to Nazi Germany, in which despite some debates, specialists couldn’t see an issue with those antinatural behaviors as women were still free to marry and make kids. While… male homos wouldn’t ?

Logic was never a strong point of haters, in whichever side they happened to be. Truth is, beyond the rightful rejection of faggots’ weak characters, popular ire targeted sodomy especially (as evident in all of medieval christian treaties about that sexual deviancies. The term sodomy used to mean anything non-coital, but it was also used more narrowly as imperfect sodomy and perfect sodomy, pointing explicitly at increasing levels of deviation from the breeding norm. Imperfect sodomy meant anal intercourse with women, while the perfect one was with men, or rather, boys.

One can wonder, why focus on that ? Why even bother at all with what others do in their spare time ?

The answer is, people react on an unconscious level, trying to uphold spiritual values, or what they perceive as the pole of transcendent and energy: for religious Christians it was God so anything against it, could matter on a cosmic level. Fallen from Grace already since a long time ago, the inner compulsion to make sense of the world has prompted people to seek explanation to their state of inner distress, inner spiritual decay.

The definite number one cause of this Fall - beside cooking which only ever grated the mind of the uttermost inspired artists - is coitus, as it represents as much as embodies everything wrong with our way of love, since, well, what’s more breeding-related than the very act bringing about procreation ?

And what is the most instinctually related and similar-looking contact ? Sodomy. As a fellow penile penetration moreover in a very close hole, the visual looks also very similar and without focusing on the genitals, pretty much interchangeable.

Instinctually, (consenting) deep anal penetration to the kind we observe in humans leading to potent passive orgasms (treated in article on early upbringing which shows the great symmetric importance for both sexes) isn’t observed in any other species as far as I know, apes or otherwise. Digital or penile non-painful penetrations, yes, but even apes endowed with similar penises do not seem to enjoy sodomy anywhere as much as we do.

Therefore its evolution is our privilege. In any case all metasexual natural tendency, whether sexual contacts per se or behavioral patterns, take their source in (not a one-to-one relationship though) purely reproductive instincts, millions of years older. One could say these instincts are co-opted and adapted to a new purpose, the development of extrasensory abilities.

Hence, actually aiming at coitus, people either incapable to formalize the real issue - or absolutely unwilling to do so - instead will accuse sodomy as the mother of all evil, as so many did before, in a superb instance of accusatory inversion. Or said otherwise, sodomy is what all people should do instead of coitus and it pisses off heterosexuals !

The new Reich shall aim at curing most gays of their fake femininity and misguided ways. Not with electric therapy but by making them real men. Those who can’t do not deserve to live in society in the first place: either they stop being man up in camps for eradication of effeminate behaviors, or in exile get to learn the hard way how to be a man, or perish, declared unfit by the same harsh life conditions our forebears relished in merely a few centuries ago.

Heil victory !