Good girls are boys

Outline of this article:

We fully accept the designation of homofascist and pederast, with the caveat that women are welcome, albeit a different kind of woman yet to breed and educate. We believe that a strong military State requires the full domination of virility, which requires the generalization of sodomy.

The Evidences

Erotic Dictatorships

As we wander streets on any day, we see weak, spineless men controlled by their wife, exuding no virility or sense of confidence. As much as we can blame Jewish and feminist efforts to undermine our culture, we wouldn’t have been sensitive to their propaganda in the first place if men had not been not been weak, spineless children first.

Hedonism, degeneracy and weakness of character - as demonstrated by the chore of videos of women raped or people beaten up in the subway by subhumans with no one bating an eye - all stem from a fundamentally absent moral fiber, that our model of education totally neglects.

But we go about this education would require a complete overhaul of sexuality, in particular with children. Explicit or implicit inspired pedophilia has always been the core of all successful youth organization of any kind, and of any education. Greek pederasty (the alliance of tough love and disinhibited sexuality in its vertical component) creates the strongest children, free from doubt and fixations, able to face the hardships of life and the tasks demanded of them by society (for good or bad) We need to rethink the way we educate children, how love, pedagogy, authority and discipline relate to each other.

Europeans need the character to trust entirely those with the most inspiration in hope to approach their divinity. To ascend to their level to some degree. By first obeying his instructions, then emulating them earnestly, in order to truly making ours his qualities and thought process by uniting to him on an energetic level. This following of the strongest derives from our survival instinct, except that inspiration advantageously replaced physical strength.

lead and be led or Führer Prinzip, is the indivision of willingly obeying those we recognize as superior, and of assuming full responsability in carrying out their will in the fullest of our capacity1. All for one, and one for all, with prussian characteristics2.

The key to foster that kind of personality, is hierarchical erotic relationships, also known as pederasty. It should come as no surprise thus, that teaching is conceptually inseparable from natural love, as energy and truth are two sides of the same coin. All successful cultures figured this out.

More specifically in Ancient times in Pagan societies sex and sodomy in particular was indissociable from learning.

This is how we can fill the gaping hole in spirit between girls and boys - hence between women and men - at last ending the gender sex. Those gap despite definite roots in biology are actually accidents of culture and cooking twisting what both men and women should become whose technical details I explain later.
True virility transcends it all. I propose we first take inspiration from the most successful societies we know off.

in Sparta, both boys and girls were imparted education, albeit in different manners. Not only was the agoge deemed extremely necessary, but the successful completion of the training regime was a prerequisite in order to receive Spartan citizenship.
The objective behind the intensive education and training regime was to produce strong, brave Spartans who would protect the city come what may.
These children were taught never to fear anything, and were often ignored when they cried.
The strict parental approach of the Spartans was renowned far and wide, and Spartan women were often asked to become caretakers or nannies of children of the elite outside Sparta.

It has to be explained why those kids by and large (or ever) wouldn’t just fall into despondency, depression, abandonism. Nothing original in saying kids need both a pole of love and a pole of discipline/authority, though badmouthing any fatherly role trends a lot today which isn’t a surprise considering real men almost ceased to exist in this society.
But how exactly is that supposed to work, how is balance realized ? Can unlimited strictness compensates unlimited indulgence, unconditional indulgence ? No, this would be the perfect recipe for schizophrenia, as been proved in dogs. Yes, by highly contradictory attitudes mixing rewards and punishments without rhyme or reason (or with purposeful sadism), even dogs loose it.

Parents (and to a lesser degree educators, reciprocal friends and lovers) should ask everything, infinite efforts from their offspring, squeeze out the least success in achieving their potential. And a the same time provide infinite love and acknowledgment. The key to this seeming paradox, is to understand what love even means.

In our Western liberal society love is more often than not confused with self-indulgence or between lovers reciprocal indulgence of a nearly-contractual character which extends to the sexual sphere: I do you if you do me, that kind of thing. It became an agreement for each parties to allow each to stroke their egos continuously, feeding their vanity or sense of (undue) self-importance.
Remove the sacred part of love, and there’s only partial gratifications or sentimental attachments left, but without energy or the prospect of it, it feels kinda hard to ask any personal effort of anyone without such binding contracts, without appealing to each partner’s egoism.

In absence of true love and energy, parenting has become little more than narcissistic projections hiding a sadistic undertone.

Genuine parenting on the opposite (or genuine love) was all about wishing the best for the kid, helping him to fulfill his transcendent destiny above any other concern while doing anything in one’s power to accomplish that goal, even if that meant killing one’s child with oneself if he dared to sully the family’s honor, like Japanese samurais’ mothers were said to.

We should understand such acts (more a performative fantasy than common facts) as benevolent, as without honor one is nothing and cannot not live up to one’s potential so being put out of one’s misery is not cruelty but mercy.

The resilience of a child and his capacity to endure like a man instead of caving in or prostrating like a Swedish cuck, is a function of his energy level and trust in his parents’ good intentions, which comes to down to the certain prospect of energy with them.

Hence I don’t find especially jarring than Japanese children can notoriously cope with objectively insane training regimen to prepare them for universities.
Unhealthy as it may be (arguably), the fact they do manage those training without breaking or not nearly as much as we would, is a testament to the customary intensity of parental love in Asia. As a proof, Japaneses until twenty to thirty years or so, used to bath with their the opposite sex parent, usually until 15, or limitlessly. Mixed bathing in honsen was normal until feminists and Western influence exorcised it out. And anyone thinking nothing happened must be an incurable fool.3

That explains why Japanese children until recently appeared superior, and explains the impressive reconstructions efforts after the war.

Incestuous orgasm-fueled superpowers.

The next logical step

Relationships with teachers have always been customary until their defeat, with admiring instances of dedicating from teachers, housing and financing students for free at a time where university were all private and one heck of an investment for families (this hasn’t changed terribly…).

We have to think in economical terms: energy is a resource, which like physical energy, can be acquired, transformed into useful work, or lost entirely in heat, its most entropic or degenerative form. A wholly entropic system can not be put to work anymore, it creates friction and things start breaking down real quick.. When we perform automatic tasks requiring no mental efforts, but merely follow a kind of algorithmic pattern however complex, then we don’t really use our higher abilities, with little to no human intuition at play, the brain just gets to run its usual well-trained and well oiled course. In those situations we act like computers and do not feel much if any effort, merely the physical tension of investing attention, and even this is proportional how much we’re used to the task.

But things are different whenever we need to learn, change our ways, develop totally new skillsets out of sheer grit or merely function beyond our ordinary, physical capacities.

Running counter already established lines of functioning or years of mental reference to specific beliefs isn’t free. To break free from conditioning or adopt new ones, is costly and spend energy, transforming it with more or less efficiency giving off more or less steam or mental friction in the process.

Adults - average muhricans - can function in their job on sometimes ludicrously low love energy levels same for scholars: exceedingly intellectual and smart creatures but wasting their life in inane pursuits writing useless papers, which hardly anyone will read, nor be impacted by. Without inspiration we make the wrong choices, as Einstein said4.

When the boys reached this age [ - 12- ] , they were favoured with the society of lovers from among the reputable young men.
Moreover, though this sort of love was so approved among them that even the maidens found lovers in good and noble women,

Children on the other hand, need to learn even the most elementary laws, in the wild (apes) their very survival depends on it hence the reason of our extended childhood. Children thus especially crave for love to fuel their growth.

Yet, though correct intellectual maturation depends on energy-information it pales in comparison to metapsychical needs: building the soul and its psychic abilities requires a tremendous amount. As a result Spartan kids had no issue expressing themselves fully, morally, physically, intellectually, and adults’ demands were merely commensurate to their capabilities. Textual evidences abound regards to the free access to love to all ages and the generalization of sodomy including for young girls5.
That mindset must be understood as the refusal of weakness, taking the form of a masculinization of both sexs.

Clover envisages an Icelandic conception of gender and sexual norms that lauded masculine dominance and aggression regardless of the individual’s biological sex. She outlines a “one-sex” model, in which power and sovereignty – commonly but not exclusively associated with males – were ubiquitous aspirations, while powerlessness – commonly but not exclusively associated with females – was denigrated as shameful.

Hence, Clover deconstructs the notion of a rigid gender binary, suggesting that men and women competed on the same socio-sexual scale.

Matthiew Roby, Excess and Ergi: Exploring the Sexual Valences of Supernatural Episodes in the Íslendingasǫgur

Now let’s go back to the agoge, to know what it consisted in:

[ - Between 7 and 12- ] at the communal barracks where the groups of children were housed, the boys were imparted education which ranged from academics and sports to training in hunting and warfare. The male students were treated like future soldiers, and their education was mainly military-oriented.
Children were taught how to endure hardship, pain, fatigue, hunger, as well as the bitter cold. Their athletic activities included gymnastics and different ancient sports, which they had to undertake barefoot. They were also given severely rationed food daily, so as to accustom them to hunger and thirst. Obviously this was never pushed so far as to stunt their growth.

The main intention of the agoge regime was to discipline the students at a young age. They were taught how to read and write, war poems, history, singing, dancing, as well as the works of Homer. Sources support the notion that intellectual accumen even more a Spartan defining characteristic than their martial prowess.

As must be apparent now, while swimming in sexual care up to the neck, young people were treated like adults, so the adult in them could awaken. We have less information on girls, beyond the fact their respective love life were nigh identical: no weak sex, no infantilization of women.

Commercial add
or pedophile propaganda ?

On a psychological level, we think children should come to experience the widest and most intense range of emotions and inner experiences possible, sadness, rage, pity, love, desire, so that nothing coming their way later could disturb their sense of balance, their stability.

Feminity of the Future

How do men and women differ, and why ?
Evolutionary psychology is a stickin’, miasma-filled cesspool of weakly grounded stale moralistic commonplaces. Closer to philosophy or literature, minus the rare inspiration. Firstly because it hardly make use any statistics or nearly always their bias is laughably apparent, ignoring blatantly contradicting evidences.

And no topic gets worse than psychological or cognitive differences (or sex habits) between genders and ensuing projection over early primitive societies.

Truth be told, when we consider an overview of all pre-industrial societies as a whole, we realize genders don’t matter much. Yes, women tend to revolve around the relational (taking care of others, community building) and men around making stuff (the material) and exploration.

Nevertheless specifics are so variable divergent depending on the specific culture, that dwelling on this or building an ontology or a cosmology around yin and yang, Mars and Venus or whatnot is utterly pointless, and anyone older than 20 with eyes to see, should have met enough diverging characters in both sexes to be convinced of the same.

The greatest divide between sexes seems to have been the neolithic revolution, with the advent of agriculture and complexification (and ossification) of society. Hunter-gatherer societies appear quite egalitarians, everyone contributing a little to the survival of the group. There’s been debate for years about how many hours a day working for survival (collecting food, processing it) takes them, at least those still surviving up to now.

The problem is their rarity, most not living in forests, let alone lush primeval ones. I couldn’t find figures estimating the work load of chimpanzees, beyond the fact they spend half their day eating and/or touching each other… Which sounds pretty dope.

In Europe (or with any half-intelligent people) pre-industrial societies (before the miracle of science and free market) did not actually conform to fantasies of back-breaking toil at the hands of evil lords and nobles.

All told, holiday leisure time in medieval England took up probably about one-third of the year. And the English were apparently working harder than their neighbors. The ancient règime in France is reported to have guaranteed fifty-two Sundays, ninety rest days, and thirty-eight holidays. In Spain, travelers noted that holidays totaled five months per year.

The peasant’s free time extended beyond officially sanctioned holidays. There is considerable evidence of what economists call the backward-bending supply curve of labor – the idea that when wages rise, workers supply less labor. During one period of unusually high wages (the late fourteenth century), many laborers refused to work by the year or the half year or by any of the usual terms but only by the day. And they worked only as many days as were necessary to earn their customary income – which in this case amounted to about 120 days a year, for a probable total of only 1,440 hours annually (this estimate assumes a 12-hour day because the days worked were probably during spring, summer and fall). A thirteenth-century esteem finds that whole peasant families did not put in more than 150 days per year on their land. Manorial records from fourteenth-century England indicate an extremely short working year – 175 days – for servile laborers. Later evidence for farmer-miners, a group with control over their work-time, indicates they worked only 180 days a year.

I think what lifestyle is healthier.

What I mean to say is, for intelligent people, sexual division of labour has never been a practical need, while if we go back to pre-human times, we only had to climb in the damn tree to eat, break open a beehive and munch some leaves. On the other hand, people will naturally gravitate around what they like.

African hunter-gatherers like Bushman or the !Kong on the other hand not only settled for the most part in unnatural (for apes) environments lacking most of what we need, but lack the brain to improve their daily life either by moving to an actually decent place, or learning to cultivate it6.

Beside, tools as means of force multiplication, almost made the very real physical strength gap irrelevant (regards to survival in the wild), while group lifestyles ensure the impossibility of domination through brute force alone: chimpanzee females can easily gang up then dismember any male at 4 vs 1 or less.

The most daring gap we observe lies in intelligence. As IQ tests show women as more centered on the mean, lacking much of the genius and high-achieving spectrum responsible for the advancement of society. Women maintain and relish in the status quo, men strive for what they perceive as progress: revolutionary groups, for ill or bad were all male-dominated. Most women lack the ingenuity, curiosity and rationality to take the next step:

I have always been fascinated by the human mind’s ability to think itself to a truth, and then to take that one step more (truly the basic secret of all human progress) and the inability of so many people to learn the trick.

By now you’ve probably run out of crusaders, but if there are a couple left, ask them, how does being aroused harm a child? And if you can get them to take that one more step, they will have to take it out of the area of emotional conviction and into the area of scientific research.

Curiosity or the lack thereof is a problem, but the worst one is the irrationality: as a general rule how many women are capable of putting aside emotions when considering a sensitive issue, whatever that is ?
Granted, nowadays few men can either, but I have yet to see even one woman managing when it comes to sexuality, children or what comes in and out of their own wombs. This is why woman voting was a terrible idea.

But why have we got to that point and is it curable ?
We need to understand what it means on a deeper level.
Women lack in divine inspiration, they lie on the base, material level, of the sensation or sentiment. The call of destiny and total dedication to a spiritual ideal has been masculine all along history, with some exceptions of course.

There is little differentiation based on sex below puberty, and virgin girls keep longer an air of purity to them, as a fortiori do lesbians. On the other hand, mature girls most will simply react to novelty defensively because evolution made them wary of anything troubling the stability and safety of the nest, to raise the offspring.

All of this mirrors the divide between the reproductive instinctive program and metapsychic instinctive program and for obvious reasons females of all species (save for hyenas perhaps…) are easy to sway to a reproductive mindset, leading to an extreme social conservatism, aligning with social expectations.

The severe but undoubtedly accurate insights of many philosophers, such as Jung, Weiniger and Ludovici7 is truer now than ever, as the bad sides of civilization are reaching an historical peak. It is reasonable to argue against the evil patriarchy. But it needs some recontextualization: we unlike earlier conservatives, very much believe women have a bright future, if they stop cooking realign with their deeper, lesbian and pederastic metapsychical self.

In our society, as Freud put it their lack of curiosity has to do with their lack of sexuality early on, as children, for which reaching the clitoris is notably harder without being introduced by someone else, namely a parent or older sibling. Even in a context of repression, a boy’s sexual needs are always closer to his mind and his sex to his sight.

As a result he is much more likely to touch himself and not a single boy doesn’t, be it in his dreams: on the other hand girls can easily spend their whole childhood, nay, life, without knowing a damn thing about her clitoris and so never orgasm a single time while orgasms for boys are as natural and unavoidable as breathing. Eternal sexual dissatisfaction coupled with the very ignorance of their needs (which to blame on their partner !) make them empty shells, superficial creatures living only on the level of sensation, yet of a biological and superficial level. The exhilarating feeling of being alive with adrenaline and electricity rush through your veins, is one with the soul , higher levels of consciousness and is synonymous energy.

Girls who know how to satisfy themselves are better off, more lively, not featuring the meekness we usually ascribe to their sex. On the other hand, modern women show how engaging in such activities and the knowledge of orgasm did not help women in the slightest however: frustration hasn’t diminished. Instead it transmuted from a crude organic level to a much more important metapsychic dissatisfaction, the lack of energetic orgasms, that most men live in their whole life. Moreover modern women access to pleasure fuelled a an unlimited sense of entitlement: anything that can fuel their vanity will do so. So we see it isn’t an issue of pleasure, so much as of psychic structuring.

It is a matter of objectivity to realize how women have become inferior on every level:

But on the other hand:

We may hence derive these conclusions:

All throughout history, people have noticed the female stunted, lower soul, lesser ability to think themselves to the Truth. Others assimilated this to a stronger animal nature compared to men, and that is entirely true, but modern society showed that cultural sexual repression of men on women isn’t to blame as much as leftist thought, as today women can access pleasure as much as men (whether they actually do is not the absent patriarchy’s fault !).

So men have more often than not been the leaders, chieftains, kings and emperors, with women catering for local communities, their own, maintaining the status quo whatever it is, fair or unfair, logic or not. Doesn’t this somewhat lack in grandeur ?

Progress, change of perspective, has always been a man’s job, women nurturing society at best, and degrading it at worst quite often. Founders of a culture act out a vision (in the symbolic or literal sense of the word) doomed to fade from their successors’ eyes as time goes by and less inspired people understand values in their own lesser ways, mothers always imparting this fading vision to their children, of both sex, in early childhood.

I believe this lack of spark, of will to achieve, to be a direct expression of cooking and its dissimilar, very asymmetric: amplifying base animal instincts makes women meeker, just like the hen or cow submit to the cock or bull respectively. Within our genes and brain structures a whole set of character traits is ever present, stemming from ancient, outdated evolutionary pressures from millions to tens of millions of years ago, already present in the simplest animals to be honest - save for rare outliers like hyenas with aggressive girls boasting several times males’ testosterone rates.

This set of traits and tendencies form the core of lesser species whose entire lives around the need for reproduction (which is the one purpose of all lower lifeforms at least on the species’ level), is what we call the breeding instinctive program. What happens to women as this ancient evolutionary background is artificially stimulated by cooking, is a shift in life interests toward baser concerns seemingly all related to reproductive needs:

On the other hand, men’ animal instincts are simpler, cruder, but also saved them from perdition: we males want to fuck, regardless of the situation. We at least do it. While our attention shifts from anality and polymorphisms to coitus, which is a terrible consequence, reaching some modicum of satisfaction is still easier, because both breeding and metasexual instincts push us toward stacking the body count.

And both use the penis whereas the same shift toward coitus for women has had a very different consequence: the absolute center (and only source, anatomically) of pleasure for girls is their clitoris, which simply has no role whatsoever in a breeding situation. This leads girls in cooking to automatically disregard their clitoris even as they know it’s there, know what’ it’s here for and that men won’t do shit about it.

In general the more uninspired a woman is, the more her focus will shift from her obvious true needs (cumming) to manipulative behaviors, either through scheming (hence the endless gossiping) or submission to the male. Both attitudes conducive to keeping the male(s) to herself and her own material, social or emotional situation afloat. Even though in no way this appears to give her satisfaction or pleasure. Cooked females simply identify to their reproductive, forsaking entirely their eventual access to pleasure and so an eventual higher spiritual or cognitive development.

Dissatisfaction, so much more than for men, on the most basic physical level is a structural consequence of cross-drive induction, the chemical amplification of breeding instincts induced by the abundance of cooked or otherwise denatured molecules. When it comes to loss of creativity females really are more sensitive to cooking, for evolutionary reasons.

As a side note, I think our wholesale general cultural forgetting about the clitoris in the West from 1800 to 1960, is better interpreted not as evil patriarchy dumbing down women (while it did dumb them down a lot) but as a natural shift of perception (a willful ignorance) and obsession toward breeding as society got infinitely less inspired and more materialistic. Then less polymorphic activity led to less energy, in an inevitable downward spiral. Culture create inspired or uninspired people and is generated by said people at the same time.

Finally, we conclude that their girls have untapped genetic resources when it comes to scientific qualities as well as bravery, charisma, rationality and valid intuition (true extrasensory perception linked to scientific breakthroughs, so definitely not the average feminine intuition !) but this hidden ability has been neglected by none other than girls themselves. Because of their diet, directly (the heightening of animal instincts), indirectly (the subsequent lack of pleasure, while base men rather tend to seek it too much).

The patriarchy’s prejudices against girls while indeed justified for the reasons explained above, when going too far - out of hatred - unfortunately added to female inferiority, cementing it: by relegating females sometimes by laws (Muslim and Jewish societies) into the exclusive breeding role they seem to focus on on their own accord, men have ensured women wouldn’t improve on their tendencies. This is a classic case, of our true nature being fallen and needing culture to bring itself to the fore.

That’s why we need to enforce lesbianism and generate an upward movement subjecting women to the same hardships men have always known, in order to develop similar qualities. To man up and stop whining like little bitches.

Sexuality and learning are one

On the opposite, the insane privileges and unfairly easy treatment bestowed on women compared to men in this disgusting feminist society in sheer virtue of their genitalia (best instance being the military and dumbing down of standards to accommodate weak women) infantilized the former. In the end we recuse both retarded traditional roles (Kinder, Küche, Kirche) and modern feminism, for they end up doing the exact same thing, robbing women of the occasion and need to grow collectively and as individuals.

Beside, let us contemplate for a second the absurdity of that German slogan: what is left in a natural state, as the church disappears, cooking too, and we used to live for hundreds of years with but a handful of offspring per life on average to maintain population levels ?

It is crucial for adequate structuring to develop before puberty otherwise all the libido, aspirations and expectations pertaining to the spiritual and the metapsychic program are transferred on to the reproductive program, because that one starts automatically at puberty.

Problem is, its potency is multiplied ten fold by cooking, and at the same time that penetrative impulses aren’t channeled into active sodomy anymore, breeding fantasies take over completely. Spiritual degradation simply follows automatically too a rich diet, meat chiefly, as shown by ever earlier menstruation: it is the same physiological phenomena.

To compensate for this it is vital 95% of the time for girls to discover pleasure in a energetic context before puberty, more so than for boys as the biological imperative to breed is so much stronger, and in general the feminine will-power too weak to undergo such a grueling process as changing one’s whole worldview and psychosexual sensibility, that truth be told past 15 nothing much can expected from a woman beyond the level she already arrived at due to circumstances. The will - or capacity - for self-betterment, is very much children’ or men’ characteristics. Currently.

Now that we laid out women’ defects and found out they might be missing the most. Spartans exposed for all to see, the result of generalizing pederasty to all age and all sex:
Women became as headstrong and resilient as their male equivalent, intelligent and duty-bound, while ignoring flaws such as possessivity, idle gossips and backhanded badmouthing.

United under a strong patriarchal leadership, they obtained total freedom and total responsibility, they obtained true virility which has nothing to do with superficial development or impressive physics:

Virility is about standing your ground no matter what, giving your best honoring the gods and inspiring your peers, gaining immortality by living up to one’s true possibilities. True masculinity and true femininity only differ superficially, men being more straight forward, convincing through diamond-like shining logic and intimating respect authority through their powerful physique while women appease with graceful gentle words, fluid diplomacy and the pure crystal-clear innocent beauty of prepubescent girls, whose traits are maintained with instincto.

In the end, a complete individual changes its tune depending on the situation, and embodies everything at once, regardless of gender.

None of that weak shit
Image refusal traditional mothers

Bluntly said, for children’ sake a group based on national-naturalist principles should either put women in their place in a truly conservative fashion, claiming paternal ownership of children, or we shall allow independent lesbians à la Ripley (from Alien) in command roles, the first and formeost being motherhood. There is no value in someone staunchly persuaded that her mission in life is to lay eggs, unwinding several tens of millions of years of evolution.

Long live tomboy nationalism
Ripley alien kid

The touch of inspired men in their early years (along with that of older women, still genetically the most powerful impulse in females) provided girls with the formative energy-information quintessential in shaping their character. Thus united, both sexes we could stand strong in a brighter universally proudly militarist future.

Women shaped by such an education, as Sparta proved, could totally provide for an adequate father role (a so-called pole of discipline) without loosing their feminine grace, while modern fathers are either careless tyrants or spineless wimps, in both cases metasexually impotent and frustrated.

From Nature

We demonstrate the naturalness of homosexuality with a summarized list of useful studies in nearly all primates including some lower monkeys and many unrelated - but evolved - species. After this, we turn to Ancient Greeks, their unhibited sexual love of boys using the extensive unambiguous Greek literature at our disposal.

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 macaques8 and bonobos9, such interactions are a more common feature of the species’ sexual repertoire.

Gorillas which live either in male-only groups10 or harems of one or a few males with many females11 also exhibit homosexual activity culminating with orgasms like ours.

The majority of sexual events (65%) consisted of female same-sex genito-genital rubbing (or GG-rubbing). Female dyads engaged in significantly more sexual interactions than did inter-sexual dyads, and females were more likely to remain within close proximity to their partners following GG-rubbing. Females also exhibited greater increases in urinary OT following GG-rubbing compared with copulations, indicating a physiological basis for increased motivation to cooperate among females.

The emergence of habitual same-sex sexual behavior may have been an important step in the evolution of cooperation outside of kinship and pair-bonds in one of our closest phylogenetic relatives.

Moscovice, Liza R. et al., The cooperative sex: Sexual interactions among female bonobos are linked to increases in oxytocin, proximity and coalitions

Multiple lifestyles exist or co-exist among our closest cousins, among others mountain gorillas which live either in male-only groups where males are mostly heteros when in a harem, and only homo while in all-male groups, while females still exhibit lesbian activity in harems.

Because the research was part of a broader study focused on young males, they were able to calculate the rate of occurrences for those focal subjects. For those adolescent and young adult males, sociosexual behaviors occurred approximately twice a month.

In simple terms, bonobo females are first and foremost homosexual, with the occasional kids popped out every 5 years12
Given how they go at it all the week all year-long just like us I would argue that 95% of all touchings 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:

Because the research was part of a broader study focused on young males, they were able to calculate the rate of occurrences for those focal subjects. For those adolescent and young adult males, sociosexual behaviors occurred approximately twice a month. However, sociosexual behaviors were observed among all age and sex classes; even though adolescent females were not the focus of the study, they noted that adolescent females engaged in sociosexual behaviors more frequently with adult females than with adolescent or adult males.

Overall, most sociosexual behaviors occurred during tense contexts, such as fusion events when members of different foraging subgroups come together or encounters with neighboring chimpanzee communities.

More general attempts at re-contextualizing those behaviors not just as adaptive idiosyncrasies of a few species but as a pervasive evolutionary tendency have been undertaken since then13.

This extensive bonds-creating property of homosexuality was noticed and commented upon again and again in history, among the latest and best expounder being Adolf Brand, publishing the Eigene from 1896 to 1933. At a time where degeneracy reigned supreme and what would become the LGBTI religion (from transsexualism and faggotry united as one started representing all homosexuals, granting themselves an undue right which quite frankly played in the reactionaries’ hand, eager to demonize everyone in the name of God or what stood for it.
Yet in that time, Brand extolled the virtue of Männerbunds, the free yet militant associations of men and boy under a common enthusiasm and love for each others and the manly virtues of a high culture, often with a distinct military or militant aspect, in Greece’s Sacred Theban band or Medieval Europe’s knights and monks.

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 great 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 ?

Even animals like lions, in some aspects decidely terribly antispiritual, violent, uncompassionate and uncaring killing machines, both in captivity and wild have been manifesting both male-on-male and female-on-female mountings14:

Male lions pair-bond for a number of days and initiate homosexual activity with affectionate nuzzling and caressing, leading to mounting and thrusting. About 8% of mountings have been observed to occur with other males.

And to prove that the suppression of chimpanzees’ homosexuality in the media is no conspiracy theory, Africans show the same degree of criminal retardation with lions. Easily explaining how the vast volume of anectodal observations from all honest field specialist and locals alike, have been systematically swept under the carpet instead of warranting dedicated studies.

Perverts, arrest them !
Image of lions’ homosexual mounting
Male lion killing a cub
lion killing a cub
After the release of the photograph [ - displayed aside- ] , taken in August at Kenya’s Masai Mara National Reserve, Ezekiel Mutua, the chief executive of the Kenya Film Classification Board, blamed humans (or maybe demons) for the male-on-male mounting.
[P]robably, they have been influenced by gays who have gone to the national parks and behaved badly, Mutua told Nairobi News, before suggesting that the lions be isolated and studied because the demonic spirits inflicting in humans seem to have now caught up with animals.

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

It is even believed that penetration during mounting occur on occasion with lions too, leading to… adverse reactions. But researchers have not verified in situ, no one willing to become cat food and such spontaneous behavior just does lend itself to the controlled conditions of an in-depth - Um-hum - anatomical inspection. And if that does happen, choosing to interpret something as a defensive reaction over a play behavior seems awfully subjective to me.

Polecats were also found to develop numerous homosexual interactions, forming alliances between two males or two females, despite they ordinary lived a very solitary life. Such homosexual behaviour was unique among solitary carnivores and has no evolutionary explication.

While self-aware intelligent animals like apes, some monkeys and cetaceans fit the bill very well for a budgeing or full-fledged metasexuality, arguably consenting, participating homosexuality - a fortiori sodomy with the morphological adaptations required - in lower species in particular those not known for their compassionate social behavior (male lions routinely kill others’ cubs) or no social behavior at all, well that is much tricker to account for.
But facts are fact.

Ancient Greek Literature

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. Currently a great many people opposed to the LGBT movement willingly throw the baby out with the bathwater, and lie about history. In particular

Ancient Greek society was full of varying personalities and opinions on a variety of topics, and pederasty was no exception. There were groups that accepted and even preferred pederasty. There were others that could tolerate the practice, but disliked the passive’s role. On the opposite side of the spectrum, there were the groups of people that did not accept pederasty at all.

Some men in ancient Greece believed pederasty was an acceptable activity and that it should be used with frequency. It seems the elite were the main people who participated in pederasty and were the ones who supported it. Other groups of people who supported pederasty were philosophers and men who regularly attended the gymnasiums.

Plutarch’s Moralia stated:

but you will see it [love of boys] plain and unaffected in philosophical schools or I suppose in the gymnasium and wrestling-schools, in the hunt for boys, with a shrill and noble call, urging to virtue the boys worthy of its concern.

Christina Buckli, Vile Effeminate Boylove: Pederasty in Greek Culture and Aristophanes, Attitude Concerning 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 kind of 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.

Fake reactionary propaganda
Antihomo fake greek quotes

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:

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.

Plato, Symposium

This was a fake form of immortality, still prone to eternal change and decay, barely an approximation of the true one, the immortality of the soul, mostly carried by inspired, pederastic relationships (I prefer this term as even Greeks would see more to it than “homosexuality”:

I was astonished at her words, and said:

And she answered with all the authority of an accomplished sophist:

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:

For he who would proceed aright in this matter should begin in youth to visit beautiful forms; and first, if he be guided by his instructor aright, to love one such form only - out of that he should create fair thoughts; and soon he will of himself perceive that the beauty of one form is akin to the beauty of another; and then if beauty of form in general is his pursuit, how foolish would he be not to recognize that the beauty in every form is and the same!

And when he perceives this he will abate his violent love of the one, which he will despise and deem a small thing, and will become a lover of all beautiful forms; in the next stage he will consider that the beauty of the mind is more honourable than the beauty of the outward form. So that if a virtuous soul have but a little comeliness, he will be content to love and tend him, and will search out and bring to the birth thoughts which may improve the young, until he is compelled to contemplate and see the beauty of institutions and laws, and to understand that the beauty of them all is of one family, and that personal beauty is a trifle; and after laws and institutions he will go on to the sciences, that he may see their beauty, being not like a servant in love with the beauty of one youth or man or institution, himself a slave mean and narrow-minded, but drawing towards and contemplating the vast sea of beauty, he will create many fair and noble thoughts and notions in boundless love of wisdom; until on that shore he grows and waxes strong, and at last the vision is revealed to him of a single science, which is the science of beauty everywhere. To this I will proceed; please to give me your very best attention:


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 deeper level that just the body or the emotion. That last subtlety, I think has gone above 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 feelingsNowhere does he criticize sex in itself.

Yet it became mainstream to say this:

Notably, Socrates sees the pederastic relationship as ideally devoid of sexual consummation; rather than being used for sexual pleasure, the relationship is a form of divine madness, helping both lover and beloved to grow and reach the divine.

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.

It’s contrary to nature
Plato, Republic, 636c

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.

Republic, 404

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 both were sympathizers of Lacedemon. But to know what exactly happened with the Thirty is difficult to say the least.15

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.

Correct Procreation:

The topic which should come after marriage, and before training and education, is the birth of children.

ATHENIAN: The three impulses we distinguished by our three terms: the desire for ‘food’ (I think we said) and ‘drink’, and thirdly ‘sexual stimulation’.

CLEINIAS: Yes, sir, we’ll certainly remember, just as you tell us.

ATHENIAN: Splendid. Let’s turn our attention to the bridal pair, and instruct them in the manner and method by which they should produce children. (And if we fail to persuade them, we’ll threaten them with a law or two.)

If children come in suitable numbers, the period of supervised procreation should be ten years and no longer. But if a couple remain childless throughout this period, they should part.

The female officials must enter the homes of the young people and by a combination of admonition and threats try to make them give up their ignorant and sinful ways.
he [ - the sinful non-breeder- ] must be deprived of the privilege of attending weddings and parties celebrating the birth of children. If he persists in attending, anyone who wishes should chastise him by beating him, and not be punished for it. If a woman misbehaves and her name is posted up the same regulations are to apply to her too

After the period of child-bearing, the chaste man or woman should be highly respected;
the promiscuous should be held in the opposite kind of ‘repute’ (though disrepute would be a better word).

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 ?

Or said otherwise:
Placenta placenta placenta placenta placenta placenta placenta placenta placenta placenta placenta placenta placenta placenta placenta placenta. A true Muslim, or follower of the She-Bear.

the fact that though in several other respects Crete in general and Sparta give us pretty solid help when we frame laws that flout common custom, in affairs of the heart (there’s no one listening, so let’s be frank) they are totally opposed to us. Suppose you follow nature’s rule and establish the law that was in force before the time of Laius [ - regarded as the first homosexual… before Zeus himself though ?- ] You’d argue that one may have sexual intercourse with a woman but not with men or boys. As evidence for your view, you’d point to the animal world, where (you’d argue) the males do not have sexual relations with each other, because such a thing is unnatural.

However,another argument is that such practices are incompatible with what in our view should be the constant aim of the legislator – that is, we’re always asking ‘which of our regulations encourages virtue, and which does not?’

What contribution would they [ - homosexuals- ] make to virtue?

Will the spirit of courage spring to life in the soul of the seduced person?

Will the soul of the seducer learn habits of self-control? No one is going to be led astray by that sort of argument – quite the contrary. Everyone [e] will censure the weakling who yields to temptation, and condemn his all-too-effeminate partner who plays the role of the woman.


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. If only marginally, anyone who observes farm animals will see homosexual intercourses.

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 !
It is important to realize that this kind of discourse was by all means absolutely unheard off in Greek 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 overpopulation16

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:

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.

Regardless, to claim that 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. Like Aristophanes. 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 an ideal, collectivist eugenist and sex-positive White 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. And a high place 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.

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 a thousand thousands of years.

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:

This is Sparta, with State-mandated pederasty
This is Sparta ! Meme

I think I ought to say something also about intimacy with boys, since this matter also has a bearing on education. In other Greek states, for instance among the Boiotians, man and boy live together, like married people; elsewhere, among the Eleians, for example, consent is won by means of favors. Some, on the other hand, entirely forbid suitors to talk with boys.

The customs instituted by Lycurgus were opposed to all of these. If someone, being himself an honest man, admired a boy’s soul and tried to make of him an ideal friend without reproach and to associate with him, he approved, and believed in the excellence of this kind of training. But if it was clear that the attraction lay in the boy’s outward beauty, he banned the connexion as an abomination; and thus he caused lovers to abstain from boys no less than parents abstain from sexual intercourse with their children and brothers and sisters with each other.

I am not surprised, however, that people refuse to believe this. For in many states the laws are not opposed to the indulgence of these appetites. I have now dealt with the Spartan system of education, and that of the other Greek states. Which system turns out men more obedient, more respectful, and more strictly temperate, anyone who chooses may once more judge for himself.

Xenophon, Constitution of the Lacedaimonians II.12-14

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- ] resided 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, we have become idiots not fathoming a physical desire can be rooted in mere physical qualities, but in something beyond, namely someone’s soul17.
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 testifies of a reflects a superior inspiration. 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.

Nevertheless, although he was himself free from vice, if he saw and approved of base conduct in them, he would be open to censure. Well, when he found that Critias loved Euthydemus and wanted to lead him astray, he tried to restrain him by saying that it was mean and unbecoming in a gentleman to sue like a beggar to the object of his affection, whose good opinion he coveted, stooping to ask a favour that it was wrong to grant.

As Critias paid no heed whatever to this protest, Socrates, it is said, exclaimed in the presence of Euthydemus and many others, Critias seems to have the feelings of a pig: he can no more keep away from Euthydemus than pigs can help rubbing themselves against stones.

Xenophon, Memorabilia, book I, section 2 ¶30-31

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, sexual desire. 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.18

What about Alexander the Great ?

When he reached the royal palace of Gedrosia, Alexander once again gave the
army some recreation by arranging a festival. [8] The story goes that he was
drunk while watching some dancing competitions, and that Bagoas, whose
lover he was, won a dancing-prize, came through the theatre in his finery and
seated himself next to the king. Seeing this, they say, the Macedonians
clapped in applause and loudly called for Alexander to kiss him, until even-
tually the king took him in his arms and gave him a kiss.
Plutarch, Alexander 67.7–8

How is this not gay ?

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

Alexander III of Macedon was admired during his lifetime for treating all his lovers humanely. Plutarch has argued that Alexander’s love of males took an ethical approach, inspired by the teachings of his mentor, Aristotle. He gives several examples of Alexander’s morality in this domain:

When Philoxenus, the leader of the seashore, wrote to Alexander that there was a youth in Ionia whose beauty has yet to be seen and asked him in a letter if he (Alexander) would like him (the boy) to be sent over, he (Alexander) responded in a strict and disgusted manner: You are the most hideous and malign of all men, have you ever seen me involved in such dirty (sexual) work that you found the urge to flatter me with such hedonistic business ?

Plutarch also wrote:

When Philoxenus, the commander of his forces on the seaboard, wrote that there was with him a certain Theodorus of Tarentum, who had two youths of surpassing beauty to sell, and inquired whether Alexander would buy them, Alexander was incensed, and cried out many times to his friends, asking them what shameful thing Philoxenus had ever seen in him that he should spend his time in making such disgraceful proposals.

Plutarch’s claims of Alexanders moral approach towards sexual relations also extended to prisoners of war:

But as for the other captive women, seeing that they were surpassingly stately and beautiful, he merely said jestingly that ancient Persians were mysteriously beautiful beings. He describes the Persian women as torments to the eyes. And displaying in rivalry with their fair looks the beauty of his own sobriety and self-control, he passed them by as though they were lifeless images for display.

The above quotations would be in line with the thoughts laid about before him by Aristotle, who regarded relationships based purely on carnal relations to be shameful. Not wanting to use captured prisoners as sex slaves would rather show Alexander’s general disinterest in these women. Alexander did however keep a beautiful Persian boy in his stable of lovers.

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

Now on Aristophanes:

They are given to unnatural lust.
Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazusae

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, and why Sparta kept its edge longer.

Next, Aeso:

They have no sense of shame (Zeus and Shame))
Aeso, 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:

[ - 137- ] to hire for money and to indulge in licentiousness is the act of a man who is wanton and ill-bred.
Aeschines, Against Timarchus

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

[ - 136- ] Now as for me, I neither find fault with love that is honorable, nor do I say that those who surpass in beauty are prostitutes. I do not deny that I myself have been a lover and am a lover to this day

[ - 137- ] The distinction which I draw is this: to be in love with those who are beautiful and chaste is the experience of a kind-hearted and generous soul; but to hire for money and to indulge in licentiousness is the act of a man who is wanton and ill-bred. And whereas it is an honor to be the object of a pure love, I declare that he who has played the prostitute by inducement of wages is disgraced.

[ - 139- ] the same lawgiver said, “A slave shall not be the lover of a free boy nor follow after him, or else he shall receive fifty blows of the public lash.” But the free man was not forbidden to love a boy, and associate with him, and follow after him, nor did the lawgiver think that harm came to the boy thereby, but rather that such a thing was a testimony to his chastity. But, I think, so long as the boy is not his own master and is as yet unable to discern who is a genuine friend, and who is not, the law teaches the lover self-control, and makes him defer the words of friendship till the other is older and has reached years of discretion; but to follow after the boy and to watch over him the lawgiver regarded as the best possible safeguard and protection for chastity.

Aeschines, Against Timarchus

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.

The pathological kind may result either from people’s nature⃰ or from habituation. I mean things like … pulling your hair out … biting your nails … eating charcoal, or clay [ - likely a reference to pregnancy cravings, or pica more generally. Both of these particular cravings are known in pregnant women- ] and, we might add, female sexuality in males. Because in some people those things arise from their nature, in others from habituation, i.e. when they’re trained into them⃰ from childhood. So in all cases where the cause is their nature, nobody would speak of them ‘not being able to control’ [those urges] (just as you wouldn’t say women ‘lack self-control’ for having the non-penetrative role sexually), and the same goes for any pathological states that result from habituation.
Aristotle, Nicomachean ethics

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:

female sexuality in males: The manuscript text here contains an ungrammatical fragment, usually loosely rendered as ‘sex with men’.

It can only mean that in pig-Greek.

Greek attitudes to homosexuality were complex. Many cities, including Athens, tolerated relationships between an older ‘lover’ (the erastes) and younger, late-adolescent ‘boyfriend’ (the paidika or erōmenos). [A] discusses those relationships as if they were commonplace and normal (see e.g. VIII.4 and IX.1). But the relationships had rules: the younger men were not expected to stay in them into manhood. Also, the younger man – who played the quasi-feminine role – was supposed to be the sexually passive partner. Older men who were passive sexual partners (in that sense) throughout their lives were considered unusual, and teased with accusations of ‘effeminacy’ and ‘softness’. (There are various graphic terms of abuse for men known for having those tastes, preserved by Aristophanes.)
Given these cultural facts, and the physiologically explicit remark about women that follows, and [A]’s attitudes elsewhere, we can be certain that he was not referring here to homosexuality in general or to the cultural practice of the erastes/erōmenos relationship in general (‘pederasty’, as [R] wrongly translates), but to sexual passivity (i.e. a preference for being penetrated) in (older) men.

Victorian scholars, because of their own attitudes, took [A]’s phrase ‘outside the bounds of being a bad person’ (which means ‘something it makes no sense to regard as morally bad’) to mean ‘beyond depraved’, i.e. unspeakably evil – pretty much the exact opposite of its actual sense. Note that [A] says that God is outside the bounds of badness, too, at 1145a26.
[A]’s treatment in fact has elements of defence. Some men have female sexual tastes, he says, and it makes no more sense to criticize them for those, or accuse them of ‘not controlling themselves’, than it does to criticize women for the same. And notice that he appears to place such tastes on a moral par with biting your fingernails and pregnancy cravings.
A key Peripatetic text to compare here is Problems 879a36. There the question is raised, ‘Why do some men enjoy the passive sexual role?’ There is no hint of condemnation. But [A] – or whoever the author is – does say, as here, that the natural version of the condition is a ‘physical impairment’ that ‘distorts’ reproductive functioning. The terms are biological, not moral.

For Aristotle, not really the most spiritually aware Greek author, being the bottom did raise some suspicion of effeminacy but 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.19

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.

Temperance is not not continence, just like being willing to test and raise one’s pain threshold is not torture, as long we don’t push it too far. Pleasure is enjoyed and desires difficult to overcome because they abide by one’s nature, while pain and tests of all kinds, are not enjoyable, because they go against natural proclivities. Being to test one’s pain threshold or strength of will becomes torture from a sense of guiltiness (not a Greek but a Christian thing) if pushed too far.

Is it not worth mentioning his self-control in erotic matters if for no other reason than one’s amazement at it? One would say that his holding off from those he did not desire was merely the act of an ordinary human. But he loved Megabates, the son of Spithridates, just as the most intense character would love the most beautiful boy.
Plutarch, Lycurgus

For Greeks, no God awaited in the afterlife to reward suffering in this life. This life was all a Greek could expect from existence. Hence a resistance to temptation could not One was elevated by the ability to maintain composure at all times, resisting even the allure of a goddess in order to choose one’s life and pleasures in complete independence.

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 precisely :
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.

Degenerate Homosexuality

About Anti-Sodomy Laws

Laslty when it comes to historical evidences, I wish to make one point extremely clear: if the absence of homophobic punishment should be considered at minima an evidence of the freedom to have homosexual relationships, on the other the presence of anti-homophobic laws is the evidence of precisely nothing, if we can not also attest of prosecutions and thus, usually when it comes to homophobic texts, executions.

A law is only worth its application, however casual. Let us take two exemples, among the most extreme, verbally that is: the Sassanid Persians and the Jews, both sharing a properly metaphysical aborence of sodomy (with a woman or man).

In the first case erected as the evil cosmological opposite of swedodah, incest, equally powerful but in the service of Ahriman (their Satan). Chapter 9 of the Sad Dar is pretty unambiguous. Unlike any other crime it destroys the soul entirely, so unlike for any other crime anyone bearing witness of the act was to behead or disemboy the culprits immediately, without judgement.

We should learn to use common sense and not accuse people of horrible things without factual evidences. In the Ardā Wīrāz-nāmag, in the crimes against the soul sodomy lies next to A woman lamenting and weeping, having a sharp tongue, quarrelling with her husband, beautifying herself and refusing intercourse as deserving of abominable torture in hell. Now, the explicit purpose of the justice system in Persian society, as it was in Christian society, was to recover social concorde, and help those meant to suffer in hell for their sins, by punishing them in this life, henceforth clearing their slate - as well as that of the community, which always share in good deeds and sins.

So do you seriously believe that women would be mercilessly punished for each wrong word, wrong tone of voice, the slightest use of makeup or not being in the mood of having sex ? Give me a break.

This ridiculously harsh severity even Luther would have objected to was used by Muslim apologists to claim Persia had invented burkha and hijabs and enslaved women before Islam. But we found thousands of naked and half-naked representation of women were found, in very beautiful and sexy settings. Time to wake up, realize our total misunderstanding.

Do I seem to live in modern Iran to you ?!
<q>Do I seem to live in **modern** Iran to you ?!

For Jews, you are free to consult Leviticus or talmudic sources but I will not sully that website with Jewish drivel. But we know for a fact that the Leviticus ceased to be applied 2000 years (not we know any more about earlier periods though), since the death of Jesus Christ and the rise of talmudic (or rabinic) judaism. Despite a relative wealth of documents - and the rather cruel, trigger-happy kind of justice they had - there is no account of capital punishment for sodomy in Jewish history.

The impossibility (but necessity) of proving anything, made that threat empty so ultimately the real state of homosexuality in such a cutlure is left to the level of actual hatred at any current moment, something not controlled nor determined by religious or legal texts. But we know for a fact, that societies have been in touch with sodomy or other such acts on a regular basis despite such apparent regulations.
And in our case, we also have no evidence of such prosecution ever happening in 250 years of Sassanid history20, something which shouldn’t surprise anyone with a slight knowledge of Greek sources, some of which imputed Persians with bringing pederasty to Greece… and later texts do consider a mitigating circumstance sodomy with a child.

More could be said about the true meaning of these laws, but it suffices to consider them as Excalibur impulses, unconscious reactions to the general degeneracy of any sexuality under cooking conditions, and usually (regardless of the textual violence and threats of eternal damnation) aimed at correcting behaviors. On top of that, because all sexuality degenerate, phenomenas like scapegoating take hold.

But first, let us explained the true degeneracy of the mental disease known as faggotry: the dietary and psychoanalytical reason why effeminate men exist, have existed probably since cooking itself but have only now not only taken the spotlight, but truly become the dominant type among homosexuals.
There are several factors, in the genesis of the faggot or effeminate personality, to be sorted in two categories:

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 roster21.

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.

Those types of men (barring the unfortunate victims of propaganda) have recently taken 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:

At the beginning of the homosexual movement the thing did not make problem. But today [ - 1982- ] , some homosexuals who are looking for a quick social integration in the society want to ignore the question of pedophilia, which is top embarrassing in their eyes. But if we think about it further, the question of pedophilia - that is to say, the relationship between adults and children - and that of children’s sexuality today form the core of sexual liberation in general and homosexual liberation in particular.
Gerard Bach
We are in the process of fabricating a type of criminal, and a criminal who is so horrible to conceive that his crime at the limit is self-explanatory No one even cares any more whether there was a victim, because if there is a victim, there is always a victim. The crime feeds totally on itself by the manhunt, and it ends up in this form of call to the lynch mob once more that present today certain articles of the press.
Guy Hocquenghem

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.

Endogenous, Primary Masochism

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 essential 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 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 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..

National-Socialism and Homosexuality

Between Mistakes and Good Intentions

While at face value National-Socialists hated homosexuals and pedophilia with passion and prosecuted them all, in reality persecution was much more selective than both modern and contemporary statements would have you believe, and it appears that perversion was tolerated, although hidden from public scrutiny.


We should keep in mind that there has never been any complete world-view or set of beliefs characterizing all of Hitler’s followers or adherents to the NSDAP. Hitler’s own view were always flexible, prioritarizing political success and the good of the country over an adherence to whatever particular dogma. And what the majority thought at one point (or the Führer himself for the matter) doesn’t define the movement either, the core ideas, which are perfectly compatible prefering butts over cunts, a so-called deviancy22.

The Führer is very likeable [ - Il Duce told his mistress- ] . Hitler is an emotional person at heart. When he saw me, there were tears in his eyes. He really likes me a lot.
The best love story never told
The best love story never told

Germany’s fall into reactionarism was both unfortunate and actually not nearly as terrible for virile pederasts and homosexuals and far more open-minded in practice than the current antifascist revision of history would have us believe. Unsurprisingly, propaganda doesn’t always match facts.

die Lehre von der Regenerierung
die Lehre von der Regenerierung

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.

Germany knew then not the narrow-minded chauvinism belched by subhumans by subhuman holigans soccer stadiums brim with at all major matches and often ending up in violent affrays with their kindreds supporting the adverse team, usually adverse nationality as well.

But one kind is made of love of our ourselves and our kinmen, understanding of the world and other people, open-mindedness and a will to ascend to greater heights as a community, not against others but for ourselves. To become the best we can be.
On the contrary is another kind of nationalism, fondamentally different, based on resentment, hatred of others, chauvinism, ignorance and the unearned and false conviction to already best anyone in everything, if not be straight-up the chosen people, grand delusions compensating for a actual (and truthful) sense of inferiority on an energetic level, due to sexual repression. Polish, Turquish or Spanish nationalism come to mind, although ultimately it reflects the inner quality of a people so either type can be found anywhere to various degree.

Nazis’ predicaments in a nutshell
Nazis' predicaments in a nutshell

Germans’ acts spoke for themselves. The incredible economic success, rightously fighting the good fights without breaking a sweat, outclassing all other powers with honour while suffering the unspeakable conducts of the British, Soviet and American camp, monsters in human forms: all that testify of the not high but stellar degree of inspiration. At home, the humanity of the Nazi Germany regards to prisonners, defeated enemies and even Jews in camps (if Allies had not bombed the country and its infrastructure to oblivion) also testifies of the truly astounding level of humanity of this people. And we saw that the so-called persecution of homosexuals was 80% a myth.

Those facts alone indicate that overall Germans were not a gaggle of frustrates, nor were especially skimmish about sexuality either. This myth of Nazi sexual retardation is no longer accepted by historians, who see now the time as marked by both sexual repression and sexual liberation. I would dare say: an attempt at sexual correction.

The unabatted popularity of naturism despite a fierce opposition by Christians (championed by Goering), illustrates this cultural fight and victory with remarkable clarity:

One of the greatest dangers for German culture and morality is the so-called naked culture movement. Whilst it is to be welcomed in the interest of public health that ever greater numbers of our population, particularly in the cities, are striving to apply the healing power of the sun, fresh air and water to their bodies, the naked culture movement must be rejected as a cultural aberration. The naked culture movement deadens the woman’s natural sense of shame, removes men’s respect for women, and thereby destroys the conditions for any genuine culture. Therefore I expect from all police authorities that—in support of the spiritual powers developed by the National Movement—they will take all measures necessary to exterminate the so-called naked culture movement.

In particular, I order the following:
i. Naked culture associations are to be kept under the closest watch…

As the text itself indicates, the associations were not exterminated. The overwhelming majority of nudists did not enroll in any organization anyway. Catholics’ reactions to naturism was the by far the fiercest, demonstrating the intrinsic opposition between antisexual Christianity and Germany’s Pagan, pro-life tendencies. At most in 1933 a catholic civil servant passed a decree detailing precisely what underwear people had to wear, essentially full-body costumes even for men23, which even ISIS’ fanatical Islamists would probably laugh. It gotrepealed the very same year.

After the Nazis had outlawed many of the nudist organizations for lewdness in early 1933, the fascist, the apolitical and the commercial nudists united under the umbrella of the Nazi sport movement and became legal in late 1933. As a ‘sport’, with a Nazi MP as a new nudist ‘Führer’ the nudists improved their national standing. After the SS stood up openly for nudism, the anti-nudist laws no longer applied.

That was merely an occasion to take control of it and root out communists and socialists as usual. If the ideological vanguard of the regime, the SS, upholds something, there is really no arguing back. We notice the same general pattern as with the homosexual or Vandervögel movement. Outcries and passionated clamors with not nearly as much practical change as one might except. This take over had ample justification to it too.

there was also an entirely separate socialist naturism, united since 1928 under the heading Proletarian Lifestyle Reform und Free Physical Culture within the labour movement’s People’s Health Association (Verband Volksgesundheit).

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. Hitler among others, shared that mistake and in spades regards to women, considering them publically as homemakers, period, with no right to take parts in collective decisions or decide of their own destinies. All that was men’ purview only. As thought Goebbels, Himmler, and everyone else among the higher-ups24.

In no local party group was a woman allowed to have even the smallest position the political women appeared before me… they wanted to become members of the Reichstag in order to ennoble the customs there. I told them, [ - that- ] ninety-nine percent of all subjects of deliberation are men’s things, which you [ - women- ] cannot judge. The more gallant you are towards a woman, the more you will restrain her from trying things she is not comfortable with. Everything that has to do with fighting and bloodshed is a matter for the man alone, he has to bear the final consequences.
Adolph Hitler, Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941–1944: Die Aufzeichnungen Heinrich Heims, ed. Werner Jochmann

Obviously, history shows that women can fight equally as well, just not the same way nor with the same weapons, and their nerves have no problem handling the sight of bloodsheds and massacres, as the example of Soviet’s harpies is anything to buy. When your survival is at play, feelings cease to matter. And not just the war, but working in factories - while absolutely necessary for the war efforts - also was widely considered as unfitting for women, too masculinizing. Despite reassuring declarations that no one would sane consider keeping women at home as mere breeding machines24, they were effectively discouraged if not outright banned from participating in a gradually increased number of activities:

Whilst initially the Nazis used propaganda to encourage them to leave the workforce and focus on the home, the Nazis did introduce laws and policies which would remove and restrict women in the labour force.

For example from a young age, the Nazis taught girls that their place was in the home and were taught how to achieve this. They focused on lessons in housework such as cooking, needlework and ironing. They also studied racial science so that they would be able to pick suitable Ayran husbands in the future. In 1937 the Nazis banned girls from attending grammar schools which were seen as a way of encouraging girls into university.

Women faced restrictions from 1933 when the Nazis banned women from holding jobs in professional employment such as doctors and teachers. This was then extended in 1936 to include jobs within the justice system, which included the right to serve on a jury.

Overall this issue and the wider issue of antidated sexual repression, are best explained by the incapacity of Hitler, by extenso the regime itself, to take a definite public stance on a number of social topics, resulting in widely inconstant policies impossible to make head or tail of without the precise political context of the year. Sometimes repressive, sometimes eerily in line with usual anarchist or communist stances against bourgeois squeamishness regards to the naked body, sex and pleasure. Hitler changed his time several times, or rather he never had a strong opinion he deemed necessary to enforce on his people, leaving them (meaning, his party members and relevant associations) to decide on their own25. By that somewhat mirroring though in an inverted social context Lenin’s attitude, outwardly very conservative (though inwardly contradictory considering his living with two women for a time and death from syphylis) but unwanting to exercise his authority against the free-for-all sexual morale the Soviet youth adopted initially, despite being highly critical of it.
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.

fake Tacitus Translation

Himmler and right-wing homophobic retards up until now, like to quote Germanicus from Tacitus. This is 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:

We know that, among the barbarians, the Celts, who nevertheless have magnificent women, have a preference for boys, so that we see a lot of ‘between them sleeping with two minions at the same time on their beds made of animal skins’.
Athenaeus of Naucratis, Greek scholar and grammarian of the 2nd/3rd century, Deipnosophists, XIII, 79
However, in the north, in the country of the Germans and in those who are in the vicinity, the young boys, beautiful of face, fill the role of women for men. They also celebrate marriage ceremonies, and it is not considered a dishonor among them, because their law allows it so.
The pseudo-Bardesane, The Book of the Law of Lands
Although their wives are perfectly beautiful, they rarely live with them, but they are extremely addicted to the criminal love of the other sex and lie on the ground on the skins of wild beasts , often they are not ashamed to have two young boys by their side
Diodorus of Sicily (Διόδωρος Σικελιώτης), Universal History, V, 21

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:

During this famous speech delivered at the ϟϟ-Junkerschule in Bad Tölz, the Reichsführer asserted that the Ancient Germans drowned their homosexuals in foul-smelling bogs, relying for this on the De Origine et Situ Germanorum of the Latin historian Tacitus, short treatise written in 98 BC. The exact sentence is

Proditores et transfugas arboribus hang, ignauos et imbelles et corpore infames caeno ac palude, iniecta insuper crate, mergunt

Translating literally to:

Traitors and deserters are hanged from trees, as for cowards and those who use their bodies infamously, they are plunged into the mud of a swamp, taking care to throw a wicker grid over them.

The Reichsführer therefore peremptorily interpreted corpore infames, that is, those who use their bodies infamously, by homosexual. However, this interpretation is inadmissible for two reasons.
– First of all, homosexuality was not considered dishonorable in these pre-Christian eras; what was, was homosexual rape, which victorious warriors often inflicted on defeated soldiers, and it was the rape aspect that was, because rape is always dishonorable whether it is homosexual or heterosexual. However, in the sentence there is no mention of sexual coercion. It is clearly specified those who do and not those who suffer.
– Which brings us to the second objection: there is, in fact, no question of sex at all, but only of cowardice by the refusal to go into battle. Sexuality, homo- or hetero-, has nothing to do with its explanation. It must also be considered that Tacitus uses the Latin syntax to describe the mores of these Barbarians, and that semantically in Roman infamia was a lifelong stigma inflicted by the censors, which may consist of physical mutilation. These organized drownings were therefore a punishment inflicted on men who mutilated themselves to make themselves unfit for combat - an act that will be found during the Napoleonic era, for example, where young people cut off their index and middle fingers. right hand by accident so as not to be able to shoot a rifle, or a few toes so as not to be able to take long walks, and therefore avoid being recruited. The text of Tacitus speaks of cowards and cowards, and that is why they are punished, not for their sexuality. Using one’s body infamously therefore means, in this context, deliberately inflicting injury on oneself to render oneself unfit for war.


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 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. 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 !

  1. Anyone who has had the opportunity to observe it knows that the Führer can only with great difficulty order from above everything that he intends to carry out sooner or later. Whoever works, so to speak, in the direction of the Führer, has done his best, instead, in the new Germany. It is the duty of everyone to try to work in the spirit of the Führer, to work in his direction. Anyone who makes mistakes will soon find out. But whoever works correctly in the direction of the Fuehrer, following his lines and without losing sight of his goal, will receive as in the past the greatest reward of all: that of suddenly obtaining legal confirmation of his work one day.
    Werner Wilikens, State Secretary, Prussian Ministry of Agriculture
  2. Only one person at a time can be Führer. Who it is is not so important. The important thing is that everybody should back up the second and all subsequent leaders.
    An organisation with such inner solidity and strength will last forever. Nothing can overthrow it. The sense of community within the movement must be inconceivably intense*.
    Instructions to Nazi Gauleiters, February 1934
  3. But it is in the practice of the sexual use of children that earlier Japanese excelled even more than Germans and Austrians. Imperial incest was common, and Japanese fathers until recently would often marry their daughters after the death of their wives, considering incest a praiseworthy practice.

    Because Japanese husbands so rarely come home at night—going to geisha or other women for sex—the mothers are desperately lonely, and so routinely co-sleeping with their children skin to skin (nude, dakine) and co-bathing until they were grown up. Even today, many Japanese mothers masturbate their children in public, in bed to put them to sleep and during co-bathing, sometimes promising to let them have intercourse with them if they do well on their next school test.

    The average Japanese mother sleeps with her children until they are ten or fifteen years old, traditionally sleeping skin-to-skin (dakine) while embracing her child because the father - as in the traditional gynarchy - is usually absent, over two-thirds of Japanese husbands being involved in extramarital intercourse.

    Japanese mothers often teach their sons how to masturbate (Machio Kitahara, Childhood in Japanese Culture), helping them achieve first ejaculation in much the same manner as with toilet training. A mental health hotline in Tokyo recently reported being flooded with calls about incest, 29 percent of them with complaints such as that the mother would offer her body for sex while telling the son, You cannot study if you cannot have sex. You may use my body or I don’t want you to get into trouble with a girl. Have sex with me instead.

    Hot lines of sexual abuse report mother-son incest in almost a third of the calls, the mother saying to her teenage son, It’s not good to do it alone. Your IQ becomes lower. I will help you, or You cannot study if you cannot have sex. You may use my body, or I don’t want you to get into trouble with a girl. Have sex with me instead..

    Even today, there are rural areas in Japan where fathers marry their daughters when the mother has died or is incapacitated, in accordance with feudal family traditions.

    One recent Japanese study found daughters sleeping with their fathers over 20 percent of the time after age 16.

    Michio Kitahara, Incest-Japanese Style. The Journal of Psychohistory 17(1989): 445-50.)
    In a 2015 survey, researchers asked 333 women in their 20s and 30s if they still bathed with their fathers in junior high and up until high school. Over 10% of women in both age groups said they took baths with their fathers in junior high. Just under 10% of women in their 20s said they took baths with their fathers when they were in high school and over 5% of women in their 30s said they bathed with their fathers.
  4. A theory can be proved by experiment; but no path leads from experiment to the birth of a theory.
    There is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance.

  5. It seems that Aristotle mentioned the idea that Theseus and Helen invented anal intercourse, and since Helen was a Spartan heroine the original meaning of lakonize was to have anal intercourse irrespective of the sex of the person penetrated.
    Kenneth Dover, Greek Homosexuality
    to use loved-boys in the Lakonian way penetrate; practise pederasty; offer themselves [ - NB. this pronoun is feminine plural- ] to visitors, since the Lakonians guard their women less than any other people.
    Kleinias lakonised with the buttocks. To use loved-boys they call to lakonise, for that is how Theseus used Helen, according to Aristotle.
    Photios, Lexicon s.v. κυσολάκων
    In Sparta, according to Hagnon of the Academy, it is customary to have sex with girls before they marry in the same way one does with boys.
  6. In most traditional societies with vastly inefficient production methods and habits Whites introducing any improvement that could cut work time or raise yield only ever faced the same almost automatic response: why ? We’ve always done like this. Having lived in Africa for a few months, Guy-Claude had the leisure to observe their mindset.
    Once, as he tried to buy everything a woman had to sell at once, and at advantageous price for her, she refused, arguing I would have nothing to do the rest of the day ! Their level of mental inertia or sheer stupidity, correlated to their mean IQ, can not decently be compared to past European hunter-gatherers, so concluding anything is preposterous.
    Hence African stupidity seems a rather shallow argument to promote the delights of the industrial revolution.

    Niggers gonna nig.
  7. Carl Gustav Jung had little expectation nor hope for women:

    The feminine mind is the earth waiting for the seed.
    Anything you acquire by your own efforts is worth a hundred years with a woman analyst

    While Otto Weiniger had seen even clearer.

    The vanity of women is, then, always in relation to others; a woman lives only in the thoughts of others about her. The sensibility of women is directed to this. A woman never forgets that some one thought her ugly; a woman never considers herself ugly; the successes of others at the most only make her think of herself as perhaps less attractive. But no woman ever believes herself to be anything but beautiful and desirable when she looks at herself in the glass; she never accepts her own ugliness as a painful reality as a man would, and never ceases to try to persuade others of the contrary.
    What is the source of this form of vanity, peculiar to the female? It comes from the absence of an intelligible ego [ - by ego he means the Self, not ego as in egocentrism- ] , the only begetter of a constant and positive sense of value; it is, in fact, that she is devoid of a sense of personal value. As she sets no store by herself or on herself, she endeavours to attain to a value in the eyes of others by exciting their desire and admiration. The only thing which has any absolute and ultimate value in the world is the soul. Ye are better than many sparrows were Christ’s words to mankind. A woman does not value herself by the constancy and freedom of her personality; but this is the only possible method for every creature possessing an ego. But if a real woman, and this is certainly the case, can only value herself at the rate of the man who has fixed his choice on her; if it is only through her husband or lover that she can attain to a value not only in social and material things, but also in her innermost nature, it follows that she possesses no personal value, she is devoid of man’s sense of the value of his own personality for itself.
    And so women always get their sense of value from something outside themselves, from their money or estates, the number and richness of their garments*, the position of their box at the opera, their children, and, above all, their husbands or lovers. When a woman is quarreling with another woman, her final weapon, and the weapon she finds most effective and discomfiting, is to proclaim her superior social position, her wealth or title, and, above all, her youthfulness and the devotion of her husband or lover; *whereas a man in similar case would lay himself open to contempt if he relied on anything except his own personal individuality.
    Otto Weiniger, Sex and Character
  8. Macaca fuscata, Leca et al. 2014a, Chevalier-Skolnikoff, S. Male-Female, Female-Female, and Male-Male sexual behavior in the stumptail monkey, with special attention to the female orgasm ↩︎

  9. Pan paniscus; Hohmann and Fruth 2000 ↩︎

  10. Robbins MM. Male-male interactions in heterosexual and all-male wild mountain gorilla groups ↩︎

  11. Homosexual Behavior in female mountain gorillas, Cyril C. Grueter, and Tara S. Stoinski ↩︎

  12. A female gives birth to a single infant at intervals of between five and six years. (Franz de Waal, 1995) ↩︎

  13. An alternative hypothesis for the evolution of same-sex sexual behavior in animals | Nature Ecology & Evolution ↩︎

  14. [ - Males:- ]
    The case in point was a pair of prime territorial males, aged 6 to 7 years. When not with females, they manifested their homosexual streak. The male lions from Khokhra in Gir holding about 70 km², though mated with three of the four females in the territory, were found engaging in homosexual activity. They were spotted by a group of trackers for five days in November 1999 and three days in December 1999 where the larger male mounted the smaller partner showing a subservient receptive attitude.
    The paper stated that The smaller one rarely growled, unlike larger ones during mating. Each mounting lasted 12-23 seconds, and the gap between the two mountings varied from 4-12 minutes. The frequency increased during the morning and evening hours. Of the 45 mountings observed, the smaller male showed repulsive action in four cases, which may be due to the actual anal penetration during mounting⋅ It also noted that in the areas where these lions moved had a low female population.

    [ - Females:- ]
    Chavan reported lesbianism in the Asiatic lionesses of Gir also in 1982. In The paper “Observation of Homosexual behaviour in Asiatic lion”, he states to have observed homosexual behaviour in two adult lionesses on three occasions in Gir Sanctuary. Both the lionesses were adults over 15 years of age.
    The paper notes an incident where a lioness was mounted by another in similar posturing as that of a male when she was unable to obtain a favourable response from a male lion who seemed tired and kept resting after third day of mating. The paper records the females to have switched positions on repeated occasions. The male was also close to them but remained indifferent to the females, the paper noted.

  15. I have high suspicion that a great deal of black propaganda has been related by Athenian authors. those tyrants were mostly men of high birth, high education and high social standing. But in eight months executed 1500 people for money and power ?
    This makes no sense, and only serves to smear the name of Sparta.

    Until recently, Xenophon has generally been preferred because he was an eyewitness to the events that he describes and because his former association with the oligarchs did not prevent him from exposing their atrocities. However, scholars have increasingly raised questions about Xenophon’s portrayal of the Thirty for placing the installation of the Spartan garrison too early in their rule, for overlooking or downplaying the importance of the constitutional reforms that the oligarchs wanted to implement, or for exaggerating Critias’ influence over his fellow oligarchs. Xenophon is thought to have made Critias, in particular, and the Thirty, in general, appear more extreme, so he could distance himself and other moderate oligarchs from their rule. Thus, it is thought that Xenophon does not provide an accurate account of the vision or the long-term goals of the Thirty because he disregards their political efforts to transform Athens. He merely depicts them as brutal tyrants seeking to exploit the Athenian defeat for their own per-sonal gain.
  16. Historical records are sparse regarding the population growth of Athens through the fourth century BCE. Athens ruled the smaller towns of Attica, making it the largest and wealthiest of the city-states on the Greek mainland, eclipsing Sparta. The size of its population at any one time is based largely on speculation, but during the fifty years between repelling the invasion of the Persians (480 BCE) and the beginning of the Peloponnesian War (431 BCE), its population more than doubled. By 430 BCE Athens was densely populated, with over 100 persons per square mile of land.

    Plato noted that as more and more of the land of Attica was deforested for farming, land was lost to erosion and the environment was permanently altered. To Plato, the state was destroying itself through unrestricted population growth. The Peloponnesian war, which was caused in part by overpopulation, led to a new imbalance in Attica, caused by the losses of so many young men of the population in battle, and the plague which struck the region in 425 BCE.

    But [ - Aristote- ] observed that families which grew beyond the means of the parents to support them regardless of circumstances were inevitably reduced to poverty. To Aristotle, the equitable sharing of land should be accompanied by regulation “of the number of children in the family”. Aristotle also warned overpopulation led to increased poverty and crime, and thus the state must regulate reproduction rates for its own protection.

    If no restriction is imposed on the rate of reproduction, and this is the case in most of our existing states, poverty is the inevitable result; and poverty produces in its turn, civic dissension and wrongdoing, warned Aristotle. He cited Crete’s government’s segregation of women to prevent them from having too many children as an example of population control. A great state is not the same as a populous state, he warned.

    Spouting such nonsense should only have caused people to spit on him. ↩︎

  17. It is called today sapiosexuality↩︎

  18. The light touch at 11.11 may indicate a certain delicacy and reticence in dealing with sexual matters, but it is essentially jocular, suggesting that so far from being unable to attain a sexual liaison of the kind he wants, Hiero will have to put up with plenty of unsolicited offers. This hints at opportunities for discriminating choice, rather than promiscuity, but does not imply abstention from sex altogether. Indeed, the possibility of more than one lover is probably implied in the reference to παϊδας in 11.14. The tyrant’s services so far mentioned in chapter 11 are in the public domain, but a more personal concern for friends and lovers is urged at the ensuing 14, which enjoins him to treat his παϊδας as his own life.

    A paragraph or two earlier the promise of male lovers has been held out to the good tyrant. When, at the close of the dialogue, Xenophon comes to depict the character of the good tyrant, his male lovers are included within the scope of his beneficence.

    Taken as a whole, the various references in the Hiero present what may be regarded as an idealized view of homosexual love. They depict a way of moderation and regard for the beloved, a combination of the physical and the ethical, which we have now seen to run through Xenophon’s writings, and which, it may be claimed, was Xenophon’s own view of the matter. It may be unattainable by the unreconstructed tyrant, but remains as an ideal for the ruler (and, presumably for any of his subjects) who is willing to show concern for his fellow men.

    C. Hindley, Xenophon on Male Love
  19. Even touching your relatives was strictly speaking your business, with only consequence eventually being kicked out of a few social circles, at worst. ↩︎

  20. Sassanid “Pahlavi” literature shows a deep concern with sexuality, family, and marriage. As Zoroastrian instructions were a recognised authority in case of sexuality, it can be supposed that religious minorities were treated roughly, inviting them to harsh punishment after death. It is supposed that they were sentenced in Sassanid courts, too
  21. Homosexuality in bonobos is not cultural. When primatologists Frans de Waal first saw the outlandish sexual acts of bonobos, other scientists remarked that the behavior must have arisen because those bonobos were locked in a zoo. But data gathered from the wild — and wild-born bonobos in captivity — over the past two decades has demonstrated that bonobo sexuality is just part of who they are.
  22. Term synonmyme with perversion, simply meaning expressions of feelings unbounded by social conventions, regardless of their intrinsic moral content. ↩︎

  23. It was a Catholic civil servant, Franz Bracht (1878–1933), who as Prussian Minister of the Interior in the undemocratic von Papen commissariate of 1932 was responsible for introducing the infamous gusset decree of 28 September. This rather comical piece of legislation introduced a 150-mark fine for nude bathing, and stipulated clear rules for the wearing of bathing costumes:

    • Women may only bathe in public if they are wearing a bathing costume that covers the bosom and the front of their upper-body completely, is secured firmly under the arms, and is cut with
      legs and a gusset.
    • The cut of the bathing costume at the rear may not go below the lower end of the shoulder blades.
    • Men may only bathe in public if they are wearing a bathing costume that is provided with legs and a gusset.
      At the height of the Great Depression, with more than six million Germans unemployed, such legislation was a gift to satirists but brought few prosecutions.
  24. It is not because we see the woman as inferior but because we see her as having a different mission, a different value, than that of man. Therefore, we believe that woman, and above all the German woman, who more than any other in the world is a woman in the best sense of the word, should rally her strengths and apply her abilities in other areas than the man.

    Even today, the role of woman in public life is no different than it was in the past. No one who understands the modern age would have the ludicrous idea of driving woman from public life, from work, from her profession and from breadwinning. But it must also be said that those things that belong to man must remain his. And that includes politics and the military. This is not to disparage woman, only to delegate her abilities and talents to those sectors of labor and activity that are most suited to her essential nature.

    Joseph Goebbels, 18 March 1933, Deutsches Frauentum
     ↩︎ ↩︎
  25. In Mein Kampf Hitler had attacked the ‘saint’s cloak of prudishness’worn by the bourgeoisie,68 and his sympathy for other aspects of lifestyle reform such as vegetarianism and abstinence was well-known,69 yet he had also attacked the Weimar Republic as a ‘hothouse of sexual ideas and stimuli’.70 The conflicts and uncertainty within the Nazi régime over the issue of naturism were therefore typical of the many areas of policy where the Führer was unwilling or unable to commit himself to a public position. In the absence of a definitive order from above, lower-ranking figures in the National Socialist hierarchy were able to play out their own tastes and prejudices, and these varied widely: ‘some did indeed want a return to more conservative val- ues and behaviors, but many others worked to detach emancipatory impulses from their association with “Marxism” and “Jewishness” and to redefine sex- ual liberation as a “Germanic”, “Aryan” prerogative.’
    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.
    Matthew Jefferies, University of Manchester, ‘For a Genuine and Noble Nakedness’? German Naturism in the Third Reich